In the case of Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow v. Ohio State Bd. of Edn., 2018-Ohio-716, an Ohio appellate court determined that proceedings related to a determination by the Ohio Department of Education (“ODE”) regarding community school funding are quasi-judicial in nature and, as a result, the deliberations which led to the decision related to funding are not within the purview of the Ohio Open Meetings Act.
The dispute involved a decision by ODE to recover over $60 million in state funding from Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow (“ECOT”). “ECOT is the largest of Ohio’s community based schools, and specifically is an internet or computer based community school.” Electronic Classroom at ¶ 3. “As a public school, ECOT receives funding from the state of Ohio based on the number of fulltime equivalent (“FTE”) students enrolled in the school.” Electronic Classroom at ¶ 3.
ODE “determined that ECOT owed the state money for FTE funding overpayments for the 2015-2016 school year. A community school that disagrees with ODE’s determination on funding has a right to an appeal to the BOE or its designee who will conduct an informal hearing and issue a decision. In accordance with this requirement, “a hearing officer conducted a 10-day hearing.” Electronic Classroom at ¶ 5. The hearing officer then “issued a [* * *] report recommending recovery of over $60 million owed to the state of Ohio by ECOT. Electronic Classroom at ¶ 6. At a public meeting, the BOE “voted to adopt the hearing officer’s recommendation.” Electronic Classroom at ¶ 8. Two days later, ECOT filed a civil action seeking to invalidate ODE’s decision for violating the Open Meetings Act.
The Ohio Supreme Court found that “Ohio’s Sunshine Law applies to [public] meetings but not to adjudications in quasi-judicial proceedings” – such as the actions taken by ODE in adopting the recommendation to recover $60 million. Electronic Classroom at ¶ 18. Accordingly, the determination by ODE was exempt from the Ohio Open Meetings Act.
This decision suggests that other actions by school boards, including termination proceedings, would also be exempt from the Ohio Open Meetings Act. Specifically, the Ohio “Supreme Court has indicated the most common test [for determining whether an action is quasi-judicial] is whether the function under consideration involves the exercise of discretion and involves notice and the right to a hearing.” Electronic Classroom at ¶ 20. Termination proceedings appear to meet this test. While it is highly recommended that school boards fully comply with the Ohio Open Meetings Act in all instances, this case appears to provide a defense to alleged violations of the act in termination and related proceedings.
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.