By Maggie Thurber | For Ohio Watchdog
A councilman and resident are suing the city of Maple Heights and other members of council over an alleged violation of Ohio’s open meetings law.
District 5 Councilman Bill Brownlee and John Chapman say the city has failed to keep accurate records and minutes of certain public meetings and held an illegal executive session, according to the complaint filed in Cuyahoga Common Pleas Court.
“They have repeatedly, for years now, held caucuses or work sessions where they discuss legislation and actions,” said Curt Hartman, an attorney who filed the suit. “But they never recorded any minutes because they claimed it was just a caucus or work sessions.”
The suit says the council conducted public business and discussions during the sessions, making them subject to state law for maintaining minutes.
But in an email, according to the filing, Council President Jackie Albers wrote: “Caucus has always been and will be open to the public who wish to hear first hand (sic) the comments of the members present. Audio and/or written minutes will not enhance the business procedures since the vital information is presented at the official meeting.”
At the council’s regular meeting March 18, one agenda item was approval of minutes for all the caucuses in 2014.
“Up until now, they’ve blown off everything I’ve pointed out to them and then all at once they try to approve a year’s worth of meeting minutes with no explanation whatsoever,” Brownlee said. “At least they’re trying to give the impression of compliance, but they still haven’t complied because of the lack of detail.”
According to Brownlee, the “minutes” weren’t really minutes.
“They were just a listing of the time started, a listing of who was present and a listing of the agenda items,” he said. “I told them this didn’t count as minutes — it was merely a prose form of the agenda.”
Three members voted to approve the item, three members voted “present,” and Brownlee voted no.
“I think that’s the first time I’ve heard a member of council vote ‘present’ on the approval of minutes,” he added.
On March 20, Clerk of Council Katherine Unger sent an email to council members and others addressing Brownlee’s concern the minutes were “really not minutes.” In it, she said she follows Robert’s Rules of Order and she was “probably putting too much information in my Regular and Special Council Meeting minutes as I am supposed to leave out ‘opinions, judgments, heated discussions.'”
Brownlee responded by email that “(q)uoting Robert’s Rules of Order is inappropriate in this matter because State law supersedes Robert’s Rules.”
His email continued:
As stated by the Ohio Attorney General on page 91 of the Ohio Sunshine Laws: An Open Government Resources Manual, “minutes are not required to be a verbatim transcript of the proceedings, but must include enough facts and information to permit the public to understand and appreciate the rationale behind the body’s decisions” (emphasis added). It is abundantly clear that we are required, by law, to include the discussion that was had on a topic; notwithstanding what meeting at which it was considered. Merely recording the fact that discussion occurred is not sufficient.
Hartman said it sounds as if the council was trying to go back in time to correct the things it should have done.
“Unfortunately, case law requires that they explain to the general public the rationale for actions taken, so that someone who wasn’t at the meeting can understand why they acted to adopt a particular resolution,” he explained. “But the issue is, going forward, will they be including the debate? It doesn’t need to be verbatim, but it does need to inform the general public of the rationale for the decisions.”
The suit also claims a council conducted an illegal executive session.
In January, a motion was made to go into executive session “for a personnel issue.” Brownlee objected, saying the motion needed to be more specific as to the purpose of the executive session.
According to the filing, Council President Jackie Albers stated, “That’s all I need,” and the law director, “after being physically prodded by Maple Heights Mayor Jeffrey Lansky, also declared, ‘That’s all she needs.’”
But when the executive session began, Albers began an “inquisition” of Brownlee for his “efforts to solicit interest in having the Maple Heights Food Pantry taken over by a private entity.”
There are a limited number of valid reasons for an executive session, according to Ohio law, including such issues as hiring, firing or disciplining employees; purchasing or selling land; discussing pending or potential lawsuits, or discussing collective bargaining negotiations.
There’s no provision to go into executive session to harangue a fellow member of council, Hartman said.
“If they have an issue with him they should address it publicly,” he added. “So even if the motion is determined to be proper, the action in the executive session wasn’t proper.”
In the end, Hartman said, all the suit really seeks is “an acknowledgement of failure to comply with open meetings acts previously, ensuring it’s not repeated and full compliance with the law going forward.”
The suit asks the court for $500 per infraction, court costs and reasonable attorney fees, in accordance with the penalty provision of the law.
Albers did not respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit.