State ex rel. Oriana House v. Montgomery
| Decision Date | 04 October 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 2005-1505.,2005-1505. |
| Citation | 2006 Ohio 4854,110 Ohio St.3d 456,854 N.E.2d 193 |
| Parties | The STATE ex rel. ORIANA HOUSE, INC., Appellant, v. MONTGOMERY, Aud., Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, L.L.P., Orla E. Collier III, and Frank J. Reed Jr., Columbus, for appellant.
Jim Petro, Attorney General; and Isaac, Brant, Ledman & Teetor, L.L.P., Mark Landes, and Mark H. Troutman, Columbus, for appellee.
Collis, Smiles & Collis, L.L.C., and Terri-Lynne B. Smiles, urging reversal for amici curiae Corporation for Ohio Appalachian Development, Ohio Association of Nonprofit Organizations, Ohio Hospital Association, Association of Ohio Philanthropic Homes, Housing and Services for the Aging, Ohio Association of Community Action Agencies, the Betty Jane Center, the Ohio Association of Second Harvest Foodbanks, the Ohio Association of Child Caring Agencies, Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy, the Center for Community Solutions, the Action Ohio Coalition for Battered Women, the Now Education and Legal Fund, the Association for Children for Enforcement of Support, the Ohio Head Start Association, Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio, Envirotest Systems Corporation, Ohio United Way, and United Rehabilitation Services of Greater Dayton.
Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., and Quintin F. Lindsmith, Columbus, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Community Corrections Association.
Roetzel & Andress, L.P.A., and Thomas L. Rosenberg, Columbus, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Domestic Violence Network.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment granting a writ of mandamus to compel a private, nonprofit corporation to provide access to certain records under the Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment. The writ is denied.
{¶ 2} Under R.C. 2301.51(A)(1), "[t]he court of common pleas of any county that has a population of two hundred thousand or more may formulate a community-based correctional proposal that, upon implementation, would provide a community-based correctional facility and program [`CBCF'] for the use of that court in accordance with sections 2301.51 to 2301.56 of the Revised Code." Each "county's community-based correctional facilities and programs shall be administered by a judicial corrections board [`JCB']," which is comprised of judges of the common pleas court. R.C. 2301.51(A)(1). As of August 2004, there were 18 CBCFs operating in Ohio pursuant to R.C. 2301.51(A)(1).
{¶ 3} A JCB must submit its proposal for the establishment of a CBCF to the Division of Parole and Community Services of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC"). R.C. 2301.51(B)(1). If the ODRC approves the proposal, the JCB "may establish and operate the facility and program addressed by the proposal" and may request funding from the board of county commissioners and the ODRC. R.C. 2301.51(C) and 2301.56(A). The proposal must meet certain minimum standards, including a general treatment program and the designation of a facility that will be used for the confinement of persons sentenced to the facility. R.C. 2301.52.
{¶ 4} CBCFs are "public offices under section 117.01 of the Revised Code and are subject to audit under section 117.10 of the Revised Code." R.C. 2301.56(E)(1). "If a private or nonprofit entity performs the day-to-day operation of any [CBCF] * * *, the private or nonprofit entity also is subject to financial audits under section 117.10 of the Revised Code, and, in addition, in [certain] circumstances * * *, to performance audits by the auditor of state." Id.
{¶ 5} In 1987, the judges of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas formed the Summit County JCB and submitted a proposal to the ODRC to operate a CBCF for Summit County. The ODRC approved the proposal. The Summit County JCB contracted with appellant, Oriana House, Inc., to operate the Summit County CBCF.
{¶ 6} Oriana House is a private, nonprofit Ohio corporation that was first incorporated in 1981. Oriana House has a six-member board of directors; none of the directors holds public office. Oriana House receives all of the state funding granted to the Summit County CBCF by the ODRC. In 2001, Oriana House had over $25 million in income, approximately 88 percent of which was from public sources. Summit County JCB has permitted Oriana House to operate the CBCF without oversight.
{¶ 7} Since 1981, James J. Lawrence has served as president and chief executive officer of Oriana House, and for at least a few years, he also served as director of the Summit County CBCF. Lawrence signed the Summit County CBCF grant application for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 in his capacity as director of the Summit County CBCF. Summit County CBCF's grant application for fiscal year 2005 was signed by Judge Mary F. Spicer, chairperson of the Summit County JCB. The grantee is the Summit County CBCF.
{¶ 8} In January 2003, appellee, State Auditor Betty Montgomery, announced her intention to conduct a special audit of the Summit County CBCF and Oriana House. Montgomery was investigating transactions between Oriana House, Lawrence, and Correctional Health Services, Inc., a for-profit, wholly owned subsidiary of Oriana House. Oriana House, its wholly owned subsidiary, and Lawrence sought declaratory and injunctive relief against several defendants, including Montgomery, in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. Oriana House moved to enjoin Montgomery from conducting special audits of the Summit County CBCF, Oriana House, its subsidiary, and Lawrence, and from issuing subpoenas seeking bank records or other documents of Lawrence or Correctional Health Services, Inc. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed. Oriana House, Inc. v. Montgomery, Franklin App. No. 03AP-1178, 2004-Ohio-4788, 2004 WL 2008473. The court of appeals held that Oriana House, "while not a public office, is nonetheless subject to audit." Id. at ¶ 18. We affirmed that portion of the court of appeals judgment, holding that Montgomery has the authority to conduct a special audit of Oriana House. Oriana House, Inc. v. Montgomery, 108 Ohio St.3d 419, 2006-Ohio-1325, 844 N.E.2d 323.
{¶ 9} Oriana House requested access to certain records relating to Montgomery's audit under R.C. 149.43, Ohio's Public Records Act. Montgomery provided full or partial access to some records and denied access to others.
{¶ 10} In May 2004, Oriana House filed complaints in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County for a writ of mandamus to compel Montgomery to provide access to the requested records. The court of appeals consolidated Oriana House's cases.
{¶ 11} On March 31, 2004, Montgomery requested that Oriana House provide access to personnel files for certain Oriana House employees, including Lawrence, records and supporting documents of transactions between Oriana House and certain entities and Lawrence, records identifying accounts used by Oriana House, and travel reports for certain persons. On April 13, 2004, Montgomery reiterated her previous records request and also asked for certain records relating to contract and state employees.
{¶ 12} Oriana House rejected Montgomery's requests, claiming that it was not required to produce the requested records because it is not a public office as defined in R.C. Chapter 149. On June 4, 2004, Montgomery filed her answer to Oriana House's consolidated mandamus cases and submitted a counterclaim for a writ of mandamus to compel Oriana House to provide access to the requested records.1
{¶ 13} The court of appeals entered a judgment granting in part and denying in part Oriana House's and Montgomery's requests for writs of mandamus. The court of appeals held that Montgomery was entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel Oriana House to provide access to the requested records concerning its operation of the Summit County CBCF because Oriana House is a public institution and thus a public office for purposes of the Public Records Act.
{¶ 14} This cause is now before us upon Oriana House's appeal as of right.
{¶ 15} The court of appeals granted Montgomery's request for a writ of mandamus to compel Oriana House to provide access to the requested records, including certain employee personnel files, under R.C. 149.43. "Mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel compliance with R.C. 149.43, Ohio's Public Records Act." State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Johnson, 106 Ohio St.3d 160, 2005-Ohio-4384, 833 N.E.2d 274, ¶ 16. "We construe R.C. 149.43 liberally in favor of broad access and resolve any doubt in favor of disclosing records." State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Cleveland, 106 Ohio St.3d 70, 2005-Ohio-3807, 831 N.E.2d 987, ¶ 20.
{¶ 16} We must determine whether the court of appeals was correct in its determination that Oriana House, a private, nonprofit corporation managing the day-to-day operations of the Summit County CBCF, is a public office for purposes of the Public Records Act. "`Public record' means records kept by any public office." R.C. 149.43(A)(1). "`Public office' includes any state agency, public institution, political subdivision, or any other organized body, office, agency, institution, or entity established by the laws of this state for the exercise of any function of government." R.C. 149.011(A). Montgomery does not assert that Oriana House is a state agency, political subdivision, or other organized body, office, agency, institution, or entity established by the laws of this state for the exercise of any function of government. Instead, Montgomery contends—and the court of appeals held—that Oriana House is a "public institution" under R.C. 149.011(A) and is thus subject to R.C. 149.43.
{¶ 17} In State ex rel. Fox v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fortgang v. Woodland Park Zoo
...functional equivalency finding where entity was "not established by a governmental entity or pursuant to any special legislation"); Oriana House , Inc. , v . Montgomery , 110 Ohio St.3d 456, 2006–Ohio–4854, 854 N.E.2d 193, at ¶ 34 (final factor weighed against finding of functional equivale......
- Hurt v. Liberty Twp.
- State ex rel. Fair Hous. Opportunities of Nw. Ohio v. Ohio Fair Plan
- State ex rel. Mun. Constr. Equip. Operators' Labor Council v. City of Cleveland