A GOVERNANCE QUESTION, ASKED AT THE STATE LEVEL

Senator Muth,

I am writing to bring to your attention an issue that I believe presents a relatively straightforward question of governmental transparency and administrative accessibility in Pennsylvania.

I am not asking your office to determine whether a particular school district discriminated against me, to intervene in pending litigation, or to advocate for a particular outcome. My concern is more basic: whether a Pennsylvania resident can readily identify the administrative infrastructure that federal law says should exist when a person with a disability needs to address a Title II concern involving a public entity.

Under 28 C.F.R. § 35.107, a public entity employing 50 or more persons must designate at least one employee to coordinate its efforts to comply with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, make that person’s name, office address, and telephone number available to interested persons, and adopt and publish grievance procedures providing for the prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleging violations of Title II.

That requirement seems remarkably uncomplicated to verify.

My experience attempting to navigate this issue involving Pennsylvania public schools has raised a larger question: Can the Commonwealth identify which qualifying public school entities have a designated Title II responsible employee and a published Title II grievance procedure, and, if not, who is responsible for identifying whether that basic federal administrative infrastructure exists?

I am intentionally framing the question at the statewide level rather than around one school district. I am not suggesting that PDE necessarily has a legal obligation to maintain a centralized registry; I have not identified a federal provision imposing that particular requirement. My concern is the practical result when a member of the public attempts to determine who is responsible for Title II compliance and how the federally contemplated grievance process can actually be invoked.

This seems capable of relatively simple independent examination. A sampling of Pennsylvania school entities could ask only:

I believe the answers would be useful regardless of what they reveal. If Pennsylvania’s public school entities generally maintain easily identifiable coordinators and grievance procedures, that is worth knowing. If those elementary pieces of Title II infrastructure are difficult to identify, that is also worth knowing.

A second experience is beginning to raise a similar administrative-access question for me under Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law. I submitted a records request to a local police department, obtained an OOR determination, the agency appealed to the Chester County Court of Common Pleas, the Court returned the parties to the point at which the agency was to provide its substantive response, and the agency subsequently did so. I then appealed the sufficiency of that new response to OOR.

On September 18, 2026, OOR expressly characterized my new appeal as disputing the sufficiency of records provided by the agency on September 11, but dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and directed the matter toward Common Pleas. I therefore expect to file the appropriate statutory appeal so that the jurisdictional question can be resolved.

I mention that matter only because it may eventually provide another useful example of the same broader phenomenon: a citizen attempting to follow the administrative pathway established by government and encountering uncertainty about which governmental body is responsible for deciding the question presented.

I do not yet know where that process will lead, and I do not want to characterize anyone’s motives or prejudge its outcome. Once the next filing is docketed, I would be glad to provide your office with the underlying orders and determinations if they would be useful.

My interest is ultimately an administrative-literacy one: Can an ordinary Pennsylvania resident identify the governmental process that applies, identify the person or institution responsible for administering it, invoke that process, and obtain an identifiable decision?

The ADA Title II question seems particularly suitable for examination because the underlying federal requirements are so readily ascertainable and the inquiry need not depend upon accepting my characterization of any particular dispute.

Thank you for considering it.