The Columbus Board of Education has agreed that it cannot hold private sessions to meet with an attorney to discuss its data scandal unless it is to discuss pending court action involving the district. The board illegally closed a series of meetings last year to discuss the district's data scandal, in violation of the state Open Meetings Act.

The Columbus Board of Education has agreed that it cannot hold private sessions to meet with an attorney to discuss its data scandal unless it is to discuss pending court action involving the district.

The board illegally closed a series of meetings last year to discuss the district�s data scandal, in violation of the state Open Meetings Act. The Dispatch filed a lawsuit in support of the public�s right to attend meetings of public bodies.

A settlement signed yesterday by Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Julie M. Lynch restricts the board from using a broad claim of attorney-client privilege to keep the public out of meetings about the data scandal. Board members had claimed such a privilege when they met in private with Robert �Buzz� Trafford, a lawyer they hired to advise them on the data scandal in 2012.

�The Columbus Board of Education has taken another important step in moving the school district forward,� board President Gary Baker said in a statement. �Settling this litigation and putting it behind us allows us to focus on our priorities.�

The board has spent or authorized more than $300,000 so far to defend itself in the case, even as the district faces $50 million in cuts and has placed seven schools on the chopping block.

The board also agreed to pay The Dispatch�s legal fees, totaling $170,000, but the newspaper waived them �for the benefit of the public and the community,� according to the settlement document.

A signal that The Dispatch would win the case came in March, when Franklin County Common Pleas Magistrate Tim McCarthy issued a preliminary order telling the school board to stop such meetings.

McCarthy rejected the board�s theory that attorney-client privilege, or the right to meet privately with your attorney to get legal advice, required the board to close the meeting.

The board�s own general counsel, Larry Braverman, had warned the board in two memos that he did not believe that the board could legally close the meetings to discuss the data scandal because the topic didn�t fit any of the open-meeting law�s exceptions.

Trafford said that he couldn�t say whether he advised holding the meetings in private because he is bound by attorney-client privilege. It was after the board hired Trafford, a managing partner with Porter Wright, that members cited attorney-client privilege to close seven meetings in 2012, over objections from The Dispatch. The newspaper sued, resulting in the settlement.

The Open Meetings Act requires that for boards to shut the public out, their discussions must fit into one of several exemptions to the law. The district claimed one that allows bodies to � consider matters required to be kept confidential by federal law, regulations, or other state statutes.� It said the law in question was attorney-client privilege.

The newspaper�s attorney, Marion H. Little Jr., argued that the school board�s actions were inconsistent with Ohio case law, including two Ohio Court of Appeals decisions, and McCarthy agreed. Little is a partner with Zeiger, Tigges & Little of Columbus.

The court determined that �a meeting that violates this order would cause irreparable harm and prejudice to� the newspaper, and that the district�s legal theory �is without support� because the Open Meetings Act specifically allows closed meetings with attorneys only to discuss �pending or imminent court action.� The district never has argued that there was pending court action.

In the settlement, the court found that the school board couldn�t rely on attorney-client privilege to discuss the data scandal, and that the exemption can�t be invoked in the future.

The case was set to go to trial last week, with Braverman first on the stand. Then the district decided to halt proceedings and settle.

The district�s attorney in the open-meeting case, Douglas Cole, previously had argued before McCarthy that confidentiality was required for the sake of good government, so that the board could get legal advice from Trafford. With the FBI investigating the data scandal, in addition to state officials, the legal ramifications for the school board were large, Cole said.

Former board member Hanifah Kambon testified in October 2012 that there were few limits on what was discussed during the closed sessions, and �we took advantage of that opportunity, yes.�

bbush@dispatch.com