STATE OF OHIO EX REL. RICHARD A. SANTEFORT v. BOARD OF TOWNSHIP TRUSTEES OF WAYNE TOWNSHIP, et al.
CASE NO. CA2014-07-153
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY
5/26/2015
2015-Ohio-2009
RINGLAND, J.
CIVIL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CV2011-04-1141
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Roger S. Gates, P.O. Box 515, Ohio 45012, for respondents-appellees, Wayne Township Board of Trustees, R. Timothy Taylor, William T. Kennel, Robert V. Hoelle, and Marie Graham
OPINION
RINGLAND, J.
{¶ 1} Relator-appellant, Richard A. Santefort, appeals from a decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, ruling in favor of respondents-appellees, the Wayne Township Board of Trustees, concerning relator‘s requests for township records made pursuant to the Ohio Public Records Act,
{¶ 2} This case concerns the application of the Ohio Public Records Act as relator made several public records requests to the township in 2011. The township provided all requested records to relator except for handwritten notes taken by the township‘s fiscal officer, Marie Graham, during township trustee meetings. Additionally, certain records, including minutes of an October 29, 2009, board of zoning appeals hearing (BZA hearing), were not provided to relator until 22 days after he filed a written public records request.
{¶ 3} Relator‘s first written public records request was made on March 21, 2011. At this time, relator requested a recording of the BZA hearing and “any other public documents pertaining to that hearing.” Additionally, relator sought copies of several months’ worth of minutes and recordings of township trustee meetings.1 In the request, relator indicated that on March 2, 2011, he had called the township to request a recording of the BZA hearing and had not yet received it or other related documents. On April 12, 2011, relator received a copy of minutes of the BZA hearing and a copy of minutes from the relevant township trustee meetings.
{¶ 4} On April 18, 2011, relator filed two additional written public records requests seeking (1) additional specific documents relating to the BZA hearing and (2) “copies of all the paperwork, including handwritten notes, Marie Graham uses to produce the minutes of the township trustees meetings.” Pertinent to this appeal, relator never received copies of Graham‘s handwritten notes. Rather, relator received a letter from Graham stating that she used her handwritten notes to compile the minutes of the township trustee meetings and that she no longer had these handwritten notes.
{¶ 5} Relator filed a writ of mandamus in the Butler County Common Pleas Court to
{¶ 6} Regarding timeliness of the production of the requested public records, relator testified that when he made an oral request for the recording of the BZA hearing, township trustees told him that he would have “everything within 3 days.” When he did not receive the records, relator made a written request on March 21, 2011. Ritter testified that in response to relator‘s written request, he mailed records to relator on March 23, 2011. However, it is undisputed that the mailed documents never reached relator and relator testified that the documents were later provided to him on April 12, 2011, at the township office.
{¶ 7} After hearing the evidence, the magistrate found that Graham‘s handwritten notes were not public records because they were made to serve as a personal reminder of what took place at the meetings. The magistrate also found that the handwritten notes had been destroyed and were incapable of being produced. Furthermore, the magistrate found, given the facts and circumstances of the case, that documents constituting public records were timely provided to relator. Specifically, the township attempted to provide the documents via mail within two days of the written request, and when the mail failed,
{¶ 8} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 9} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS AFFIRMATION OF THE MAGISTRATE‘S DECISION THAT THE HANDWRITTEN NOTES, PRODUCED AND PREPARED BY THE WAYNE TOWNSHIP FISCAL OFFICER, ARE NOT PUBLIC RECORDS.
{¶ 10} Relator argues that the trial court erred by failing to require the township to produce handwritten notes taken by the township‘s fiscal officer, Graham, during the township trustee meetings. Relator specifically asserts that Graham‘s notes constituted “draft minutes” of the township trustee meetings, and thus are public records to which he is entitled. In contrast, the township asserts that any notes taken by Graham during its meetings were only for convenience and did not constitute any official record of its proceedings. As such, the township contends that Graham‘s notes of its meetings are not public records.
{¶ 11} The appropriate remedy to compel compliance with
{¶ 12} The Public Records Act is based on the public policy concept that “open government serves the public interest and our democratic system.” State ex rel. Dann v. Taft, 109 Ohio St.3d 364, 2006-Ohio-1825, ¶ 20. As such, the act is construed “liberally in favor of broad access and [a court is to] resolve any doubt in favor of public records.” Toledo Blade Co., 120 Ohio St.3d 372, 2008-Ohio-6253, ¶ 17. Public records are defined by
any document, device, or item, regardless of physical form or characteristic, including an electronic record * * *, created or received by or coming under the jurisdiction of any public office of the state or its political subdivisions, which serves to document the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the office.
(Emphasis added.)
{¶ 13} Relator urges us to make a distinction regarding notes taken by Graham because, as fiscal officer, she had a statutory duty to record the township trustee meetings. Pursuant to
{¶ 14} At the hearing in front of a magistrate, Graham testified that her handwritten notes were not “draft minutes.” Graham stated that her notes were used to help her remember things, such as names of people who attended the meeting and which trustee proposed amendments. Graham indicated that the official minutes of the township trustee meetings were a combination from her memory and her handwritten notes. Graham testified that she takes her handwritten notes home with her, she does not keep a copy of the notes in her office, and the township does not keep her notes as official records. To the extent Graham relied on her handwritten notes, Graham testified that they were incorporated into the official minutes of the township‘s meetings.
{¶ 15} We find Graham‘s notes were personal in nature, and we decline relator‘s invitation to distinguish her notes based on the duties imposed on her as the township fiscal officer. From Graham‘s testimony, it is clear that the notes were taken for her own convenience to serve as a reminder when compiling the official record and were not created to document organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, and other council activities. Contra Verhovec at ¶ 30. Graham‘s handwritten notes were not used by the township as records. No one at the township had access to Graham‘s handwritten notes and the township did not keep a copy. Furthermore, because Graham relies on her recollection of the township trustee meetings in addition to her handwritten notes, such notes do not contain sufficient facts and information to reflect an accurate record. While not identical to the official record, to the extent Graham relied on her handwritten notes, relator was provided with the information as it was incorporated into the official minutes of the
{¶ 16} Because we find that Graham‘s notes were personal in nature, the township had no duty to provide Graham‘s handwritten notes in response to relator‘s public records request. See State ex rel. Doe v. Tetrault, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2011-10-070, 2012-Ohio-3879. Based on the foregoing, we find that the trial court did not err in finding relator failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Graham‘s handwritten notes were public records subject to production under
{¶ 17} Relator‘s first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 18} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 19} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE MAGISTRATE‘S FAILURE TO FIND THAT APPELLANT/RELATOR WAS DEPRIVED TIMELY DELIVERY OF RECORDS CONSISTING OF THE FISCAL OFFICER‘S HANDWRITTEN NOTES USED TO COMPILE THE MINUTES OF THE TOWNSHIP TRUSTEE MEETINGS.
{¶ 20} Relator argues that Graham failed to deliver her handwritten notes of the township trustee meetings to him within a reasonable time as required by the Public Records Act. Specifically, relator asserts that delivery of Graham‘s handwritten notes was not timely because he never received copies even though Graham still had her handwritten notes in her possession at the time of his request.
{¶ 21} In light of our resolution of relator‘s first assignment of error, Graham‘s handwritten notes of the township trustee meetings were personal in nature and not subject to disclosure under
{¶ 22} Consequently, relator‘s second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 23} Assignment of Error No. 3:
{¶ 24} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS AFFIRMATION OF THE MAGISTRATE‘S DECISION THAT APPELLEES/RESPONDENTS PROVIDING OF RECORDS ON APRIL 12, 2011 WAS TIMELY UNDER
{¶ 25} Relator argues that he is entitled to damages under the Public Records Act because copies of public records requested on March 21, 2011, were not provided to him in a prompt manner and within a reasonable period of time pursuant to
{¶ 26} We review the trial court‘s decision to deny damages for the township‘s alleged failure to comply with
{¶ 27} Pursuant to
{¶ 28} According to
{¶ 29} Regarding the minutes of the BZA hearing requested by relator, relator states in his brief:
It is evident from the trial record that Appellees/Respondents could have produced the written record of the BZA hearing shortly after the March 2, 2011, oral request, or within a day after the March 21, 2011[,] written request. * * * In his trial testimony,
Mr. Ritter admitted that he knew the exact location of such record since he took it to the Trustees, over 17 months prior to Appellant/Relator‘s request. [Citation omitted.] Instead, said Township officials mailed it, by certified mail, to the wrong address, and left it at the post office for a week after its returned [sic.], before deciding to recopy the requested documents and deliver them to Appellant/Relator at the Township building on April 12, 2011, some 22 days after said request.
{¶ 30} In this instance, the township promptly prepared the documents and mailed them on March 23, 2011, to relator at an address found on the auditor‘s website as relator failed to provide his address in his request. Despite the good faith effort of the township to provide copies of the documents to relator, relator never received the mailing. Relator did not receive copies of the requested documents until April 12, 2011, when he went to the township office where he picked up the documents, including the minutes of the BZA hearing. Whether relator received copies of the documents within a reasonable period of time depends on the unique facts and circumstances of this case. Even though relator did not actually receive the requested documents until 22 days after his written request, the township timely responded by mailing documents to an address associated with relator within two days. Furthermore, the trial court found that relator was contacted by the township once the mailing was returned. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that 22 days between the date relator filed a written request and the date when he received the documents, including the minutes of the BZA hearing, was reasonable. Consequently, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the township timely responded to relator‘s request and that relator was not entitled to statutory damages.
{¶ 31} Relator‘s third assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 32} Judgment affirmed.
S. POWELL, P.J., and HENDRICKSON, J., concur.