Lead Opinion
Aрpellant Rocky River argues that persons signing a territory transfer petition pursuant to R.C. 3311.24 may withdraw their signatures from the petition at any time before the local board of eduсation takes official action regarding the petition and that such petition should not be filed with the State Board of Education unless it contains the required number of valid signatures аs reduced by withdrawals or invalidated entries.
Appellees argue that the adoption of the March 31,1986 resolution of the Rocky River Board of Education constituted a ratifiсation of the prior official acts of Treasurer Michael and Superintendent Rodeen, and that the relation back of official acts to March 13 precluded аcceptance of signature withdrawal requests after that date.
The threshold question is whether Rocky River has the authority to initially determine the sufficiency of signatures and whethеr an investigation producing such a determination constitutes official action foreclosing further consideration of signature withdrawal requests. For the reasons stated belоw, we hold that Rocky River is authorized to investigate the sufficiency of the signatures before sending a petition to the State Board of Education, and that such investigation does not constitute official action by a.public body, nor does the public hearing that resulted in a resolution on the petition relate back to such investigations.
Black’s Law Dictionary (5 Ed. 1979) 1285, defines “sufficient” as “[a]dequate, enough, as much as may be necessary, equal or fit for end proposed, and that which may be necessary to accomplish an object. Of such quality, number, force, or value as to serve a need or purpose * * It is apparent to us there would be little logic in the language of R.C. 3311.24 if the General Assembly intended to restrict the district boards of education to act as mere transmittal conduits for transfer petitions. Such interpretation would obviate the need to send the petition to the affected school district at all, since it would be incumbent upon the State Board of Education to verify the sufficiency of the signatures on all petitions submitted for consideration. The words of the statute indicate that the school board of the district make the necessary determination before filing the proposal with the State Board
We believe this to be the most reasonable interpretation of R.C. 3311.24. However, because R.C. 3311.24 does not provide for the withdrawal of signatures from a transfer petition, we must look to the common law. Where there is no statutory provision to the contrary, an elector has a right to withdraw his or her name from a referendum petition “* * * at any time before official action has been taken thereon and before an action in mandamus has been properly commenced * * *, although after the time within which such petition is required by law to-be filed and after it actually has been filed. * * *” Lynn v. Supple (1957),
In State, ex rel. Wilson, v. Bd. of Edn. of Shelby Cty. School Dist. (1957),
Appellees’ argument that by adopting the сonduct and reports of its members or employees Rocky River took official action is found to be without merit. Appellees contend that Michael’s inquiry regarding the number of eligible electors and comparison of six to ten signatures constituted official action rendering subsequent consideration of signature withdrawals improper. We considеred similar facts in Chadwell v. Cain (1959),
Rocky River took no official action regarding the petition until Resolution Nо. 76-86 was passed on March 31, 1986. R.C. 121.22(H) provides, in pertinent part:
“A resolution, rule, or formal action adopted in an open meeting that results from deliberations in a meeting not open to the public is invalid unless the deliberations were for a purpose specifically authorized in division (G) of this section and conducted at an executive session held in сompliance with this section.”
The term “meeting,” as used in R.C. 121.22(B)(2), means “any prearranged discussion of the public business of the public body * *
Treasurer Michael’s discussions with Superintendent Rodеen regarding the signatures did not amount to secret deliberations not open to the public within the meaning of R.C. 121.22(H). See Greene Cty. Guidance Ctr., Inc. v. Greene-Clinton Community Mental Health Bd. (1984),
“Mandamus will lie where a court finds that the relator has a clear legal right to the relief рrayed for,” and where “the respondent is under a clear legal duty to perform the requested act * * (Citations omitted.) State, ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co., v. Lesak (1984),
For the reasons stated above, we reverse the judgment of -the court of appeals and hereby deny the writ of mandamus to compel Rocky River to submit the transfer petition to the State Board of Education.
Judgment reversed and writ of mandamus denied.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting. In the past, from some quarters, including some members of the majority herein, there have been cries of anguish that this cоurt should never engage in “judicial legislation.” Our decision today involves such activity in its most extreme form. The majority is not just filling a legislative gap or creating a new remedy or cause of action where one does not exist but is needed. The majority, instead, simply ignores the dictates of R.C. 3311.24 as though the statute did not exist.
As the well-reasoned opinion of the court of appeals states, “* * * once a petition, sufficient on its face, was presented to the Rocky River School Board and it was determined to be suf
Such a holding would in no way act to the detriment of those persons wishing to withdraw their signatures. Any signer of a transfer petition has the right to withdraw his or her signature at any time befоre official action is taken on the petition. State, ex rel. Wilson, v. Bd. of Edn. of Shelby Cty. School Dist. (1957),
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.