State lawmakers have reached a rare bipartisan consensus in favor of reestablishing the 24-hour minimum time period for local governments to notify the public of their planned votes and debates.
The state Supreme Court issued a 4-3 decision in November allowing local agencies to sidestep the mandate with a simple majority vote — gutting a key aspect of Pennsylvania’s transparency law, the Sunshine Act.
Groups representing local government agencies celebrated the court decision, stating that it would enhance the efficiency of their operations.
But legislators who write the laws governing how local governments operate expressed concern about the potential for last-minute changes to public meeting agendas — meaning taxpayers may lack any advance notice of decisions that affect local laws or taxes. Recodifying the requirement is among their top priorities for 2026, these lawmakers said.
Senate Local Government Committee Chair Dawn Keefer, R-York, said the ruling gave local officials “an exception to accountability” and a tool to suppress public input.
“You have no opportunity as the public to address your local government because you’re unaware — you’re uninformed,” Keefer said, noting the court undermined the Legislature’s intent in writing the Sunshine Act, which was first adopted in 1986
Removing the 24-hour notice rule has sparked at least one argument at a local government meeting so far. At its December meeting, the Greater Latrobe School Board in suburban Pittsburgh tacked on a vote for a new solicitor to its agenda, outraging some of its members.
Last-minute changes will become more frequent under the court’s new interpretation, according to Rep. Robert Freeman, D-Northampton, chair of the House Local Government Committee. He said the court majority based its ruling on a “drafting problem,” not the intent of the law.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Christine Donohue, pointed to a list of exemptions included in a 2021 amendment to the Sunshine Act allowing officials the opportunity to address timely or emergency business. She and the concurring justices argued that all four were intended as stand-alone exemptions because drafters of the legislation used the word “or” to divide them.
Freeman said the bill’s authors erroneously included a section detailing the process to legally change an agenda as a fourth exemption, giving the appearance that any change could be made at any time with a majority vote.
Keefer and Freeman said they support the first three exemptions to the 24-hour rule, but that lawmakers must clarify that not every vote can be taken without the proper notice.
FIXING THE RULES
Donohue seemingly understood that the court’s reading of the law would face pushback. She wrote, “If the General Assembly intended something different from what is expressed in that plain text, it is free to amend the statute.”
Legislation to clarify the issue is most likely to be led by Sen. Jarrett Coleman, R-Lehigh. He was a plaintiff in the case that reached the court, and several lawmakers indicated they were waiting to hear from him about the next course of action.
Coleman, when he was a member of the Parkland School District Board of Directors, sued the district in 2021 over its decision to add a vote approving a teachers union contract that was ratified earlier that same day. The Commonwealth Court sided with Coleman’s argument that the public deserved at least a full 24-hour notice of the vote.
After the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s decision, Coleman filed a motion to reconsider the case on Dec. 8. If the Supreme Court does not agree, his office said he could introduce legislation to reestablish the 24-hour notice rule as soon as mid-January.
How quickly the General Assembly recodifies the 24-hour window depends on whether party leadership deems it a priority.
Neither House Majority Leader Matt Bradford, D-Montgomery, nor Senate Majority Leader Joe Pittman, R-Indiana, responded to a request for comment. And a spokesperson for Gov. Josh Shapiro, who would need to sign the bill into law, did not say whether the Democrat would support such legislation when asked via email.
Witold “Vic” Walczak, legal director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, stressed that the General Assembly must act to ensure the public receives 24-hour notice of votes, which he called the “bare minimum” to “meaningfully participate” in public meetings.
“Democracy only works if the public can fulfill its democratic role, a role that relies on knowing the issues that impact their daily lives and having a fair shot to weigh in on them,” Walczak said. “A governing body should not have the power to sidestep the people by slipping in new agenda items and taking action whenever it feels like it.”
INITIAL INTENT
On June 9, 2021, Sen. Patrick Stefano, R-Fayette, made it clear to his colleagues on the Senate floor what his intent was when he introduced an amendment to the Sunshine Act.
“This legislation will require agencies to post their agenda at least 24 hours in advance of a meeting,” Stefano said. “As the public is becoming increasingly more interested in government, I believe they have a right to know in advance what is to be considered at a public meeting so they have an opportunity to engage in the issues that matter most to them.”
Responding to the court’s ruling, Stefano said, “It’s a shame to see what was meant to be a goodwill extension to the initial proposal has now become the default work-around for entities to undermine public trust.”
Stefano said the General Assembly should clarify the rule, but he did not specify what changes to the legislation he would support.
Rep. Brett Miller, R-Lancaster, is his party’s top lawmaker on the House Local Government Committee. He said he is also considering legislation to clarify the 24-hour notice rule.
When the initial amendment establishing the exemptions was passed in 2021, Miller said he predicted the wording of the legislation would pose an issue down the road.
“It was so evident to me that at that time, when that amendment went in, this basically created a loophole that a municipality could take advantage of so that the people were not allowed to see agenda items,” Miller said.
The former East Hempfield Township supervisor said he voted against the amendment in a committee meeting, but ultimately supported the bill on the House floor because it was an improvement over the previous law.