Elec. Classroom Tomorrow v. Ohio State Bd. of Educ.
| Decision Date | 05 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | 2020-0182 |
| Citation | 166 Ohio St.3d 96,182 N.E.3d 1170 |
| Parties | ELECTRONIC CLASSROOM OF TOMORROW, Appellant, v. Ohio STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Zeiger, Tigges & Little, L.L.P., Marion H. Little Jr., and Christopher J. Hogan, Columbus, for appellant.
Organ Law, L.L.P., and Erik J. Clark, Columbus, for appellees.
DeWine, J. {¶ 1} When a charter school is found to owe money to the state of Ohio based on a review of the school's enrollment data, a statute allows the charter school to appeal that decision to the Ohio State Board of Education for an informal hearing on the matter. R.C. 3314.08(K)(2)(b). The same statute provides that "[a]ny decision made by the board [on such an appeal] is final." R.C. 3314.08(K)(2)(d). The question for this case is whether a party may appeal this "final" decision.
{¶ 2} We hold that there is no right to appeal such a decision. R.C. 3314.08 uses "final" in the ordinary sense of the word, indicating that the matter is at an end. We thus affirm the court of appeals’ judgment dismissing the case.
I. Background
{¶ 3} Before closing its doors in 2018, the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow ("ECOT") was Ohio's largest charter school.1 State ex rel. Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas , 129 Ohio St.3d 30, 2011-Ohio-626, 950 N.E.2d 149, ¶ 2. It was the state's first online charter school and, like other public schools, relied on state funding. Id.
A. The Ohio Department of Education determines that ECOT owes some $60 million to the state
{¶ 4} In 2016, the Ohio Department of Education conducted a review of student enrollment at ECOT and determined that the state had overpaid the charter school approximately $60 million. This finding was premised on the department of education's determination that ECOT was required to provide its students with five hours of learning opportunities per day, and on an examination of log-in and log-out data which revealed that, on average, students remained online for one hour a day.
{¶ 5} The review of ECOT's enrollment data was conducted pursuant to the department of education's authority under R.C. 3314.08(K) ("the enrollment-review statute"). That statute enables the department of education to perform an initial review of a charter school's enrollment to make sure the school received the right amount of funding. R.C. 3314.08(K)(3). If the department of education determines that a community school owes money to the state, then the school may appeal that determination to the state board. R.C. 3314.08(K)(2)(a). On appeal, the state board "shall conduct an informal hearing on the matter" and "shall issue a decision" following the hearing. R.C. 3314.08(K)(2)(b). The state board's decision is "final." R.C. 3314.08(K)(2)(d).
B. ECOT seeks to challenge the state board's decision
{¶ 6} After the department of education made its determination that ECOT had received too much funding and needed to repay the state, ECOT exercised its right to appeal to the state board. The state board considered the appeal and issued a decision largely confirming the department of education's determination and ordering a return of $60,350,791.
{¶ 7} ECOT proceeded to simultaneously institute two different actions in an attempt to challenge the state board's "final" determination. It filed at the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas an administrative appeal of the state board's determination, arguing that the enrollment-review statute's reference to "final" meant the determination was appealable. (This matter is the subject of the present appeal.) And it filed an original action seeking writs of mandamus and prohibition in this court, under the alternative theory that an extraordinary writ was available because the enrollment-review statute did not provide a right to appeal the state board's "final" decision. The state board moved to dismiss the original action. It argued that an extraordinary writ was improper because ECOT had an adequate remedy at law by way of the administrative appeal and that, setting aside the adequate-remedy issue, ECOT failed to allege any claims justifying relief. We granted the state board's motion and dismissed the original action without specifying our rationale.2
{¶ 8} As for ECOT's administrative appeal, the common pleas court granted a motion to dismiss, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because the enrollment-review statute denominated the state board's determination as "final."
The Tenth District Court of Appeals initially reversed but, on reconsideration, affirmed the trial court's decision. It turned both to its own precedent, which had understood "final" agency decisions to be nonappealable, and to our decision in Brookwood Presbyterian Church v. Ohio Dept. of Edn. , 127 Ohio St.3d 469, 2010-Ohio-5710, 940 N.E.2d 1256, where we said an agency's "final" decision under a different statute was appealable only because another provision of that same statute specifically granted a right to appeal.
{¶ 9} ECOT has now appealed the court of appeals’ judgment affirming the trial court's dismissal order. We must determine whether the enrollment-review statute allows ECOT to appeal the state board's "final" determination.
II. Under a plain reading of the enrollment-review statute, the final decision of the state board is not subject to appeal
{¶ 10} Not all orders issued by administrative agencies—even ones that are denoted as final—are subject to appeal. Our Constitution provides that the courts of appeals shall have "such jurisdiction as may be provided by law" to review administrative decisions. Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 3 (B)(2). And while R.C. 2505.03(A) grants appellate jurisdiction for "[e]very final order * * * of a court," it grants appellate jurisdiction over "the final order of any administrative * * * agency" only "when provided by law." Thus, the question in this case is whether there is a statutory grant of jurisdiction that would allow ECOT to appeal the finding of the state board.
{¶ 11} R.C. 119.12(B) is Ohio's general provision spelling out the right to appeal an agency adjudication. This statute tells us that "[a]ny party adversely affected by any order of an agency * * * may appeal to the court of common pleas of Franklin county." R.C. 3301.13 —the general provision establishing the department of education and the state board—provides that in the exercise of its powers, the department of education—and by extension the state board, see R.C. 3301.01 —shall be subject to R.C. Chapter 119. However, a more specific provision that limits a party's ability to appeal trumps these general provisions.
{¶ 12} The enrollment-review statute establishes procedures for the department of education to issue findings for the recovery of excess funding based upon a review of a community school's enrollment data and for a community school to challenge those findings by appealing to the state board. There is no question that the enrollment-review statute is a more specific statute than R.C. 119.12(B) as to the matter at issue. So we must determine whether a fair reading of the enrollment-review statute precludes ECOT from appealing the state board's final determination.
{¶ 13} Our analysis starts with the enrollment-review statute—and specifically what it means when it says that the state board's determination following an informal hearing is "final." ECOT argues that the word "final" should be understood as a legal term of art, meaning that the state board's decision is subject to an appeal. The state board disagrees; it says "final" should be understood in the everyday sense of the word, marking the end of the road and thus rendering the state board's decision nonappealable. We share the state board's view.
{¶ 14} The ordinary meaning of "final," of course, is something that is "not to be altered or undone." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 851 (1986). A parent ends the discussion with his child upon saying, "I've made my decision and my decision is final." A contestant on Who Wants to be a Millionaire locks in her answer choice only upon affirming that it's her "final answer." Likely, you're out of luck if you intend to return an item to a store that posted a sign saying: "All sales are final."
{¶ 15} ECOT's argument is premised on the fact that sometimes in the legal context, labeling something as "final" also imparts an additional meaning to the word. Sometimes we use "final" as a legal term of art to indicate the point at which proceedings before one court are complete, and the matter may be appealed to a higher court. In Ohio, a "final order" is one that may be appealed to a higher court. See R.C. 2505.02. And in the federal system, a "final judgment" is one that may be appealed. Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter , 558 U.S. 100, 106, 130 S.Ct. 599, 175 L.Ed.2d 458 (2009) ; see also 28 U.S.C. 1291 (). In this vein, Black's Law Dictionary defines "final" when used to refer to "a judgment at law" as (Emphasis added.) Black's Law Dictionary 773 (11th Ed.2019).
{¶ 16} In determining the meaning of "final" within the enrollment-review statute, we look first to the plain language of the statute, read in context. The statute creates a two-step review of the public funding a community school has received, first by the department of education and then by the state board on appeal. Step one involves the department of education's initial review. R.C. 3314.08(K)(1). If the department of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bond
...See Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow v. Ohio State Bd. of Edn., 166 Ohio St.3d 96, 2021-Ohio-3445, 182 N.E.3d 1170, ¶ 16. In Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow, the Supreme of Ohio considered language in a statute providing for an appeal of a determination by the Ohio Department of Education ......
-
State v. Whitacre
... 2023-Ohio-2315 STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CARL E ... Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow v. State Bd. of ... Education, 10th Dist ... ...
-
State v. Whitacre
... 2023-Ohio-1691 STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CARL E ... should have been." Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow ... v. State Bd. of Education, 10th Dist ... ...