Bookmark this page on your mobile

QR Code image

What is this?

Daily Court Reporter - A public body’s prearranged discussion by e-mail violates Ohio’s Open Meetings Act

 

A public body’s prearranged discussion by e-mail violates Ohio’s Open Meetings Act

Dan Trevas, Supreme Court of Ohio

A private prearranged discussion of public business by the majority of a public body’s members either face-to-face or by other means such as telephone, e-mail, text, or tweet, violates the Ohio Open Meetings Act, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled recently.

In a 5-2 vote, the Supreme Court ruled former Olentangy Local School District Board of Education member Adam White can pursue his lawsuit against the school board for violating the Open Meetings Act. White alleged the violation happened when the board president sparked an exchange of e-mails with the other board members and school officials to respond to a newspaper editorial. The decision, authored by Justice Terrence O’Donnell, reverses the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeals, which approved a trial court’s dismissal of White’s suit.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger wrote the General Assembly has not applied the Open Meetings Act to e-mails and other forms of electronic communication, and an e-mail exchange by public officials would only be a violation if they prearranged a “real-time” exchange to subvert the law.

Board Reacts to Columbus Dispatch Editorial

White served on the board with Julie Feasel, Kevin O’Brien, Stacy Dunbar, and president David King. In his complaint, White alleged that he had independently conducted investigations into alleged improper expenditures by two school district athletic directors. King, Feasel, O’Brien, and Dunbar voted to amend board policy to require all communications between board members and staff first pass through the district superintendent or treasurer. White voted against the policy, and in an October 2012 editorial, The Columbus Dispatch praised White and implicitly criticized the other board members for adopting the restrictive policy designed to thwart White from further investigation into alleged illegal spending by district employees.

King directed Feasel, O’Brien, and Dunbar to collaborate with Superintendent Wade Lucas, and three district staff members on a public response to the Dispatch editorial. The board members and staff did so in a series of e-mail exchanges that excluded White. O’Brien submitted to the Dispatch a response signed by all the school board members except White. King submitted a final response to the Dispatch that he signed as board president and indicated he had the consent of Feasel, O’Brien, and Dunbar to publish.

About six months after, White filed a lawsuit against the four other board members alleging they violated the Open Meetings Act, which is R.C. 121.22. White informed the members at a board meeting on the day he filed and moved that “no public monies be spent defending the 4 board members, or in the alternative, if any public monies are spent defending the 4 board members, those members agreed to reimburse the district for any monies spent.” The motion died for lack of a second, then the other four members voted to publicly ratify the response published by the Dispatch as its official position on the issue.

White amended his complaint to add the board itself as a defendant and sought a declaratory judgment against the board and its members for violating the Open Meetings Act and sought damages. The trial court granted the board’s motion for judgment on the pleadings for three reasons: no prearranged discussion of public business had occurred because the communications began with an unsolicited e-mail from King; the Open Meetings Act does not apply to e-mails; and at the time of the e-mail exchange, there was no pending rule or resolution that would constitute public business.

White challenged the ruling in the Fifth District Court of Appeals, which sided with the board finding the definition of “meeting” in R.C. 121.22 does not include sporadic e-mails, and that the e-mails did not discuss public business because at the time they were exchanged, there was no pending rule or resolution before the board. The appeals court also determined that despite the later ratification of the board’s editorial as a board policy, that vote did not retroactively transform the e-mail exchange into a prearranged discussion of public business. The Fifth District also noted that mere discussions of an issue of public concern does not mean there were “deliberations” under the statute.

White appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. He argued the Open Meetings Act prohibited the school board from conducting a private discussion concerning public business, whether face-to-face or in a virtual meeting using electronic communications, and that under R.C. 121.22, the board’s ratification of the editorial made the editorial public business.

Is E-mail Discussion About Drafting an Editorial Public Business?

Justice O’Donnell wrote that R.C. 121.22(C) states that “(a)ll meetings of any public body are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times.” R.C. 121.22(B)(2) defines a “meeting” as “any prearranged discussion of the public business of the public body by a majority of its members.

“Nothing in the plain language of R.C. 121.22(B)(2) expressly mandates that a ‘meeting’ occur face to face. To the contrary, it provides that any prearranged discussion can qualify as a meeting,” he wrote. “Accordingly, R.C. 121.22 prohibits any private prearranged discussion of public business by a majority of the members of a public body regardless of whether the discussion occurs face to face, telephonically, by video conference, or electronically by e-mail, text, tweet, or other form of communication.”

Justice O’Donnell explained that having a discussion through a series of e-mail communications does not remove the discussion from the requirements of the Open Meetings Act. He referenced the Court’s 1996 State ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. Cincinnati decision where the Cincinnati city manager scheduled back-to-back, nonpublic meetings with members of the Cincinnati City Council to discuss the construction of new professional sports stadiums. While less than a majority attended each session, a majority of members attended the series of meetings. The Post sought a court order to compel the city to prepare and make available minutes from the meetings summarizing the discussions.

The Court agreed with the newspaper, finding the back-to-back meetings could be construed to be parts of the same meeting.

“The distinction between serial in-person communications and serial electronic communications via e-mail for purposes of R.C. 121.22 is a distinction without a difference because discussion of public bodies are to be conducted in a public forum, and thus, we conclude that in this instance, a prearranged discussion of public business of a public body by a majority of its members through a series of private e-mail communications is subject to R.C. 121.22,”Justice O’Donnell wrote.

Allowing public bodies to avoid the requirements of the Open Meetings Act by discussing public business via electronic communications “subverts the purpose of the act,” he added.

Justice O’Donnell noted the courts in Nevada and Washington have similarly ruled that serial electronic communications cannot be used to avoid public meeting mandates. Justice O’Donnell also rejected claims that the definition of “meeting” implies an event that requires parties to participate at the same time, and that a set time must be prearranged in order for the discussion to be covered by the Open Meetings Act.

He wrote that nothing in the act requires real-time communication, and White alleged that board president King instructed the other board members to collaborate with staff to draft the response to the editorial.

“Thus, White may be able to prove a set of facts to support his claim that the e-mail discussion in this case was prearranged,” he wrote.

Editorial Response Became Public Business

The school board argued that the discussion regarding a letter to the newspaper was not public business that required it be discussed at a public meeting. Justice O’Donnell pointed to a 1998 Nevada Supreme Court decision (Del Papa v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. & Community College Sys. Of Nevada), where board of regents members and staff collaborated by way of telephone calls to issue a press statement refuting claims made by another board member. The Nevada legislature defined “meeting” as involving deliberation toward a decision or a decision “on any matter over which the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power.”

In the Olentangy Local case, King instructed school district staff members to assist the majority of the board in preparing a response to an editorial that criticized one of its decisions. Subsequently, the board ratified the response to the Dispatch at a public meeting further indicating the response fell within the public business of the board, Justice O’Donnell wrote. When the board formerly voted to ratify the response, the ratified actions constitute “public business,” he concluded.

The Court reversed the Fifth District’s opinion affirming the trial court’s dismissal of White’s complaint and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion.

Justices Paul E. Pfeifer, Sharon L. Kennedy, Judith L. French, and William M. O’Neill joined Justice O’Donnell’s opinion.

Dissent Disagrees with Overbroad Definition

In her dissent, Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger wrote that “while it may be a good idea to limit the use of e-mail to avoid statutorily required public meetings, that is the task of the General Assembly and not this court.”

“In including all forms of ‘communication’ in its interpretation of ‘meeting,’ the majority reaches into areas well beyond those covered by R.C. 121.22, “ she said. “In this case there is no allegation that discussions were either prearranged or that they occurred in real time. As such, the subject e-mails do not qualify as a ‘meeting’ as the term is currently defined.”

Justice Lanzinger countered that nothing in the statute expands the definition to all forms of communications. She noted a “meeting” occurs when a majority of members of a public body agree to attend in their official capacity to discuss public business.

She added that a discussion through e-mails could be subject to the Open Meetings Act if, for example, a board member communicated independently with a majority of fellow board members and prearranged for them to send and receive e-mails at a specific day and time. Such planning for a real-time discussion could require a public meeting within the meaning of the statute, she concluded.

Because the unintended consequences of the majority‘s broadening of the word “meeting” beyond its current definition could affect adversely how members of public bodies do their business, Justice Lanzinger would affirm the court of appeals.

Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor joined the dissent.

2014-1796. White v. King et al., Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-2770.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.

Date Published: May 16, 2016

 

Supreme Court of Ohio

 

A public body’s prearranged discussion by e-mail violates Ohio’s Open Meetings Act

A private prearranged discussion of public business by the majority of a public body’s members either face-to-face or by other means such as telephone, e-mail, text, or tweet, violates the Ohio Open Meetings Act, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled recently.

Bill would raise age that foster children age-out

Members of the state Senate Finance Committee got their first look at a House measure that extends the age to 21 for young adults in foster care and adoption assistance programs and remain eligible to receive federal benefits as a consequence.

Attorney General DeWine seeks reimbursement from Wood County used car seller over title problems

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine recently announced a lawsuit against a Rossford used car dealership accused of failing to deliver vehicle titles according to Ohio law.

Ohio awards $1.6 million to provide detention alternatives and security enhancements

Services projected to benefit more than 5,000 youth in 23 counties

Court of Claims: Former Bowling Green football player settles concussion claim for $712,500

Bowling Green State University (BGSU) has agreed to pay $712,500 to a former red-shirt freshman offensive lineman who claimed football team coaches and medical staff failed to withhold him from practices after suffering repeated concussions, which has led to a permanent brain injury.

Wide ranging bill for townships moves in Senate

A House township omnibus bill that addresses issues ranging from home rule to maintenance of roadside water sources has advanced in the Ohio Senate with referral to the State and Local Government Committee.

Software entrepreneur donates $5 million to OSU

Veeam Software Corporation, co-founded by Ohio State University alumnus Ratmir Timashev and his partner Andrei Baronov, has donated $5 million to OSU’s College of Arts and Sciences.

ODNR Reminds People to Leave Wildlife in the Wild

Good intentions can hurt

Technology improves efficiency, but robots cannot replace lawyers

Much has written about the “death of lawyers,” and many have predicted that much of the work lawyers have traditionally provided will be automated in the near future.

Stricter penalties sought for sexual predators who prey on children

A House effort to undo the ill effects of a child importuning law, its force diminished during the legislative process, continues its foray into the Senate, having completed recently a second hearing before the Senate Criminal Justice Committee members.

Racinos fulfilling promise to boost Ohio's horse racing industry

Harness racing in Ohio has a long and well-known history, however, after strong competition in recent years from surrounding states, the outlook seemed bleak for Ohio’s return to prosperity for the sport.

Attorney practicing in Ohio before formally admitted now denied admission

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled recently that a Cincinnati attorney who had been previously admitted in three other states engaged in the unauthorized practice of law when he began providing legal services while his application for admission to the Ohio bar was pending.

PUCO offers electrical safety tips

In recognition of National Electrical Safety Month this May, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) offers tips to stay safe when working around electricity, indoors and outdoors.

OSU study finds older adults with head injuries often return to ER

A study conducted by doctors and researchers at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center linked minor head trauma from falls in older adults with repeat emergency room visits.

Man who killed woman, burned her body and car, loses appeal

Ohio’s 5th District Court of Appeals recently affirmed multiple convictions for Kenneth Miller, a Fairfield County man who confessed to the murder of Kelly Thompson in 2014.

Proposal would increase penalties for aggravated murder

A bill that would generally increase penalties for aggravated murder cleared the Ohio House of Representatives by a vote of 83-11 has been assigned to a Senate committee for further consideration.

New series of tax credits could create 530 new jobs in state

A new round of tax credits for businesses could result in creating 530 jobs and retaining another 536 jobs statewide, which would create more than $21 million in new payroll.

Bill would allow EMTs, helping SWAT teams to carry firearms

A casual witness to a SWAT raid may not notice the ambulance or medical squad vehicle usually parked down the block and initially a safe distance removed from the more immediate actions of door breaching, ignition of light explosives and entry into the residence.

Attorney General DeWine announces Ohio to receive $3 million in settlement

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine announced recently that Ohio has joined with other states and the federal government to settle a lawsuit to resolve allegations of anti-kickback violations.

Montgomery County and City of Dayton Collaborate on Local Water/Sewer Issues

Montgomery County and the City of Dayton have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outlining cooperative efforts to address vital water and sewer issues in the region, including the following: