Subscribe to School Law Newsletter
Close Window

Mandamus Relief Precluded Where Respondent Already Performed Requested Act

In the case of State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2022-Ohio-336, the Ohio Eleventh District Court of Appeals denied a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel a county board of commissioners to conduct all business in open meetings, except for properly called executive sessions, alleging that the board violated the Open Meetings Act (“OMA”) by using a consent agenda process at board meetings since the board had already stopped using consent agendas at meetings.

Here, the petitioner argued that the board violated the OMA by using a consent agenda process at board meetings to approve multiple agenda items in a single vote without making public the specific resolutions being voted on as part of the consent agenda. Without admitting a violation of the OMA, the Board subsequently prohibited the consent agenda process. The petitioners also argued that the board violated the Public Records Act for neglecting to attach a referenced exhibit to meeting minutes.

The Court disagreed with the petitioner. On the one hand, the Court found that the board had already performed the requested act – i.e., the Board subsequently prohibited the consent agenda process at board meetings as requested. On the other hand, the Court found that the fact that the board minutes contained an inaccuracy does not constitute a failure to comply with the Public Records Act and R.C. 149.43(B)(2) in particular.

To read this case, click here.

CAUTION: It is important to note that when this case initially went to the Ohio Supreme Court, the Ohio Supreme Court cautioned that the board’s use of the consent agenda to approve multiple items in a single vote without “mak[ing] public at the time of the meeting the specific resolutions being voted on as part of the consent agenda *** raised a plausible theory — sufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment — that the board’s use of a consent agenda in this manner constructively closes its public meetings and is an impermissible end run around the Open Meetings Act.” State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2021-Ohio-2374, 178 N.E.3d 492, ¶ 19. To read the Ohio Supreme Court case, click here.

Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.

Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.