Not on the Agenda? The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Weighs In

Written by Katelin Carter

Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Act has always required that agencies conduct official business in public and, since a 2021 amendment, to post an agenda at least twenty-four hours before a meeting identifying each matter that may be discussed or acted upon. The amendment also created several exceptions. In Coleman v. Parkland School District, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed a question that matters for municipal boards across the Commonwealth: when an item is not on the posted agenda, can the agency still add it during the meeting and take action on it?

At the Parkland School Board’s October 26, 2021 meeting, the Board voted to approve and authorize execution of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that had not been included on the agenda posted under the Sunshine Act’s 24-hour notice rule. A board member moved to amend the agenda during the meeting under Section 712.1(e), the statute’s “Majority Vote Clause,” explaining that the union had only voted on the CBA earlier that same day, which was why it was not on the published agenda. The Board first voted to add the item to the agenda and then voted to approve the CBA. Parkland resident Jarrett Coleman, filed suit, alleging the Board violated the Sunshine Act by taking action on business not listed on the pre-meeting agenda.

The trial court granted summary judgment to the District, but the Commonwealth Court reversed in part, reasoning that the Majority Vote Clause was not a standalone exception and could only operate as a procedural mechanism tied to the Act’s other narrow exceptions (like emergencies or de minimis matters). The Supreme Court disagreed. Focusing on the statute’s text (particularly the phrase in Section 712.1(a)) stating an agency may not act on non-agenda items “[e]xcept as provided in subsection (b), (c), (d) or (e)” the Court held that the Majority Vote Clause is an independent exception to the general prohibition. Because the Board invoked that exception during the meeting by majority vote, the Court reversed the Commonwealth Court and reinstated the trial court’s ruling.

For municipalities and other public bodies, Coleman is a helpful clarification: the Sunshine Act’s agenda requirement has real teeth, but it is not absolute. If an agency needs to address significant business that was not included on the posted agenda, it may do so under the Majority Vote Clause, but only if it follows the transparency steps built into the statute. The Court emphasized that when an agency uses this provision, it must proceed openly during the meeting, including a separate vote to amend the agenda and an announcement of the reasons for the change before that vote.

At MPL, we regularly counsel municipalities, authorities, and boards on Sunshine Act compliance, including meeting notices, agenda practices, and how to handle last-minute issues without creating avoidable litigation risk. If your municipality has questions about best practices, our team is here to help.