I. Overview and Procedural History
{¶ 2} Plaintiffs-appellees are (1) 19 community schools (the "plaintiff schools") and (2) five persons (the "individual incumbent board members"), each of whom was serving terms on two or more community school governing authorities on March 30, 2007. Established under Ohio's Community Schools Act in R.C. Chapter {¶ 3} Every community school enters into, and is governed by, a contract with an authorized "sponsor" who monitors the school's performance and compliance with all laws applicable to the school. R.C.
{¶ 4} By statute, each community school is under the direction of a governing authority that consists of a board of not less than five individuals. R.C.
{¶ 5} Pursuant to codes of regulations for the plaintiff schools, persons serve three-year staggered terms of office on a community school governing board or "until such time as they die, resign, or their term expires" or they are "removed by a majority vote of the then serving [board members] with or without cause." (Exhibit C to Plaintiffs' Complaint.) Neither the codes of regulations nor any of the other corporate documents for the plaintiff schools contain provisions relаting to the number of governing boards on *4
which members may serve. (Plaintiffs' Responses to WHLS' Requests for Admissions, Answer to Request No. 7.) Statutes dictate the compensation of governing board members, R.C.
{¶ 6} Prior to March 30, 2007, applicable statutes did not limit the number of community school governing authorities on whiсh a person could lawfully serve at one time. In December 2006, however, the General Assembly enacted R.C.
{¶ 7} Two days before the statute's effective date, plaintiffs filed an action requesting declaratory and injunctive relief. Specifically, plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that R.C.
{¶ 8} On August 22, 2007, the trial court entered judgment for plaintiffs, concluding R.C.
II. Assignments of Error
{¶ 9} WHLS, one of several defendants in this action, appeals and assigns the following errors:Assignment of Error No. 1:
The Trial Court erred in rendering a declaratory judgment that R.C.
3314.02 (E)(2) is "retroactive in application and therefore in violation of R.C.1.48 and Section28 , ArticleII of the Ohio Constitution" as applied to the individual Plaintiffs-Appellees during their current terms as members of multiple Community School governing boards.Assignment of Error No. 2:
The Trial Court erred in overruling Defendаnt-Appellant WHLS of Ohio, LLC's July 16, 2007, Motion for Summary Judgment by failing to dismiss Plaintiffs-Appellees' Complaint with prejudice, and by failing to grant a declaratory judgment on WHLS' Counterclaim and Cross-claim that R.C.
3314.02 (E)(2) is valid and constitutional, and governs Plaintiffs-Appellees' and Defendant-Appellant WHLS' rights and duties after March 30, 2007.
III. Application of R.C. 3314.02(E)(2)
{¶ 10} The assignments of error are interrelated and will be addressed jointly. In them, WHLS contends the trial court correctly determined that R.C.A. The Applicable Principles
{¶ 11} In evaluating whether a statute applies prospectively or retroactively, courts in Ohio apply two rules. The first is the rule of statutory construction adopted in R.C.
{¶ 12} The secоnd rule, one of constitutional limitation, is contained in Section
{¶ 13} In reviewing the legislative enactments and interpreting statutory authority, our review is de novo. State v. Consilio,
{¶ 14} The text of R.C.
{¶ 15} The "presumption is that the lеgislature intends a statute to take effect at the time it declares the statute shall be in effect * * *." U.S.X. Corp. v. Ohio Unemp. *8 Comp. Bd. of Rev. (1990),
B. The Trial Court's Decision
{¶ 16} The trial court determined that although R.C.
{¶ 17} With that predicate, the court concluded the statute validly can be enforced against the individual incumbent board members only when they complete the remainder *9
of their respective terms on the various community school governing boards. In so concluding, the court specifically ruled that "the individual Plaintiffs will be permitted to serve out the remainder of their respective terms on the governing boards" and "[a]t the expiration of their terms, the individual Plaintiffs will be prohibited from being re-appointed to any governing board until they are only serving on the requisite two governing boards." (Decision, 6.) Continuing, the court elaborated that "over the next couple of years as the individual Plaintiffs' terms on the governing boards expire, Plaintiffs as a whole will slowly come into compliance with the mandates of R.C.
C. Application of Law to Trial Court's Decision
{¶ 18} Although the trial court correctly concluded that R.C.
{¶ 19} Hyle, supra, addressing former R.C.
{¶ 20} The Supreme Court in Hyle thus did not apply the statute to those who, by virtue of рast crime and residence, were violating the terms of the statute on the day it became effective. Nor did it engage in an analysis of the rights involved to determine whether they were vested or not relative to applying the statute to past crimes and residence; such an anаlysis suggests constitutional scrutiny in the face of retroactive application, a review unnecessary when a statute is to be applied prospectively only. It simply determined the statute's prospective application meant it did not apply to things that occurrеd prior to the statute's effective date, as that would be a retroactive application. Bielat, supra, at 353 (noting that a retroactive statute is one that "affect[s] acts or facts occurring, or rights accruing, before it came into force").
{¶ 21} Similarly, here, the statute does not apply to those who are serving on more than two community school boards by virtue of having begun that service before the date R.C.
{¶ 22} Having overruled WHLS' assignments of error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment affirmed.
*1McGRATH, P.J., and BROWN, J., concur.