[ back ]
Fellow trustees sued over closed meetings
(by Joseph Koziol Jr. - August 27, 2008)
Fellow trustees sued over closed meetings
By JOSEPH KOZIOL JR.
Claridon Township Trustee Mary Briggs is suing her fellow trustees and the township over what she claims are repeated violations of the Ohio Open Meetings Law.
The civil suit filed last week in Geauga County Common Pleas Court cites 32 meetings of the township board. The suit claims that violations included failure to notify the public, conducting business outside meetings and improper use of closed-door executive sessions.
Ms. Briggs and resident Lisa McLarry are listed as plaintiffs in the case. The board of trustees, as well as Trustees David Brockway and Edward Ward, individually, are named as defendants.
The suit seeks a court order for an injunction to prevent further violations of state law and that any actions taken as a result of the violations be invalidated. The suit also seeks damages, costs and attorney fees.
Mr. Brockway, who is board chairman, said he is disappointed by the filing. "I'm just sad," he said.
He said the vast majority of the claims made in the suit are false. Only one instance was an actual misstep by the board, and that issue was corrected, he said. "Ninety-nine percent of it is not true," he said.
"She's wrong. We do not cut out the public or make decisions outside meetings," Mr. Brockway said.
In a prepared statement, Ms. Briggs outlined her reason for filing the suit.
"As a Claridon Township Trustee, Ms. Briggs takes her oath of office seriously," the statement reads. "She believes in following the procedures set forth and does so to the best of her ability. Ms. Briggs brought up her concerns to Township Trustees Brockway and Ward at Claridon Township meetings on multiple occasions over the course of several years, to no avail. The pattern she had addressed continued," the suit said.
"We believe a number of Ohio Sunshine Law violations have occurred. We further believe our complaint will be substantiated by the township minutes and firsthand witnesses. Accordingly, we have submitted our concerns to a neutral third party, the judiciary. We hope that if it is found these violations occurred, that they be stopped."
Mr. Brockway said the one issue that contains some truth revolved around the township's rental of a crack-sealing machine in the summer of 2006. He said the township needed to get the work done, because the man who had rented the machine wanted the equipment back the next day.
Mr. Brockway said he and Mr. Ward went out to do the work along with township employees. However, he said, the township needed two people to serve as flaggers, because the work was being done on a hilly, curving road. Another person was needed to lay down the asphalt while another was needed to drive the equipment, he said.
He said one of the workers that expected to help got sick, and the trustees were scrambling to find a replacement. He said they tried the zoning inspector and township secretary, but both were unavailable.
In an attempt to get the work done and the machine back without losing money already paid, Mr. Brockway said, he and Mr. Ward decided to call a former township employee familiar with the work. While the trustees knew it may not be the right thing, he said, they were under somewhat of an emergency to complete the work without wasting township dollars.
Mr. Brockway said township officials apologized and followed the Geauga County Prosecutor Office's advise in correcting the situation at its next meeting. "We were just trying to get the job done," he said.
The lawsuit covers meetings that occurred from 2006 through 2008. It charges that the board routinely held special meetings which were not advertised to the public.
"The board failed to adopt a rule providing a reasonable method under which any person may determine the time, place and purpose of any special meeting," the lawsuit claimed.
The suit claimed that the board held illegal executive sessions, holding meetings for reasons not allowed under Ohio law.
The suit charges that trustees met outside of the county to purchase a truck without notifying the public of the meeting.
On three occasions, the suit said, trustees closed their meeting only to reconvene a short time later.
"Reconvening a properly adjourned meeting is a Sunshine Law violation, as it would allow the public and press to consider the meeting finished and leave, but later the trustees could continue to discuss public business in private," the lawsuit said. "Alternatively, the reconvened meeting would be considered a special meeting for which proper notification had not been given."
[ back ]
