White v. King (Slip Opinion), 60 N.E.3d 1234

Adam White, an Olentangy school-board member, investigated alleged improper expenditures; other board members adopted a policy restricting member-staff communications and criticized White’s actions.
A Columbus Dispatch editorial praised White; Board President King instructed three other board members and district staff to draft a response, which was prepared through a series of e‑mails and later published signed by King as board president.
White sued asserting the e‑mail exchanges among a majority of board members violated Ohio’s Open Meetings Act (R.C. 121.22); the board later publicly ratified the published response at a meeting.
The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings for the board, concluding (1) the e‑mails were unsolicited and not prearranged, (2) R.C. 121.22 did not apply to e‑mails, and (3) no pending rule or resolution was before the board when the e‑mails were exchanged.
The Fifth District affirmed; the Ohio Supreme Court reversed, holding serial e‑mail discussions by a majority about board business can constitute a “meeting” under R.C. 121.22 and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether serial e‑mail exchanges among a majority of board members drafting a response to an editorial constitute a “meeting” under R.C. 121.22	White: such private, prearranged electronic deliberations about official business violate the Open Meetings Act and cannot be avoided by using e‑mail	Board: statute doesn’t mention e‑mail; prior cases and the General Assembly’s amendments show OMA does not apply to e‑mails; discussion here was not about a pending rule/resolution	Held: R.C. 121.22’s definition of “meeting” covers prearranged discussions by a majority regardless of medium; serial e‑mails can be meetings if they involve public business and a prearranged discussion
Whether later public ratification converts prior private e‑mail exchanges into actionable public business under R.C. 121.22	White: ratification makes the prior communications part of official business and thus subject to the Act	Board: ratification does not retroactively convert informal or private exchanges into prearranged meetings about public business	Held: Ratification by the board indicates the communications concerned matters within the board’s duties; a ratified prior action can constitute public business for purposes of the Act

State ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. Cincinnati, 76 Ohio St.3d 540 (1996) (back‑to‑back private sessions can be construed as parts of the same meeting under OMA)
State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Pontious, 75 Ohio St.3d 565 (1996) (Civ.R. 12(C) dismissal standard and construing allegations in favor of nonmoving party)
Del Papa v. Board of Regents, 114 Nev. 388 (1998) (serial electronic/other communications can violate open‑meeting law where they function as deliberations toward decision)
State ex rel. Fairfield Leader v. Ricketts, 56 Ohio St.3d 97 (1990) (Open Meetings Act covers meetings the public body causes to take place; members agreeing to attend in official capacity is key)
Wood v. Battle Ground Sch. Dist., 107 Wash.App. 550 (2001) (e‑mail exchanges may constitute a meeting under Washington’s open‑public‑meetings law)