LMSD Continues Tax Hike Lawsuit Fight

LOWER MERION TOWNSHIP, PA — The Lower Merion School District is continuing to fight a lawsuit filed against it that alleged the district raised taxes while sitting on surplus funds.

On Monday, April 8, attorneys representing the Lower Merion School District filed a supplemental brief in the district's appeal of Judge Joseph A. Smyth's decision in the case brought by attorney Arthur Wolk and his clients against the district.

"It should go without saying that that is not the way the judicial system is supposed to work," the brief says in its conclusion. "The District respectfully requests that this Court vacate Judge Smyth’s injunction and dismiss Plaintiffs’ case – or, at worst, remand the case to Judge [Richard P.] Haaz with instructions to stay this matter pending his resolution of the preliminary objections."

The district claims its objections were briefed and argued before Judge Haaz almost three years ago, but neither Judge Haaz nor any other judge has had the occasion to rule upon them because Judge Smyth concluded that he could enter an injunction addressing the merits of the case before anyone decided questions like jurisdiction, standing, the exhaustion of remedies, or justiciability.

"The school board and administration are hopeful that the district will prevail in the legal proceedings and that in the future, district resources will not have to be spent on defending against lawsuits, but rather on the education of our students," the district said.

Wolk brought his case against the district in 2016, alleging the district's tax increase for the 2016-2017 year was illegal because there was money in a reserve fund while the District asked for additional money to fund special education and pensions, which are Act 1 exceptions.

He asked the District to pay $55 million in damages, that money be returned to taxpayers, for members of the Lower Merion Board of School Directors to be removed from office, that certain District employees be fired, and that school taxes should be made dependent on the number of children the property owner has in the schools.

He also stated that "public school education means adherence to basic minimum requirements" and that additional "programs, activities, free laptops and curriculums (sic)" that aren't mandated should be provided "only by private institutions at larger expense to individual patrons who prefer to afford their children education and opportunities."

The appeal argues the district is managing funds with known and unknown expenses in mind, such as increasing enrollment; Wolk did not object to the budget in question; that the Pennsylvania Department of Education should settle the budget dispute, not courts; that the district followed all procedures and was approved by the Department of Education; and more.

Read the full appeal here.

"This is a community that values excellent public schools, small class sizes and varied opportunities for all students," the district said. "The Board ensures that the Administration exercises prudent judgment in budgeting taxpayer dollars and has an open and public budgeting process."