Brenneman Bros. v. Allen Cty. Commrs.
2015 Ohio 148
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Brenneman Brothers challenged Allen County Commissioners’ adoption of Resolution #421-12, which overruled their objections to estimated assessments for the Wrasman ditch improvement project (Project #1268).
- Earlier proceedings: this is the parties’ third appeal; prior appellate remands resulted in the project’s initial approval being vacated and then resubmitted by the Soil and Water Conservation District.
- On January 12, 2012, two commissioners, the county attorney, the clerk, and Soil and Water employees met to discuss how to proceed after the earlier court ruling; a Soil and Water diary and other records memorialize the meeting.
- Soil and Water recertified the project; Board adopted resolutions approving the project and acknowledging receipt of a schedule of estimated assessments (document showed conflicting printed and time-stamp dates).
- Brennemans asserted (1) the January 12 meeting violated the Open Meetings Act and tainted later actions; (2) the schedule was illegally backdated (falsification); and (3) the Board failed to adopt a final schedule of assessments required by R.C. 1515.24.
- Trial court found plaintiffs carried initial burden to show a meeting occurred and may have been closed but failed to prove procedural error or to rebut presumption of regularity or causation; affirmed. Appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board violated Open Meetings Act by conducting deliberations at a Jan. 12, 2012 meeting closed to public | Jan. 12 meeting was not open and deliberations there produced later official actions, invalidating Resolution #421-12 | Any closed portion was a lawful executive session or, at minimum, plaintiffs failed to prove improper procedure or deliberation tying the meeting to later action | Court held plaintiffs bore burden to prove violation, failed to rebut presumption of regularity, produced no evidence of prohibited deliberations or causation; no Open Meetings Act invalidation |
| Whether backdating/time-stamp discrepancy on the estimated-assessments schedule invalidates resolutions as illegal/falsified | Backdating constitutes criminal falsification under R.C. 2921.13 and thus renders approvals illegal | The Board had the information when it voted; no evidence of intentional falsification by Board members or causal link to resolution approval | Court held any backdating irrelevant to validity of approvals; no evidence of intent; no causal nexus shown |
| Whether failure to adopt a final schedule of assessments under R.C. 1515.24(D)(2) requires vacatur of the Wrasman Project | Board never adopted final schedule; statutory process not followed so project/overruling must be vacated | Resolution at issue overruled objections to estimates; trial court found no final levy yet and enforcement/collection questions are not before court | Court held overruling of objections was valid as-a-matter-of-record; lack of a later "final schedule" does not invalidate the resolution overruling objections; issue of collection/enforceability not decided |
| Standard/burden allocation for proving Open Meetings Act violation | Board must prove it properly entered executive session (per plaintiffs) | Plaintiffs carry ultimate burden to prove violation and must rebut presumption of regularity | Court confirmed plaintiffs bear burden to prove violation; presumption of regularity applies and was not rebutted |
Key Cases Cited
- Henley v. Youngstown Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 90 Ohio St.3d 142 (2000) (standard of review for administrative appeals under R.C. 2506.04)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained; appellate court may not substitute its judgment)
- State ex rel. Shafer v. Ohio Turnpike Comm., 159 Ohio St. 581 (1953) (presumption that public officials act regularly and lawfully)
- L.J. Smith, Inc. v. Harrison Cty. Bd. of Revision, 140 Ohio St.3d 114 (2014) (presumption of regularity applies to official actions)
- Holeski v. Lawrence, 85 Ohio App.3d 824 (1993) (Open Meetings Act targets deliberation among members, not mere presence or Q&A)
- Cincinnati Enquirer v. Cincinnati Bd. of Edn., 192 Ohio App.3d 566 (2011) (without deliberation among public-body members, a session is not a "meeting" under the Act)