Oxford BZA to consider rule change allowing private deliberations in quasi‑judicial cases

City legal staff on June 24 informed the Oxford Board of Zoning Appeals that they will draft rule changes to permit the option of private deliberations in certain quasi‑judicial cases, citing court rulings and concerns about the clarity and reliability of public deliberations in appellate review.

Chris (staff member) told the board the practice to deliberate publicly has persisted but that recent judicial guidance and appeals have made private deliberation an option the BZA should consider. "It's my recommendation, that we, amend the rules of BZA that I provide for, some language that allows the option of the BZA to go into deliberation private deliberations if it so chooses," Chris said, explaining the proposed change would preserve public decisions while allowing private fact‑finding deliberations when appropriate.

Chris referenced the Ohio Open Meetings Act and appellate practice in the twelfth district and court decisions that counsel careful recordkeeping for quasi‑judicial bodies. He told members that public deliberations sometimes introduce off‑record recollections and impressions that cannot be considered on appeal and that private deliberation could lead to clearer written findings. "The twelfth district has been very clear that the BZA is not permitted to consider information that is not introduced into the record," he said, noting examples where recollections of past cases had been treated as evidence despite not being in the record.

Board members discussed transparency and the need to balance open meetings expectations with the desire for a cleaner record and a deliberative environment where members can ask technical questions. Several members expressed support for the option to deliberate in private for complex cases; others emphasized that any rule change should be subject to public review and a clear process for announcing when private deliberation will be used.

No formal motion was made at the meeting. Chris said he will draft proposed language, work with Phil (staff member) on the draft, circulate it in advance of a future meeting, and include it in the public packet for the board and the public to review. He advised members not to exchange emails about the draft in a way that would amount to deliberation outside a public meeting. The proposed process, as described, would retain a public announcement of the board’s final decision and produce a written decision adopted at a following meeting to create a coherent record for appeals.

Next steps: staff will circulate the draft rule language to the board in advance of a future meeting; the item will return to the board for public discussion and possible adoption. The board did not take a vote on policy at the June 24 meeting.