2020 Ohio 5561
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Relator Dean Maynard sued the Medina County Facilities Taskforce Subcommittee and individual members alleging at least five violations of Ohio’s Open Meetings Act (R.C. 121.22): meetings held without public notice, not open to the public, and without minutes, during which public business and decisions were made.
- The Subcommittee was formed by the Medina County Board of Commissioners to assist in selecting an architectural/professional design firm for a courthouse renovation; members included county commissioners, city leaders, judges, and county officials.
- Respondents filed answers and (except for one respondent) attached 13 exhibits; they also moved for judgment on the pleadings under Civ.R. 12(C).
- The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings, relying on the attached exhibits and concluding the Subcommittee was not a “public body” subject to R.C. 121.22 because R.C. 153.69 makes the county the decision-making authority for selecting a design firm.
- On appeal the Ninth District held the trial court erred by considering documents that were not Civ.R. 10(C) written instruments and therefore outside the 12(C) record, and by failing to construe the complaint’s allegations as true; the court reversed and remanded without deciding whether the Subcommittee is a public body.
Issues
| Issue | Maynard's Argument | Respondents' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly granted judgment on the pleadings when factual disputes exist | Maynard: complaint alleges Open Meetings Act violations and disputes over the nature/content of meetings, so dismissal was premature | Respondents: pleadings and attached exhibits show the Subcommittee had no decision-making authority and thus no OMA liability | Reversed — trial court improperly granted 12(C); must construe complaint as true and cannot consider outside evidence |
| Whether the trial court could consider exhibits attached to respondents’ answer under Civ.R. 12(C) | Maynard: exhibits not part of the pleading record; court should not rely on them | Respondents: exhibits support that Subcommittee was advisory/non-decision-making | Reversed — exhibits were not Civ.R. 10(C) "written instruments" and should have been excluded from 12(C) record |
| Whether the Subcommittee (and its members) is a "public body" under R.C. 121.22 and therefore subject to suit | Maynard: alleged Subcommittee is a public/decision-making body and its meetings triggered R.C. 121.22 | Respondents: only the county/board is the decision-making authority under R.C. 153.69, so Subcommittee is non sui juris | Court did not decide the underlying statutory question on the merits; holding limited to procedural error reversing dismissal |
| Whether the trial court erred in taxing certain court costs against Maynard | Maynard: costs (computerization fee) exceed statutory authority | Respondents: argued costs properly assessed | Moot — assignment of error was rendered moot by reversal of judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Pontious, 75 Ohio St.3d 565 (1996) (standard for Civ.R. 12(C): construe complaint in favor of nonmoving party; movant must show no set of facts entitling relief)
- Whaley v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 92 Ohio St.3d 574 (2001) (Civ.R. 12(C) can be characterized as a belated Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion)
- State ex rel. American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 128 Ohio St.3d 256 (2011) (definition and scope of "committee" under the Open Meetings Act)
- State ex rel. Leneghan v. Husted, 154 Ohio St.3d 60 (2018) (interpretation of Civ.R. 10(C) and what qualifies as a "written instrument")
- Burnside v. Leimbach, 71 Ohio App.3d 399 (1991) (12(C) appropriate only when no material factual issues exist)
- Weissfeld v. Akron Pub. School Dist., 94 Ohio App.3d 455 (1994) (committee need not be decision-making to fall within R.C. 121.22)
- Thomas v. White, 85 Ohio App.3d 410 (1992) (Open Meetings Act should be construed liberally)
- Maddox v. Greene Cty. Children Servs. Bd. of Dirs., 12 N.E.3d 476 (2014) (suit against officials in their official capacity is effectively a suit against the public body)