School board members and administrators often assume that discussions held in executive session are completely insulated from later disclosure. An August 2026 decision from Ohio’s Twelfth District Court of Appeals serves as an important reminder that the confidentiality of executive session discussions has limits, particularly when a public body is accused of violating Ohio’s Open Meetings Act. In Rosenhoffer v. Batavia, the court held that Ohio law does not create an absolute executive session privilege that automatically bars discovery regarding topics discussed during a closed session.
The case arose after Village of Batavia residents filed suit alleging that village council members entered executive session but then discussed topics that were not covered by the statutory exceptions permitting closed-door meetings. During discovery, the plaintiffs sought testimony regarding what occurred during the executive sessions. The village argued that executive-session discussions were protected from disclosure and sought a protective order. The trial court rejected that argument and ordered discovery to proceed, resulting in an appeal.
The Twelfth District affirmed the trial court’s central conclusion that Ohio law does not recognize a blanket executive session privilege. The court reasoned that if all executive-session discussions were categorically immune from discovery, litigants could never effectively challenge whether a public body had complied with the Open Meetings Act in the first place. As the court observed, such an interpretation would make it virtually impossible to determine whether officials discussed matters outside the topics authorized by statute.
The court also rejected the argument that Ohio ethics laws automatically prohibit current or former public officials from testifying about executive-session discussions. Instead, the court found that courts may compel testimony when necessary to evaluate Open Meetings Act claims as long as the testimony is limited to determining whether discussions strayed beyond the subjects authorized by the Open Meetings Act.
What does this means for your district?
While the case arose in a municipal context, the decision has significant implications for Ohio school boards. Boards frequently rely on executive session to discuss topics expressly authorized by the Open Meetings Act. If your Board’s compliance with the Open Meetings Act is challenged, a court may permit limited inquiry into what conversation occurred behind closed doors to determine whether the discussion stayed within the narrow statutory exceptions. School boards should continue to exercise discipline in executive session, ensuring that discussions remain closely tied to the purpose identified in the motion and authorized by Ohio law.