On November 24, 2025, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Commonwealth Court’s 2023 decision in Coleman v. Parkland School District. The ruling expands the circumstances under which public agencies may take official action on items not listed on agendas posted at least 24 hours before a public meeting.
Background in the Case
Act 65 of 2021 amended Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Act to require public agencies to post meeting agendas at least 24 hours in advance (the “24-Hour Notice Rule”), and generally, to prohibit action on items not included on those agendas. The Act provides explicit exceptions to this rule. At the center of this case is Section 712.1(e), commonly referred to as the Majority Vote Clause, which allows an agency to add an item to its agenda during a meeting by a majority vote of the members present.
In this case, Parkland School District (the “District”)’s school board added an item during a meeting by majority vote and subsequently acted on the matter. The Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas upheld the action, interpreting Section 712.1(e) to permit agencies to add any item by majority vote, as long as the revised agenda was reposted within 24 hours after the meeting.
The Commonwealth Court disagreed. Instead, it ruled that an item can only be added and acted upon if it first fell within one of the three exceptions listed in Sections 712.1(b), (c), or (d) – and that Section 712.1(e) was merely a procedural step, not a separate exception.
For further details on Act 65 of 2021 and the Commonwealth Court’s ruling, please see SLB 366, Recent Case Strengthens 24 Hour Rule Under Sunshine Law.
The Court’s Holding
In a four-three decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court sided with the District.
The Court held that Section 712.1 creates four independent exceptions to the 24-hour Notice Rule – not three exceptions plus one procedural mechanism. The Court ruled that the statute’s use of the word “or” in Section 712.1(a) clearly indicates four distinct exceptions – those in subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e).
The Court emphasized that the Commonwealth Court’s ruling effectively rewrote the statute by collapsing four exceptions into three.
As the Court explained, Section 712.1(a) states:
“Except as provided in subsection (b), (c), (d), or (e), 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 section 709(c.1) (relating to public notice).” (emphasis added).
Because the statute uses “or”, the Court found the meaning unambiguous: each subsection provides a separate path for acting on an item not listed on the original agenda. The Court further concluded that nothing in the text of Section 712.1 undermines the creation of four exceptions to the 24-hour Notice Rule.
Bottom Line for Schools
The Supreme Court’s ruling confirms that agencies may add items to an agenda by majority vote under Section 712.1(e), even if the items do not meet one of the other three exceptions.
To invoke the Majority Vote Clause, the agency must:
- Announce the reason for adding the item before voting;
- Approve the addition by majority vote; and
- Post the amended agenda on the agency’s website and principal office no later than the first business day after the meeting.
School boards may rely on this process, provided that they meet all requirements of Section 712.1(e) and remain compliant with the broader Sunshine Act.
The decision was not unanimous. One concurring and two dissenting opinions reflect ongoing disagreement about how the enumerated exceptions under Act 65 should be used in practice. A number of the Court’s opinions imply that the General Assembly revisit the statute to clarify its intent and reduce future confusion.
For now, the Supreme Court’s decision stands: four stand-alone exceptions exist under the Sunshine Act, and the Majority Vote Clause is one of them.
