Career Tech Corner

CTC Options for Acquiring Sites for Instruction

As Career Technical Centers (CTC) offer ever-expanding curricula and training in more advanced and technical fields, there may be a need for new space for hands-on learning and training. Perhaps your district is interested in erecting a lab for manufacturing education, or agricultural space for education in farming technology.

Under the law, school districts are “bodies politic and corporate” “capable of…acquiring, holding, possessing, and disposing of real and personal property.” Just like any city, local, or exempted village school district, vocational districts can purchase and lease land for the erection of education facilities. CTCs may also purchase or lease existing buildings and, as needed, renovate such existing spaces for their purposes. Lease-purchase agreements are also permissible for this purpose. CTCs may also acquire ownership of real property by donation or an exchange agreement. (By law, CTCs have all the authority and powers as city school districts with the exception of certain matters specifically address in the Revised Code pertaining to Chapters 124 (civil service), 3317 (School Foundation Program), 3323 (special education), and 3331 (age and schooling certificates)). There are other means by which a CTC could acquire property that occur less frequently, are less desired, and are entirely context based. These are adverse possession and appropriation (condemnation).

There may be instances where a CTC desires to acquire property not to erect a building for use as classroom space but to facilitate the programming of the CTC. In some instances, this may involve students performing work that is within the scope of their particular program but that also contributes to a private venture.

The applicable statutes refer to a board of education using its powers to acquire property for its own purposes, i.e., for the operations of the district in carrying out its educational mission. There is not any express authority in those statutes for a board to acquire property for non-school purposes or to effectuate a purely private development.

However, there are some attorney general opinions, addressing CTCs in particular, that have allowed a CTC to engage in a private venture so long as there is some connection to the curriculum. See 1976 Op. Atty. Gen. No. 76-065 (A CTC may construct and sell single-family residences on school land. Students erected the homes under supervision as part of the curriculum, and not for pay); 1971 Op. Atty. Gen. No. 71-068 (A school may engage and compete in private enterprise, even at a profit, so long as the program is reasonably necessary to the vocational education curriculum); 1971 Op. Atty. Gen. No. 71-026 (Use of school facilities for serving meals and banquets to community organizations is justified as part of the vocational education curriculum).

1981 Op. Atty. Gen. No. 81-093 opines that a CTC may, pursuant to R.C. 3313.90, enter into an agreement with a nonprofit corporation whereby students of the district would construct a house on property owned by the corporation with materials and equipment furnished at the expense of the corporation, provided that such an agreement is reasonably necessary to fulfill the requirements of the vocational education curriculum. Additionally, that opinion holds that a board of education of a CTC may, as part of a vocational education program, purchase land, construct residential dwellings thereon, and thereafter sell such realty.

What does this mean for your district?

Your board is vested with broad powers to acquire property using several different means. The options available should be carefully considered to ensure which is the best approach for any given project or plan.

Court of Appeals Holds that a Townships Email Lists are Not Public Records

Hicks v. Union Twp., 2023-Ohio-874

The Twelfth District Court of Appeals (Brown, Butler, Clermont, Clinton, Fayette, Madison, Preble, Warren) recently ruled in a public records case that a Township’s email and mail lists that it used for the publication of newsletters and other communications were not public records because the lists did not document the activities or operations of the office.

The requester, asked for the “the full email list used for township newsletters” and “the full mail list used for township newsletters.” After several exchnanges between the requester and the Township during which the requester was told repeatedly that the lists were not public records and would not be produced, the requester filed suit, pro se.

Before the court, the requester argued in essence that the Township uses the lists to mail citizens and keep them informed of the activities of the office. Thus, according to the requester, the lists document the functions and activities of the Township.

The Court of Claims appointed a special master and the case was referred to mediation, unsuccessfully.

The Township Administrator testified via affidavit that a third party vendor facilitates the mailing of the newsletter and the mailing lists for the newsletter. The Township also provides an opportunity for interested persons to subscribe and receive the newsletter electronically. On the Township website, subscribers are asked to enter their names and email addresses to receive the newsletter. The Township maintains the list but it is only used for the administrative purpose of issuing the electronic newsletter.

The requester submitted an affidavit of a former Township administrator but it largely focused on the content and development of the newsletter over time. The affidavit confirmed how the lists were maintained. Based on the affidavit, the requester argued that the “requested information is essential to the ability of Requester to understand and form a critique of a specific function of the government, staffed and paid for with tax dollars.” The requester indicated he desired to obtain the lists to “evaluate the conduct of the newsletter program.” For example, the requester indicated he wished to learn who the newsletter was being sent to (residences and businesses or only residences), if there were any citizens being omitted, if there was an overlap of individuals receiving the newsletter by mail and email, how “well-saturated” the email list was, and whether the emails included “valid or bot accounts.”

The Court of Appeals reasoned that while the lists constitute “documents, devices or items” which are “kept” by the Township, the third prong of the analysis, that the record document the “organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities” of the public office was not met. The Court looked to precedents which held that simply because an item is received and kept by a public office does not transform it into a record. Home addresses have been analyzed in other contexts, such as requests for personnel files. The Ohio Supreme Court has held that “at best, home addresses represent contact information used as a matter of administrative convenience,” and that they “reveal little or nothing about the employing agencies or their activities.” Furthermore, the Court found that the recipients of the newsletters, (who could be anyone, not just citizens) were not part of the decision-making process surrounding the newsletter and they do not assist the township in the performance of its functions. The Court applied essentially the same analysis to the hardcopy mailing list.

What this Means for Your District

Not every record in your possession is a public record. The document must meet all three parts of the test in order to be a public record. Careful analysis is always required however. It would not be wise to categorically deny a request for a distribution list for example, without first considering the nature of the list, what it is used for, how are the persons on the list placed there and why. from intrusion.