improper because the appeal procedure of Section 2451 is the exclusive means of contesting the validity of school district expenditures. However, Bennett asserts that an appeal under Section 2451 is not the exclusive remedy because the auditors failed to recognize “hidden expenses” for the “dugouts” project. Bennett claims these missed expenditures caused the auditors to overlook the bidding requirements of Section 751 of the Code, 24 P.S. § 7-751. Under Section 751(a), a school board must open to public bidding any construction or maintenance project on A.2d 904 (1980) (concluding that a township supervisor’s exclusive remedy was to file an appeal to the township auditors’ report within the statutory appeal period of 45 days); Gribble v. Miller, 3 Pa.Cmwlth. 520, 284 A.2d 825 (1971) (<HOLDING>). Although most of these cases involved the
holding that a taxpayers action in assumpsit was barred because of his failure to file an appeal from the report of borough auditors holding that a challenge by taxpayers and property owners to the issuance of municipal bonds was barred by a judgment entered in a prior action holding on appeal from a habeas corpus denial that counsel was not ineffective for failure to file a notice of appeal because of defendants escape holding that an appeal by taxpayers in a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the government from collecting income tax deficiencies was mooted because the taxpayers had paid the deficiencies pending the appeal holding that counsels failure to file appeal was not deficient performance under strickland where the petitioner in  2255 action did not direct counsel to file an appeal and acquiesced in counsels decision to pursue as an alternative a reduction in sentence