Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court held that a solid-waste-management district (SWMD) created under R.C. 343.01 and 3734.52 is a valid entity, and a county board of commissioners may hold separate public meetings for SWMD business. The court reversed summary judgment on the issue of whether the board's use of a consent agenda without publicly identifying the specific resolutions being voted on constructively closed the meeting in violation of the Open Meetings Act (R.C. 121.22). The court also held that the board violated the Public Records Act (R.C. 149.43) by failing to include an exhibit referenced in the approved minutes, as full and accurate minutes must incorporate all referenced documents. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the Open Meetings Act claim and potential statutory damages.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the SWMD is a valid entity under Ohio law.
- Whether the board's use of a consent agenda at SWMD meetings violated the Open Meetings Act by constructively closing the meeting.
- Whether the board failed to prepare and maintain full and accurate minutes of the SWMD meetings as required by the Open Meetings Act and Public Records Act.
- Whether the court of common pleas is a proper respondent in a mandamus action under the Open Meetings Act.
Holdings
- The SWMD is a valid entity created under R.C. 343.01 and 3734.52, and the board's procedure of convening separate meetings for SWMD business does not violate the Open Meetings Act.
- The board's use of a consent agenda without informing the public of the specific resolutions being voted on raises a question of fact sufficient to survive summary judgment as to whether it constructively closes the public meeting in violation of the Open Meetings Act.
- The board failed to produce full and accurate minutes of the September 17 SWMD meeting because Exhibit A, which was incorporated by reference, was not attached to the approved minutes or produced in response to a public-records request.
- A court of common pleas is not a proper respondent in a mandamus action because a court is not sui juris and cannot be sued in its own right absent express statutory authority.
Key quotations
“the board's failure to inform the public of the resolutions being voted on at an SWMD public meeting as part of a consent agenda raises the question whether the use of a consent agenda in this manner constructively closes the public meeting and is an impermissible end run around the Open Meetings Act.” (¶ 19)
“The board is required to keep full and accurate minutes of its meetings under the Open Meetings Act and to permit public access to those minutes under the Public Records Act.” (¶ 23)
“There is nothing in the Open Meetings Act or in R.C. 343.01 that prohibits the board from holding a public meeting of the SWMD separate from the county board meeting.” (¶ 15)
Factual background
The Portage County Board of Commissioners created the Portage County Solid Waste Management District (SWMD) by resolution in 1988. The board holds separate public meetings for SWMD business and non-SWMD county business, using a consent agenda procedure. In September 2019, the board held SWMD meetings where it adopted consent agendas containing multiple resolutions without publicly stating the specific resolutions being voted on. Ames requested minutes and discovered that Exhibit A, referenced in the minutes of the September 17 SWMD meeting, was not attached to the approved minutes or produced in response to his public-records request.
Procedural history
The court of appeals granted summary judgment in favor of appellees, denying Ames's writ of mandamus. Ames appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court as of right.
Remand instructions
The board must produce Exhibit A to the minutes of the September 17 SWMD meeting to Ames in response to his public-records request. The court of appeals shall consider (1) whether the SWMD's alleged violation of the Open Meetings Act entitles Ames to further relief and (2) whether Ames should be awarded statutory damages under the Public Records Act.