Ft. Frye Teachers Association v. Ft. Frye Local School District Board of Education, 93-LW-2479
| Decision Date | 27 July 1993 |
| Docket Number | 93-LW-2479,93 CA 01 |
| Parties | FT. FRYE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. FT. FRYE LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants-Cross-Appellants Case |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Cloppert Portman, Sauter, Latanick & Foley, Mark A. Foley and Susan Hayest Kozlowski, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellants.
Whalen & Compton Co., L.P.A., R. Brent Minney, G. Frederick Compton and Elizabeth Grooms Taylor, Akron, Ohio, for Cross-Appellants.
DECISION
This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a judgment entered by the Washington County Court of Common Pleas ordering the Ft. Frye Local School District Board of Education (hereinafter referred to as ("the school board"), defendant below and cross-appellant herein, to give future compliance to the so-called "sunshine law" provisions of R.C. 121.22 and awarding court costs and "reasonable" attorney fees to the Ft. Frye Teachers Association (hereinafter referred to as "the teachers association"), plaintiff below and appellant herein. Appellants' assign the following errors for our review:
I. "UPON FINDING THAT THE APPELLEE BOARD OF EDUCATION HAD VIOLATED THE OHIO SUNSHINE LAW, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO INVALIDATE THE TRANSFERS OF APPELLANT TEACHERS McCORMICK, ALDERMAN, VON KENNEL, BIEHL AND MOFF."
II. "UPON FINDING THAT THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT PURSUANT TO OHIO REVISED CODE SECTION 3319.01 POSSESSES THE STATUTORY DUTY TO ASSIGN TEACHERS FOR LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE COUNTY BOARD, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF."
The following cross assignments of error are also posited for our consideration:
I. "THE JOURNAL ENTRY FILED BY THE TRIAL COURT ON DECEMBER 9, 1992, IS NOT A FINAL, APPEALABLE ORDER; THEREFORE, THIS COURT DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION."
II. "ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION, THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR WHEN IT DENIED THE CROSS-APPELLANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS, BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT LACKED SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION WITH RESPECT TO THE ALLEGATIONTHAT SUPERINTENDENT CURRY VIOLATED O.R.C. [SECTION] 3319.01 IN TRANSFERRING/ REASSIGNING THE INDIVIDUAL TEACHERS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THIS ISSUE WAS RENDERED MOOT BY THE APPROVAL/ ACQUIESCENCE OF THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT IN SUCH TRANSFERS/ REASSIGNMENTS."
III. "ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION, THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR WHEN IT DENIED THE CROSS-APPELLANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS, BECAUSE THE CROSS-APPELLEES DID NOT ALLEGE OR PROVE ANY FACTS WHICH WOULD ENTITLE THEM TO RECOVER AND, THEREFORE, THEY FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED WITH RESPECT TO THEIR ALLEGATION THAT THE BOARD OF EDUCATION VIOLATED THE SUNSHINE LAW."
IV. "ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION, THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DETERMINED THAT THE ASSOCIATION IS ENTITLED TO COURT COSTS AND REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES RELATED TO THE SUNSHINE LAW ISSUE."
A brief summary of the facts pertinent to this appeal is as follows. On July 15, 1992, the school board convened a regular board meeting during which time it went into "executive session" to discuss personnel matters. The following day, a number of teachers in the school district received notices that they would be transferred to new positions in different schools for the 1992-93 school year. On August 12, 1992, the teachers association commenced the action below as "the duly recognized sole and exclusive bargaining representative for all certified teachers" in the school district. It was alleged that the teachers who had been transferred were members of the teachers association and that the school board's actions were taken in violation of the "sunshine law" provisions of R.C. 121.22. The teachers association demanded, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that the actions of the school board were null and void together with an injunction mandating compliance with R.C. 121.22 as well as court costs and reasonable attorney fees.
On August 26, 1992, the teachers association filed an amended complaint in which it was joined by five teachers who were affected by the school board's transfers.[1] The amended complaint also joined Ronald E. Curry, Superintendent of the Ft. Frye Local School District, as a party defendant and alleged that he was exceeding the scope of his legal authority by transferring teachers within the school district(fn.)2 Appellants demanded judgment similar to that sought in their original complaint and further requested an injunction enjoining the transfer of the individual teachers to their new assignments for the school year.
On September 18, 1992, the matter came on to be heard on its merits. The lower court issued its decision on November 24, 1992, finding, among other things, a violation of the "sunshine law" provisions of R.C. 121.22. It was determined that the teachers association was entitled to the various forms of relief it hadrequested including court costs and attorney fees. A judgment entry to that effect was filed on December 9, 1992, and this appeal followed.
We first consider, out of order, the initial cross-assignment of error wherein the argument is made that the aforementioned judgment entry was not appealable and that this...
To continue reading
Request your trial