State ex rel. More Bratenahl v. Bratenahl
2017 Ohio 8484
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Relator Patricia Meade sued the Village of Bratenahl and councilmembers under Ohio's Open Meetings Act (R.C. 121.22), alleging multiple violations arising from council actions in 2014–2016.
- Core claims: (1) council used secret ballots to elect president pro tempore at the Jan. 21, 2015 meeting; (2) Finance Committee minutes for several 2016 meetings lacked sufficient detail to show rationale for actions; (3) council held an improper executive session on Aug. 19, 2015.
- Meade sought declaratory and injunctive relief, civil forfeitures, costs, and attorney fees; some claims/dismissals occurred during litigation (MORE Bratenahl dismissed; one count later dismissed).
- The trial court denied Meade’s motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to the village and councilmembers.
- On appeal to the Eighth District, the court reviewed de novo whether there were genuine issues of material fact and whether the OMA was violated in the three identified respects.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for defendants, finding (i) the January 2015 ballots were not secret, (ii) Finance Committee minutes (supplemented by recordings) were adequate, and (iii) the Aug. 19, 2015 executive session complied with statutory requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether council’s use of handwritten ballots to elect president pro tempore violated the OMA (secret ballot) | Meade: ballots were secret and deprived public scrutiny, violating R.C. 121.22 | Defendants: ballots were cast in open session, identified each voter by name on the slips, and were maintained as public records—thus not secret | Court: No OMA violation; ballots were not secret (names and votes were public and produced) |
| Whether Finance Committee minutes were inadequate under R.C. 121.22 for failing to show reasoning behind actions | Meade: minutes were too sparse given meeting length/content; public could not understand rationale | Defendants: minutes accurately recorded motions, votes, ordinance/resolution numbers; audiotapes existed and disclosed discussions | Court: No violation; minutes plus audio recordings satisfy statutory/minutes requirements per White |
| Whether Aug. 19, 2015 executive session was improperly conducted (lack of stated purpose/roll call) | Meade: record did not show motion stated purpose or a roll call vote; procedural prerequisites not met | Defendants: audio recording, clerk’s notes, and transcript show motion, explicit purposes (land acquisition, threatened litigation), and roll call vote before reporter transcript began | Court: No violation; statutory requirements for executive session were satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (summary judgment standard under Civ.R. 56)
- White v. Clinton Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 76 Ohio St.3d 416 (minutes must contain sufficient facts to permit public to understand rationale; audio/video recordings acceptable)
- State ex rel. Long v. Cardington Village Council, 92 Ohio St.3d 54 (statutory exceptions permitting executive sessions)
- Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356 (doubts on summary judgment resolved for nonmoving party)
- Mootispaw v. Eckstein, 76 Ohio St.3d 383 (nonmoving party’s obligation to set forth specific facts showing genuine issue)