State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2019 Ohio 3730

Background

Relator Brian Ames sued the Portage County Board of Commissioners alleging the Board repeatedly entered executive session after reciting the entire R.C. 121.22(G)(1) list (42 alleged violations across Jan–Jun 2016), without specifying which permitted personnel purpose would be discussed.
Ames sought declaratory relief, $500 per violation, injunctive relief, annotated minutes, and fees; the Board admitted it read the statutory language and moved for summary judgment.
The trial court admitted meeting minutes and video, granted summary judgment to the Board (holding recitation of the statute satisfied R.C. 121.22(G)(1)), and denied Ames’s motion for summary judgment; it also entered a protective order limiting discovery to minutes and the meeting videos.
On appeal the court: dismissed one count (Count LV) as moot (duplicative of a separate appeal), reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the Board on the remaining counts, affirmed denial of Ames’s summary judgment motion, and affirmed the protective order; remanded for further proceedings.
The appellate court held the statute requires a public body to state which specific one or more purposes in R.C. 121.22(G)(1) it reasonably intends to discuss; verbatim recitation of the entire laundry list is insufficient.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether reciting the entire R.C. 121.22(G)(1) list satisfies the statute	Ames: reciting the full list without specifying which purpose violates R.C. 121.22(G)(1) (Long)	Board: reading the statutory language verbatim necessarily states an acceptable purpose	Court: statute requires specifying which one or more permitted purposes are to be discussed; reciting the whole list is insufficient; reversed in part
Whether the Board was entitled to summary judgment	Ames: facts undisputed; entitled to judgment as a matter of law on each alleged violation	Board: minutes show statutory recitation; burden shifted to Ames to show exception inapplicable; factual ambiguity exists	Court: trial court erred to the extent it held recitation alone adequate; summary judgment for Board reversed on those counts
Whether Ames was entitled to summary judgment	Ames: Board’s practice was per se unlawful so he met burden for judgment	Board: genuine issue whether Board reasonably intended to discuss all listed purposes; Ames failed to identify record evidence eliminating that factual question	Court: Ames failed to show absence of genuine issue of material fact; denial of his motion for summary judgment affirmed
Whether the trial court abused discretion in granting the Board’s protective order limiting discovery	Ames: protective order was a ruse to avoid discovery and prejudiced his case	Board: protective order was justified to prevent undue burden; produced minutes and videos sufficient for dispositive motions	Court: no abuse of discretion; protective order affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Long v. Cardington Village Council, 92 Ohio St.3d 54 (2001) (public body must specify which statutory personnel purpose applies; disapproving of mere "laundry list" recitation)
State ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. Cincinnati, 76 Ohio St.3d 540 (1996) (Open Meetings Act purpose and requirement that deliberations be public unless exception applies)
Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (summary judgment burdens and required evidentiary showing)
Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112 (1988) (standard for entry of summary judgment when nonmoving party must show genuine issue for trial)
State ex rel. Carna v. Teays Valley Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 131 Ohio St.3d 478 (2012) (statutory construction principles: give effect to every word)
Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. v. Chillicothe Bd. of Edn., 41 Ohio App.3d 218 (4th Dist. 1988) (exceptions to public-meeting rule must be strictly construed)
Carver v. Deerfield Twp., 139 Ohio App.3d 64 (11th Dist. 2000) (burden-shifting framework in Open Meetings Act cases)