Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow v. Ohio State Bd. of Edn.
108 N.E.3d 124
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- ECOT, an Ohio community (online) school, appealed an ODE determination that it owed over $60 million for FTE overpayments; a hearing officer conducted a 10-day evidentiary hearing and issued a written recommendation.
- R.C. 3314.08(K) permits the State Board of Education (BOE) or a designee to hold an informal hearing, then the BOE may accept or reject the designee’s report; BOE’s decision is final.
- BOE placed the hearing officer’s recommendation on its June 12, 2017 public meeting agenda; ECOT submitted objections and had participated in the prior hearing with extensive exhibits.
- At the June 12 meeting BOE held an executive session on other matters, then publicly considered the ECOT resolution, deliberated about nine minutes, and voted to adopt the hearing officer’s recommendation to recover $60,350,791.
- ECOT sued under Ohio’s Open Meetings Act (R.C. 121.22), alleging (1) unlawful closed deliberations/serial communications, (2) improper executive session, and (3) inadequate public notice; BOE moved for judgment on the pleadings asserting compliance and that the action was quasi-judicial and thus exempt from the OMA.
- The trial court granted BOE’s motion, ruling the BOE’s action was quasi-judicial; the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BOE’s consideration of the hearing officer’s report was subject to the Open Meetings Act | ECOT: BOE’s final deliberation/vote violated the OMA because the process was not exempt and BOE engaged in improper closed or serial deliberations and lacked proper notice | BOE: R.C. 3314.08(K) establishes a quasi-judicial appeal process; BOE’s final consideration of the designee’s report is quasi-judicial and not governed by the OMA | Held: BOE’s action was part of a quasi-judicial proceeding (notice, hearing, opportunity to present evidence existed), so OMA did not apply; judgment for BOE affirmed |
| Whether executive-session claims (improper topic) sustain an OMA violation | ECOT: Executive session was improper because statutory exceptions didn’t authorize discussing the ECOT resolution | BOE: Any executive session was unrelated or otherwise proper; in any event the BOE’s decision phase was quasi-judicial | Held: Not reached on merits because quasi-judicial status removes OMA applicability |
| Whether BOE failed to provide reasonable notice of the meeting on the ECOT resolution | ECOT: Notice was inadequate for public consideration of the resolution | BOE: Notice was posted and the statutory appeal procedure was followed | Held: Not necessary to decide once proceeding deemed quasi-judicial |
| Whether a BOE letter acknowledging uncertainty about quasi-judicial status was an admission | ECOT: The ODE counsel’s letter indicated the BOE process was not quasi-judicial, binding BOE | BOE: The letter offered alternative legal views about Chapter 119 consequences and was not dispositive on quasi-judicial status | Held: Letter was not an admission; legal question of quasi-judicial nature is for the court |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Trustees of the Tobacco Use Prevention & Control Found. v. Boyce, 185 Ohio App.3d 707 (10th Dist. 2009) (OMA construed broadly; executive sessions limited to enumerated exceptions)
- State ex rel. Ross v. Crawford Cty. Bd. of Elections, 125 Ohio St.3d 438 (Ohio 2010) (Sunshine Law applies to meetings but not to adjudications in quasi-judicial proceedings)
- State ex rel. Zeigler v. Zumbar, 129 Ohio St.3d 240 (Ohio 2011) (quasi-judicial status depends on statutory requirement for notice/hearing, not merely board practice)
- M.J. Kelley Co. v. Cleveland, 32 Ohio St.2d 150 (Ohio 1972) (quasi-judicial test: discretion plus notice and hearing)
- TBC Westlake v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 81 Ohio St.3d 58 (Ohio 1998) (quasi-judicial proceedings require notice/hearing/opportunity to present evidence)
- Union Title Co. v. State Bd. of Edn., 51 Ohio St.3d 189 (Ohio 1990) (quasi-judicial proceedings entail notice, hearing, and introduction of evidence)
- State ex rel. Mun. Constr. Equip. Operators' Labor Council v. Cleveland, 141 Ohio St.3d 113 (Ohio 2014) (proceedings lacking notice/hearing/opportunity to present evidence are not quasi-judicial)