VERMILION — The Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of the Vermilion Local School District Board of Education, finding the board did not violate the state’s Open Meetings Act during a 2023 meeting.
The decision, issued March 17, 2026, upheld a May 2025 ruling from the Erie County Court of Common Pleas in a case brought by Brian M. Ames.
Ames has been involved in numerous cases across Ohio involving public records and open meetings laws. In prior Ohio coverage, he has been described as an “open meetings” or “sunshine law” bounty hunter, a reference to his use of transparency laws to challenge public bodies over alleged violations.
Challenge centered on 2023 board meeting
The case stems from a March 13, 2023 board meeting in which school officials approved 14 items through a consent agenda. A consent agenda allows a board to group multiple items together and approve them with a single vote instead of voting on each one separately.
Ames argued that using that process, particularly without discussion, limited the public’s ability to fully understand or follow the board’s decisions.
The appeals court disagreed. According to the ruling, the agenda was posted on the district’s website before the meeting, each item in the consent agenda was read aloud, board members were given the opportunity to remove items for separate discussion and the vote took place in open session.
Based on those factors, the court found the board did not violate Ohio’s Open Meetings Act.
Court says public access was preserved
The court also addressed the lack of discussion during the vote, saying Ohio law does not require public bodies to discuss every item before voting. The judges also noted there was no evidence the board discussed the items privately or outside public view.
The ruling further stated that consent agendas themselves are not prohibited under Ohio law. The legal question, the court said, is whether their use prevents the public from knowing what actions are being taken. In this case, the court found the information was available to the public both before and during the meeting.
Ames also attempted to argue that the board violated its own internal policies, but the court found that theory was not properly raised in the original complaint. His request to file an additional response, known as a surreply, was also denied.
Final outcome
The appeals court affirmed the lower court’s ruling in favor of the school district, meaning the board’s use of a consent agenda in this case did not violate Ohio law. Ames was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.
The decision also means Vermilion Local Schools can likely continue using consent agendas, provided the items remain publicly available and the votes are taken in open session.