{¶ 2} The salient facts of this case, as derived from appellant's complaint, are as follows. In 2004, appellant/relator-plaintiff, Edward D. Jones, was employed, under an administrative contract, as the Director of Vocational and Adult Education by appellees-respondents-defendants, Sandusky City Schools and the Sandusky City School Board of Education (hereinafter collectively known as the "Board"). Unless renewed, appellant's contract expired on July 31, 2004.
{¶ 3} On March 5, 2004, the Assistant Superintendent of Sandusky City Schools provided appellant with an evaluation that contained a positive assessment of appellant's employment skills, but did not express any recommendation on the question of appellant's future employment. Nevertheless, at a public Board meeting held on March 22, 2004, the Superintendent of the Sandusky City Schools recommended that appellant's contract be renewed for a period of two years. Subsequently, the Board recessed in order "to discuss the employment and/or dismissal of public employees" during an executive session. When the Board returned from its executive session, it considered the superintendent's recommendation to renew appellant's administrative employment contract, and, by a vote of three to two, decided not to renew that contract.
{¶ 4} On January 28, 2005,1 appellant filed a complaint in the lower court, asserting that the Board failed to follow statutory procedures in deciding not to renew his administrative contract. Appellant prayed for: (1) damages; (2) a judgment declaring that the proceedings held by the Board violated R.C.
{¶ 5} The Board then filed, pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), its motion to dismiss appellant's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Appellant filed a memorandum in opposition, and the Board a reply brief. On May 13, 2005, the trial court granted the Board's motion to dismiss. Appellant appeals and sets forth the following assignment of error for our review:
{¶ 6} "The trial court erred in dismissing the complaint filed by plaintiff-relator/appellant, Edward D. Jones, pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6)."
{¶ 7} We start by holding that the appropriate procedural vehicle for a school administrator to seek reemployment, damages, and back pay for the nonrenewal of his or her employment contract is a petition for a writ of mandamus. See, e.g. State ex rel.Martines v. Cleveland City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1994),
{¶ 8} Our standard of review on a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss is de novo. Hunt v. Marksman Prod., Div. of S/RIndustries, Inc. (1995),
{¶ 9} Appellant first asserts that the trial court, in applying an "outdated" version of R.C.
{¶ 10} R.C.
{¶ 11} "In any school year that the employee's contract of employment is due to expire, at least a preliminary evaluation and at least a final evaluation shall be completed in that year. A written copy of the preliminary evaluation shall be provided to the employee at least sixty days prior to any action by the board on the employee's contract of employment. The final evaluationshall indicate the superintendent's intended recommendation tothe board regarding a contract of employment for the employee. A written copy of the evaluation shall be provided to the employee at least five days prior to the board's acting to renew or not renew the contract." (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 12} Appellant relies on the amended emphasized language to argue that, in assuming that the facts set forth in his complaint are true, the superintendent's failure to include his intended recommendation concerning appellant's employment in his written evaluation was sufficient to defeat a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss. Thus, he argues that, pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 13} The added language simply adds another requisite to the contents of the evaluation. However, it does not negate the following key terms in R.C.
{¶ 14} In the present case, appellant's complaint does not assert that the Board failed to give him timely written notice of its intent not to renew his employment contract. Thus, appellant had no legal right to reemployment, back pay, benefits and other damages, and appellant failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Appellant's first assertion, is therefore, meritless.
{¶ 15} Appellant next argues that the trial court erred in deciding that he failed to state a claim upon which relief, specifically, a declaratory judgment, could be granted for a violation of Ohio's Sunshine Law, R.C.
{¶ 16} Pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 17} The intent of R.C.
{¶ 18} In the case under consideration, appellant's complaint states that at the March 22, 2004 public meeting, the Board moved to recess for the purpose of holding an executive session "to discuss the employment and/or dismissal of public employees." It is undisputed that this is an acceptable purpose for an executive session under R.C.
{¶ 19} Based upon the foregoing reasons, appellant's sole assignment of error is found not well-taken. The judgment of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24. Judgment for the clerk's expense incurred in preparation of the record, fees allowed by law, and the fee for filing the appeal is awarded to Erie County.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
Handwork, J., Pietrykowski, J., Parish, J., concur.