South Range completes litigation with Ferenchak

January 14, 2016 at 12:04a.m.

By AMANDA TONOLI

NORTH LIMA

Richard Ferenchak and South Range school board members reached an agreement Wednesday over complaints of open-meeting law violations.

Ferenchak said in order to save additional money in further litigation, he agreed to go through with the original settlement: The board will pay a $500 statutory fine, pay Ferenchak’s legal fees and admit that a violation was committed.

“I accepted it just for it to be over and done with,” Ferenchak said.

Atty. John Britton, representing the board, said his clients resolved the issue to avoid wasting more time and energy.

“At the end of the day, parties got back to original resolution,” Britton said. “A deal is a deal.”

Ferenchak originally filed the injunction in March 2015, alleging South Range violated open-meetings laws in the appointment of board member Amy White.

He said the board made the selection of White in secret, noting her nameplate was prepared before the selection in a public meeting. Also, he said the board violated its own policy by not interviewing all candidates.

Atty. Anthony Farris, Ferenchak’s attorney and former Youngstown law director, said the agreement was in place until Superintendent Dennis Dunham issued a news release in December claiming the decision to resolve the matter would eliminate costs associated with further litigation over “abstract interpretations of the [Ohio] Sunshine Law.”

“Ultimately, although we were offended by the press release, the magistrate pointed out the judgment entry gives us everything that we wanted,” Farris said.

“People settle cases for lots of reasons. Many times it’s for business reasons,” Britton said. “The comments in the press release were valid then and are valid now.”

But Ferenchak said he will continue to make board members accountable.

“Either comply with open-meetings law and run meetings the way they are supposed to or I will file another injunction,” Ferenchak said.

Board members can be removed from office if they are found guilty of future violations, Ferenchak said, noting the settlement warns that defendants are “enjoined from committing any future violation[s].”