
    Burton HETHERINGTON, Julian Milewski, David Zienkiewicz, Cynthia Zienkiewicz, Jason Milewski, Peggy Forgotch, Joseph Clews, Kelly Moran, David Seresky, Grace Glowacki, Charles Hampton, Anna Mae Hampton, John Anczarski, Joseph Clews, Raymond Smith, Cynthia Smith, David Hampton, Lynn Lentes, Debra Hampton, John Uroskie, David Banning, Robert Wise, Barbra Wise, Dale Kimmel, Lena Kimmel, John Rumbel, Michelle Rumbel, Cathy Shoup, Roger Shoup, Raymond Mishlanie, Carol Mishlanie, Debra Grow, Robert O. Ororco, Albert Breznik, Jr., Leon Trusky, Haley Dunlap, Mary Anczarski, Leon Lowandowski, Nancy Stauffer, David Briggs, Edward Glembockie, Margret Hunsinger, James Ambrose, Susan Briel, Eileen Teeter, Dennis Teeter, Mary Milosh, Melissa McGruffie, Bobbie Jo Edmonson, Edward Sanchez, Joseph E. Faust, Jr. v. William ROGERS, President, NSSB, Jane Rapant, Vice President, NSSB, Christine Heyer, Treasurer, NSSB, Robert Wetzel, Former President, NSSB, Phil Rapant, Robert Orth, John Motsney, Edward Balkiewicz, John Misiewicz, and Attorney Mark Semanchik. Petition of William Rogers, Jane Rapant, Christine Heyer, Robert Wetzel, Phil Rapant, Edward Balkiewicz, John Motsney, and Attorney Mark Semanchik.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    July 28, 2011.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 28th day of July 2011, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

Were the Petitioners, publicly elected officials, improperly removed and barred for five (5) years from office as School Board Directors from the North Schuylkill School District (“NSSD”) under Section 3-318 of the Public School Code for failure or neglect to appoint a District Superintendent for the School District where the Petitioners immediately acted to appoint, as permitted by law, an Acting District Superintendent upon the resignation of its District Superintendent, applied for a state permitted waiver to appoint the candidate of their choice under the guidance and direction of the Pennsylvania Department of Education, and the record does not and cannot support a finding of non-feasance on their part?  