[Cite as Barga v. St. Paris Village Council, 2023-Ohio-1067.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT CHAMPAIGN COUNTY
ERICA BARGA : : Appellant : C.A. No. 2022-CA-14 : v. : Trial Court Case No. 2020 CV 142 : VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE : (Civil Appeal from Common Pleas OF ST. PARIS : Court) : Appellee :
...........
OPINION
Rendered on March 31, 2023
DWIGHT D. BRANNON, KEVIN A. BOWMAN, MATTHEW C. SCHULTZ, JASON P. MATTHEWS, Attorneys for Appellant
LYNNETTE P. DINKLER, Attorney for Appellee
.............
TUCKER, J.
{¶ 1} Erica Barga appeals from a judgment of the Champaign County Court of
Common Pleas, which affirmed the decision of the Saint Paris Village Council to terminate
her employment as Chief of Police. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the
judgment of the common pleas court and remand this matter for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion. -2-
I. Facts and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} Barga was appointed Chief of Police of the Village of Saint Paris on February
5, 2018. On November 2, 2020, Saint Paris Mayor Brenda Cook suspended Barga,
citing charges of insubordination and misconduct. Barga was placed on paid
administrative leave pending an investigation. The following day, Cook served Barga
with a notice of five charges.
{¶ 3} Barga requested a public hearing on the charges. A hearing was conducted
during which Barga presented evidence disputing the allegations contained in the charges
presented by Cook. Following the presentation of evidence, the Village Council
(“Council”) voted to deliberate in executive session. The Village Solicitor was summoned
to the executive session for a period of approximately 26 minutes. Thereafter, Council
resumed the public hearing. Council voted on the charges as follows: the first charge
was upheld by a vote of five to one; the second charge was upheld by a vote of four to
two; the third charge resulted in a tied vote; the fourth charge was not upheld; and the
fifth charge was upheld by a vote of four to two. Finally, Council voted to remove Barga
from her position by a vote of four to two. Council issued its written decision on
December 7, 2020.
{¶ 4} Barga filed an administrative appeal of the Council’s decision with the
Champaign County Court of Common Pleas. After the matter was briefed, the court
entered a judgment affirming Council’s decision.
{¶ 5} Barga appeals. -3-
II. Open Meetings Act
{¶ 6} Barga’s first assignment of error states:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE OPEN
MEETINGS ACT, R.C. 121.22[,] DID NOT APPLY TO THE PUBLIC
MEETING REQUIRED UNDER R.C. 737.171 AND FAILING TO HOLD
THAT THE VILLAGE COUNCIL VIOLATED THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT
RENDERING ITS DECISION VOID AS A MATTER OF LAW.
{¶ 7} Barga argues that the Village Council violated R.C. 121.22, Ohio’s Open
Meetings Act, when it deliberated in executive session following the presentation of
evidence and arguments during an open meeting. She cites Connor v. Village of
Lakemore, 48 Ohio App.3d 52, 547 N.E.2d 1230 (9th Dist.1988), in support of her
assertion that R.C. 121.22(G) prohibits holding an executive session to consider the
dismissal of a public employee or official. Additionally, Barga asserts that she was
denied her right to due process when the Village Solicitor went into executive session
along with Council members. She argues that the “Village Solicitor had ruled on
objections, participated in conferences with Council members, drafted the findings of fact
and conclusions of law for the Council and played an improper role in the decision-making
process, without the record that would have existed in a public hearing.”
{¶ 8} We begin with our analysis with the claim that Council violated the Open
Meetings Act. R.C. 121.22, Ohio’s Open Meetings Act or “Sunshine Law,” requires that
public officials, when meeting to consider official business, conduct those meetings in -4-
public. R.C. 121.22(C); State ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. Cincinnati, 76 Ohio St.3d 540,
542, 668 N.E.2d 903 (1996). The law requires that public officials take official action and
conduct deliberations upon official business only in “open meetings.” R.C. 121.22(A).
A “meeting” is defined as “any prearranged discussion of the public business of the public
body by a majority of its members.” R.C. 121.22(B)(2). Any formal action by the public
body is invalid if it fails to comport with the Open Meetings Act. R.C. 121.22(H).
{¶ 9} In answering whether this statute permitted Council to deliberate in executive
session after conducting the evidentiary hearing, we find dispositive the following
discussion set forth in Gross v. Village of Minerva Park Village Council, S.D.Ohio No.
2:12-CV-12, 2012 WL 4009604 (Sept. 12, 2012):
* * * The Ohio Supreme Court offers considerable guidance in substantially
similar frameworks, albeit between different types of affected parties and
public entities than a police officer and a village council. The opinions in
TBC Westlake, Inc. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 81 Ohio St.3d 58, 689
N.E.2d 32 (1998), and Ohio ex rel. Ross v. Crawford Cty. Bd. of Elections,
125 Ohio St.3d 438, 928 N.E.2d 1082 (2010), in combination with other
Ohio appellate decisions containing similar reasoning, dictate that this Court
find in favor of Defendants. Plaintiff's attempt to limit these cases to their
facts is not well-taken.
TBC Westlake involved a real property valuation dispute, which the
corporate property owner appealed to the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals
(“BTA”). See 81 Ohio St.3d at 58-59, 689 N.E.2d 32. The BTA held a public -5-
hearing, pursuant to Ohio Admin. Code § 5717–1–15, and issued a
decision, which was then appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court. Id. at 59-
60, 689 N.E.2d 32. The Supreme Court was faced with the issue of whether
the OMA [Open Meeting Act] applied to the adjudication proceedings at the
BTA. Id. at 61, 689 N.E.2d 32. The court determined that the BTA was
acting as a quasi-judicial body by conducting a hearing in the nature of a
legal proceeding, providing notice and the opportunity to introduce
testimony through witnesses, and exercising discretion to resolve the
dispute between conflicting parties. Id. at 62, 689 N.E.2d 32. The court
specifically held that “the Sunshine Law does not apply to adjudications of
disputes in quasi-judicial proceedings, such as at the BTA.” Id. (emphasis
added). The court reasoned that quasi-judicial bodies require privacy to
deliberate so that they can evaluate and resolve disputes away from the
pressure of the litigants involved. Id. “Privacy provides an opportunity for
candid discussion * * * on the legal issues and the facts [in order for the
quasi-judicial body to] reach a sound decision.” Id.
In Ross, a voter brought proceedings in the Ohio Supreme Court
after the county board of elections (“BOE”) removed him as an eligible voter
at his registered address. See 125 Ohio St.3d at 438. The BOE had held
an adjudicatory hearing, pursuant to Ohio Rev.Code § 3503.24(B), that was
open to the public. Id. at 439. At the conclusion of the public hearing, in
which testimonial and documentary evidence was received and arguments -6-
were made, the BOE retired into executive session to deliberate in private.
Id. The BOE determined that the voter was not a qualified elector. Id.
Before the Supreme Court, the voter argued that the BOE had violated the
OMA by failing to vote in public to hold an executive session and then failing
to publicly vote after the deliberations. The court disagreed. In reaching
its decision, the court affirmed its earlier finding in Matheny [v. Frontier Local
Bd. of Edn., 62 Ohio St.2d 362, 368, 405 N.E.2d 1041 (1980)] that “the
Sunshine Law applies to meetings but not to certain hearings.” Id. at 442
* * *. The court further explained that the OMA “is only applicable to public
bodies performing public functions at public meetings.” 125 Ohio St.3d at
443, 928 N.E.2d 1082. Thus, a public body performing a quasi-judicial
function is not covered by the OMA. Id. “[And] because a quasi-judicial
proceeding * * * is not a meeting for purposes of R.C. 121.22, the Sunshine
Law is inapplicable from the outset.” Id. at 444, 928 N.E.2d 1082.
Within its TBC Westlake opinion, the Ohio Supreme Court cited
favorably to the decisions of In re City of Westerville v. Hahn, 52 Ohio
App.3d 8, 556 N.E.2d 200 (1988), and Angerman v. State Med. Bd., 70 Ohio
App.3d 346, 591 N.E.2d 3 (1990), which, notably, both arose from the 10th
Appellate District, where the instant matter originated. In Westerville, the
appellants argued that the Franklin County Board of Commissioners' order
of annexation was invalid because the board's decision resulted from
private deliberations in violation of § 121.22. See 52 Ohio App.3d at 11, -7-
556 N.E.2d 200. The appellate court disagreed: “An R.C. 709.032
annexation hearing is a quasi-judicial proceeding. As a formal hearing,
statutorily mandated, an annexation hearing held pursuant to R.C. 709.032
falls into the category of gatherings which are not meetings. Hence, such
hearing is not subject to the requirements of R.C. 121.22 * * *.” Id. at ¶ 4,
556 N.E.2d 200 of syllabus [sic].
In Angerman, the appellant argued that the State Medical Board
violated § 121.22, thus invalidating the board's decision to revoke
appellant's medical license, because the board's deliberations were not
conducted in a meeting open to the public. See 70 Ohio App.3d at 351,
591 N.E.2d 3. The court again disagreed: “Although R.C. 121.22 makes
no general exception for judicial or quasi-judicial deliberations, * * * it
necessarily follows that such deliberations are not intended to be within the
purview of the open-meeting requirement of R.C. 121.22.” Id. The court
reasoned that the reference to a “public” hearing in 121.22(G)(1) applies
only to the hearing itself. Id. at 352, 591 N.E.2d 3. Thus, the court
concluded that “the deliberations of a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal
as to the action to be taken following a public hearing upon charges against
a licensee need not be open to either the licensee or the public * * *.” Id.
Other Ohio appellate courts have likewise applied the quasi-judicial
exception to find no OMA violation by public entities that engaged in private
deliberations, including a case from the 9th Appellate District, from which -8-
Conner was decided over a decade before. See Castle Manufactured
Homes, Inc. v. Tegtmeier, No. 98CA0065, 1999 WL 771605, at *5-*6 (9th
App. Dist. Sept. 29, 1999) (“Because the Zoning Board was acting in a
quasi-judicial capacity, R.C. 121.22 did not apply to its deliberations [held
in executive session] regarding the 1998 variance request.”); see also Ohio
ex rel. Eaton v. Erie Cty. Bd. of Elections, No. E–05–065, 2006 WL 513910,
at *5-*6 (6th App. Dist. Feb. 28, 2006) (concluding that board of election's
hearing on challenge to elector's status was a quasi-judicial proceeding not
subject to R.C. 121.22, thus board's weighing of evidence in private
executive session was acceptable); Groff-Knight v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals,
No. 03CAH08042, 2004 WL 3465744, at *5 (5th App. Dist. June 14, 2004)
(“[T]he deliberative nature of the quasi-judicial function of the board of
zoning appeals is not a meeting for purposes of R.C. 121.22. The hearing,
evidence, motion and vote pursuant to R.C. 519.14 are open to the public,
but the deliberations are not.”).
In sum, Ohio Supreme Court precedent, as well as a preponderance
of relevant appellate court decisions, have established the following:
(1) Affected parties who request a “public hearing” before a public
body do not automatically receive such a hearing, pursuant to
§ 121.22(G), unless a separate statutory provision entitles them to it.
(2) Even when an affected party is allowed a “public hearing,” this
does not automatically mean that the public body must deliberate the -9-
evidence received at the hearing in an “open meeting.”
(3) When a public body is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, the
adjudicatory hearing process—including the deliberations that
follow—is not a “meeting” under the OMA; thus these deliberations
may be held privately in executive session.
Gross at *5-7.
{¶ 10} In this case, as in Gross, Barga was statutorily entitled to a hearing as
provided by R.C. 737.171. Further, she requested a public hearing. A public hearing
was conducted during which Barga was represented by counsel. She was permitted to
present evidence, examine witnesses, and present argument. Council deliberated and
exercised its judgment to determine whether to dismiss the charges or uphold the charges
and dismiss Barga. Council’s decision was appealable, and Barga exercised her right
to appeal. Thus, the record supports a finding that the hearing was a quasi-judicial
proceeding and that Council was not bound by the Open Meetings Act to conduct its
deliberations in public.1 Therefore, we find Barga’s claim that Council violated the Open
Meetings Act lacks merit.
{¶ 11} We next address Barga’s claim that counsel for the Village should not have
been present during the deliberations conducted in executive session.
{¶ 12} We find the decision of the Third District Court of Appeals in Cummins v.
Village of Minster, 2015-Ohio-4129, 43 N.E.3d 902 (3d Dist.) to be instructive. In
1The decision in Conner, upon which Barga relies, contains no indication that the parties or the court considered the issue of whether the hearing before the Council constituted a quasi-judicial hearing exempting it from the Open Meetings Act. -10-
Cummins, Kirby Cummins’s position as a patrol officer was terminated by the Village
Mayor Dennis Kitzmiller. Cummins appealed the termination to the village council. A
hearing before the council was conducted. Following the hearing, Kitzmiller, James
Petrie, the attorney who presented the case to the village council on behalf of Kitzmiller,
and James Hearn, the village solicitor who acted as the hearing officer and who also
participated in the investigation of Cummins’s conduct, were permitted to be present
during deliberations while Cummins’s attorney was excluded. Cummins’s termination
was upheld. Cummins appealed to the common pleas court, which also upheld the
termination. Thereafter, in his appeal to the Third District, Cummins claimed he had
been denied due process when his attorney was excluded from the deliberations that
were attended by Kitzmiller, Petrie, and Hearn. In addressing the matter, the Third
District stated:
In this case, the Village Council was hearing the appeal of Kitzmiller's
decision and was expected to act as an unbiased entity. Petrie was hired
to present the case to the Council on behalf of Kitzmiller and was acting as
an attorney for a party. Hearn was the hearing officer who conducted the
investigation. All three of these entities were responsible for bearing the
burden of proof before the Council and thus had an interest in the outcome
of the hearing. Clearly, allowing these three to participate in the
deliberations of Council as to whether to approve Kitzmiller's decision while
excluding Cummins has an appearance of unfairness. This would be no
different than allowing the prosecutor to participate in the deliberations of a -11-
jury or allowing a trial court judge to participate in the appellate review. The
trial court in this case found no error because the Mayor is required to
preside over the Council and the Village has the right to the advice of legal
counsel. While the village may have the right to the advice of legal
counsel, that counsel should not both act as the prosecutor for the claim
and act as legal counsel to the Council discussing the validity of the claim
which he just prosecuted. See Harmon v. City of Dayton, 2d Dist.
Montgomery No. 15555, 1996 WL 417101 (July 26, 1996). The trial court
claims there was no error because the Council already knew the position of
Petrie before conferring with him. The fact that the Council already knew
the argument does not mean that Petrie should have participated in the
deliberations. “[I]f ex parte communications are considered by the
decision-maker without notice to the accused or opportunity for the accused
to respond, then due process is violated.” In re Swader, 12th Dist. Warren
No. CA2000-04-036, 2001-Ohio-4191, 2001 WL 121084. Here, Kitzmiller,
whose decision was the subject of the appeal, and Petrie both participated
in the closed deliberations of the Village Council over the objection of
Cummins and Cummins was excluded. That makes the participation ex
parte. Cummins was entitled to a fair and unbiased hearing, regardless of
who was conducting it and that includes avoiding the appearance of bias as
well. This is especially true when deliberations are held in executive session
and there is no way for a party to determine whether there was actual bias. -12-
In determining that there was no violation of Cummins due process
rights, the trial court cites Hutchinson v. Wayne Township Board of Zoning
Appeals, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-02-032, 2012-Ohio-4103, 2012 WL
3893782. However in Hutchinson, the issue was whether due process was
violated when a board member performed an extra-judicial investigation into
the number of cars traveling along a road. The board member then made
statements at the hearing as to what she learned. That is a very different
scenario than allowing the person whose decision is being reviewed on
appeal and the counsel prosecuting the claim from being allowed to
participate in the deliberations. The trial court claims that since this was
not an appeal from an administrative agency, but rather an appeal to a
legislative body, the same standards of due process do not apply. The trial
court does not give any reasoning for this other than the fact that the
legislature allows for a de novo trial. However, when a legislative body
takes on a quasi-judicial task, i.e. hearing an appeal of a decision by the
executive branch, logic dictates that the hearing should be unbiased
regardless of the branch of government overseeing the appeal. The U.S.
Supreme Court has stated that “any tribunal permitted by law to try cases
and controversies not only must be unbiased but also must avoid even the
appearance of bias.” Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Cas.
Co., 393 U.S. 145, 150, 89 S.Ct. 337, 21 L.Ed.2d 301 (1968) (holding that
decision by arbitrator from arbitration board with appearance of impropriety -13-
must be set aside even though there was no evidence of bias by the
arbitrator). Even the holding in Hutchinson acknowledges that ex parte
communication is a violation of due process. Id. The decision was
affirmed because the appellant had not objected at the hearing and the
matter was reviewed pursuant to a plain error standard. That is not the
case before this court as Cummins objected to the ex parte participation of
Kitzmiller and Petrie. Since there was ex parte communication between
Kitzmiller, Petrie, and the Village Council, Cummins due process rights were
violated and the trial court erred by finding that they were not.
However, although Cummins' due process rights were violated, the
decision of the trial court need not automatically be reversed. In this case,
the only alleged ex parte communications took place during the
deliberations, not during the hearing itself. The trial court conducted a de
novo review of the record and held a hearing for additional evidence.
Additionally, the parties submitted a stipulation of the facts. The Supreme
Court of Ohio has held that when a de novo review is conducted and that
review is not affected by the ex parte communications, then any error is
harmless. In re Investigation of Natl. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh Pa.,
66 Ohio St.3d 81, 88, 609 N.E.2d 156 (1993). Since the trial court
conducted an independent review of the record and the record was not
tainted by any ex parte communication, any error resulting from the due
process violation would be harmless. * * * -14-
Cummins at ¶ 13-15.
{¶ 13} Although we do not know what role – advisory, participatory, or both – the
village solicitor played during his 26-minute presence in executive session, consistent
with Cummins v. Village of Minster, we find that the solicitor’s presence was problematic
and, perhaps, a due process violation. But, as in Cummins, we find any error harmless.
We reach this conclusion because, as discussed below: the matter will be remanded for
the trial court to conduct a de novo review; the Village of St. Paris will have the burden of
proof by a preponderance of the evidence; the trial court, in its discretion, may cause the
record to be supplemented; and the trial court may substitute its judgment for that of
Council. In our opinion, this “second bite at the apple” will act to purge any prejudice the
solicitor’s role in the deliberations may have created.
{¶ 14} The first assignment of error is overruled in its entirety.
III. Standard of Review
{¶ 15} The second assignment of error asserted by Barga states as follow:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO APPY THE
STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR AN APPEAL ON “QUESTIONS OF LAW
AND FACT” APPLICABLE UNDER R.C. 737.171, BY FAILING TO
CONDUCT A DE NOVO REVIEW AND BY ASSIGNING A BURDEN OF
PERSUASION TO THE APPELLANT.
{¶ 16} Barga contends the trial court did not utilize the correct standard of review
in determining whether Council’s decision was supported by the evidence. -15-
{¶ 17} The record demonstrates that Council issued findings of fact and
conclusions of law regarding its termination decision. In that document, Council noted
that charges were brought against Barga in accordance with R.C. 737.171 and that her
removal was governed by R.C. 737.171. In her appeal to the Champaign County
Common Pleas Court, Barga asserted that she was appealing in accordance with R.C.
737.171 as well as Ohio R.C. Chapters 2505 and 2506.
{¶ 18} R.C. 737.171 states, in pertinent part: “In the case of removal from office,
the person so removed may appeal on questions of law and fact the decision of the
legislative authority to the court of common pleas of the county in which the village is
situated.”
{¶ 19} In O’Neill v. Village of Tremont, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2008-CA-66, 2009-Ohio-
3768, a case involving the termination of a village police chief, we stated:
O'Neill's appeal of his removal was brought pursuant to R.C.
737.171, which provides removal procedures for marshals, and pursuant to
R.C. 2506.01(A), which authorizes appeals from administrative decisions of
political subdivisions. R.C. 737.171 provides, in pertinent part, that:
“[I]f the mayor of a village has reason to believe that a duly appointed
marshal of the village has been guilty of incompetency, inefficiency,
dishonesty, drunkenness, immoral conduct, insubordination, discourteous
treatment of the public, neglect of duty, or any other acts of misfeasance,
malfeasance, or nonfeasance in the performance of the marshal's official
duty, the mayor shall file with the legislative authority of the village written -16-
charges against that person setting forth in detail the reason for the charges
and immediately shall serve a true copy of the charges upon the person
against whom they are made.
“Charges filed under this section shall be heard at the next regular
meeting of the legislative authority occurring not less than five days after
the date those charges have been served on the person against whom they
are made. The person against whom those charges are filed may appear in
person and by counsel at the hearing, examine all witnesses, and answer
all charges against that person.
“At the conclusion of the hearing, the legislative authority may
dismiss the charges, suspend the accused from office for not more than
sixty days, or remove the accused from office.
“Action of the legislative authority removing or suspending the
accused from office requires the affirmative vote of two-thirds of all
members elected to it.
“In the case of removal from office, the person so removed may
appeal on questions of law and fact the decision of the legislative authority
to the court of common pleas of the county in which the village is situated.
The person shall take the appeal within ten days from the date of the finding
of the legislative authority.”
***
The statute that the parties agree controls this case, R.C. 737.171, -17-
provides that: “In the case of removal from office, the person so removed
may appeal on questions of law and fact the decision of the legislative
authority to the court of common pleas of the county in which the village is
situated.” The ability to appeal on questions of fact, as well as on questions
of law clearly permits the common pleas court to weigh the evidence,
without being limited by the findings of fact made by the legislative authority
of the municipality.
O'Neill at ¶ 13-21, 24.
{¶ 20} Similarly, in discussing R.C. 124.34, which sets forth the same appellate
standard in the common pleas court, i.e. on questions of law and fact, the First District
Court of Appeals has stated:
* * * In the court of common pleas, the officer may appeal questions
both of law and fact. R.C. 124.34. The scope of the common pleas appeal
is “governed by the provisions of R.C. Chapter 2505 to the extent they are
applicable.” Chupka v. Saunders, 28 Ohio St.3d 325, 327, 504 N.E.2d 9,
10 (1986). In this case, one applicable section of the chapter is R.C.
2505.01(A)(3), which defines this type of common pleas proceeding as “a
rehearing and retrial of a cause upon the law and the facts.” That rehearing,
therefore, is a trial de novo. Chupka at 327 * * *; see, also, Cincinnati v.
Chase (Dec. 23, 1992), Hamilton App. No. C-910808, unreported, 1992 WL
389133; Matthews v. Johnson (Oct. 3, 1990), Hamilton App. No. C-890300,
unreported, 1990 WL 143465. -18-
In a trial de novo, the common pleas court independently examines
the record as it appeared before the commission. In addition, the court, in
its discretion, may supplement the record with additional evidence. Chupka,
* * * at 327-328 * * *; Newsome v. Columbus Civ. Serv. Comm. (1984), 20
Ohio App.3d 327, * * * 486 N.E.2d 174. At the commission and at the trial
court, the burden of proof is on the appointing authority, in this case, the
police chief and safety director of North College Hill (collectively “city”).
Cupps v. Toledo (1961), 172 Ohio St. 536, * * * 179 N.E.2d 70, paragraph
one of the syllabus; Schaffer v. W. Farmington (1992), 82 Ohio App.3d 579,
587, 612 N.E.2d 1247, 1252. The city must prove the dismissal charges by
a preponderance of the evidence. * * *
Beyersdoerfer v. Shocket, 93 Ohio App.3d 647, 650, 639 N.E.2d 818 (1st Dist.1994).
{¶ 21} Based upon the above-cited authority, “[a] trial de novo is mandatory in
cases where the appeal is based upon questions of law and fact * * *.” Cummins, 2015-
Ohio-4129, 43 N.E.3d 902, ¶ 9, citing Bryant v. Hamilton Civ. Serv. Comm., 10th Dist.
Franklin No. CA2008-10-243, 2009-Ohio-3676, ¶ 30. See also Westlake Civ. Serv.
Comm. v. Pietrick, 142 Ohio St.3d 495, 2015-Ohio-961, 33 N.E.3d 18, ¶ 24 (“An appeal
on questions of law and fact is ‘a rehearing and retrial of a cause upon the law and
facts.’ ”); Baron v. Civ. Serv. Bd. of Dayton, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25273, 2012-Ohio-
6179, ¶ 16 (“[A] rehearing and retrial of a cause upon the law and the facts” constitutes a
de novo review.)
{¶ 22} In this case, the trial court stated that:(1) its review of Council’s decision -19-
was guided solely by R.C. 2506.04 and it was not permitted to conduct a de novo review;
(2) the decision of the council was “presumed to be valid, placing the burden of persuasion
upon [Barga];” and (3) “[w]hen the evidence consists of conflicting testimony of
approximately equal weight, the Court should defer to the determination of the Village
Council.” This was clearly incorrect. Thus, we agree with Barga that the court used an
improper standard of review. As such, the case must be remanded to the trial court for a
de novo review. In this de novo review, the Village of St. Paris will have the burden of
proof by a preponderance of the evidence; at the trial court’s discretion, the record may
be supplemented, and the trial court may substitute its judgment for that of the Council.
Cummins, 2015-Ohio-4129, 43 N.E.3d 902, at ¶ 9.
{¶ 23} Accordingly, the second assignment of error is sustained.
IV. Moot Assignments of Error
{¶ 24} The third, fourth, sixth and seventh assignments of error state:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY AFFIRMING THE VILLAGE
COUNCIL’S FINDING THAT ERICA BARGA GIVEN CAUSE [SIC] FOR
TERMINATION BY BEING INSUBORDINATE TO THE VILLAGE MAYOR.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO FIND THAT ERICA
BARGA’S TERMINATION WAS THE RESULT OF RETALIATION FOR
FILING CHARGES OF DISCRIMINATION WITH THE OCRC.
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO
PERMIT SUPPLEMENTATION OF THE RECORD IN ACCORDANCE -20-
WITH THE STANDARD APPLICABLE TO APPEALS ON QUESTIONS OF
LAW AND FACT.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO FIND THAT
APPELLANT WAS NOT AN EXEMPT EMPLOYEE UNDER FLSA.
{¶ 25} All of these assignments of error claim that the common pleas court erred
in affirming Council’s decision. Because we have recognized that the trial court resolved
the relevant issues using an incorrect standard of review, and because this matter will be
remanded to the trial court for consideration under the appropriate standard of review, we
need not consider these assignments of error at this time. Accordingly, the third, fourth,
sixth and seventh assignments of error are overruled.
V. Barga’s Initial Suspension
{¶ 26} The fifth assignment of error states:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO FIND THAT
APPELLANT’S INITIAL SUSPENSION BY THE MAYOR, WITHOUT
AFFIRMATION BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL RESULTED IN THE
TERMINATION BEING ILLEGAL
{¶ 27} Barga claims her one-day suspension was improper because R.C. 737.171
does not permit a suspension without a vote of the Village Council. Barga then argues
that the subsequent decision to terminate her employment was void based upon the
illegal suspension.
{¶ 28} R.C. 737.171 provides in pertinent part as follows: -21-
* * * [I]f the mayor of a village has reason to believe that a duly
appointed marshal of the village has been guilty of incompetency,
inefficiency, dishonesty, drunkenness, immoral conduct, insubordination,
discourteous treatment of the public, neglect of duty, or any other acts of
misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in the performance of the
marshal's official duty, the mayor shall file with the legislative authority of
the village written charges against that person setting forth in detail the
reason for the charges and immediately shall serve a true copy of the
charges upon the person against whom they are made.
Charges filed under this section shall be heard at the next regular
meeting of the legislative authority occurring not less than five days after
the date those charges have been served on the person against whom they
are made. The person against whom those charges are filed may appear in
person and by counsel at the hearing, examine all witnesses, and answer
At the conclusion of the hearing, the legislative authority may dismiss
the charges, suspend the accused from office for not more than sixty days,
or remove the accused from office.
Action of the legislative authority removing or suspending the
accused from office requires the affirmative vote of two-thirds of all
{¶ 29} The Mayor suspended Barga on November 2 without a vote of Council. -22-
Thus, Barga is correct that her suspension was not in strict accordance with R.C. 737.171.
However, since she was paid during her suspension, we cannot say it was contrary to the
purpose of the statute. See Fairbanks v. Wayne, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-06-001, 2006-
Ohio-6057, ¶ 25-26. Further, any error regarding the suspension did not affect the
subsequent termination, as the decision to terminate Barga’s employment was based on
Council’s vote on the matter following a full hearing.
{¶ 30} The fifth assignment of error is overruled.
VI. Conclusion
{¶ 31} The second assignment of error being sustained, the judgment of the
common pleas court is reversed, and this matter is remanded for a de novo review of the
decision of the Saint Paris Village Council.
WELBAUM, P.J. and EPLEY, J., concur.