As a matter of first impression, a Commonwealth Court judge has ruled that post-trial motions under Pa. R.Civ.P. 227.1 are not required in an appeal from an order in a Right-to-Know Law enforcement action. In Walker v. County of Bucks, a requester filed an enforcement action against an agency and its open-records officer where the agency had filed two appeals of the same OOR final order (rather than two appeals of two different OOR final orders), arguing that relief in mandamus was appropriate because one of the two OOR final orders was not appealed.[1] The trial court rejected the complaint, holding that relief in mandamus “is not clear at this time” due to a pending motion to substitute one its appeals.[2] The requester appealed but did not file post-trial motions. The agency argued that, under Pa.R.Civ.P. 227.1, the requester “waived all issues on appeal and her appeal must be dismissed” because she did not file post-trial motions. Commonwealth Court Judge Dumas disagreed, holding that a RTKL enforcement action “is not a situation where post-trial motions had to be filed” because the complaint in mandamus was covered by “‘petition practice’” as set forth under the Note to Pa R.A.P. 3761.[3] Instead, “it is evident that the mandamus action filed by Appellant was in petition practice, such that post-trial motions were not necessary.”[4] While this is an unreported memorandum opinion of a single member of the Commonwealth Court, parties to a RTKL enforcement action potentially may not be required to file post-trial motions in order to preserve issues on appeal. (This post should not be considered legal advice. For more information or to discuss, Attorney Schnee can be reached at chadwick@schneelegal.com ). [1] Walker v. County of Bucks, 974 C.D. 2023 (Pa.Cmwlth. Jan. 31, 2024) (Dumas, J.) (unreported). The author represents the requester in this matter. [2] Id. [3]The Note provides Pa.R.A.P. 3761(b) provides the method for seeking compliance with a final determination of the Office of Open Records in the Commonwealth Court. This differs from proceeding in the courts of common pleas, where the method to obtain judicial review of alleged failure to comply with a final determination of the Office of Open Records may be an action in mandamus or other petition authorized by local rule. Capinski v. Upper Pottsgrove Township, 164 A.3d 601 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017). Use of this petition is appropriate when the final determination was not appealed. If an appeal was taken and the order affirmed by the Commonwealth Court, enforcement is not of the final determination of the Office of Open Records, but rather of the order of the Commonwealth Court. [4] Walker v. County of Bucks, 974 C.D. 2023 (Pa.Cmwlth. Jan. 31, 2024) (Dumas, J.) (unreported).

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth issued a ruling on November 8, 2023 holding that an agency violated open meeting laws when it added the consideration of a collective bargaining agreement with its teachers union without first providing public notice. The case, brought by now-Senator Jarrett Coleman, alleged that the Parkland School District violated the Sunshine Act when it voted to approve a multi-year collective bargaining agreement with its teachers union when that item was not previously listed as part of a public agenda. In other words, the public had no prior notice that the collective bargaining agreement would be considered unless they happened to attend the public meeting. The case concerned 2021 amendments to the Sunshine Act that, until now, had never previously been interpreted by an appellate court. Specifically, this section, Section 712.1, provides as follows: (a) Official action.--Except as provided in subsection (b), (c), (d) or (e), an agency may not take official action on a matter of agency