DaytonDailyNews.com

February 13, 2008 10:54 PM | Link to this

Mario herself said that the board members were consulted and all but one agreed to demolish Roosevelt. That taken with the fact that she personally consulted me on how I would vote on Roosevelt and it’s clear that she either polled the board herself or did so along with one or more of her colleagues. Either way it’s circumventing an open meeting and against the law. After reading this thread, it’s clear to me that she did not understand open meeting law and her violations were simply the mode of operation for the board then.

February 13, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this

Old Prof, in the case of the recent board meeting, Yvonne Isaacs stated during the meeting that she had spoked to all the board members and the “consensus” was not to move the Roosevelt vote. This is why Lacey was asking what “consensus” means. The board does, at times, make functional decisions like when to vote for something or whether to pull something from the agenda by consensus. I have never seen the board move ahead with a change like that when someone objected. When that has happened, they generally just take a quick vote. So the questions here is whether the board violated the Sunshine Law when Isaacs polled the other members about moving the Roosevelt vote date and whether the board violated its own rules by making a decision “by consensus” when one board member was objecting. Those questions remain at this point.

February 13, 2008 7:55 AM | Link to this

I see. We seem to intend slightly different meanings when we say “polling” members. It’s not a violation, I take it, for one member to ask one other member about how she/he will vote on an issue, but it is if the member calls up every member over a short time and asks each one. Thus, for Joe to prove his allegations, he’ll have to provide evidence that some board member did, in fact, ask all other members about their voting intentions. In the absence of wiretaps, I doubt he has such evidence—all he has is his own account of a board member asking him how he intended to vote on one issue. Not a violation. Now can we move on, or is someone planning to pursue charges (and have the integrity to see them through to trial this time)?

February 12, 2008 9:53 PM | Link to this

Joe Lacey is correct. The case law is clear that “serial” meetings, or polling members of a public board outside of a meeting, violates the Sunshine Law. School Supporter has already given the legal citations. The whole purpose of a public board is to do the public’s business out in the open. Why must members be polled about their votes behind closed doors? Just ask them at the meeting so they can explain their thinking, have a discussion about the issue and explain their “vote” for all to see. The school board members did not want to delay the vote on Roosevelt as Lacey asked. That is their prerogative. But why can’t they have their discussion and vote on whether or not to make such a move publicly so that their constituents can hear their reasons and rationale? That is what is required by Ohio law, courts have concluded.

February 12, 2008 8:26 PM | Link to this

The “back-to-back discussions of public business, which, taken together, are attended by a majority of the members” that Mario quotes from the state’s Yellowbook are exactly what took place in May, 2006, a clear violation of open meeting law. As Mario had previously posted, a majority of board members were “consulted” on the demolition of Roosevelt. These board members were consulted with the intent of determining whether they support the decision to demolish. It was not a series of spontaneous conversations that just happened to all hit the same topic. Mario knows I have spoken out on the board regarding open meeting violations from the beginning of my term. It was the subject of my first no vote on the board. I’m pretty sure the board that I was elected to had a long history of ignoring open meeting law. From conversations with my colleagues, I could tell that they did not understand the law, and I believe that they acted on that lack of understanding. Mario’s attempt to reverse the liberal interpretation of the law is just another example of that.

February 12, 2008 5:32 PM | Link to this

Shucks, Dirk, I’ve never been in office. Neither have most of the participants here. That doesn’t mean that we don’t understand state sunshine laws better than Joe Lacey—and you’ll note that we cited our sources, whereas Joe and Scott so far have not. I’m waiting for one of them to respond to my request for specific documentation—Scott, I believe, will provide it if he has it, Joe so far has tended to claim he has stuff but never produces it.

By dirk sniggler

February 12, 2008 4:42 PM | Link to this

Uh…someone forgot to tell Mario that she’s no longer in office. I sure hope she can devote some time to her other endeavors now. Since she was on the school board, the one neighborhood project in Walnut Hills that I know of that she was involved with and promised to take on went to nowhereville. She promised to lead it, and it has gone nowhere. She loves to go to meetings and TALK about doing stuff though.

By mario

February 12, 2008 1:14 PM | Link to this

Those who are interested should go to www.ag.state.oh.us/legal/sunshine.asp. Under Publications there is a link to 2008 Yellowbook: Ohio Sunshine Laws which will bring you to the publication Ohio Sunshine Laws 2008, An Open Government Resource Manual. On pg. 20 of 180, actual page 19, under Informal Conversations it states Some courts have concluded that one on one conversations between individual members of a public body, either in person or by telephone, do not violate the Open Meetings Act. However, members must not conduct back to back discussions of public business, which taken together, are attended by a majority of members. In the two years that I served with Joe on the Dayton Board of Education, I am not aware of any instances where he has brought concerns to board members on our collective conduct, except through his lawsuit last year which he later withdrew, and postings on this blog. If you follow this blog and have an opportunity to watch board meetings, Joe contributes little or nothing to what should be the business of the board, i.e., to move the academic achievement of the district forward. It seems that his only passion is old buildings, but he advances that agenda through innuendo and insults. As a resident of Dayton, a homeowner and taxpayer, and a parent of a DPS student, I am expecting more.

February 11, 2008 6:39 PM | Link to this

Oldprof, I know your wife may have been acting as though she was a senator for the past 8 years with regard to the sunshine laws but she was not. The sunshine laws of Ohio don’t apply to the state legislature. Like it or not, the legislature operates under its own separate rules. While polling is not specifically mentioned in the statute, it is a part of case law that has interpreted that statute.

February 10, 2008 11:11 PM | Link to this

Really, Scott? Could you point me to the state statute that says that polling elected officials is illegal? That provision has escaped me in my research. In fact, I’m of the impression that our legislative leaders regularly poll the representatives and senators regarding postions on pending legislation. If you are on to something here, we could bring down the leadership of both parties!!!

February 10, 2008 5:34 PM | Link to this

About a week before the May, 2006 announcement of the decision to demolish Roosevelt, Mario telephoned me to talk about Roosevelt. After I told her that I felt that it’s renovation had not been fully explored, she asked me if I would vote “no” on the question of its demolition. Months later, on this blog, she described how all the other board members were “consulted” on the question of demolishing Roosevelt.

February 10, 2008 2:42 PM | Link to this

School Supporter is correct. Polling board members for their vote outside of a meeting is illegal.

By mario

February 10, 2008 1:13 PM | Link to this

I have never participated in conversations that included the phrase how will you vote. On issues that I have had particular interest in or may have championed, I would ask if there was any hesitation on moving forward, or if there was more information needed before an item came to a vote. One of the great things about voting is that one can vote no as well as yes. While I understand the Joe has tried every possibility to prevent a new school at the Roosevelt site, his own deposition showed there was ample time for community comment, he being one of the first in 2003 to present his views. In regards to Joe�s query in previous posts wondering who delayed demolition through 2007 and specifically stating that in April 2007 �Ms. Littlejohn knew that support for Roosevelt could sink an operating levy in May so she had no problem with postponing the demolition …�, my public records request for email correspondence from board members on this turned up four items. Two related to Thursday�s recommendation. The other two were from Joe Lacey to the Superintendent dated March 3 and April 3 2007. Both asked for items related to Roosevelt to be pulled from the agenda. On the one he says� I still think we should stay off the subject of Roosevelt for the next five weeks because I am ready to argue against it�s demolition but I would prefer to avoid any disagreement until after the May election.� On the other he says � I don�t think we should be working on tearing down Roosevelt while we are trying to pass a levy.� So who was responsible for delaying demolition? Apparently Joe was.

February 10, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this

As far as the board’s decision making process on this matter, board President Isaacs had called me Thursday morning, told me that she had contacted most of the board members and that a majority of the board was voting for the demolition at Thursday evening’s meeting. She then invited me to join them in that vote. We talked a little more about the issue but I didn’t tell her how I would vote.

February 10, 2008 12:01 AM | Link to this

Well, Joe, we’ll never know if the case has merit, since you dropped it (did your attorney advise you to?). As for asking how someone is going to vote—that’s not a meeting, a meeting is defined by the number of board members present during the conversation. Gosh, Joe, there’s a lot you don’t know, let me refresh your memory—according to the Yellow Book http://www.ag.state.oh.us/legal/pubs/OhioSunshineLaws_2008.pdf , it’s not considered a meeting unless a majority of the members of the board are present (page 16). So if you and Taylor talk on the phone and you ask whether she plans to vote yes to tear down Roosevelt, IT’S NOT A MEETING. You know, you’re hard to educate.

By School Supporter

February 10, 2008 12:00 AM | Link to this

“Ohio Sunshine Laws 2008: An Open Government Resource Manual” Page 19: “round-robin” or “serial” meetings appear to violate the Open Meetings Act. [Footnote: State ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. City of Cincinnati, 76 Ohio St.3d 540, 668 N.E.2d 903 (1996); State ex rel. Floyd v. Rock Hill Local School Bd. of Educ., No. 1862, 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 471 (4th Dist. Feb. 10, 1988).]

February 9, 2008 3:53 PM | Link to this

I think it’s pretty clear from case law that asking all other board members “How will you vote?” on an issue of district business is a meeting. I have not done that and Oldprof knows I haven’t done that. Open meeting law violations were common practice when Mario was on the board and Oldprof’s lack of understanding of the law reflects that practice. This has nothing to do with setting times for meetings since, by law, meeting times and dates can be decided outside of a public meeting. If the district or your wife want reimbursement from me for lawsuit expenses, there is nothing stopping them from requesting that from the judge. Nothing that is except for the fact that the case has merit.

February 9, 2008 2:36 PM | Link to this

Right. And isn’t it true, Joe, that any board member can legally contact another one-on-one and discuss pending board business—including “when should we meet” and “how will you vote”? Isn’t it true that YOU have done so on more than one occasion with more than one board member? Joe, when will you quit playing these games of political gotcha? More to the point, when will you reimburse Dayton for the time and expense involved in DPS defending themselves against your self-serving lawsuit?

February 8, 2008 10:41 PM | Link to this

Scott, Dave didn’t say that Maro broke the sunshine law with comments on this blog. He said that Mario strongly implied that the board violated sunshine law with her comments on this blog. It’s clear that he was referring to the 12/26/06 post where Mario said, “The press conference in May to announce the Roosevelt site decision was held by Dr. Mack and Gail Littlejohn as Board President. While no official vote had been taken, all board members had been consulted and with the exception of Joe Lacey, agreed.” It sounds like more than a strong implication, Mario is saying that we were polled outside of a public meeting.

By Dave

February 8, 2008 5:53 PM | Link to this

No, Scott. I am not saying her posting was a violation of the Sunshine Law. I am saying she clearly documented (in her post) how the board violated the Sunshine Law. I am also not accusing any board member of being evil — I think they are honorable folks who are trying to serve the public. But that does not relieve them of the need to follow the law.

February 8, 2008 5:30 PM | Link to this

Ohio law is very clear. Deliberations of public business by a public body must be done in public or in a closed “executive session” if one is warranted under one of the exceptions in the law. Votes MUST be taken in public. So my question is — how did the board decided not to move the meeting as Lacey requested? Isaacs seemed to indicate she polled the board. That’s why they didn’t vote on his request last night — because Issacs said she already had guidance from the board members about what they wanted to do. Board members said no to that suggestion by giving feedback outside of a board meeting. How is that different from a vote? I’d like to hear more about that decision. As for the charge that Mario broke Sunshine laws on this blog, that is not possible. Sunshine laws pertain only to conduct at public meetings and the handling of public records. That cannot and do not regulate speech in other venues.

By Dave

February 8, 2008 3:45 PM | Link to this

No, Oldprof. Ms. Isaacs strongly implied that the board continues to violate the sunshine laws, just as Mario did in her post on this blog.

By Skeptic

February 8, 2008 3:28 PM | Link to this

I understand the valid reasons behind the so-called Sunshine laws, but it seems rather silly to expect that any public board would not talk or have some level of decision making outside of public meetings. Between the paperwork, the politics, and the potential for lawsuits - it is not realistic for everything to be public all the time. The question, of course, is where to draw the line between the public and the needs of the organization.