State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2023 Ohio 3382

Background

Portage County Board of Commissioners also serves as the board of the Portage County Solid Waste Management District (SWMD); in 2019 it used a practice of recessing a county meeting to hold an SWMD meeting and used a consent-agenda procedure for routine items.
At the September 17, 2019 SWMD meeting the approved minutes referenced an “Exhibit A,” but the exhibit was not attached to the approved minutes and was not produced in response to Brian Ames’s December 26, 2019 public-records request; the clerk emailed the approved minutes the next day without Exhibit A.
Ames filed a mandamus action alleging (1) Open Meetings Act (OMA) violations arising from the consent-agenda practice and the meeting structure and (2) a Public Records Act violation for failing to produce full and accurate minutes — seeking production of records and statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(2).
This Court’s earlier decision (Ames I) held that the board had not produced full and accurate minutes for September 17 and ordered production of Exhibit A; it remanded to the court of appeals to consider whether Ames is entitled to statutory damages and other relief for OMA violations.
On remand the Eleventh District granted summary judgment to the board and SWMD on Ames’s OMA claim (finding relief moot or not cognizable in mandamus) and denied statutory damages under the Public Records Act; this appeal followed.
The Ohio Supreme Court (majority) affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the OMA claim but reversed the denial of statutory damages, holding the court of appeals failed to follow the remand mandate and remanding to determine the amount of statutory damages (and any reduction under R.C. 149.43(C)(2)).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the board’s use of a consent agenda and the manner of conducting SWMD business violated the Open Meetings Act and entitled Ames to mandamus relief	Ames: consent-agenda practice constructively closed meetings and violated OMA; entitled to writ compelling future compliance	Board: practice did not violate OMA as a matter of law; in any event the board stopped using consent agendas, so relief is moot	Court: affirmed appellate grant of summary judgment on OMA claim — mandamus cannot compel general future observance and the consent-agenda claim was moot because board discontinued the practice
Whether failing to produce Exhibit A with the approved minutes violated the Public Records Act and supports statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(2)	Ames: failure to produce Exhibit A means custodian didn’t provide full and accurate public records and is entitled to statutory damages	Board: no violation of R.C. 149.43(B); produced the approved minutes and thus no basis for statutory damages	Court: reversed the court of appeals — Ames I necessarily required production of Exhibit A (a Public Records Act obligation), so the appellate court erred in denying statutory damages; remanded to determine amount and whether reductions apply under R.C. 149.43(C)(2)
Whether the court of appeals had to follow the law-of-the-case from Ames I and was bound to deny summary judgment to the board on OMA or PRA issues	Ames: Ames I resolved liability and created law of the case favoring Ames	Board: remand left open questions and did not preclude the court of appeals from deciding remaining issues	Court: law-of-the-case applies only to issues decided on review; Ames I established only that a prima facie PRA/O MA issue existed and ordered production of Exhibit A — but remand permitted factual/legal determinations on additional relief; appellate court erred only insofar as it re-litigated the PRA-production issue the Supreme Court had resolved
Whether mandamus is the proper vehicle to compel general future compliance or to enjoin use of consent-agenda procedures	Ames: seeks writ comparable to relief in Long to compel accurate minutes and public meetings going forward	Board: mandamus cannot be used to compel general observance of laws or to grant declaratory/injunctive relief; remedy not cognizable	Court: mandamus cannot be used to compel general future compliance or to issue a prohibitory injunction in lieu of declaratory action; relief seeking prospective injunction was not cognizable and thus denied

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 165 Ohio St.3d 292 (Ames I) (this Court previously held the board failed to produce full and accurate minutes and ordered production of Exhibit A; remanded to consider statutory damages)
Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (law-of-the-case doctrine governs issues previously decided by a reviewing court)
Giancola v. Azem, 153 Ohio St.3d 594 (clarifies scope of law-of-the-case and remand powers)
State ex rel. Am. Civ. Liberties Union of Ohio, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 128 Ohio St.3d 256 (mandamus requirements; limits on compelling general observance)
State ex rel. Long v. Cardington Village Council, 92 Ohio St.3d 54 (mandamus granted for inaccurate minutes at issue; relief tied to specific meetings)
White v. King, 147 Ohio St.3d 74 (public bodies cannot conceal deliberations; distinctions between Open Meetings Act duties and Public Records Act duties)
State ex rel. MORE Bratenahl v. Bratenahl, 157 Ohio St.3d 309 (examples where form of decision-making violated OMA despite public voting)
Danis Clarkco Landfill Co. v. Clark Cty. Solid Waste Mgmt. Dist., 73 Ohio St.3d 590 (board of county commissioners may serve as SWMD board)