2018 Ohio 2888
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Relator Brian Ames sued the Portage County Board of Commissioners alleging violations of Ohio’s Open Meetings Act (OMA) for five prearranged meetings (June 16, June 30, July 14, July 28, and Aug. 7, 2015) where minutes and public notice were not kept/provided.
- The gatherings involved a volunteer Jail Overcrowding Task Force (JOTF) and a meeting with the Portage County Tea Party (PCTP); multiple commissioners attended those meetings.
- JOTF and PCTP members provided community input about the opioid epidemic, jail overcrowding, and possible funding solutions (including a sales/use tax); neither body had decision-making authority.
- Parties stipulated the meetings were prearranged, a quorum or multiple commissioners attended some meetings, and no minutes or public notice existed for the listed dates.
- Trial court found the meetings were informational (fact‑gathering) rather than deliberative and ruled for defendants; Ames appealed, seeking civil forfeitures and invalidation remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether JOTF was a subcommittee and whether meetings with it constituted OMA "meetings" with deliberation | Ames: JOTF functioned as a subcommittee; a majority attended and therefore engaged in meetings that involved deliberation | Board: JOTF was only an informational, non-decisionmaking group; commissioners listened but did not discuss public business among themselves | Court: Even if JOTF were a subcommittee, evidence showed only information‑gathering; no deliberations between commissioners; OMA did not apply |
| Whether Aug. 7 meeting with PCTP involved a majority deliberating public business under OMA | Ames: Commissioners considered pros/cons of a tax levy with PCTP, constituting deliberation by a majority | Board: The meeting was informational to solicit support/opinions; no commissioner-to-commissioner discussion or decision occurred | Court: Meeting was informational/fact‑finding; no deliberative exchange among commissioners; OMA did not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for weighing evidence/credibility in civil appeals)
- Holeski v. Lawrence, 85 Ohio App.3d 824 (1993) (distinguishes information‑gathering from deliberation under OMA)
- Moraine v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 67 Ohio St.2d 139 (1981) (Sunshine Law intent: require deliberation on public issues in public)
- Cincinnati Enquirer v. Cincinnati Bd. of Edn., 192 Ohio App.3d 566 (2011) (definition of deliberation as legislative weighing and discussion)
- Springfield Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Ohio Ass’n of Pub. Sch. Employees, 106 Ohio App.3d 855 (1995) (information‑gathering/question‑and‑answer sessions do not constitute deliberation unless commissioners discuss among themselves)