Since at least 2021, one Ohio litigant has questioned the propriety of consent agendas in public meetings. In State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 165 Ohio St.3d 292, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized the use of consent agendas does not appear to be prohibited by the Open Meetings Act. The Supreme Court cautioned, however, that a board’s use of consent agendas could violate the Open Meetings Act in such a way that it constructively closes its public meetings. Where the line is drawn and a violation occurs has been open to debate since then.
On September 5, 2024, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Appellate District analyzed the 2021 Ames case and approved a procedure for the use of consent agendas. In Ames v. Columbus City School Dist. Bd. Of Edn., 2024-Ohio-3411, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court’s granting of summary judgment dismissing Ames’s argument that the Columbus City School District violated the Open Meetings Act by utilizing consent agendas at its meeting.
The Court of Appeals rejected Ames’s claim that the consent agenda procedure “foreclosed discussion of the items on the consent agenda.” The court found it significant that the board published information regarding the items on the consent agendas prior to the board meetings. Also, the consent agenda procedure utilized by the board permitted but did not require, members to discuss the items on the consent agenda. Next, the court recognized that the board president gave members the opportunity to discuss any consent agenda item prior to a roll call vote. Finally, the court found it important that any board member could ask to remove an item from the consent agenda so that it could be considered and debated separately.
Providing further guidance to Ohio public bodies, the court noted that “nothing in the Open Meetings Act requires a public body to discuss every issue on which the public body votes. The Open Meetings Act, instead, mandates that the public have meaningful access to the discussions that take place.”
While not binding in other district courts of appeals throughout the state, the recent decision from the Tenth District Court of Appeals provides a framework for the use of consent agendas to streamline board meetings. Nonetheless, caution must be exercised to make certain that their use does not constructively close a meeting to the public.