Wolf v. E. Liverpool School Dist. Bd. of Ed., 2004 Ohio 2479 (OH 5/12/2004)
| Decision Date | 12 May 2004 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 03 CO 5. |
| Citation | 2004 Ohio 2479 |
| Parties | Richard Wolf, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. East Liverpool City School District Board of Education, et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Atty. James T. Hartford, Hartford, Dickey & King, 91 W. Taggart St., P.O. Box 85, East Palestine, Ohio 44413, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Atty. Christian M. Williams, Atty. Glenn D. Waggoner, Pepple & Waggoner, Ltd. Crown Centre Building 5005 Rockside Road, Suite 260, Cleveland, Ohio 44131-6808, for Defendant-Appellant.
Cheryl L. Waite, Gene Donofrio, Mary DeGenaro.
{¶1} This appeal involves a number of issues arising from Ohio's Sunshine Law and from statutory notice provisions governing meetings held by a board of education. The Appellants are the Board of Education of the East Liverpool City School District ("the Board") and school board president Maureen Aronoff ("Aronoff"), who defended against a declaratory judgment action filed by another school board member, Appellee Richard Wolf ("Wolf"). Wolf's complaint alleged that the Board failed to provide proper advance notice of four meetings held in the first half of 2002. The trial court granted Wolf summary judgment with regard to meetings held on February 27, March 8, and April 5, 2002. For the reasons that follow, we must reverse the trial court judgment as to all three meetings. As the parties did not appeal the court's judgment concerning the May 13, 2002, meeting, that aspect of the judgment is affirmed.
{¶2} Wolf and Aronoff were members of the Board in 2001 and 2002. Mr. Donald Lowe was superintendent of the school district at that time. Mr. Lowe's contract was due to expire on July 31, 2002. Some members of the Board were not planning to renew Mr. Lowe's contract. Mr. Lowe himself had given indications to the Board that he had decided to retire. R.C. 3319.01 requires a board of education to notify the superintendent in writing of its intent not to renew the superintendent's employment contract. This notice must be given by March 1st of the year that his or her contract expires. If the notice is not given by that time, the contract is automatically renewed for one year.
{¶3} It appears that Aronoff was not aware of this statutory provision until she learned about it during a seminar for school board presidents that she attended on February 9, 2002. The Board took no action on Mr. Lowe's contract at the February 11, 2002, regularly scheduled board meeting. The next regularly scheduled meeting was set for February 25, 2002. Aronoff was unable to attend that meeting due to illness. Aronoff learned the next day that the Board again took no action on Mr. Lowe's contract. Aronoff organized a special board meeting for February 27, 2002, which was the only day available before March 1st on which a quorum could be assembled.
{¶4} Mr. Lowe had earlier informed the Board that Wolf was seriously ill, was having open heart surgery, and would not be attending board meetings in February or March.
{¶5} Wolf was not given written notice of the February 27, 2002, special meeting. Wolf admitted he had actual knowledge that there would be a meeting on February 27, 2002. (11/15/02 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, First Request for Admissions, No. 1.) Aronoff also notified the news media by phone that the Board was holding an emergency meeting on February 27, 2002. (11/15/02 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Aronoff affidavit.)
{¶6} The Board voted not to renew Mr. Lowe's contract at the February 27, 2002, meeting.
{¶7} The Board held a special meeting on March 8, 2002, to interview potential candidates for the superintendent's position, and held another special meeting on April 5, 2002, to discuss those candidates. The Board subsequently held a regular meeting on May 13, 2002.
{¶8} On June 12, 2002, Wolf filed a complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief in the Columbiana County Court of Common Pleas. Wolf alleged that the four Board meetings discussed above were illegally convened due to violations of R.C. §3313.16 () and R.C. 121.22(F) and (G) (containing Sunshine Law notice requirements for regular, special, and emergency meetings of public bodies).
{¶9} During discovery, Appellants delivered requests for admissions to Wolf pursuant to Civ.R. 36. Wolf failed to timely respond to the requests for admissions.
{¶10} On November 15, 2002, Appellants filed a motion for summary judgment on all issues. Appellants relied in part on Wolf's failure to respond to their requests for admissions. On November 20, 2002, Wolf requested leave to file late responses to the requests for admissions, but the trial court denied the motion because Appellants had already relied on the admissions. (12/3/02 J.E.)
{¶11} On December 3, 2002, Wolf filed a motion for summary judgment, setting forth individual arguments as to each of the four meeting dates. The February 27, 2002, meeting was invalid, according to Wolf, because he did not receive written notice of the meeting as required by R.C. §3313.16 and because the meeting violated R.C. 121.22. The March 8, 2002, meeting also violated R.C. 3313.16, according to Wolf, because he was not notified of the meeting in writing. The April 5 and May 13, 2002, meetings violated R.C. §121.22(G), according to Wolf, because the Board did not follow the proper procedure for entering into executive session.
{¶12} On December 6, 2002, the Board filed a response to Wolf's motion for summary judgment.
{¶13} On December 16, 2002, the trial court filed a detailed judgment entry dealing with both motions for summary judgment. The court found that Wolf admitted he had actual knowledge of the February 27, 2002, meeting. The court held, though, that R.C. 3313.16 requires written notice of all special meetings of the Board, and is silent concerning the possibility of a board member who has actual notice of the meeting. The court concluded that the meeting violated R.C. 3313.16. The meeting was also found to violate R.C. 122.22(F), which requires a public body to give 24-hour advance notice to the news media of any special meetings unless the meeting is an emergency, in which case the news media are entitled to immediate notification. The court held that there was no emergency to justify calling the February 27, 2002, meeting because the Board could have dealt with the non-renewal of Mr. Lowe's contract during the February 11 and February 25, 2002, meetings. The court held that the February 27, 2002 and March 8, 2002, meetings violated both R.C. 3313.16 and 121.22 and were invalid. The court decided that the April 5, 2002, special meeting violated R.C. 122.22(F) because the Board did not give the news media any notice of the purpose of the meeting. Finally, the court held that the May 13, 2002, meeting did not violate the law.
{¶14} Wolf's motion for summary judgment was granted with respect to the meetings of February 27, March 8, and April 5, 2002, and the trial court declared all actions taken at those meetings to be a nullity. The court enjoined the Board from acting on any resolutions taken at those meetings. The court granted the Board's motion for summary judgment with respect to the May 13, 2002, meeting, but nullified any action taken at the meeting that may have arisen out of actions taken at the three meetings found to be invalid.
{¶15} Although the trial court deferred the determination of attorney fees, this issue was subsequently decided on December 30, 2002.
{¶16} Appellants filed a timely notice of appeal on January 14, 2003.
{¶17} Appellants' first, second and third assignments of error are as follows:
{¶18} "The Columbiana County Court of Common Pleas (`Trial Court') erred in granting the Motion for Summary Judgment of Plaintiff/Appellee Richard Wolfe [sic] (`Appellee') and denying the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants/Appellants East Liverpool City School District Board of Education and Maureen Aronoff (`Appellants') regarding whether Appellants gave the news media proper notice of the February 27, March 8 and April 5, 2002 meetings under O.R.C. §121.22(G).
{¶19} "The Trial Court erred in granting Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment and denying Appellants' Motion for Summary Judgment regarding whether Appellants properly entered executive session during the April 5, 2002 meeting under O.R.C. §121.22(G).
{¶20} "The Trial Court erred in granting Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment and denying Appellants' Motion for Summary Judgment regarding whether Appellants gave Appellee proper notice of the February 27 and March 8, 2002 special meetings under O.R.C. §3313.16."
{¶21} For the sake of clarity, we will reorganize Appellants' arguments on appeal so that each of the three board meetings is treated separately. Appellants' three assignments of error all deal with the trial court's decisions to sustain or overrule the parties' motions for summary judgment. An appellate court conducts a de novo review of a trial court's decision to grant a motion for summary judgment, using the same standards as the trial court as set forth in Civ.R. 56(C). Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co. (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105, 671 N.E.2d 241. Summary judgment is properly granted where the moving party demonstrates that: "(1) [n]o genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewing such evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that conclusion is...
To continue reading
Request your trial