Coleman v. Parkland Sch. Dist.

• Docket Number: 1416 C.D. 2022
• Decision Date: 08 November 2023
• Parties: Jarrett Coleman, Appellant v. Parkland School District
• Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

1

Jarrett Coleman, Appellant v. Parkland School District

No. 1416 C.D. 2022

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

November 8, 2023

Argued: September 11, 2023

BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

OPINION

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

Jarrett Coleman (Coleman) appeals from the Lehigh County Common Pleas Court's (trial court) November 17, 2022 order granting Parkland School District's (District) Motion for Summary Judgment (Motion) relative to Coleman v. Parkland School District, Case No. 2021-C-2666 (Case No. 2666), and denying the Motion relative to Coleman v. Parkland School District, Case No. 2021-C-2990 (Case No. 2990). Coleman presents three issues for this Court's review: (1) whether the trial court erred as a matter of law by granting summary judgment in the District's favor and against Coleman under the Sunshine Act;^[1] (2) whether the trial court erred by not invalidating the September 1, 2022 to August 31, 2025 collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the District and the Parkland Education Association (Association), where the District violated the Sunshine Act by voting to approve it; and (3) whether the trial court erred by not awarding attorney's fees and/or costs in Coleman's favor. After review, this Court affirms in part and reverses in part.

Background

The parties do not dispute the facts. Coleman is a District resident. On or about October 25, 2021, the District issued a public notice which stated that the Parkland School Board (School Board) would conduct a meeting on October 26 2021,^[2] and published the agenda therefor, which did not include the School Board's consideration of the CBA. However, the School Board's October 26, 2021 meeting minutes reflect:

[School Board member Lisa] Roth [(Mrs. Roth)] made a motion to add the following agenda item, seconded by Mr Kennedy,^[3] to approve and authorize the School Board President to execute[,] and the School Board Secretary to attest[,] the [CBA].

Mrs. Roth explained that this agenda item was not previously listed on the agenda for tonight's meeting because the [CBA] had not yet been voted upon by the [] Association until today[,] when the teachers voted to approve [it]. To list the [CBA] on the [School] Board's agenda prior to the teacher's [sic] vote would have been premature and inappropriate.

Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 174a; see also R.R. at 37a-38a. Thereafter, a majority of the School Board voted to authorize the School Board President to execute the CBA, and the School Board Secretary to attest it. See R.R. at 178a.

On November 2, 2021, Coleman filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief for Violation of the Sunshine Act in the trial court relative to Case No. 2666 challenging the School Board's October 26, 2021 action (Case No. 2666 Complaint). Therein, Coleman asked the trial court to: (1) declare that the District violated Section 712.1(e) of the Sunshine Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 712.1(e), by voting to amend the agenda at the October 26, 2021 School Board meeting and approve the CBA; (2) declare the CBA invalid; (3) permanently enjoin the District from taking official action concerning matters involving the expenditure of funds or entering into contracts that are not listed on a publicly posted agenda at least 24 hours in advance of a public meeting; and (4) award Coleman reasonable attorney's fees and costs.^[4] The District filed an answer and new matter to the Case No. 2666 Complaint asserting a counterclaim for attorney's fees and costs.

At its November 16, 2021 meeting, after providing public notice thereof, the School Board voted to ratify its October 26, 2021 action on the CBA. On December 6, 2021, Coleman filed a complaint in the trial court relative to Case No. 2990 related to the Board's November 16, 2021 ratification (Case No. 2990 Complaint).^[5] The District filed an answer and new matter to the Case No. 2990 Complaint asserting a counterclaim for attorney's fees and costs.

On January 24, 2022, the trial court consolidated Coleman's actions for the limited purpose of discovery and trial. On September 1, 2022, the District filed the Motion, which Coleman opposed on September 28, 2022. On November 17, 2022, the trial court granted the Motion with respect to Case No. 2666, but denied the Motion concerning Case No. 2990. By separate order, the trial court denied Coleman's cross-motion for summary judgment in Case No. 2990. On November 18, 2022, Coleman discontinued Case No. 2990.

On December 16, 2022, Coleman appealed to this Court, challenging the grant of summary judgment in the District's favor in Case No. 2666.^[6] The Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association (PNA) filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Coleman's position. On January 10, 2023, the trial court issued a statement pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a), adopting the reasoning set forth in its November 17, 2022 order.^[7]

Discussion

Initially,

[s]ummary judgment may be granted only in those cases where the record clearly shows that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. P.J.S. v. [Pa.] State Ethics Comm['n], . . . 723 A.2d 174, 176 ([Pa.] 1999). On a motion for summary judgment, the record must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved in his favor. Id.

Texiera v. Commonwealth, 284 A.3d 1279, 1283 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022).

1. Statutory Interpretation

Here, the parties' sole challenge is whether the District was entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law relative to Case No. 2666. Specifically, they offer contradictory interpretations of Section 712.1 of the Sunshine Act.

The backdrop for the parties' disagreement is Section 702(b) of the Sunshine Act, in which the General Assembly "declares it to be the public policy of this Commonwealth to insure the right of its citizens to have notice of and the right to attend all meetings of agencies at which any agency business is discussed or acted upon as provided in this chapter." 65 Pa.C.S. § 702(b). To that end, Section 709 of the Sunshine Act requires, in pertinent part:

(a) Meetings.-An agency shall give public notice of its first regular meeting of each calendar or fiscal year not less than three days in advance of the meeting and shall give public notice of the schedule of its remaining regular meetings. An agency shall give public notice of each special meeting or each rescheduled regular or special meeting at least 24 hours in advance of the time of the convening of the meeting specified in the notice. Public notice is not required in the case of an emergency meeting or a conference. . . .

(b) Notice.-With respect to any provision of this chapter that requires public notice to be given by a certain date, the agency, to satisfy its legal obligation, must give the notice in time to allow it to be published or circulated within the political subdivision where the principal office of the agency is located or the meeting will occur before the date of the specified meeting.

65 Pa.C.S. § 709.

In Senate Bill 554 (SB 554), S.B. 554, 205th General Assembly, Regular Session (Pa. 2021-2022), the General Assembly amended Section 709 of the Sunshine Act to add subsection (c.1), effective August 30, 2021, which mandates, in relevant part:

Notification of agency business to be considered.--

(1) In addition to any public notice required under this section, an agency shall provide the following notification of agency business to be considered at a meeting as follows:

(i) If the agency has a publicly accessible Internet website, the agency shall post the agenda, which includes a listing of each matter of agency business that will be or may be the subject of deliberation or official action at the meeting, on the website no later than 24 hours in advance of the time of the convening of the meeting.^[8]

65 Pa.C.S. § 709(c.1)(1)(i) (text emphasis added).

Section 712.1 of the Sunshine Act, also added in SB 554, effective August 30, 2021, states:

(a) Official action.--Except as provided in subsection (b) [(relating to emergency business)] (c) [(business arising within 24 hours before the meeting)], (d) [(relating to business arising during the meeting),] or (e) [(relating to agenda changes)], an agency may not take official action on a matter of agency business at a meeting if the matter was not included in the notification required under [S]ection 709(c.1) [of the Sunshine Act] (relating to public notice).

(b) Emergency business.--An agency may take official action at a regularly scheduled meeting or an emergency meeting on a matter of agency business relating to a real or potential emergency involving a clear and present danger to life or property regardless of whether public notice was given for the meeting.

(c)Business arising within 24 hours before meeting.--An agency may take official action on a matter of agency business that is not listed on a meeting agenda if:

(1) the matter arises or is brought to the attention of the agency within the 24-hour period prior to the meeting; and

(2) the matter is de minimis in nature and does not involve the expenditure of funds or entering into a contract or agreement by the agency.

(d) Business arising during meeting.--If, during the conduct of a meeting, a resident or taxpayer brings a matter of agency business that is not listed on the meeting agenda to the attention of the agency, the agency may take official action to refer the matter to staff, if applicable, for the purpose of researching the matter for inclusion on the agenda of a future meeting, or, if the matter is de

...