Radtke v. Chester Twp.
44 N.E.3d 295
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Kenneth Radtke sued Chester Township, its three trustees, and Western Reserve Land Conservancy alleging the trustees’ December 1, 2011 resolution granting a conservation easement was tainted by prior closed communications that violated Ohio’s Open Meetings Act.
- Complaint attached a chain of emails and alleged that Conservancy field director Brett Rodstrom met separately, back-to-back on June 15, 2011, with each trustee (one trustee per session), and later circulated a draft easement.
- Radtke claimed the one-on-one meetings and related emails amounted to illicit meetings/deliberations in violation of R.C. 121.22 and sought invalidation of the resolution, damages, and reconveyance of the easement.
- Township/Trustees and Conservancy moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), arguing (1) the Open Meetings Act was not violated because the sessions weren’t "meetings" or "deliberations," and (2) the claim was time-barred (trial court rejected the statute-of-limitations defense).
- Trial court granted dismissal on the merits: the emails are not "meetings," the one-on-one sessions lacked a majority and did not involve trustee-to-trustee deliberation, so no Open Meetings Act violation was pled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-resolution communications (emails and three one‑on‑one sessions) violated R.C. 121.22 | Radtke: back-to-back, prearranged sessions and email chain constituted an illicit meeting/deliberation that tainted the December 1 resolution | Defendants: emails are not "meetings"; each session had only one trustee (no majority) and involved information‑gathering, not trustee‑to‑trustee deliberation | Court: Dismiss affirmed — emails not "meetings," no majority present, and no trustee‑to‑trustee deliberation; no Open Meetings Act violation pled |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. Cincinnati, 76 Ohio St.3d 540 (Ohio 1996) (back‑to‑back sessions attended by less‑than‑majority can be aggregated as a single meeting when members discuss the same public business)
- Springfield Local School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Ohio Ass’n of Public School Employees, Local 530, 106 Ohio App.3d 855 (Ohio App. 1995) (one‑on‑one prearranged meetings attended by only a single board member and a non‑member do not violate the Sunshine Law because they preclude member‑to‑member exchange)
- Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190 (Ohio 1988) (standard for pleading facts to survive a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion — accept factual allegations as true and draw inferences for non‑moving party)
- State ex rel. Hanson v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 65 Ohio St.3d 545 (Ohio 1992) (procedural context that a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion tests the sufficiency of the complaint)