Legal Defense Partnership
For more than 30 years, PSATS’ Township Legal Defense Partnership has focused on supporting townships and other municipalities in court cases that could shape the powers and responsibilities of local governments statewide for years to come. On issues ranging from the Right-to-Know Law to labor relations, PSATS makes sure that the “township voice” is heard inside the highest courtrooms in Pennsylvania.
Has Your Township Ever Faced a Court Case? PSATS Can Help!
Court cases can set precedents that impact all Pennsylvania townships. To support its members in legal disputes, PSATS established the Legal Defense Partnership. Townships involved in appellate-level cases with statewide implications can apply for assistance from the Association.
How to Participate or Seek Assistance
To contribute to the Partnership, pay the amount noted on your annual dues statement or call PSATS at (717) 763-0930 for more information.
To request assistance in an appellate-level court case, your solicitor or board of supervisors should send a letter to PSATS’ executive director outlining the case details, along with supporting documents.
Minimal Cost for Maximum Return
The Legal Defense Partnership is funded through voluntary contributions from member townships, based on population. Contributions range from $55 to $170 per year—a small price for such valuable support.
Please note, the Legal Defense Partnership is not an insurance program and does not guarantee victory in any case.
Case Criteria
The Association participates in cases with statewide significance that have reached appellate-level courts. If a case meets these criteria, the Association will file an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief on behalf of the township and collaborate with the township’s solicitor throughout the case.
A Landmark Victory for Townships:
PA Supreme Court Sides with PSATS Brief!
When legislation threatens township operations, PSATS
engages lawmakers. When critical court cases arise, PSATS takes its advocacy to the next level by filing amicus curiae (“friend
of the court”) briefs. These briefs allow PSATS to present arguments in cases of statewide significance, ensuring that township perspectives influence judicial decisions.
To date, these cases have resulted in victories for townships while several are still pending before the courts.
Supreme Court Affirms
Sunshine Act Exceptions
In late November, PSATS celebrated a major win in Coleman v. Parkland School District. The Pennsylvania Supreme
Court ruled that Section 712.1 of the Sunshine Act clearly establishes
four exceptions to the general rule prohibiting official action on items not listed on the pre-meeting agenda., One key exception allows governing bodies to vote to add matters to the agenda
during the public meeting, and then act on it immediately.
The Supreme Court held that “the Commonwealth Court essentially redrafted Section 712.1 to align it with a textually unsustainable view of the ostensible spirit of the Sunshine Act and its 2021 amendment.”
This is a big win for townships and empowers them to operate more
efficiently, reducing unnecessary costs for additional advertisements
and meetings. However, compliance with Section 712.1 remains essential when adding items during meetings.
The decision also applies to township boards and commissions subject to the Sunshine Act, so volunteers should be informed of this change.
PSATS was instrumental in drafting and advocating for the 2021 amendments to the Sunshine Act and it, along with other statewide municipal organizations, filed a brief in support of the school district
before the Supreme Court.
Clarifying Social Media and the Right-to-Know Law
In August, another victory came with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirming a Commonwealth Court decision to vacate a trial court order
(Penncrest School Dist. v. Cagle) that compelled a school district to disclose Facebook posts made by members of the school board.
The Supreme Court rejected the notion of a “social media-specific” test for determining whether records are subject to disclosure but at the same
time noted that “we cannot ignore the fact that, although the RTKL contains only one definition of ‘record’ resolving whether a Facebook profile or page is a record ‘of an agency’ requires the consideration of facts that would be relevant only to that particular form of communication, under those specific facts.” The Supreme Court reaffirmed the two-part test applicable to a “record”: (1) information that documents a transaction or activity of an agency; and (2) is created, received or retained pursuant to law or in connection with a transaction, business, or activity of the agency. This is a successful outcome for municipalities and municipal officials as it should begin to help reduce the number of RTKL requests for personal social media posts. Having said that, the decision does not mean that municipal officials now have carte blanche to use their social media accounts to avoid application of the RTKL.
