## Facts

- Adam White, a member of a local school board, investigated alleged improper athletic-department expenditures; one athletic director resigned and reimbursements were made.
- A board majority amended policy to route board member communications with staff through the superintendent or treasurer; White opposed the change.
- A newspaper editorial praised White’s vote and criticized the other members.
- The board president asked the other three members (excluding White) and district employees to collaborate on a response on behalf of the board.
- The members and employees exchanged a series of emails drafting a rebuttal; a response signed by all members except White was published.
- White sued, alleging the serial emails among a board majority were a private prearranged discussion of public business violating the Open Meetings Act (R.C. 121.22), and sought declaratory, injunctive, and statutory relief.

## Issues

1. Whether serial email communications among a majority of a public body’s members concerning public business can constitute a “meeting” under Ohio’s Open Meetings Act, R.C. 121.22.
2. Whether the complaint stated a plausible Open Meetings Act claim sufficient to defeat judgment on the pleadings.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the court of appeals and remanded.
- The court held that the Open Meetings Act can apply to private, prearranged discussions of public business conducted electronically, including by email.
- The court concluded the trial court erred by granting judgment on the pleadings on the theory that the Act categorically does not apply to emails.
- The court determined that, construing the pleadings in White’s favor, the allegations could support a finding that the email chain constituted a prohibited private prearranged discussion by a majority.

## Legal Principles

- R.C. 121.22 prohibits any private prearranged discussion of public business by a majority of a public body’s members, regardless of whether the discussion occurs face-to-face, telephonically, by video conference, or electronically (including email and text-based communications).
- Whether communications constitute a “meeting” turns on the substance and statutory elements (prearrangement, discussion of public business, and participation by a majority), not the communication medium.
- At the judgment-on-the-pleadings stage, dismissal is improper if the complaint alleges facts that could entitle the plaintiff to relief under the Open Meetings Act.

## Conclusion

The court held that a majority of a public body may violate Ohio’s Open Meetings Act by conducting a private, prearranged discussion of public business through serial emails, and it remanded for further proceedings because the pleadings could support such a violation.


White v. King, 60 N.E.3d 1234 (Ohio 2016)