2022 Ohio 1905
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background:
- Portage County Budget Commission (auditor, treasurer, prosecutor) held 31 meetings in 2018–2019 without adopting a notification rule required by R.C. 121.22(F).
- For 21 meetings the Commission copied a Record Courier reporter on emails; minutes for all meetings were prepared and made available for public inspection.
- The Commission adopted a rule conforming to R.C. 121.22(F) in January 2020.
- Brian M. Ames sued under the Open Meetings Act (R.C. 121.22), initially alleging failure to adopt the rule and lack of public notice for numerous meetings; he amended to identify 30 specific meetings and sought an injunction (and $500 per violation) for each.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Ames, found the Commission violated R.C. 121.22(F) but that all meetings were open and the Record Courier had been notified, and awarded one injunction and one $500 civil forfeiture.
- The Eleventh District affirmed: Ames was entitled to one injunction for failure to adopt a rule, but he failed to prove entitlement to 30 separate injunctions/forfeitures; any erroneous reasoning below was harmless. A dissent argued genuine issues existed about whether meetings were actually open.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commission meetings were "open to the public" | Ames: meetings were not open because the public was not given required notice | Commission: meetings were open; Record Courier was notified and minutes were public | Trial court found meetings open; appellate court treated any error as harmless and affirmed judgment for Ames on the rule violation |
| Whether copying a Record Courier reporter satisfied public-notice requirements | Ames: copying a reporter does not constitute notice to the public | Commission: notifying the paper (and maintaining minutes) provided adequate public notice | Trial court found Record Courier was notified; appellate court did not reverse on this point and deemed any mistaken reasoning harmless |
| Whether Ames was entitled to an injunction and $500 civil forfeiture for each meeting (30 separate remedies) | Ames: each un‑noticed meeting violated the OMA, so each entitles him to an injunction and $500 | Commission: the violation was failure to adopt a rule under R.C. 121.22(F); that failure yields a single statutory injunction/forfeiture remedy | Court: Ames failed to state the legal basis with particularity for 30 injunctions; only one injunction and one $500 forfeiture awarded |
| Whether the injunction’s terms complied with R.C. 121.22(I)(1) and whether relief was moot | Ames: injunction was inadequate (didn't name members or consequences) and was moot because a rule was later adopted | Commission: injunction valid; it binds members by law and contempt/removal remedies exist; mootness does not negate statutory remedy | Court: injunction lawful and enforceable; any mootness or form complaints were invited or harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112 (Ohio 1988) (moving party must state with particularity grounds for summary judgment)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. Cincinnati, 76 Ohio St.3d 540 (Ohio 1996) (Open Meetings Act prevents secret deliberations by public officials)
- State ex rel. The Fairfield Leader v. Ricketts, 56 Ohio St.3d 97 (Ohio 1990) (meetings are either regular or, if not regular, special)
- Doran v. Northmont Bd. of Edn., 153 Ohio App.3d 499 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003) (court must issue injunction under R.C. 121.22(I)(1) upon proof of violation even if later remedied)
- Denovchek v. Bd. of Trumbull Cty. Commrs., 36 Ohio St.3d 14 (Ohio 1988) (courts possess inherent contempt power to enforce injunctions)