Skip to main content

Ames v. Rootstown Twp. Bd. of Trustees

Ohio Ct. App.April 19, 2021No. 2020-P-0063Cited 3 times

Case Details

Judge(s)
Rice
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
trial verdict

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

CIVIL - Open Meetings Act R.C. 121.22 trial court's injunction issued on remand from this court was insufficient to address both ways the Board violated the OMA the determination of whether the violations were technical, substantial, egregious, or made in bad faith was properly left to the discretion of the trial court and the trial court did not err in determining they were not technical, and not substantial, egregious, or made in bad faith a trial court does not err in issuing a single injunction when the violations were tehnical in nature and do not involve an intent to conceal the overall purpose of the meeting or create distinct formal actions when multiple technical violations are of the same nature, the remedy is one injunction and one civil forfeiture the trial court did not abuse its discretion in reducing attorney's fees when the errors were technical, not substantial, egregious, or made in bad faith and the Board's belief was reasonable based on the ordinary application of statutory and case law as it existed at the time of the violation, and the Board reasonably believed that the conduct would serve the public policy of the OMA affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

What This Ruling Means

# Ames v. Rootstown Township Board of Trustees ## What Happened An employee challenged Rootstown Township's Board of Trustees for violating Ohio's Open Meetings Act, which requires government bodies to conduct public business in open meetings. The employee filed a complaint claiming the Board broke these public transparency rules. ## What the Court Decided The appeals court sent the case back to the trial court for further action. The trial court had issued an order (called an injunction) to prevent future violations, but the higher court found this wasn't enough to address all the ways the Board violated the law. However, the court confirmed that the trial court correctly determined the violations weren't severe, deliberate, or made in bad faith. ## Why This Matters for Workers This case reinforces that government employees and the public have important rights to transparency. When government bodies break open meetings laws, courts can require them to fix the problem and prevent it from happening again. While the Board's violations weren't found to be intentional or extreme, the ruling confirms that even less serious violations must be remedied to protect public access to government operations.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.