2019 Ohio 3233
Ohio2019Background
- In January 2015 Bratenahl Village Council elected its president pro tempore by secret-ballot slips tallied privately by the village solicitor during a public meeting. After repeated secret ballots a winner was declared.
- MORE Bratenahl and Patricia Meade sued under Ohio’s Open Meetings Act, R.C. 121.22, seeking declaratory relief, an injunction against future secret-ballot voting, attorney fees, and a $500 civil forfeiture.
- During discovery the village produced the ballot slips (with sticky notes appended later purporting to identify voters). The trial court granted summary judgment for the village; the court of appeals affirmed, reasoning that because the ballots were kept as public records the votes were not truly secret.
- The Ohio Supreme Court accepted review to decide whether a public body violates R.C. 121.22 by taking official action via secret ballot.
- The Court analyzed the Open Meetings Act’s text and purpose, considered precedent about meaningful public access to deliberations, and examined whether later availability of ballots cures any violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Meade) | Defendant's Argument (Bratenahl) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a public body may take official action by secret ballot | Secret ballots prevent the public from meaningfully accessing deliberations and voting, contrary to the Act’s purpose | The Act does not prescribe voting procedures; a meeting is open if the public may attend the session | Held: The Open Meetings Act bars official action by secret ballot; secret voting violated R.C. 121.22 |
| Whether retaining secret-ballot slips as public records cures an Open Meetings Act violation | Post-hoc public-record availability does not cure lack of openness during proceedings | Because ballots were maintained as public records, votes were not secret, so no violation | Held: Making ballots available later does not retroactively make the meeting "open to the public at all times" and does not cure the violation |
| Mootness: whether relief is precluded because the official’s term expired | The statute authorizes suits within two years and mandates injunctions for proven violations; action is not moot | The underlying position: election result is past and therefore moot | Held: Not moot; R.C. 121.22 allows actions within two years and courts must issue injunctions when violations are proven |
| Remedies required when secret-ballot violation proved | Seek injunction, civil forfeiture, attorney fees under R.C. 121.22 | Village argued against relief given elapsed term and record production | Held: Remanded to common pleas court to issue injunction, order civil forfeiture, and award relief consistent with R.C. 121.22 |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. Cincinnati, 76 Ohio St.3d 540 (recognizing that procedural evasions of public deliberation violate the Open Meetings Act)
- White v. King, 147 Ohio St.3d 74 (2016) (majority’s private prearranged communications about public business violated the Act even if later ratified in public)
- Great Lakes Bar Control, Inc. v. Testa, 156 Ohio St.3d 199 (2018) (statutory terms must be given their ordinary meaning when construing public-access statutes)
- Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564 (1982) (when a statute admits multiple readings, choose the interpretation that advances the statute’s purpose)