SOUTH WHITEHALL TWP., Pa. - State Sen. Jarrett Coleman has appealed the dismissal of his lawsuit against the Parkland School District — and the outcome could invalidate teacher pay raises.
- State Sen. Jarrett Coleman's appeals lawsuit argues that agencies should only be allowed to add insignificant matters to agendas without 24 hours' notice
- The trial court judge disagreed and dismissed one suit in December.
- First amendment groups are following the appeal because it has statewide implications.
Coleman, a former Parkland school board director from 2021 to 2022, filed two lawsuits in 2021 against the school board alleging a lack of transparency. A trial court in November dismissed one of the cases and Coleman dropped the other. Coleman submitted an appeal on the first case to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania on Dec. 15th.
“This first case is really important because it really involves the question of whether an agency can add anything it wants to a public agenda by amending it at a public meeting with no advance public notice."Attorney Chadwick Schnee, Coleman’s attorney in the lawsuit.
“This first case is really important because it really involves the question of whether an agency can add anything it wants to a public agenda by amending it at a public meeting with no advance public notice,” said Attorney Chadwick Schnee, Coleman’s attorney in the lawsuit.
Schnee says the appeal of the transparency issue could have statewide implications.
A request for comment to the school district’s spokeswoman received no reply.
At issue is a school board vote on Oct. 26, 2021 to approve a collective bargaining agreement with the teachers’ union. Coleman argued in his initial lawsuit that because the contract was not listed on the agenda in advance of the October meeting, the school board violated the Sunshine Act.
The state’s open meetings law requires school districts to post board agendas publicly at least 24 hours in advance with a list of all items it will officially discuss or take action on. Legislation passed in 2021 further prohibited action on items not advertised a day in advance. Exceptions include emergencies, minor issues that don't involve spending taxpayer funds or issues brought up during a meeting by a member of the public. However, that measure also allowed the majority of an agency to add an item to the agenda at a meeting.
Coleman argued in the first lawsuit that agenda items added by a majority vote during a meeting should be insignificant and not involve spending or emergency issues. Otherwise, agencies could use this loophole to add items without notifying the public in advance. Court of Common Pleas Judge J. Brian Johnson ruled the argument was a misreading of the statute.
Schnee said they disagree with the judge’s ruling.
“Why is there an emergency exception if agencies can just amend the agenda for any reason at any time,” he said.
The school board voted to approve the collective bargaining agreement last year just days before school board elections for four open seats. Coleman filed the initial lawsuit on Election Day 2021. He filed a second one after the board took a second vote on the contract at a November 16 meeting. Coleman said during a November 2021 board meeting that he was not objecting to district teachers earning more money, but to the lack of transparency by the board.
He also claimed a separate failure to allow public comment and raise open meeting objections regarding the Nov. 16 meeting. However, he dropped that lawsuit shortly before the trial was scheduled to start late last year. He had subpoenaed all of the then-current board members to testify as witnesses, along with other district employees.
Comments made during the November 2021 public meeting by the district’s solicitor indicated that the board believed voting on the collective bargaining agreement again would alleviate any previous Sunshine Act transgression.
“The board will take a vote,” Parkland School District Solicitor Steven Miller said. “And if the board affirmatively approves the agreement, then the problem as far as the board is concerned goes away.”
Melissa Melewsky, in-house counsel with the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association said her organization is following the appeal and said there may be an opportunity for it to weigh in on the case at some point during the process.
“Sometimes our organization gets involved when there’s a case that has a potential impact on the Sunshine Act or the Right-to-Know law, or some other law that affects public access or the media industry is interpreted,” she said. “So when we see cases of interest that have a potential impact on the law, we may weigh in as potential amicus, friend of the court, by filing a brief at the appellate court level.”
Timothy Gilsbach, the attorney who represented Parkland in both cases, said in November 2022 that the district denied it took any action that it believed to have been a violation of the state's open meetings law. It said it would follow all requirements of the Sunshine Act for future meetings.
However, the Parkland school board has come under fire over the past few weeks for having discussions to appoint a former school board member to fill the vacancy left by Coleman in executive session instead of in public.
Melewsky said the board violated the open meetings law in that instance because key discussions or deliberations did not happen in public.
