2013 Ohio 2295
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Relator Dunlap filed a mandamus petition alleging violations of the Open Meetings Act and Public Records Act by the Violet Township Board of Trustees and individual trustees.
- Respondents admitted four Open Meetings Act violations related to improper motions to begin executive sessions, with arguments about time-barred claims and overall compliance.
- Relator sought a writ requiring more detailed minutes, public meetings, and proper executive-session practices; parties cross-moved for summary judgment.
- The court applied summary judgment standards to determine whether minutes and executive-session entries complied with R.C. 121.22 and related provisions.
- The court granted summary judgment to Relator on two admitted violations and on three dates of executive-session entries, and otherwise granted Respondents’ summary judgment; a writ was issued to correct errors and attorney fees were denied.
- Final judgment: writ of mandamus issued to correct the specified errors; costs to be divided equally between Relator and Respondents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the minutes sufficiently detailed to convey the Board's rationale? | Dunlap contends minutes are inadequate. | Violet Twp argues minutes are self-explanatory and sufficient. | Denied; minutes deemed sufficiently detailed for those cited. |
| Are January 15–16, 2010 and January 20, 2010 executive-session entries time-barred? | Claims within two years survive if within the Open Meetings Act action. | Claims are time-barred; two-year limit applies. | Writ denied for those dates due to statute-of-limitations bar. |
| Are January 4, 2011 and November 2, 2011 minutes deficient for lack of specificity of purpose? | Entries should specify the executive-session purpose. | Entries should be counted under existing practices. | Writ granted for these two dates; lack of specificity violated the statute. |
| Do the seven contested dates of entries into executive session comply with the statute? | Multiple dates failed to comply with G(1) requirements. | Some dates complied with statutory requirements. | Writ granted as to May 5, 2010; April 28, 2011; and August 3, 2011 entries; other dates not granting relief. |
| Are civil forfeitures or attorney-fee awards appropriate here? | Relator seeks civil penalties and fees under R.C. 121.22(I) and 149.43(C). | No such relief since an injunction was not issued in the court of common pleas. | Attorney fees denied; civil-forfeiture not awarded; but mandamus relief issued with limited fee consideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Tompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 447 (Ohio 1996) (summary-judgment framework for Civ.R. 56)
- State ex rel. Parsons v. Fleming, 68 Ohio St.3d 509 (Ohio 1994) (standard for mandamus against public bodies)
- State ex rel. Fairfield Leader v. Ricketts, 56 Ohio St.3d 97 (Ohio 1990) (pari materia construction of R.C. 121.22 in open meetings)
- State ex rel. Am. Civ. Liberties Union of Ohio, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commers, 128 Ohio St.3d 256 (Ohio 2011) (R.C. 121.22 and 149.43 construed in pari materia)
- State ex rel. Long v. Cardington Village Council, 92 Ohio St.3d 54 (Ohio 2001) (open meetings minutes and mandamus/fee considerations)
- State ex rel. Inskeep v. Staten, 74 Ohio St.3d 676 (Ohio 1996) (entitlement to mandamus relief and related remedies)