2020 Ohio 4359
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Relator Brian M. Ames (pro se) filed a verified petition for writs of mandamus claiming the Portage County Board of Commissioners violated R.C. 121.22 (Ohio Open Meetings Act) by failing to keep full and accurate minutes when it recessed into meetings of the Portage County Solid Waste Management District Board (SWMB) and approved consent agendas not reflected in the Board minutes.
- Ames asserted the SWMB is a fictitious entity and also alleged the Board failed to provide an exhibit (“Exhibit A,” a Then-and-Now certificate) in response to his public-records/email request.
- The Board produced SWMB meeting minutes showing consent-agenda items, motions, and votes, and submitted clerk affidavits and email exchanges; the clerk stated Exhibit A is maintained by the county auditor and available on request.
- Both parties moved for summary judgment. The court framed the issues as whether the SWMB is statutorily authorized (so its minutes can satisfy OMA requirements) and whether use of consent agendas or omission of Exhibit A rendered the minutes inaccurate under the OMA.
- The court held the SWMB is a valid public body under R.C. 3734.52 and R.C. 343.01; its minutes showing consent agendas, motions, and votes satisfied R.C. 121.22(C) and R.C. 305.10(A).
- The court denied Ames’ petition and granted the Board’s motion for summary judgment; Ames’ summary-judgment motion was overruled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of SWMB as public body | SWMB is fictitious; its minutes should be disregarded | SWMB is statutorily authorized under R.C. 3734.52/343.01 and is a public body | SWMB is authorized; its minutes are valid under OMA |
| Use of consent agendas and accuracy of minutes | Consent-agenda resolutions were not individually voted on or disclosed; minutes inaccurate | Consent agendas are reflected in SWMB minutes with motions and votes; accessible to public | Consent agendas are permissible where minutes state items, motions, and votes; OMA not violated |
| Omission of Exhibit A from initial response | Failure to provide Exhibit A in initial email makes minutes/response inaccurate | Exhibit A is maintained by auditor, available on request; omission was not intentional | Omitting Exhibit A from initial email is not an OMA violation where record is available and not withheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Frano v. Red Robin Internatl., Inc., 181 Ohio App.3d 13 (summ. judgment terminates litigation when there is nothing to try)
- Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356 (summary-judgment standard explained)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (elements for summary judgment under Civ.R. 56)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (moving party’s initial burden and required evidentiary showing on summary judgment)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. Cincinnati, 76 Ohio St.3d 540 (purpose and liberal construction of the Open Meetings Act)
- State ex rel. Preston v. Ferguson, 170 Ohio St. 450 (statutory powers may be exercised in a reasonable manner when no mode is prescribed)