judicial districts, in accordance with the legislative authority to do so granted under Article V, Section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Pa. Const, art. V, § ,11, 2 . Bray v. McKeesport Hous. Auth., 114 A.3d 442, 446 n.5 (Pa. Commw. 2015) (defining a housing authority as a “local agency” for purposes of the Local Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 752, by reference to the definition Of “Commonwealth government” in the Judicial Code); Frazier v. Phila. Cnty. Office of Prothonotary, 58 A.3d 858, 859-60 (Pa. Commw. 2012) (defining “unified judicial system” in the definition of "judicial agency” under the (continued...) RTKL by reference to the definition in the Judicial Code); Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna Cnty. v. Pa. Office of Open Records, 2 A.3d 810, 813 & n.6 (Pa. Commw. 2010) (<HOLDING>). It is notable that the Commonwealth Court
holding that the director of the office of domestic relations of a court of common pleas was administrative staff of the court and thus a judicial agency under the rtkl recognizing the transition of the administrative hearing process from the division of motor vehicles to the office of administrative hearings holding that the director of the office of domestic relations was a judicial agency pursuant to the rtkl because the director was administrative staff of the unified judicial system as defined in the judicial code 42 pacs  102 holding that despite the merits of the argument the appellant raised on appeal the issue was not preserved for judicial review because it was not raised before the administrative agency holding that a draft of a proposed letter from an area director of a government agency to a municipal administrative agency was properly excluded because it did not represent an agency finding