Opinion Approving Settlement - Public Interest Law Center of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 44 of 51Administrative agencies oftendevise rules or regulations, someof which create a controllingstandard of conduct, while some donot. In order for an agency ‘toestablish a substantive rule[thereby] creating a controllingstandard of conduct, it must complywith the provisions of theCommonwealth Documents Law.’ These‘substantive regulations . . . whenproperly enacted under theCommonwealth Documents Law, havethe force of law.’ Agencies alsodevise rules, known as‘interpretive rules,’ which do notestablish a binding standard ofconduct. These interpretive rules‘need not be promulgated inaccordance with the CommonwealthDocuments Law.’ For aninterpretive rule to be viable,however, it ‘must genuinely trackthe meaning of the underlyingstatute, rather than establish anextrinsic substantive standard.Lowing v. Public Sch. Employees’ Retirement Bd., 776 A.2d 306,308-09 (Commonwealth Court of Penn. 2001) (internal citationsomitted) (alteration in original); see also Giant Food Stores,Inc. v. Commonwealth of Pa., Dep’t of Health, 713 F.2d 177, 180(Pa. Commw. Ct. 1998) (“The [Commonwealth Documents Law, or“CDL,”] establishes a process for issuing regulations thatincludes public notice of a proposed rule, receiving commentsfrom interested parties, and holding hearings whenappropriate.”).By entering into the Settlement Agreement, neither PDEnor any Commonwealth agency is creating a new substantive rule.No obligations are directly imposed on the Intermediate Units.Rather, the Settlement Agreements provides for increasedmonitoring, inter alia, to ensure that school districts arefollowing both federal and state educational laws, such as theIDEA. This monitoring does not substantively change the state ofeducation law in Pennsylvania. On the contrary, the monitoringcreated under the Settlement Agreement provides a means to better44
Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 45 of 51A. Failure to Compensate Absent Class Members for PastWrongsFour class members questioned why only the namedPlaintiffs, as opposed to all class members, were receivingcompensation under the Settlement Agreement. According to theparties, Plaintiffs initiated this action to effectuate change inthe future policies and practices of PDE and other Commonwealthagencies, and not to receive compensation for previous harm.Moreover, most of the individually named Plaintiffs havegraduated from public school and will not directly enjoy thebenefits created under the Settlement Agreement.The Court agrees with the parties. This lawsuit wasnot about compensatory damages. The compensation to Plaintiffsis appropriate considering the time and effort spent inprosecuting this lengthy and complex litigation. Accordingly,the Court will overrule this objection.B. Failure to List “Brain Injury” Among the SpecificInjuries in the Definition of “Eligibility’Two objectors requested that “brain injury” be added tothe list of conditions requiring training and technicalassistance under the Settlement Agreement. According to thedetermine whether school districts are following federal andstate educational law. In fact, it appears that the Commonwealthhas the power to implement the provisions of the SettlementAgreement, whether or not the Settlement Agreement is approved bythe Court, without violating the Commonwealth Documents Law.45
Page 4 and 5: Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330

Opinion Approving Settlement - Public Interest Law Center of ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?