State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 2020-1120

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM.
• Citation: 165 Ohio St.3d 292,178 N.E.3d 492
• Parties: The STATE EX REL. AMES, Appellant, v. PORTAGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS et al., Appellees.
• Docket Number: No. 2020-1120,2020-1120
• Decision Date: 14 July 2021

165 Ohio St.3d 292
178 N.E.3d 492

The STATE EX REL. AMES, Appellant,
v.
PORTAGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS et al., Appellees.

No. 2020-1120

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted March 30, 2021
Decided July 14, 2021.

Brian M. Ames, pro se.

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecuting Attorney, and Christopher J. Meduri, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees.

Per Curiam.

165 Ohio St.3d 292

{¶ 1} Appellant, Brian M. Ames, appeals the Eleventh District Court of Appeals’ entry of summary judgment in favor of appellees, Portage County Board of Commissioners ("the board"), Portage County Solid Waste Management District Board of Commissioners ("SWMD"), and Portage County Court of Common Pleas. The gravamen of Ames's claim is that the board violated the Open Meetings Act ( R.C. 121.22 ) and the Public Records Act ( R.C. 149.43 ) by failing to conduct SWMD business in public meetings and by failing to prepare, maintain, and produce accurate minutes of SWMD business. We affirm in part,

165 Ohio St.3d 293

reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings as to the board and the SWMD.

I. Background

A. Creation of the SWMD

{¶ 2} R.C. 3734.52 requires a board of county commissioners to (1) "establish and maintain a solid waste management district under Chapter 343. of the Revised Code" or (2) participate in establishing and maintaining a joint solid-waste-management district with one or more other county boards of commissioners. The board opted for the former, establishing the SWMD by resolution on December 20, 1988. Under R.C. 3734.52(A), the board serves as the SWMD's board of directors. See Danis Clarkco Landfill Co. v. Clark Cty. Solid Waste Mgt. Dist. , 73 Ohio St.3d 590, 596, 653 N.E.2d 646 (1995).

B. The September 2019 Meetings

{¶ 3} The board generally begins a regularly scheduled public meeting at 9:00 a.m., recites the Pledge of Allegiance, and immediately recesses to a public meeting of the SWMD. When the SWMD meeting is adjourned, the board immediately reconvenes its public meeting regarding official county business. This entire process is open to the public. The board's clerk keeps separate minutes for the board's meeting on county business and the SWMD meeting.

{¶ 4} In 2019, the board adopted a consent-agenda procedure. The procedure allows for the approval of "routine items like the approval of minutes, approval of bills/ACH payments as presented by the County Auditor, approval of Then and Now Certifications as presented by the County Auditor,^{[1 ]} as well as other items as listed on the consent agenda rules." A "yes" vote on the consent agenda is a "yes" vote on each of the items included on the consent agenda.

{¶ 5} On September 17, 2019, the board began its regular meeting at 9:00 a.m. and recessed at 9:01 a.m. to begin the SWMD meeting. At the SWMD meeting, the board adopted a consent agenda containing an approval of minutes from the previous meeting and three resolutions. There was

178 N.E.3d 495

no regular-agenda business at the meeting. The SWMD meeting was adjourned less than a minute after it began, after which the board resumed its regular meeting on county business.

{¶ 6} The September 26, 2019 meetings were conducted similarly. The board recessed its meeting at 9:00 a.m. and immediately convened an SWMD meeting.

165 Ohio St.3d 294

At the SWMD meeting, the board adopted a consent agenda containing an approval of minutes from the September 17 meeting and three resolutions. The board then concluded the SWMD regular agenda, adjourned the meeting at 9:02 a.m., and immediately resumed its meeting regarding county business.

{¶ 7} On December 26, 2019, Ames submitted a public-records request for "the meeting minutes of September 17 and 26, 2019 for the Portage County Board of Commissioners and the Portage County Solid Waste Management District Board of Commissioners." The following day, the board's clerk e-mailed the minutes of the September 17 and September 26 meetings to Ames. The minutes of the SWMD meetings contain the full text of the resolutions approved by consent agenda. For one of the resolutions passed at the September 17 SWMD meeting, the minutes purport to include a "Then and Now Certificate" from the county auditor designated "Exhibit A" to Resolution No. 19-137. But the exhibit was not attached to the minutes approved by the board or produced in response to Ames's public-records request.

C. Ames Seeks a Writ of Mandamus

{¶ 8} On December 27, 2019, the same day he received the response to his public-records request, Ames filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against the board, the SWMD, and the court of common pleas. Ames alleged that the SWMD is a "fictitious body" that "has no basis in law" and that the board violated the Open Meetings Act by conducting SWMD business during recesses of the September 2019 board meetings. Ames further alleged that the board's use of a consent agenda at the SWMD meetings violated the Open Meetings Act. Ames sought a writ of mandamus compelling the board to prepare, file, and maintain accurate minutes for the September 2019 SWMD meetings and all future meetings and ordering all SWMD business to be conducted in open meetings, except for properly called executive sessions. Ames also sought a writ of mandamus compelling the court of common pleas to grant the relief set forth in R.C. 121.22(I) for proven violations of the Open Meetings Act.

{¶ 9} The court of appeals granted an alternative writ, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On September 8, 2020, the court of appeals granted appellees’ motion, denied Ames's motion, and denied the writs. The court noted that "the SWMD is a valid public body authorized to conduct business with regard to implementing a solid waste management plan that complies with R.C. 3734.55," 2020-Ohio-4359, 2020 WL 5361490, ¶ 11, and held that the board's SWMD meeting minutes satisfy the requirements of R.C. 121.22(C). The court further found that the use of consent agendas at the September 2019 meetings did not violate the Open Meetings Act. Finally, the court found nothing actionable in the omission of Exhibit A to the minutes of the September 17 SWMD meeting.

165 Ohio St.3d 295

The court did not expressly address Ames's claim for relief under the Public Records Act or his claim against the court of common pleas.

{¶ 10} Ames appealed to this court as of right.

II. Analysis

{¶ 11} This court reviews de novo a court of appeals’ grant of summary judgment

178 N.E.3d 496

in a mandamus action. State ex rel. Manley v. Walsh , 142 Ohio St.3d 384, 2014-Ohio-4563, 31 N.E.3d 608, ¶ 17. Summary judgment is proper when an examination of all relevant materials filed in the action reveals that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Civ.R. 56(C).

{¶ 12} To prevail in his claim for mandamus relief under the Open Meetings Act, Ames must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) a clear legal duty on the part of appellees to provide it, and (3) the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Am. Civ. Liberties Union of Ohio, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs. , 128 Ohio St.3d 256, 2011-Ohio-625, 943 N.E.2d 553, ¶ 22. For Ames's request for relief under the Public Records Act, the first two elements are the same, but he need not establish the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. Id. at ¶ 24.

A. Validity of the SWMD

{¶ 13} In his first proposition of law, Ames argues that the SWMD is not a valid entity. Therefore, he contends, the board violated the Open Meetings Act by...