A Carbon County judge on Friday quashed a petition seeking to remove Earl Paules from the Palmerton Area School District Board of Directors, ruling that the court lacked jurisdiction because Paules was never properly served under Pennsylvania’s rules of civil procedure.

The ruling turned on a procedural defect rather than the substance of the residents’ complaints against Paules, a school director who previously served as board president. Common Pleas Judge Steven Serfass stopped short of dismissing the matter for good, leaving its backers free to refile if they serve the petition the way the law requires.

“Since it appears to the court that the petition has not been served in accordance with the rules of civil procedure, we are going to grant the motion at this point and direct that proper service be effectuated pursuant to the rules of civil procedure,” Serfass said. “We will not reach the merits today.”

The petition was brought by district residents Danielle Jones, Deborah Kleckner and Amy Strohl, who are seeking Paules’ removal as a school director, according to court records. It accuses him of “unprofessionalism,” “bullying tactics,” “gross use of authority” and “lack of ethical standards” in his dealings with Superintendent Angela Friebolin, and asks that he be removed from the board immediately.

A Title IX case was brought against Paules, investigated by an outside firm and decided by an independent decision. The determination cited repeated comments about the superintendent’s body and appearance, questions about her marital status, a homophobic slur and vulgar remarks made in front of staff.

At Friday’s hearing, the central question was whether the residents had delivered the petition to Paules the way the law demands. His attorney, Drew P. McLaughlin of Elliott Greenleaf P.C., argued that they had not.

“Petitioners were required to conform with the rules of civil procedure and service regarding originally filed process, which would have required service exclusively by the Carbon County Sheriff’s Office, which was not done here,” McLaughlin said. He told the court the petition had reached Paules, at best, by regular mail, along with a copy hand-delivered to a security officer at a school board meeting who passed it on.

Serfass agreed that the petition had not been properly served.

“When there’s not proper service here, that means the court is divested of jurisdiction, because proper service has not been made on Mr. Paules. I don’t see in the docket where there’s been any service made by the sheriff of the county,” he said.

Paules’s side never formally answered the petition, leaving the allegations undisputed for the purposes of Friday’s hearing.

McLaughlin pressed a second argument, contending the residents could not prevail even if they fixed the service problem.

“They’re alleging that Mr. Paules engaged in misconduct in office, violated the school’s Title IX policy, and should be removed on that basis,” McLaughlin said. “That is not what the school code allows. It’s only for nonfeasance — refusing to organize, refusing to hire a superintendent, things of that nature. It is not a mechanism for what they’re trying to do here, which is to recall Mr. Paules from the school board and remove him from office.”

In a June 3 brief, McLaughlin urged the court to dismiss the case for good, arguing that Pennsylvania allows an elected school director to be removed only for “failure to organize or neglect of duty” — acts of nonfeasance, not the misconduct the residents describe.

“A (director) is removable not for doing evil things in office, but for not functioning as a director in respect to his mandatory duties,” the brief said, quoting a 1945 Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling.

The residents appeared Friday without a lawyer. Jones, who spoke for the group, said they had tried to hire one.

“We had called several attorneys specifically for school law, but they said they represent school districts,” she said. “And then some local attorneys, but there’s conflict of interest in some cases, so they didn’t want to take the case. So inevitably we are here without counsel.”

A hearing set for April 2 had been continued to Friday to give the residents time to find counsel, according to the brief, but none entered an appearance.