State ex rel Ames. v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs.
2017 Ohio 4237
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Plaintiff Brian M. Ames (pro se) sued the Portage County Board of Commissioners under Ohio's Open Meetings Act, alleging the Board held four meetings on Nov. 4, 2015 and violated notice, executive-session, and minutes requirements.
- Public notices: Oct. 23 notice canceled regular meetings and announced a Nov. 4 special meeting (for executive session on security); Oct. 25 notice set budget-review special meetings (Nov. 2–4); Nov. 3 email/Nov. 4 publication announced a Special Emergency Meeting for Nov. 4 at 9:30 a.m. to discuss the Hiram Hike & Bike Trail and budget items.
- Board’s minutes show a single Nov. 4 meeting beginning 9:38 a.m.: trail discussion, a morning executive session on personnel, public budget discussion, an 11:05 a.m. executive session on security, a recess, and reconvening at 1:16 p.m. to continue budget discussion; adjournment at 2:14 p.m.
- Ames moved for summary judgment claiming multiple meetings occurred (one lacked notice and separate minutes were required), emergency meeting lacked an actual emergency, and an executive session addressed matters not disclosed in notice.
- The Board moved for summary judgment asserting only one meeting occurred, notices covered the topics discussed, executive sessions were authorized, and emergency notice was discretionary and justified by quorum concerns.
- Trial court granted the Board summary judgment and denied Ames; the court concluded only one meeting occurred, notices were adequate, executive sessions complied with R.C. 121.22, and the emergency portion was valid. Ames appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of meetings on Nov. 4, 2015 | Ames: There were four separate meetings (each needing notice/minutes) | Board: Only one meeting occurred with multiple agenda items and executive sessions | Single meeting: court and appellate court held only one meeting occurred |
| Failure to give notice for fourth meeting | Ames: Afternoon session was a new meeting with no published notice | Board: Afternoon session was continuation of the same meeting and covered by prior notices | No notice violation: notices covered the special meeting’s purposes; no separate meeting occurred |
| Failure to keep full and accurate minutes | Ames: Separate meetings required separate minutes; minutes were incomplete | Board: Minutes reflected general subject matter and complied with R.C. 121.22(C) | No minutes violation: one set of minutes adequately reflected topics and executive sessions |
| Validity of emergency meeting and executive sessions | Ames: Emergency meeting was improper because there was no immediate official action and an executive session unrelated to the emergency was held | Board: Emergency notice was discretionary and justified by quorum concerns; executive sessions were authorized special-meeting executive sessions | Emergency and executive sessions valid: court found emergency notice reasonable; executive sessions complied with statute and stayed within noticed purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (setting Ohio summary-judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (movant’s initial burden in summary-judgment practice)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (burden-shifting framework for summary judgment in Ohio)
- State ex rel. Bates v. Smith, 147 Ohio St.3d 322 (public bodies have discretion in determining what constitutes an emergency for R.C. 121.22(F))
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. Cincinnati, 76 Ohio St.3d 540 (purpose of Ohio’s Open Meetings Act to prevent secret deliberations)