2019 Ohio 1021
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- In late 2017 the Dayton Board of Education directed Acting Superintendent Dr. Elizabeth Lolli to study school facilities amid declining enrollment; a joint City–School "School Facilities Task Force" was formed including three Board members.
- The Task Force held at least one public meeting (Jan. 24, 2018) but scheduled a private bus tour of three schools (Feb. 6, 2018); plaintiff David Esrati was excluded and filed for injunctive relief under Ohio's Open Meetings Act (R.C. 121.22).
- The tour began; after Esrati filed a TRO and followed the bus, the judge requested the tour stop and subsequent stops were cancelled; Esrati sought a preliminary injunction alleging the Task Force met and deliberated in private.
- The trial court found the Task Force qualified as a public body but concluded Esrati failed to show the bus tour involved "deliberations" (as opposed to information-gathering) and denied the preliminary injunction.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; Esrati did not develop further evidence or take depositions before the discovery deadline; the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants and dismissed the action.
- On appeal the Second District affirmed, holding Esrati failed to present evidence that the tour involved deliberations that would invalidate later Board action under R.C. 121.22(H).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Task Force was a "public body" under R.C. 121.22 | Esrati: yes — three Board members and others created a committee performing Board-related functions | Defendants: (argued below but did not cross-appeal) Task Force not necessarily a public body | Trial court found it was a public body; appellate opinion assumed it was and affirmed on other grounds |
| Whether the closed bus tour violated Open Meetings Act by involving "deliberations" | Esrati: exclusion prevented knowledge of deliberations; court should presume violation or require less proof because excluded persons cannot know what occurred | Defendants: tour was information-gathering only; no evidence of weighing or discussing closure decisions during tour | Held: No evidence of deliberations presented; mere information-gathering does not violate the Act, so later Board action not invalidated |
| Burden of proof and discovery obligations in Open Meetings suits | Esrati: practical impossibility of proving deliberations when excluded from meeting | Defendants: plaintiff bears burden to prove violation; discovery and depositions available to obtain evidence | Held: Plaintiff bears burden by preponderance and failed to use discovery; pro se status does not relax evidentiary rules |
| Whether any post-tour Board action was invalid under R.C. 121.22(H) | Esrati: Board action adopting closure recommendations resulted from the private tour and is invalid | Defendants: Board action did not result from unlawful deliberations during the tour | Held: Because no deliberations were shown, R.C. 121.22(H) does not invalidate the Board's action |
Key Cases Cited
- Steingass Mech. Contracting, Inc. v. Warrensville Hts. Bd. of Edn., 151 Ohio App.3d 321 (burden to prove Open Meetings Act violation by preponderance)
- Springfield Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Ohio Ass'n of Pub. Sch. Emp., Local 530, 106 Ohio App.3d 855 (deliberations involve more than information-gathering)
- Holeski v. Lawrence, 85 Ohio App.3d 824 (distinguishing information-gathering from deliberation under the Act)
- Cincinnati Enquirer v. Cincinnati Bd. of Edn., 192 Ohio App.3d 566 (sessions that are information-gathering only do not violate Open Meetings Act)
- White v. King, 147 Ohio St.3d 74 (prearranged private discussions by a majority are prohibited; electronic/serial communications can violate the Act)