2019 Ohio 3729
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Brian M. Ames (pro se) sued the Portage County Board of Commissioners alleging multiple violations of Ohio's Open Meetings Act (OMA) for 75 meetings (Counts I–LXXIV: July 19, 2016–April 4, 2017; Count LXXV: November 4, 2015), asserting the Board read the entire R.C. 121.22(G)(1) list verbatim instead of identifying which permitted personnel purpose(s) it intended to discuss.
- Ames sought declaratory relief, an injunction, $500 per violation, correction/annotation of minutes, and costs/fees; the Board denied the allegations and sought a protective order during discovery.
- The Board submitted certified meeting minutes showing it recited the verbatim statutory list before entering executive session; the trial court granted summary judgment for the Board, denied Ames’ summary judgment, and granted the Board a protective order.
- The appellate court affirmed summary judgment as to Count LXXV (Nov. 4, 2015) on res judicata grounds, reversed the grant of summary judgment for the Board on the remaining counts, affirmed denial of Ames’ summary judgment, and affirmed the protective order.
- The court held R.C. 121.22(G)(1) requires a public body to expressly state which one or more of the listed personnel purposes it reasonably intends to discuss; merely reciting the entire statutory list is insufficient as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Count LXXV (Nov. 4, 2015) is barred by res judicata | Ames: this meeting is a separate actionable violation | Board: the earlier suit covered claims arising from that meeting | Held: barred by res judicata (affirmed) |
| Whether reciting the full R.C. 121.22(G)(1) laundry-list satisfies the statute's requirement to "state which one or more" purposes | Ames: Long controls; reciting the list without specifying is noncompliant | Board: reading the statutory language satisfies the requirement | Held: reciting the entire list is insufficient; statute requires specifying which permissible purpose(s) (reversed as to remaining counts) |
| Whether Ames was entitled to summary judgment on the remaining counts | Ames: Board’s minutes show noncompliance so summary judgment should follow | Board: minutes show executive sessions taken under R.C. 121.22(G)(1) | Held: Ames failed to carry Civ.R. 56 burden — genuine issue whether Board reasonably intended to discuss all listed purposes (summary judgment denied for Ames; affirmed) |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by granting the Board's protective order and limiting discovery | Ames: protective order was a ruse, deprived him of evidence and prejudiced his case | Board: protective order was appropriate under Civ.R. 26(C) for good cause | Held: no abuse of discretion; protective order affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Long v. Cardington Village Council, 92 Ohio St.3d 54 (Ohio 2001) (requires public body to identify the specific statutory personnel purpose(s) to be discussed in executive session)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. Cincinnati, 76 Ohio St.3d 540 (Ohio 1996) (OMA must be liberally construed to require open government and prevent secret deliberations)
- Natl. Amusements, Inc. v. Springdale, 53 Ohio St.3d 60 (Ohio 1990) (res judicata bars all claims that were or might have been litigated in the first action)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (summary judgment burdens — moving party must identify record evidence showing absence of genuine issue)
- Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112 (Ohio 1988) (nonmoving party must present specific facts showing genuine issue for trial)
- Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. v. Chillicothe Bd. of Edn., 41 Ohio App.3d 218 (Ohio App. 1988) (exceptions to open meetings must be strictly construed)
- In re Removal of Kuehnle, 161 Ohio App.3d 399 (Ohio App. 2005) (R.C. 121.22(G)(1) requires specifying the stated purpose for executive session)
- Tobacco Use Prevention & Control Found. Bd. of Trustees v. Boyce, 185 Ohio App.3d 707 (Ohio App. 2009) (public body must specifically identify the permissible topic when invoking R.C. 121.22(G)(1))