IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CIVIL DIVISION - LAW

ROBERT B. SKLAROFF, M.D.
1219 Fairacres Road
Rydal, Pennsylvania 19046-2911
Petitioner,
v.
ABINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT
970 Highland Avenue
Abington, Pennsylvania 19001
and
RAYMOND McGARRY, Esq., President
970 Highland Avenue
Abington, Pennsylvania 19001
and
Mrs. Michele R. Tinsman
970 Highland Avenue
Abington, Pennsylvania 19001
and
Ms. Susan D. Arnhold
970 Highland Avenue
Abington, Pennsylvania 19001
and
Mr. Daniel Sean Kaye
970 Highland Avenue
Abington, Pennsylvania 19001
and
Ms. Marsha J. Levell
970 Highland Avenue
Abington, Pennsylvania 19001

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

NO. 16-_______
Jury Trial is Demanded

and
Mrs. Tracy Panella
970 Highland Avenue
Abington, Pennsylvania 19001
and
Adam M. Share, Esq.
970 Highland Avenue
Abington, Pennsylvania 19001
and
Joshua Stein, Esq.
970 Highland Avenue
Abington, Pennsylvania 19001
and
Mr. Barry J. Stupine
970 Highland Avenue
Abington, Pennsylvania 19001
Respondents
*

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

______________________________
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.
1219 Fairacres Road
Rydal, Pennsylvania 19046-2911
[215=333-4900]
May 12, 2016
pro se

COMPLAINT
I, Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D., {Petitioner} certifies that the following statements are true and accurate and
officially avers to the accuracy of all assertions contained in this filing:
2

Parties
1.

Robert B. Sklaroff is a resident and taxpayer of Abington Township in Montgomery County.

2.

Abington School District is a Pennsylvania political subdivision, within Montgomery County; it is a mediansized, suburban, public school district serving Abington Township and Rockledge Borough.

3.

Raymond McGarry is the President of the Abington School Board.

4.

Mrs. Michele R. Tinsman, Ms. Susan D. Arnhold, Mr. Daniel Sean Kaye, Ms. Marsha J. Levell,

Mrs.

Tracy Panella, Adam M. Share, Esq., Joshua Stein, Esq., and Mr. Barry J. Stupine are Members of the
Abington School Board.
Controlling References
5.

The Pennsylvania Sunshine Act [65 Pa.C.S.A. 702-716] {the Act} states, in pertinent part
[http://webpages.charter.net/gdsbmmllp/sunshine.htm] {emphasis added}:
710.

Rules and regulations for conduct of meetings

Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit the agency from adopting by official action the
rules and regulations necessary for the conduct of its meetings and the
maintenance of order. The rules and regulations shall not be made to violate
the intent of this chapter.
710.1.

Public participation
(a) General rule. Except as provided in subsection (d), the board or
council of a political subdivision or of an authority created by a
political subdivision shall provide a reasonable opportunity at each
advertised regular meeting and advertised special meeting for
residents of the political subdivision or of the authority created by
a political subdivision or for taxpayers of the political subdivision
or of the authority created by a political subdivision or for both
to comment on matters of concern, official action or deliberation
3

which are or may be before the board or council prior to taking

official action.
If the board or council determines that there is not sufficient time at a meeting for
residents of the political subdivision or of the authority created by a political
subdivision or for taxpayers of the political subdivision or of the authority created
by a political subdivision or for both to comment, the board or council may defer
the comment period to the next regular meeting or to a special meeting occurring
in advance of the next regular meeting.
(c) Objection. Any person has the right to raise an objection at any time to
a perceived violation of this chapter at any meeting of a board or council of a
political subdivision or an authority created by a political subdivision.
713.

Business transacted at unauthorized meeting void

A legal challenge under this chapter shall be filed within 30 days from the
date of a meeting which is open, or within 30 days from the discovery of any
action that occurred at a meeting which was not open at which this chapter was
violated, provided that, in the case of a meeting which was not open, no legal
challenge may be commenced more than one year from the date of said
meeting.
714.

Penalty

Any member of any agency who participates in a meeting with the intent and
purpose by that member of violating this chapter commits a summary
offense and shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine not
exceeding $100 plus costs of prosecution.
714.1.

Attorney fees

If the court determines that an agency willfully or with wanton disregard

violated a provision of this chapter, in whole or in part, the court shall award
the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees and costs of litigation or an
appropriate portion of the fees and costs. If the court finds that the legal
challenge was of a frivolous nature or was brought with no substantial justification,
the court shall award the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees and costs of
litigation or an appropriate portion of the fees and costs.
715.

Jurisdiction and venue of judicial proceedings

The Commonwealth Court shall have original jurisdiction of actions involving State
agencies and the courts of common pleas shall have original jurisdiction of
actions involving other agencies to render declaratory judgments or to
enforce this chapter by injunction or other remedy deemed appropriate by
4

the court. The action may be brought by any person where the agency
whose act is complained of is located or where the act complained of
occurred.

716.

Confidentiality

All acts and parts of acts are repealed insofar as they are inconsistent with this
chapter, excepting those statutes which specifically provide for the confidentiality
of information. Those deliberations or official actions which, if conducted in
public, would violate a lawful privilege or lead to the disclosure of
information or confidentiality protected by law, including matter related to
the investigation of possible or certain violations of the law and quasijudicial deliberations, shall not fall within the scope of this chapter.
6.

The Abington Board Policy Statement regarding Agendas states, in pertinent part
[http://www.abington.k12.pa.us/policies/media/sites/policies/BOARD-GOVERNANCE/AGENDASBOARD-POLICY-STATEMENT.pdf] {emphasis added}:
The Board of School Directors will release to the news media on or by 12:00 noon
on the days of the regularly scheduled and supplementary meetings preliminary
copies of the agenda. The release will contain a statement indicating that the
agenda may be modified at any time through action of the Board of School
Directors, individual Board members, or the Superintendent of Schools
and/or Secretary of the Board of School Directors.

7.

The Abington Board Policy Statement regarding Procedures for Board Meetings states, in
pertinent

part

GOVERNANCE/PROCE

[http://www.abington.k12.pa.us/policies/media/sites/policies/BOARDDURES-FOR-BOARD-MEETINGS-BOARD-POLICY-STATEMENT.pdf]

{emphasis added}:
Agenda - In the transaction of business, the following order shall be observed:
g.
Comments from Citizens (a 40-minute limit on this item with
approximately 20 minutes for comments on the agenda and 20 minutes for
comments on any matter regarding school affairs with allocations
established at the discretion of the President.)
5

l.
Comments of Citizens on Matters Regarding School Affairs, excluding
personnel (a 20-minute time limit on this agenda item. A citizen will be
recognized once and each citizens comments will be limited to three minutes,
except at the discretion of the President.)
15.
If any member is aggrieved by a decision of the chair, the member
shall have the privilege to appeal to the Board, and the vote on such appeal
shall be taken without debate.
Jurisdiction
8.

The Montgomery Court of Common Pleas has primary jurisdiction on any alleged violation of the
Sunshine Law, and there are no confidentiality concerns related to this litigation; this action is
being brought by the aggrieved party, the Plaintiff, in the county (Montgomery) in which the Boards
transgression occurred (which is also where the Board is located).

9.

The Acts tenets were applicable to all Board meetings (including that of 5/10/2016), for policies of
the Abington School Board cant violate Commonwealth law (even if any rule conflicted with the
Act).
Narrative

10.

During the regularly-scheduled Abington School Board Meeting of 5/10/2016, President McGarry
presided and all Members were present; the distributed Agenda {Appendix A, excerpted} contained
identical operational language as was cited supra {see 7, items g and l} specifically regarding
Comments from Citizens that are invited at two times during the meeting [items #5 & #21].

11.

Any Member could raise an objection at any time to a perceived violation of the Act; none did so.

12.

During the Comments from Citizens section of the meeting, Petitioner rose and (as had also
occurred during the prior months meeting) was erroneously told he had only three minutes to
6

speak; he was attempting to address two issues regarding school affairs (the absence of mandated
Social Studies during the 12 th Grade and the lack of a curriculum consistent with Act 70, addressing
Holocaust, Genocide and Human Rights Violations), matters of concern, official action and/or
deliberation which had been and are anticipated to be before the board prior to taking official
action.
13.

After an article had been cited (just posted on Facebook) that illustrated how curricula have been
corrupted regarding this sensitive issue, an effort was made to summarize points that had been
communicated previously to the Superintendent (and to selected administrative-staff) in 25 memos
(comprising 145 pages); the focus was to be trained upon deficient state-level performance as to
both this specific issue (Act 70) and the broader concern with whether (at least one semester of)
Social Studies be mandated for all 12 th Graders (which had been dropped a half-decade prior).

14.

After it had been determined that the Pennsylvania Department of Educations Social Studies
liaison had not established direct communication with all of the 501 School Districts in the
Commonwealth, Petitioner had culled e-mails and had surveyed them directly; as confirmed both
orally and in the reply e-mails, this had constituted the initial contact regarding Act 70 for many of
these entities, despite the fact that House Bill 1424 had been signed on 6/26/2014 (almost two
years prior).

15.

Mr. McGarry interrupted this discussion before the preliminary results of this laborious initiative had
been conveyed, claiming six minutes had elapsed; yet, no one else from the public rose to speak
andwhen surveyed by the Petitionerno one expressed a desire to speak regarding any issue.

16.

It had been concluded (as per Follow-up memo XX): Abington is a double-outlier regarding both
its not having mandated 12 th Grade Social Studies and its not having implemented a
comprehensive didactic/tested age-specific annual-curriculum for all students in 4 th-12th Grades;
noted was the lack of reliance upon the three Es [electives, English, enhancement] as methods
to evade this rudimentary task, and oral/e-mail communications confirm concern that interactions
between the DoE (on this issue, if not others) and the School Districts has not been optimal (if even
extant).

17.

It had been stated, in multiple memos, that Petitioner had planned to pose these seven queries:
1. If there was no information generated internally related to the decision to abolish
mandated Social Studies in 12th Grade (as per the right-to-know data), then what
level of due-diligence (if any) did you {Abington} exhibit prior to effecting such a
monumental change in the entire structure of the senior year?
2. Have you {Abington} inquired as to the policies of other Pennsylvania school
districts regarding whether any (at the very least) mandate a semester of 12 th Grade
Social Studies?
3. Do you {Abington} recognize the need to implement an age-specific didactic/tested
curriculum each year for all students in 4 th-12th grades (focused on the Senior High
School years, notwithstanding whatever might be covered via English, electives,
and enrichment) encompassing the Holocaust, Genocide and Human Rights
Violationsdrawing upon resources but not assuming that ANY of them will be
invoked unless explicitly mainstreamed in the specified lesson-plans?
4. How will you {Abington} be able to accommodate the program you plan to use as a
model for inter alia 11th and 12th Grades [Echoes and Reflections], when numerous
didactic points are to be conveyed [Addressing Common Core State Standards for
Literacy in History/Social Studies] through a curriculum that only mandates study
of American History in 11th Grade?
5. Did your {Abingtons} 4/26/2016 inservice address how anything mandated in your
chosen curriculum can be encompassed in 11 th Grade American History, noting 12th
Grade may merely comprise English, electives and enrichment?
6. To what degree has flexibility in the implementation of Lesson Plans been
integrated into your {Abingtons} curriculum, particularly regarding the genocide
and human rights violations component that is inherent in Act 70?
8

7. Will you {Abington} have conveyed anything special to the (4 th-12th grade)
students on 5/5/2016, Holocaust Remembrance Day? [Will the aforementioned
Mississippi event have been discussed, particularly with younger students?]

18.

After Petitioner had read the first item [supra], Mr. McGarry interrupted; he refused to reply to it
and, indeed, refused to permit the remaining six queries to be read (and to be heard by the public,
both on-site and via cable-TV), thereby yielding a disjointed presentation of both key-issues.

19.

During the prior meeting, Petitioner had cited his deep involvement in the lobbying effort that had
led to bipartisan passage of Act 70 and his having contacted Ms. Flaherty regarding
implementation (Appendix B); although this is a grave concern that carries visceral personal import
(as well as lament regarding under-appreciated contemporary manifestations), no emotional
outburst was expressed.

20.

Upon departing, Petitioner failed to reciprocate verbal expression of pleasure in the interrupted
interaction that had just transpired with Mr. McGarry; an effort was made to prompt a journalist to
follow-up these trenchant queries (both locally and in Harrisburg) due to obvious personal
limitations.
Implications - Legalistic

26.

Petitioner notes the distinction-with-a-difference between the two 20-minute time-frames allotted for
public comment in the Agenda; the latter explicitly cites the 3-minute rule, but the former doesnt.

27.

The Agenda was not modified (at the beginning of the meeting) and there were no other public
speakers (necessitating the meting-out of allocations at the discretion of the President); therefore,
9

there were neither chronological nor operational pressures upon the President to abruptly curtail
the Petitioners presentation of necessary/appropriate new-information to the Board and to the
public.
Implications Pedagogic
28.

Petitioner senses resistance to the concept of re-instituting mandatory 12 th Grade Social Studies
that would encompass World Cultures, noting that this might be the last time some of the students
would be exposed to a non-ethnocentric perspective; the core curriculum contains Civics (10 th
Grade) and American History (11th Grade), but there is no age-specific education for these mature
teenagers regarding the global concerns that have evolved throughout recorded history (let alone
those that have resulted in both Western Judeo-Christian Culture and the venal forces leading to
the Shoah).

29.

Petitioner also senses a false sense of security regarding the degree to which the curriculum is
compliant with Act 70, regarding both the Holocaust (and its perfect storm origins) and the other
types of genocide and human rights violations that have occurred both historically and currently;
irrelevant is any self-referential citation of how Abington had been a pioneer in this regard.

30.

Petitioner explicitly cited excerpts from the program claimed to be the model for what is occurring in
Abington [Echoes and Reflections]; emphasized was the need for explicit study of myriad ideas in
11th or 12th grades, noting that this rudimentary set of didactic goals could not be achieved through
11th Grade (American History) or through 12 th Grade (absent a mandated Social Studies
curriculum).

10

31.

Petitioner anticipates the need to revisit the School Board meetings to discuss these two matters
(and, perhaps, others that may arise); for example, one year ago, at Petitioners behest, the Board
pledged to provide reports regarding two additional issues (seat belts in school buses and use of
school-libraries after-hours, in lieu of depending upon the Roslyn Branch library, for example).

32.

Petitioner anticipates that preserving this 20-minute public-comment period for himself and others
(accommodating for times when multiple speakers may be in-attendance by remaining until the
meetings completion, for a briefer second bite of the apple) would serve the commonweal; it is
noted that neither the Administration nor the Board had attempted to utilize the time-frame extant
between meetings to rectify recognized concerns that have been carefully, repeatedly documented.

33.

Petitioner recognizes the potential desire to minimize the public airing of discordant viewpoints; yet,
Petitioner views such behaviorwhen carefully researchedas manifesting a citizens civic duty.
Count #1 Abington School Board and Mr. McGarry

34.

Paragraphs 1-33 are adopted herein as if reprinted here in their entirety.

35.

Mr. McGarry, President of the Abington School Board, violated the Sunshine Act when he failed to
provide Petitioner the opportunity to discuss two key-issues for up to 20 minutes.

36.

Therefore, because each entity committed a summary offence, each should be sentenced to pay a
fine not exceeding $100 plus costs of prosecution.
Count #2 The Members of the Abington School Board

37.

Paragraphs 1-36 are adopted herein as if reprinted here in their entirety.

11

38.

The Members of the Abington School Board failed to ensure compliance with the Sunshine Act
when they failed to ensure Petitioner had been provided the opportunity to discuss two key-issues
for up to 20 minutes.

39.

Therefore, because each entity committed a summary offence, each should be sentenced to pay a
fine not exceeding $100 plus costs of prosecution.

Respectfully Submitted,
______________________________
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.
1219 Fairacres Road
Rydal, Pennsylvania 19046-2911
May 12, 2016
--pro se--

12

Appendix A

13

Appendix B

14

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CIVIL DIVISION - LAW
ROBERT B. SKLAROFF, M.D.
1219 Fairacres Road
Rydal, Pennsylvania 19046-2911
Petitioner,
v.
ABINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.
970 Highland Avenue
Abington, Pennsylvania 19001
Respondents
*

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

NO. 16-_______
Jury Trial is Demanded

Rule

A hearing shall be conducted on _____________ at _____________ in Courtroom _____.

By the Court.
________________________
J.
___________
Date

15

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CIVIL DIVISION - LAW
ROBERT B. SKLAROFF, M.D.
1219 Fairacres Road
Rydal, Pennsylvania 19046-2911

*
*
*

Petitioner,
v.
ABINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.
970 Highland Avenue
Abington, Pennsylvania 19001
Respondents
*

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

NO. 16-_______
Jury Trial is Demanded

Verification
I, Robert B. Sklaroff, do verify that the following documents are true and correct:
1.

Appendix A [Agenda of 5/10/2016 School Board Meeting]

2.

Appendix B [Implementation of ACT 70 of 2014]

This verification is made pursuant to the penalties under law for the falsification of unsworn statements or
filings with the Court.
___________________
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.
Date: 5/12/2016

16

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CIVIL DIVISION - LAW
ROBERT B. SKLAROFF, M.D.
1219 Fairacres Road
Rydal, Pennsylvania 19046-2911

*
*
*

Petitioner,
v.
ABINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.
970 Highland Avenue
Abington, Pennsylvania 19001
Respondents
*

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

NO. 16-_______
Jury Trial is Demanded

Certificate of Service
I certify that I delivered a true-and-accurate copy of this document to the below-individual, on this date:
Solicitor Kenneth A. Roos, Esquire
[Attorney ID # -----]
484 Norristown Road, Suite # 100
Blue Bell, PA 19422
___________________
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.
5/11/16

17

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CIVIL DIVISION - LAW
ROBERT B. SKLAROFF, M.D.
1219 Fairacres Road
Rydal, Pennsylvania 19046-2911

*
*
*

Petitioner,
v.
ABINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.
970 Highland Avenue
Abington, Pennsylvania 19001
Respondents
*

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

NO. 16-_______
Jury Trial is Demanded

Order

Plaintiff shall be awarded __________ .

Respondents shall be enjoined from altering allotted-times for public comment during School Board
Meetings.
By the Court.
________________________
J.
___________
Date

18

19