Subscribe to School Law Newsletter
Close Window

 Open Meetings Act Violation Results In The Likely Reemployment Of A Treasurer

In the case of State ex rel. Jones v. Dayton Pub. Schools Bd. of Edn., 2018-Ohio-676, an Ohio appellate court invalidated a school board resolution non-renewing a treasurer because the school board failed to comply with the Ohio Open Meetings Act by not stating the purpose of a special meeting.

The facts of the case were largely uncontested. The school board employed the treasurer under a contract which began on August 1, 2013, and expired on July 31, 2016. By law, the school board had until March 1, 2016, to reemploy the treasurer or give him written notice of its intention not to reemploy. On February 23, 2016, the school board held a special meeting and voted not to renew the contracts of both the superintendent and treasurer.

The treasurer filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the vote for violating the Ohio open Meetings Act because “the special meeting notice did not indicate that the [school board] would be voting on [the treasurer’s] contract.” Jones at ¶14.  Rather, “the notice misinformed the public that the [school board] may act on recommendations of the superintendent and/or treasurer.” Jones at ¶14.

Unlike regular meetings, the Ohio Open Meetings Act provides that the notice of a special meeting must be sufficient for a person to determine the purpose of the meeting. The Ohio appellate court concluded that “the notice of the special meeting [in this matter] did not inform the public of the true purpose of the meeting [* * * as] the Board knew the meeting was about a specific topic [i.e., to nonrenew the treasurer and superintendent], but the public did not receive information about the meeting’s actual purpose.” Jones at ¶ 51.

It seems clear that the Ohio appellate court’s decision was influenced by its determination that the school board not only failed to inform the public about the meeting’s true purpose but actively attempted to “obscure[]” that purpose. Jones at ¶ 67.  The court highlighted that the special meeting notice stated that the school board might act on recommendations of the superintendent and treasurer. However, such recommendations would never be forthcoming as the superintendent and treasurer were never going to recommend their own nonrenewal.

The Ohio appellate court’s apparent distaste for the school board’s actions serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of transparency in government. As Patrick Henry once noted, “To cover with the veil of secrecy the common routine of business, is an abomination in the eyes of every intelligent man.”

To read this case, please click here.

Authors: Matthew John Markling and Patrick Vrobel.

Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.