Meade v. Bratenahl Ohio Supreme Court Merits Brief

Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed July 31, 2018 - Case No.
2018-0440
No. 2018-0440
STATE OF OHIO ex rel. PATRICIA MEADE,
Relator-Appellant,
v.
Village of Bratenahl, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
APPELLANT’S MERITS BRIEF
Counsel for Appellant : Counsel for Amici: Counsel for Appellees:
Brian C. Shrive (0088980) Monica Dias (0073617) David J. Matty (012335)

Counsel of Record Counsel of Record Counsel of Record
Christopher P. Finney (0038998) Ryan Goellner (0093631) Shana A. Samson (0072871)
Justin C. Walker (0080001) FROST BROWN TODD Mark B. Marong (0082865)
FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC LLC Matty, Henrickson & Greve
4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225 301 East Fourth Street 55 Public Square, Suite
Cincinnati, Ohio 453245 Suite 3300 1775
(513) 943-6655 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Cleveland, Ohio 44113
chris@finneylawfirm.com (513) 651-6800 (216) 621-6570
brian@finneylawfirm.com mdias@fbtlaw.com dmatty@mhglegal.com
justin@finneylawfirm.com rgoellner@fbtlaw.com ssamson@mhglegal.com
mmarong@mhglegal.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................... i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................... iii
STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................... 1
ARGUMENT ................................................................................................. 5
Proposition of Law:
Members of a public body violate or threaten

to violate the Open Meetings Act when they
vote on matters of public business through
the use of secret ballots .............................................................................5
1. Standard of Review de novo ...................................................................5
2. Duty of the Courts to liberally construe the statute ................................5
3. The selection of a president pro tempore is

the public business ..................................................................................8
4. Voting by secret ballot violates or threatens

to violate the Open Meetings Act ...........................................................9
5. Meade and the public at large have been prevented

from scrutinizing the votes at issue.........................................................11
6. Voting by secret ballot constructively

closes a public meeting ...........................................................................14
7. Violations of the Open Meetings Act cannot be

cured by post hoc efforts .........................................................................15
8. The Open Meetings Act contains no exceptions for

“comradeship”; prevention of potential influence and
public pressure; or inadvertence ............................................................17
9. The case is not moot................................................................................20
10. Even were the case moot, secret ballot voting is capable of
repetition and yet evading review .........................................................21
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 23
i
PROOF OF SERVICE ................................................................................... 24
APPENDIX AND SUPPLEMENT TO THE BRIEF Appx Page
Notice of Appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court

1 (April 3, 2018).............................................................................................1-3
Opinion and Judgment Entry of the Cuyahoga County Court of

2 Appeals (February 8, 2018) .......................................................................4-19
Judgment Entry of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

3 (December 15, 2016) ..................................................................................20
4 Answer to First Amended Complaint ............................................................

21-35
5 Amended Complaint ......................................................................................

36-120
Original Ballot Slips, Exhibit A to Appellees’ Brief

6 in Opposition to Request for Reconsideration ...............................................
121-141
Appended Ballot Slips, Exhibit B to Appellees’ Brief

7 in Opposition to Request for Reconsideration ...............................................
142-162
8 Case History, Court of Appeals, Case No. CA-16-105281 ...........................

163-165
9 Case History, Common Pleas Court, Case No. CV-16-857888.....................

166-171
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS; STATUTES;

ORDINANCES; ADVISORY OPINIONS
10 R.C. 1.11 ........................................................................................................

172
11 R.C. 121.22 ....................................................................................................

173-180
12 Bratenahl Codified Ordinances 121.05 ..........................................................

181
13 2011 Ohio Atty.Gen.Ops. No. 2011-038 .......................................................

182-191
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Case Authority: Page:

American Guaranty Co. v. Supply Co.,
115 Ohio St. 524, 155 N.E. 127 (1926) .....................................................
6
Angerman v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio,

70 Ohio App. 3d 346, 591 N.E.2d 3 (10th Dist. 1990) ...............................
9
Baker v. Wayne Cty.,

147 Ohio St.3d 51, 2016-Ohio-1566,
60 N.E.3d 1214 ...........................................................................................
5
Bohlen v. Anadarko E&P Onshore, L.L.C.,

150 Ohio St.3d 197, 2017-Ohio-4025,
80 N.E.3d 468 .............................................................................................
5
Doran v. Northmont Bd. of Edn.,

147 Ohio App.3d 268, 2002-Ohio-386,
770 N.E.2d 92 (2d Dist.) ............................................................................
17
Doran v. Northmont Bd. of Edn.,

153 Ohio App.3d 499, 2003-Ohio-4084,
794 N.E.2d 760 (2d Dist.) ..........................................................................
15, 21
Doran v. Northmont Bd. of Educ.,

2003-Ohio-7097 .........................................................................................
17
Fayette Volunteer Fire Dept. No. 2, Inc. v. Fayette Twp. Bd. of Twp.
Trustees (1993),
87 Ohio App.3d 51, 54, 621 N.E.2d 855) ..................................................
15, 21
Forest Hills Journal v. Forest Hills Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.,
No. A-1100109, 2011 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 799
(Ham. Cty. C.P. Oct. 6, 2011) ....................................................................
7, 9, 10, 11
Foulk v. City of Upper Arlington,

Ct. of Cl. No. 2017-00132-PQ, 2017-Ohio-4249 .......................................
14
Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. v. Chillicothe City

School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 41 Ohio App.3d 218,
534 N.E.2d 1239 (4th Dist.1988) ...............................................................
15, 16
Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co.,

77 Ohio St.3d 102, 1996 Ohio 336,
671 N,.E. 2d 241 (1996) ............................................................................
5
iii
Kansas City Star Co. v. Fulson,
859 S.W.2d 934 (Mo. App. 1993) ...............................................................
8
Kish v. City of Akron,

109 Ohio St.3d 162, 2006-Ohio-1244,
846 N.E.2d 811 ...........................................................................................
11, 13, 18
M.H. v. Cuyahoga Falls,

134 Ohio St.3d 65, 2012-Ohio-5336,
979 N.E.2d 1261 .........................................................................................
5
Manogg v. Stickle,
5th Dist. Licking Case No. 97 CA 104,
1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 1961 (Apr. 8, 1998) ............................................
7, 14
Mathews v. E. Local Sch. Dist.,

2001-Ohio-2372 (4th Dist.) .......................................................................
9
McVey v. Carthage Twp. Trustees,

4th Dist. Athens No. 04CA44, 2005-Ohio-2869 ........................................
15, 21
Mollette v. Portsmouth City Council,

179 Ohio App.3d 455, 2008-Ohio-6342,
902 N.E.2d 515 (4th Dist.) .........................................................................
20
Press Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (1986),

478 U.S. 1 ...................................................................................................
22
Slingluff v. Weaver (1902),

66 Ohio St. 621, 64 N.E. 574 ......................................................................
6
Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC (1911),

219 U.S. 498, 515 .......................................................................................
21
State ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. Cincinnati,

76 Ohio St.3d 540, 668 N.E.2d 903 1996-Ohio-372 (1996) .....................
7, 11, 13
State ex rel. Gaylor, Inc. v. Goodenow,

125 Ohio St.3d 407, 2010-Ohio-1844,
928 N.E.2d 728 ...........................................................................................
20
State ex rel. Long v. Council of Cardington,

92 Ohio St.3d 54, 2001-Ohio-130, 748 N.E.2d 58 .....................................
21
State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co.,

38 Ohio St.3d 165, 527 N.E.2d 807 (1988) ...............................................
10, 17, 21, 22
iv
State ex rel. Randles v. Hill,
66 Ohio St.3d 32, 1993-Ohio-204, 607 N.E.2d 458 ...................................
17, 18
State, ex rel. The Repository, v. Unger (1986),

28 Ohio St. 3d 418, 504 N.E. 2d 37, 39 ......................................................
22
State ex rel. Schuette v. Liberty Twp. Bd. of Trs.

Delaware App. 2004-Ohio-4431 (5th Dist.) .............................................
9
State ex rel. Young v. Bd. of Ed.,

12th Dist. Warren No. CA2012-02-013,
2013-Ohio-1111 ..........................................................................................
6, 12
Swafford v. Norwood Bd. of Edn.,

14 Ohio App.3d 346, 14 Ohio B. 414,
471 N.E.2d 509 (1st Dist.1984) .................................................................
12
Temple v. Wean United, Inc.,

50 Ohio St.2d 317, 327, 364 N.E.2d 267 (1977) .......................................
5
Weisbarth v. Geauga,
2007-Ohio-6728 ..........................................................................................
17
Wheeling Corp. v. Columbus,

147 Ohio App.3d 460, 2001-Ohio-8751,
771 N.E.2d 263 (10th Dist.) .......................................................................
15
White v. King,
147 Ohio St.3d 74, 60 N.E.3d 1234,
2016-Ohio-2770 ..........................................................................................
6, 8
v
Statutes and Ordinances Page
R.C. 1.11 ................................................................................................................
6
R.C. 121.22 ............................................................................................................

passim
R.C. 121.22(C) ......................................................................................................

14, 17, 18
R.C. 121.22(H) ......................................................................................................

20, 21
R.C. 121.22(I) .......................................................................................................

passim
R.C. 731.10 ............................................................................................................

1, 8
Bratenahl Codified Ordinances No. 121.05 ............................................................

8
Advisory Opinions Page

2011 Ohio Atty.Gen.Ops. No. 2011-038 ................................................................
passim
vi
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In 2011, in response to a request for an advisory opinion as to whether R.C. 121.22 (the
“Open Meetings Act”) permits secret ballot voting, the Ohio Attorney General issued an opinion
letter advising that, “a public body that is subject to the requirements of the Open Meetings law
may not vote in an open meeting by secret ballot.” 2011 Ohio AG LEXIS 38, *28, 2011 Ohio
Atty.Gen.Ops. No. 2011-038. (Appx. p. 149) (the “Attorney General’s Opinion Letter”).
Appellant Patricia Meade publishes a community news publication, MOREbratenahl,
focused on her hometown, the Village of Bratenahl, Ohio. As an engaged and informed citizen,
Ms. Meade attends meetings of the Village Council and its various committees. (CP #17 and CP
#19, Amended Complaint and Answer to Amended Complaint, ¶ 3, Appx. p. 37 and 22).1
On January 21, 2015, the Bratenahl Village Council held and conducted a regular
meeting of the Village Council (the “Council Meeting”) (CP #17 and CP #19, Amended
Complaint and Answer to Amended Complaint, ¶ 16, Appx. p. 40 and 23). One of the matters of
public business to be performed by the Council at the Council Meeting was the selection of a
president pro tempore as mandated by R.C. 731.10. (CP #17 and CP #19, Amended Complaint
and Answer to Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 19 & 20, Appx. p. 40 and 24). When two members were
nominated for president pro tempore, Respondent Mary Beckenbach expressed her desire to take
the vote by secret ballot, declaring “We’ve always done that.” (CP #17 and CP #19, Amended
Complaint and Answer to Amended Complaint, ¶26, Appx. p. 41 and 24-25; Exhibit A to
Amended Complaint, Transcript of the Council Meeting, page 16, lines 19-20, Appx. p. 63). In
1
Appellant Meade hereby adopts the record references to original documents as set forth in the Case
History (“Record”) filed June 22, 2018, maintained by the Clerk of Courts in trial Court Case No. CV-16-
857888, and Court of Appeals Case No. CA-16-105281. References to the Record in the Common Pleas
Case are cited as “CP #_, Doc. Name, p.__.” References to the Record in the Court of Appeals Case are
cited “COA #_, Doc. Name, Ex._, p._.” References to documents contained in the Appendix are cited as
“Appx. p.__”)
1
response, then-Councilmember Laura Bacci asked whether voting by secret ballot was legal,
stating that she thought she “saw something in the Sunshine Law or the ORC that you can’t have
a secret ballot.” (CP #17 and CP #19, Amended Complaint and Answer to Amended Complaint,
¶ 28, Appx. p. 42 and 25; CP #17, Exhibit A to Amended Complaint, Transcript of the Council
Meeting, page 17, lines 2-4, Appx. p. 64). Dismissing Bacci’s concerns regarding the legality of
voting by secret ballot, the members of the Bratenahl Village Council proceeded to vote by
secret ballot for the selection of president pro tempore. (CP #17, Exhibit A to Amended
Complaint, Transcript of the Council Meeting, page 17, lines 5-9, Appx. p. 64).
Ultimately, three rounds of balloting were required. During the first ballot, one vote was
cast for someone not nominated which the councilmembers believed invalidated the vote and the
second ballot resulted in a tie vote. (CP #17 and CP #19, Amended Complaint and Answer to
Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 31, 32, 35, 38; Appx. p. 42-44 and 25-26; CP #17, Exhibit A to
Amended Complaint, Transcript of the Council Meeting, page 17, line 5 - page 19, line 2, Appx.
p. 64). The tally of the third round of secret ballot voting was not announced or published. (CP
#17 and CP #19, Amended Complaint and Answer to Amended Complaint ¶ 41, Appx. p. 44
and 27).
On January 25, 2016, Appellant filed suit under R.C. 121.22(I)(1) seeking declaratory
judgment that secret ballot voting violates the Open Meetings Act; injunctive relief to prohibit
the Appellee’s from conducting future secret ballot votes; a civil forfeiture; and her reasonable
attorney fees. (CP #17, Amended Complaint, p. 21-22, Appx. p. 57-58).
The Parties agree that the Bratenahl Village Council is a “public body” as defined in the
Open Meetings Act (CP #17 and CP #19, Amended Complaint and Answer to Amended
Complaint, ¶ 48, Appx. p.46 and 27); that the Village Council and its individual members (i.e.
2
the Appellees) are subject to the mandates of the Open Meetings Act (CP #17 and CP #19,
Amended Complaint and Answer to Amended Complaint, ¶ 49, Appx. p. 46 and 27); that the
selection of a president pro tempore constitutes public business of the village government and
village council (CP #17 and CP #19, Amended Complaint and Answer to Amended Complaint ¶
57, Appx. p. 47 and 28); and that the then members of the Bratenahl Village Council (i.e.
Appellees or their predecessors in office) voted by secret ballot for the selection of president pro
tempore of the Village Council at the meeting held on January 21, 2015. (CP #19, Answer to
Amended Complaint, ¶ 29, Appx. p. 25).
During discovery, Meade requested copies of the ballots used during the Council
Meeting. Appellees produced appended ballot slips that included attached sticky notes
purportedly identifying the councilmember to whom each ballot belonged (the “Appended
Ballots” (Appx. p. 142-162). But in their original form, the ballot slips do not identify to whom
each ballot slip belongs (Appx. p. 121-141). Indeed, the Appellees have admitted this:
The members of the Bratenahl Village Council did not include their names on the
handwritten ballots in open council on January 21, 2015. However, Respondents
provided copies of the handwritten ballots including post-it notes identifying the
Council member who made each vote in response to Appellant’s second set of
interrogatories on/or about July 5, 2016, after conferring with the Council
members regarding their votes.
(COA #21, Brief in Opposition to Request for Reconsideration, p. 5).
Additionally, the Appended Ballots fail to accurately identify the members to whom the
ballots belong: in the first round, one ballot did not identify the councilmember associated with
that ballot (Appx. p. 146); in the second round, one ballot did not identify the councilmember
associated with the ballot (Appx. p. 154), and two ballots are identified as belonging to Jim
Puffenberger (Appx. p. 151 and 153); and in the third round one ballot did not identify the
councilmember associated with the ballot (Appx. p. 161).
3
Appellant and Appellees filed competing motions for summary judgment. Appellant’s
motion for summary judgment was supported by the Attorney General’s Opinion Letter, the
commandment in R.C. 121.22 mandating that the statute be construed liberally in favor of open
government, and numerous Ohio Supreme Court and Ohio Courts of Appeals cases holding that,
as a remedial statute, R.C. 121.22 shall be construed liberally in favor of open government.
Appellees argued in their motion that the Attorney General’s Opinion applied only to the Ohio
State Board of Education and it would be improper for the courts to interpret the Open Meetings
Act to prohibit secret ballot voting. Without any analysis, the Common Pleas Court granted
Appellees’ motion for summary judgment and overruled Appellant’s motion for summary
judgment (CP #34 Judgment Entry, Appx. p 20).
Appellant then filed a timely notice of Appeal (CP #38/COA #1, Notice of Appeal), and
the Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Common Pleas Court on
November 9, 2017 (COA #16, Initial Entry Affirming Trial Court Decision). Appellant filed a
timely Motion for Reconsideration (COA #18, Motion for Reconsideration). Upon
reconsideration, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Common Pleas Court’s entry granting
Appellees’ motion for summary judgment and denying Appellant’s motion for summary
judgment. (COA #23, Journal Entry and Opinion dated February 8, 2018, Appx. p. 4-19). It is
the February 8, 2018 Opinion and Judgment Entry from which this Appeal is brought.
4
ARGUMENT
PROPOSITION OF LAW:
MEMBERS OF A PUBLIC BODY VIOLATE OR THREATEN TO VIOLATE THE

OPEN MEETINGS ACT WHEN THEY VOTE ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC BUSINESS
THROUGH THE USE OF SECRET BALLOTS.
1. The Proper Standard of Appellate Review is De Novo
“This court conducts a de novo review of a summary-judgment ruling.” Bohlen v.
Anadarko E&P Onshore, L.L.C., 150 Ohio St.3d 197, 2017-Ohio-4025, 80 N.E.3d 468, ¶ 10,
citing Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105, 1996 Ohio 336, 671 N,.E. 2d 241
(1996). Summary judgment is appropriate when: “(1) [n]o genuine issue as to any material fact
remains to be litigated; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) it
appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewing
such evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion for summary
judgment is made, that conclusion is adverse to that party.’” Baker v. Wayne Cty., 147 Ohio
St.3d 51, 2016-Ohio-1566, 60 N.E.3d 1214, ¶ 10 citing, M.H. v. Cuyahoga Falls, 134 Ohio St.3d
65, 2012-Ohio-5336, 979 N.E.2d 1261, ¶ 12, quoting Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio
St.2d 317, 327, 364 N.E.2d 267 (1977), citing Civ.R. 56(C).
Based upon that legal authority, it is respectfully submitted that this Court should review
both the Appellant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the Appellees’ Motion for Summary
Judgment de novo.
2. Duty of the Courts to Liberally Construe the Statute
R.C. 121.22 (the “Open Meetings Act”) reads, in relevant part, as follows:
(A) This section shall be liberally construed to require public officials to take
official action and conduct all deliberations upon official business only in open
meetings unless the subject matter is specifically excepted by law.
Id. (Appx. p. 173).

5
The Open Meetings Act is a remedial statute and, in addition to its own requirement of
liberal construction, “[r]emedial laws and all proceedings under them shall be liberally construed
in order to promote their object and assist the parties in obtaining justice.” R.C. 1.11 (Appx. p.
172).
This Court set forth the construction standard for determining legislative intent in
Slingluff v. Weaver (1902), 66 Ohio St. 621, 64 N.E. 574, stating:
[T]he intent of the law-makers is to be sought first of all in the language

employed, and if the words be free from ambiguity and doubt, and express
plainly, clearly and distinctly, the sense of the law-making body, there is no
occasion to resort to other means of interpretation. The question is not what did
the general assembly intend to enact, but what is the meaning of that which it did
enact. That body should be held to mean what it has plainly expressed, and hence
no room is left for construction.
Id., paragraph one of the syllabus.
“A court's ‘paramount concern’ when construing a statute is the statute’s legislative intent
and courts should avoid adopting a construction of a statute that would result in circumventing
the evident purpose of the enactment.” State ex rel. Young v. Bd. of Ed., 12th Dist. Warren No.
CA2012-02-013, 2013-Ohio-1111, ¶23.
The courts construe remedial statutes most liberally to suppress the mischief and
advance the remedy * * * The courts follow the reason and spirit of such statutes
till they overtake and destroy the mischief which the Legislature intended to
suppress. In doing so they often go quite beyond the letter of the statute. What is
within the intention is within the statute though not within the letter; and what is
within the letter but not within the intention is not within the statute.
American Guaranty Co. v. Supply Co., 115 Ohio St. 524, 155 N.E. 127(1926).
Applying the mandates of R.C. 1.11 and the Open Meetings Act that the Open Meetings
Act be liberally construed, this Court has repeatedly found violations of the Open Meetings Act
even when the specific conduct at issue was not expressly identified within the explicit language
of the Act, but the spirit of the Open Meetings Act was violated. See, e.g., White v. King, 147
6
Ohio St.3d 74, 60 N.E.3d 1234, 2016-Ohio-2770 (while Open Meetings Act does not specify
manner or mode of discussions necessary to constitute a “meeting,” holding that “R.C. 121.22
prohibits any private prearranged discussion of public business by a majority of the members of
a public body regardless of whether the discussion occurs face to face, telephonically, by video
conference, or electronically by e-mail, text, tweet, or other form of communication”;
“[a]llowing public bodies to avoid the requirements of the Open Meetings Act by discussing
public business via serial electronic communications subverts the purpose of the act”); State ex
rel. Cincinnati Post v. Cincinnati, 76 Ohio St.3d 540, 668 N.E.2d 903, 1996-Ohio-372 (1996)
(series of back-to-back-meetings of less than a majority of municipal council still constituted a
meeting and, thus, through conducting such series of back-to-back-meetings, members of council
violated Open Meetings Act; “[w]e hold that the statute prevents such maneuvering to avoid its
clear intent” Id., at 543).
Consistent with the Open Meetings Act’s commandment that it “be liberally construed to
require public officials to take official action * * * only in open meetings unless the subject
matter is specifically excepted by law,” and this Court’s methodology in Open Meetings Act
cases, the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas appropriately found that secret ballot voting
violates the Open Meetings Act. Forest Hills Journal v. Forest Hills Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of
Educ., No. A-1100109, 2011 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 799 (Ham. Cty. C.P. Oct. 6, 2011)(secret ballot
voting by a subcommittee of a board of education violated the Open Meetings Act), See also,
Manogg v. Stickle, 5th Dist. Licking Case No. 97 CA 104, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 1961 (Apr. 8,
1998) (finding a violation when the members of the public body whisper and pass documents
among themselves, the Open Meetings Act is violated because attendees “could not hear the
business being transacted by” the members of the public body, Id., at *6).
7
This Court has stated that the Open Meetings Act “exists to shed light on deliberations of
public bodies [and] cannot be interpreted in a manner which would result in the public being left
in the dark.” State ex rel. Cincinnati, 76 Ohio St.3d 540, 544, 1996-Ohio-372, 668 N.E.2d 903.
Ignoring this Court’s directive, the Eighth District’s ruling contorts the language of the Open
Meetings Act to achieve a result that grants public bodies carte blanche to keep the public in the
dark on any and all matters of public business.
3. The selection of a president pro tempore is the public business
“Public business encompasses those matters over which the public governmental body
has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power.” White v. King, 147 Ohio St.3d 74,
2016-Ohio-2770, 60 N.E.3d 1234, ¶ 21, quoting Kansas City Star Co. v. Fulson, 859 S.W.2d
934, 940 (Mo.App.1993).
The requirement that the Bratenahl Village Council elect a president pro tempore is
codified both in the Ohio Revised Code: “[a]t the first meeting in January of each year, the
legislative authority of a village shall immediately proceed to elect a president pro tempore from
its own number” (R.C. 731.10) and Codified Ordinances of the Village of Bratenahl: “[a]t the
first meeting in January of each year, the Council shall immediately proceed to elect a president
pro tempore from its own number” (Bratenahl Codified Ordinances 121.05) (Appx. p. 181).
Further, the pleadings establish that “[t]he selection of a president pro tempore of a village
council constitutes public business of the village government and the associated village council.”
(CP #17 and CP#19, Amended Complaint and Answer thereto, at ¶ 57, Appx. p. 47 and 28).
Thus, it is clear that the selection of president pro tempore is the public business and is therefore
subject to the requirements of the Open Meetings Act.
8
4. Voting by Secret Ballot Violates or Threatens to Violate the Open Meetings Act
The Ohio Attorney General correctly applied this Court’s guidance and the Open
Meetings Act’s mandate of liberal construction in favor of openness, finding that:
Voting by secret ballot is at variance with the purpose of the open meetings law
and only denies the people their right to view and evaluate the workings of their
government. Accordingly, a public body that is subject to the requirements of the
Open Meetings law may not vote in an open meeting by secret ballot.
2011 Ohio AG LEXIS 38, *28, 2011 Ohio Atty.Gen.Ops. No. 2011-038. (Appx. p. 191).
In addition to the Attorney General’s Opinion Letter, Ohio Courts have long understood
the Open Meetings Act to require public bodies to vote in public. See State ex rel. Schuette v.
Liberty Twp. Bd. of Trs. Delaware App. 2004-Ohio-4431 ¶ 28 (5th Dist.) (“the vote of the public
body must be open to the public”); Mathews v. E. Local Sch. Dist., 2001-Ohio-2372 (4th Dist.);
Angerman v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, 70 Ohio App. 3d 346, 352, 591 N.E.2d 3 (10th Dist. 1990).
When presented with the question of secret ballot voting, the Hamilton County Common Pleas
Court stated, “[t]his Court believes that the language of R.C. 121.22 requiring this statute be
liberally construed to require public officials to take official action and conduct all deliberations
only in open meetings encompass both discussion and voting.” Forest Hills Journal v. Forest
Hills Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., No. A-1100109, 2011 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 799 (Ham. Cty.
C.P. Oct. 6, 2011) at *4.
Forest Hills was decided just days before the issuance of Attorney General’s Opinion
Letter, thus it is unlikely that either influenced the other. Nonetheless, the reasoning that led to
the decision in Forest Hills is in harmony with the reasoning of the Ohio Attorney General: a
fidelity to the instruction from the General Assembly and this Court to liberally construe the
Open Meetings Act in favor of openness, and an appreciation of the opportunity for mischief that
arises when public bodies act in secret. The purpose behind this reasoning is evident in this case,
9
where even though ballot slips are retained, those ballot slips evidence irregularities that would
not have occurred had the vote been made by an audible or otherwise public vote.
As the court in Forest Hills noted, “[t]o interpret the Ohio Open Meeting Act requiring
both discussion and voting to occur in open meetings would preclude the activity giving rise to
this lawsuit, i.e. 11 members of The Forest Hills Local District Facilities Committee, but 12
votes were submitted.” Forest Hills, at *4. Likewise, in this case, in one round of voting one
member is indicated to have voted twice, and other ballot slips remain unclaimed. As noted by
Justice Douglas, “[f]ar too often we have seen the results when the public's business is discussed,
considered and/or decided in private” State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co., 38 Ohio St.3d
165, 169, 527 N.E.2d 807 (1988), Douglas concurring.
In direct conflict with the Attorney General’s Opinion Letter and the Forest Hills
decision, the Eighth District declared that, even when members of a public body conduct public
business through secret ballot voting, no violation or threatened violation of the Open Meetings
Act occurs when (i) the secret-ballot voting takes place in a meeting otherwise open to the
public; and (ii) the public body keeps the secret ballot slips. “Because the votes were cast in
open session and were made public record, the votes were not ‘secret’ like the votes in the
Attorney General’s opinion” (COA #23, Opinion and Judgment Entry of the Cuyahoga County
Court of Appeals, ¶ 20, Appx. p. 14).
But the efforts of the Eighth District to distinguish the Attorney General’s Opinion Letter
consist of false distinctions and distinctions without a difference. The secret ballot voting
contemplated in the Attorney General’s Opinion Letter is the same as the secret ballot voting
conducted by Appellees. Furthermore, the actual ballot slips maintained by the Village do not
identify which ballots belong to which councilmember. Instead, Appellees produced erroneous
10
and/or incomplete Appended Ballots which identified/misidentified some, but not all of the
councilmembers to whom each ballot slip corresponds; and only after the suit was filed.
The Eighth District did not properly acknowledge the mischief that is to be suppressed –
preventing the members of the public in attendance at a meeting from being able to ascertain, in
real time, how each member voted on an issue before the body, and ensuring that each member
of the public body vote only once – and acting to suppress such mischief – and instead focused
on trivial distinctions between this case and the Attorney General’s Opinion Letter. However,
nowhere in the Eighth District’s decision is there a single relevant, legitimate factual or legal
distinction that supports a determination that the Open Meetings Act ever permits public bodies
to vote by secret ballot.
Thus, the Eighth District strayed from the path established by the Ohio Legislature, the
Ohio Attorney General, the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court in Forest Hills, and this
Court’s mandate that remedial statutes generally and the Open Meetings Act specifically are to
be construed liberally to suppress mischief.
5. Meade and the Public at Large have been Prevented from Scrutinizing the Votes at
Issue
A fundamental premise of American democratic theory is that government exists

to serve the people. In order to ensure that government performs effectively and
properly, it is essential that the public be informed and therefore able to scrutinize
the government's work and decisions.
Kish v. City of Akron, 109 Ohio St.3d 162, 2006-Ohio-1244, 846 N.E.2d 811, ¶ 15
Indeed, this Court has declared that the Open Meetings Act “cannot be interpreted in a
manner which would result in the public being left in the dark.” State ex rel. Cincinnati Post, 76
Ohio St.3d 540, 544, 1996-Ohio-372, 668 N.E.2d 903. But the Eighth District ignored this clear
direction, and improperly determined that the ballot slips (either original ballot slips which
11
provide no indication as to the identity of the individual voters, or the erroneous Appended
Ballots) allow for the necessary scrutiny.
Even ignoring the fact that the ballots were appended 18 months after the vote, the Eighth
District’s logic is erroneous as, “a public board, commission, or other deliberative body speaks
through its minutes or its written record of resolutions, directives, and action.” State ex rel.
Young v. Bd. of Edn., 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2012-02-013, 2013-Ohio-1111, ¶ 54, citing
Swafford v. Norwood Bd. of Edn., 14 Ohio App.3d 346, 348, 14 Ohio B. 414, 471 N.E.2d 509
(1st Dist.1984).
The law does not require that Meade, or any other citizen, sift through reams of public
records to determine how a member of a public body voted; and certainly the Open Meetings Act
cannot be read to require a lawsuit to obtain information about how individual members of a
public voted in a public meeting. No, Meade and other members of the public need only either
attend the meeting (which Meade did) or read the official minutes (which Meade did). Yet,
despite attending the Council Meeting; despite reading the official minutes of that meeting;
despite bringing suit and forcing production of discovery; to this day, neither Meade, nor any
other member of the public, can say with any certainty how each member of the Bratenahl
Village Council voted at the Council Meeting. Thus, even could it be plausibly argued that
Meade should have made a public records request, such a request would have been futile.
Secret ballot voting prohibited Meade from obtaining the information at the meeting as
the official minutes read only “Secret Ballot Vote Taken.” (CP #17, Amended Complaint,
Exhibit A, Transcript of the Council Meeting, page 17, line 9; page 18, line 1; page 18, line 23,
Appx. p. 64); and the Appended Ballots produced only in response to this litigation still fail to
12
inform Meade or the public at large how each member voted. Without this information, how is
Meade, or the public, to scrutinize the government’s work and decisions?
The twin civic duties of overseeing governmental decision-making and holding

public officials accountable for their decisions require that the governed possess
and enforce a right to know not only why decisions are made (open deliberations),
but also the right to know the position and final vote of each individual official.
2011 Ohio AG LEXIS 38, *15, 2011 Ohio Atty.Gen.Ops. No. 2011-038. (Appx. p. 187).
It is common for individual voters and interest groups such as labor unions or political
action committees to engage in these “twin civic duties” by “scoring” the votes of political
bodies to hold elected officials accountable and inform their members as to whom to support or
oppose. In making their decision between competing candidates, voters rely not only on the
public pronouncements and debate upon the issues, but on how the public officials actually vote
on those issues. Secret ballot voting frustrates and impairs this important First Amendment
activity by making it impossible to ascertain how individual councilmembers and other public
officials voted on a particular issue.
The Eight District’s holding impacts far more than the Village of Bratenahl president pro
tempore election. The Eight District’s holding would permit secret ballot voting on all issues
that come before any public body in Ohio. There would be no public scrutiny or accountability,
and the voters would indeed be left in the dark; the very mischief this Court cautioned against in
State ex rel. Cincinnati Post, 76 Ohio St.3d 540, 1996-Ohio-372, 668 N.E.2d 903 and Kish v.
City of Akron, 109 Ohio St.3d 162, 2006-Ohio-1244, 846 N.E.2d 811, ¶ 15. Thus, the Eighth
District’s decision stands in defiant opposition to this Court’s longstanding precedent.
13
6. Voting by Secret Ballot Constructively Closes a Public Meeting
The Open Meetings Act commands that “[a]ll meetings of any public body are declared
to be public meetings open to the public at all times.” R.C. 121.22(C). (Appx. p. 174). “Meetings
of Ohio's public bodies are profoundly open to public observation,” and “[p]ublic body members
thus have no expectation to engage in confidential communication during a public meeting
conducted under the Open Meetings Act.” Foulk v. City of Upper Arlington, Ct. of Cl. No.
2017-00132-PQ, 2017-Ohio-4249, ¶ 14.
As discussed earlier, the Fifth District Court of Appeals found that a public body
constructively closes a public meeting in violation of the Open Meetings Act by, inter alia,
whispering, passing documents among themselves, and failing to make audible votes:
Although the trustee meeting of June 13, 1996 was open to the public, in the sense
that the public was permitted to sit in the same room as the trustees while the
meeting was being conducted, the meeting was not open to the public in the sense
that the public could not hear the business being transacted by the trustees.
Manogg v. Stickle, 5th Dist. Licking Case No. 97 CA 104, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 1961, at *6
(Apr. 8, 1998).
Similarly, by conducting the vote by a secret ballot, Appellees prevented Appellant and
other members of the public sitting in the same room as the councilmembers from ascertaining
how each member voted. Furthermore, members of the public could not later ascertain how each
member voted by reviewing the official minutes of the Council Meeting, as the official minutes
state only, “Secret Ballot Vote Taken.” (CP #17, Amended Complaint, Exhibit A, Transcript of
the Council Meeting, page 17, line 9; page 18, line 1; page 18, line 23, Appx. p. 64).
As was the case in Manogg, a member of the public, reviewing the ballot slips at issue in
this case (whether appended or in their original form), cannot determine how each
councilmember voted. As such, in conducting a secret ballot vote, the Council Meeting was
14
constructively closed to both the members of the public in attendance at the meeting and those
who wish to inform themselves of the public business by reviewing the official minutes.
7. Violations of the Open Meetings Act cannot be cured by post hoc efforts.
Even ignoring that the appended ballot slips remain unreliable, a violation of the Open
Meetings Act cannot be cured by post hoc efforts. See, Gannett Satellite Information Network,
Inc. v. Chillicothe City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 41 Ohio App.3d 218, 221, 534 N.E.2d 1239 (4th
Dist.1988) (“A violation of the Sunshine Law cannot be ‘cured’ by subsequent open meetings if
the public body initially discussed matters in executive session that should have been discussed
before the public.”) See also, Wheeling Corp. v. Columbus, 147 Ohio App.3d 460, 2001-Ohio-
8751, 771 N.E.2d 263 (10th Dist.)
The secret ballot vote conducted in this case prevented those in attendance from
ascertaining, during the meeting, how each councilmember voted, cannot be cured by producing
appended ballot slips more than a year after the fact. See, McVey v. Carthage Twp. Trustees, 4th
Dist. Athens No. 04CA44, 2005-Ohio-2869, ¶ 9 (“Because the statute clearly provides that an
injunction is to be issued upon finding a violation of the Sunshine Law, it is irrelevant that the
Trustees nullified their prior action.” citing Fayette Volunteer Fire Dept. No. 2, Inc. v. Fayette
Twp. Bd. of Twp. Trustees (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 51, 54, 621 N.E.2d 855), and Doran v.
Northmont Bd. of Edn., 153 Ohio App.3d 499, 2003-Ohio-4084, 794 N.E.2d 760, ¶ 20 (2d
Dist.))
Just as a public body that engages in impermissible discussion in executive session
cannot cure the violation by later re-enacting that same discussion in front of the public, a public
body that effectively closes a public meeting by voting by secret ballot cannot cure that violation
by later making the ballot slips available to the public. This incurability is doubly so in this
15
instance where the appended ballots were not appended until 18 months after the vote and
remain either erroneous or incomplete.
While Appellees may argue that the Appellant need only have made a public records
request, and the Appended Ballots would have been produced, this is demonstrably false. As the
Appellees acknowledged to the Eighth District, “the members of the Bratenahl Village Council
did not include their names on the handwritten ballots in open council on January 21, 2015”
(COA #21, Appellee’s Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration, page 5). The
Appellees cobbled together the Appended Ballots only after this case was filed and only in July
of 2016 (18 months after the vote), in response to Appellants discovery requests. Id. Thus, any
public records request that Appellant could have made would have been futile.
As previously noted, Appended Ballots do not accurately identify the councilmember to
whom each ballot slip belongs, and in one round indicate that one councilmember voted twice.
Even today, no one can say with any degree of certainty how each councilmember voted. Thus,
despite years of litigation and the protestations of the Appellees, the vote for president pro
tempore that took place at the Council Meeting of the Bratenahl Village Council remains secret
and closed to the public. This is the very mischief the Open Meetings Act is aimed at
suppressing.
The Appended Ballots are analogous to the post hoc reenactment of the secret discussion
that was rejected in Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. v. Chillicothe City School Dist.
Bd. of Edn., 41 Ohio App.3d 218, 534 N.E.2d 1239 (4th Dist.1988); or a reenactment of a vote
previously taken in executive session. This does not cure the violation or shield the public body
from injunction. Even if the Appended Ballots were accurate, efforts at a post hoc cure do not
16
and cannot satisfy the Open Meetings Act’s requirement that, all meetings of public bodies are to
be "open to the public at all times." R.C. 121.22(C). (Appx. p. 174).
8. The Open Meetings Act contains no exceptions for “comradeship”; prevention of

potential influence and public pressure; or inadvertence.
The Appellees make the following admission in their memorandum in response to
jurisdiction:
Moreover, the purpose of the handwritten ballot utilized by Bratenahl Council

was not to conceal, but rather to assure comradeship among the elected members
of a very small community and allow the councilmembers to vote
contemporaneously to prevent potential influence and public pressure.
There are “only two defenses to claims of noncompliance: (1) that the action to be taken
is excepted from the open-meetings requirement, or (2) that public access was provided.” State
ex rel. Randles v. Hill, 66 Ohio St.3d 32, 35, 1993-Ohio-204, 607 N.E.2d 458. See also,
Weisbarth v. Geauga, 2007-Ohio-6728, (injunction issued and finding error in not awarding
attorney fees even though the violation was “technical” and “there was no intent to conceal” Id.,
at ¶ 27); see also Doran v. Northmont Bd. of Educ., 2003-Ohio-7097 (“Following our finding of
a technical violation of R.C. 121.22(F) in Doran I [Doran v. Northmont Bd. of Edn., 147 Ohio
App.3d 268, 272, 2002-Ohio-386, 770 N.E.2d 92 (2d Dist.)], the trial court on remand issued a
statutory injunction under R.C. 121.22(I)(1) and ordered the Board to pay a $500 statutory civil
forfeiture, court costs, and reasonable attorney fees.”).
The comradeship among the councilmembers, prevention of potential influence and
public pressure was assured in this instance by concealing from the public how each
councilmember voted. “The ends sought by secret discussion of the public's business, no matter
how admirable or altruistic, never justify the means.” State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co.,
38 Ohio St.3d 165, 169, 527 N.E.2d 807 (1988) (Douglas, concurring).
17
Appellee’s explanation is spurious at best, and treats elected officials as infants in need of
protection from influence from their peers and the voters. Further, this contention flies in the
face of the Open Meetings Act’s purpose: “that the public be informed and therefore able to
scrutinize the government's work and decisions.” Kish, 109 Ohio St.3d 162, 2006-Ohio-1244,
846 N.E.2d 811, ¶ 15.
Undoubtedly every vote on every public issue comes with it some risk of harm to the
comradeship among the members of a public body, or the community (and the political influence
and public pressure). This is the very essence of leadership. It would always be cleaner and
easier to keep the public in the dark, but the mandate of the Open Meetings Act is clear: “[a]ll
meetings of any public body are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times.”
R.C. 121.22(C). (Appx. p. 174) [emphasis added].
Likewise, the Eighth District’s determination that, “[t]here is no evidence that Bratenahl
attempted to conceal information from the public” (COA #23, Court of Appeals Decision, ¶ 20,
Appx. p. 14) is both (i) incorrect and (ii) immaterial.
Upon proof of a violation or threatened violation of this section in an action

brought by any person, the court of common pleas shall issue an injunction to
compel the members of the public body to comply with its provisions
R.C. 121.22(I)(1) (Appx. p. 178).
As this Court has previously noted, the Open Meetings Act “contains several exceptions
to the requirement that meetings be held open to the public; inadvertence by the public body,
however is not among them.” State ex rel. Randles, 66 Ohio St.3d 32, 35, 1993-Ohio-204, 607
N.E.2d 458. Nor does the Open Meetings Act contain exceptions for comradeship, the
prevention of potential influence, or public pressure.
Further, the only reason to vote by secret ballot is to conceal information from the public
(the information being concealed being how each member voted). “Voting by secret ballot ‘is
18
used when secrecy of the members’ votes is desired’ * * * When a secret ballot is used, the vote
‘is case in such a manner that the person expressing such choice cannot be identified with the
choice expressed.’” 2011 Ohio AG LEXIS 38, *28, 2011 Ohio Atty.Gen.Ops. No. 2011-038,
quoting Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised, at 412, and Black’s Law Dictionary 143 (6th
ed. 1990). (Appx. p. 184-185).
The Eighth District’s ruling runs contrary to established Ohio law. As such the Eighth
District erred in affirming summary judgment where it pronounced no violation or threatened
violation, merely because it somehow determined that Appellees did not attempt to conceal
information that they actually did conceal.
Even assuming intent were relevant, the record, and Appellees’ above admission, makes
clear that secret ballot voting was done precisely to conceal the information so as to avoid
“pressure from the public.”
When Bratenahl’s mayor (the “Mayor”) sought to determine if there would be more than
one nominee for president pro tempore, he asked, “Are there any other nominations? Do we have
a need for a secret ballot here?” (CP #17, Amended Complaint, Exhibit A, meeting minutes 16:9-
11, Appx., p. 63). After a second nomination was made the Mayor asked whether the vote
should be by either a show of hands or secret ballot (CP #17, Amended Complaint, Exhibit A,
meeting minutes 16:17-18, Appx., p. 63. A show of hands would have allowed those in
attendance to witness how each member voted, and the meetings minutes could reflect who
raised their hand in support of whom. Thus, the only conceivable purpose for the secret ballot
vote was to keep the vote secret. This has been admitted to by the Appellees.
Further, even accepting arguendo that the Appended Ballots produced in discovery are
accurate, this information was concealed for approximately 18 months, from the date of the vote
19
until the Appended Ballots were produced in discovery – when some, but not all, of the members
of the body revealed how they voted to the Village’s attorney. As such, the evidence is
overwhelming: Appellees both attempted and successfully concealed information from the public
– for 18 months.2
9. The case is not moot.
Any person may bring an action to enforce this section. An action under division
(I)(1) of this section shall be brought within two years after the date of the alleged
violation or threatened violation. Upon proof of a violation or threatened
violation of this section in an action brought by any person, the court of common
pleas shall issue an injunction to compel the members of the public body to
comply with its provisions
R.C. 121.22(I)(1). (Appx. p. 178).
In their memorandum in response to jurisdiction, Appellees suggest that this case is moot
because the term of the president pro tempore had expired prior to the filing of suit such that the
Court is powerless to invalidate that vote under R.C. 1212.22(H). Appellees’ contention is
without merit.
First, because Appellant has never sought any relief under R.C. 121.22(H); secondly, the
relief the Appellant actually has sought: injunctive relief, a civil forfeiture, and reasonable
attorney fees is mandatory under R.C. 121.22(I) is available as Meade filed suit within the two-
year statute of limitations, and the two-year statute of limitations “applies to all actions to
enforce the Open Meetings Act.” Mollette v. Portsmouth City Council, 179 Ohio App.3d 455,
2008-Ohio-6342, 902 N.E.2d 515, ¶ 24 (4th Dist.).
“[I]f an actual controversy exists because it is possible for a court to grant the requested
relief, the case is not moot, and a consideration of the merits is warranted.” State ex rel. Gaylor,
Inc. v. Goodenow, 125 Ohio St.3d 407, 2010-Ohio-1844, 928 N.E.2d 728, ¶ 11. In the instant
2
In point of fact, the votes remain secret as the Appended Ballots are inaccurate and incomplete, thus the
January 21, 2015 remains closed to the public.
20
case, an actual controversy exists because it is possible for this Court to grant the requested relief
(i.e. a mandatory injunction, a civil forfeiture, and reasonable attorney fees). Therefore, the case
is not moot.
Not only is it possible for the Court to grant the requested relief, this Court is required to
grant the requested relief. “R.C. 1212.22(I)(1) requires that the court issue an injunction where a
violation of the statute has been proven. It is irrelevant whether the injunction is actually and
currently necessary to prevent a future harm.” Doran v. Northmont Bd. of Edn., 153 Ohio
App.3d 499, 2003-Ohio-4084, 794 N.E.2d 760, ¶ 21 (2d Dist.)(“Doran II”) (citing Fayette
Volunteer Fire Dept. No. 2, Inc. v. Fayette Twp. Bd. of Twp. Trustees (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d
51, 54, 621 N.E.2d 855). See also, McVey v. Carthage Twp. Trustees, 4th Dist. Athens No.
04CA44, 2005-Ohio-2869, ¶ 9 (“Because the statute clearly provides that an injunction is to be
issued upon finding a violation of the Sunshine Law, it is irrelevant that the Trustees nullified
their prior action.” citing Fayette Volunteer Fire Dept. No. 2, Inc., and Doran II).
Just as “R.C. 121.22(I) does not provide the exclusive remedy for a person adversely
affected by the failure of a governmental body to comply with the Sunshine Law” State ex rel.
Long v. Council of Cardington, 92 Ohio St.3d 54, 60, 2001-Ohio-130, 748 N.E.2d 58, neither
does R.C. 121.22(H). Thus, notwithstanding Appellees’ contention, this case is not moot
because it is possible for this Court to grant the requested relief provided for by R.C. 121.22(I).
10. Even were the case moot, secret ballot voting is capable of repetition and yet evading
review.
Even should the Court agree with the Appellees that the case is moot, this case is still
justiciable. “Although a case may be moot, a court may hear the appeal where the issues raised
are ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’” State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co., 38
21
Ohio St.3d 165, 166, 527 N.E.2d 807 (1988) (citing Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC
(1911), 219 U.S. 498, 515).
In Plain Dealer Publishing Co., the Court considered a challenge to the practice of the
Cleveland City Council to exclude “the press and public from certain of its meetings” where
such meetings would adjourn before a court could hear a complaint. Disregarding mootness, this
Court found the case justiciable because it is capable of repetition and yet evading review.
Notably, Plain Dealer Publishing Co., was not brought under the Open Meetings Act, but
as a mandamus action to enforce the Cleveland City Charter which provides no exceptions to the
requirement that all meetings of the Cleveland City Council be open to the public. As such,
unlike Appellant, Plain Dealer Publishing Co., could not rely on the two-year statute of
limitations or the mandatory injunction provided by R.C. 121.22(I) .
As in Plain Dealer Publishing Co., even should the case be found moot, notwithstanding
the two-year statute of limitations and the mandatory injunction language of the Open Meetings
Act, “this case raises important issues concerning public rights which are ‘capable of repetition,
yet evading review.’” Id., at 166 (citing State, ex rel. The Repository, v. Unger (1986), 28 Ohio
St. 3d 418, 420, 28 OBR 472, 474, 504 N.E. 2d 37, 39; Press Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court
(1986), 478 U.S.) 1, 6. While Appellees claim that they no longer vote by secret ballot, they
point to no ordinance or rule of council which would prohibit them from returning to its past
practice absent the mandatory injunction sought by Appellant.
22
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, Appellant Patricia Meade respectfully requests that this
Court reverse the Judgment Entry Denying [Plaintiff-Appellant’s] Motion for Summary
Judgment and Granting [Defendant-Appellees’] Motion for Summary Judgment issued by the
trial court on December 15, 2016 (CP #24, Common Pleas Decision, Appx. p. 20), to reverse the
Opinion and Judgment Entry issued by the Eighth District Court of Appeals on February 8, 2018
(COA #23, Appx. p. 4-19), and to remand the matter for further proceedings or issue judgment
directly in favor of Appellant.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Brian C. Shrive

Brian C. Shrive (0088980)
Christopher P. Finney (0038998)
Justin C. Walker (0080001)
FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225
Cincinnati, Ohio 453245
(513) 943-6655
chris@finneylawfirm.com
brian@finneylawfirm.com
justin@finneylawfirm.com
Counsel for Appellant
23
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This will certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing Memorandum in Support
of Jurisdiction of Appellant has been sent by email and ordinary U.S. mail to counsel for
appellees, David J. Matty (dmatty@mhglegal.com), Shana A. Samson
(ssamson@mhglegal.com), Mark Marong (mmarong@mhglegal.com), Matty, Henrickson &
Greve, 55 Public Square, Suite 1775, Cleveland, Ohio 44113; and counsel for amici, Monica
Dias (mdias@fbtlaw.com), Ryan Goellner (rgoellner@fbtlaw.com), Frost Brown Todd, LLC,
301 East Fourth Street, Suite 3300, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, on this 31st day of July , 2018.
/s/ Brian C. Shrive

24
Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed March 23, 2018 - Case No. 2018-0440
Case No. ____________
STATE OF OHIO ex rel. PATRICIA MEADE,
Relator-Appellant,
v.
Village of Bratenahl, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Counsel for Appellant : Counsel for Appellees:
Christopher P. Finney (0038998) David J. Matty (012335)

Brian C. Shrive (0088980) Shana A. Samson (0072871)
FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC Mark B. Marong (0082865)
4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225 Matty, Henrickson & Greve
Cincinnati, Ohio 453245 55 Public Square, Suite 1775
(513) 943-6656 Cleveland, Ohio 44113
chris@finneylawfirm.com (216) 621-6570
brian@finneylawfirm.com dmatty@mhglegal.com
ssamson@mhglegal.com
mmarong@mhglegal.com
Appx. 1
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Appellant PATRICIA MEADE hereby givers notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of
Ohio from the judgment of the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals, Eighth Appellate District,
entered on February 8, 2018, in State of Ohio ex rel. Patricia Meade, v. Village of Bratenahl, et al.
Case No. CA-16-105281.
The Eighth District Court of Appeals entered its initial Decision on November 9, 2017. A
timely application for reconsideration was filed by Appellant on November 15, 2017. Ultimately,
the Eighth District Court of Appeals granted the application for reconsideration and issued a new
decision on February 8, 2018. It is the February 8, 2018 decision from which this appeal is being
taken.
A copy of the February 8, 2018 Judgment Entry below accompanies this Notice of Appeal.
Pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.01(B)(1)(d)(iii), this case involves a question of public or great
general interest.
/s/ Brian C. Shrive

FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
(513) 943-6655
chris@finneylawfirm.com
brian@finneylawfirm.com
Attorneys for Appellant
Appx. 2
CERTFICATE OF SERVICE
This will certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing Notice of Apeal has been
sent by email and ordinary U.S. mail to counsel for appellees, David J. Matty
(dmatty@mhglegal.com), Shana A. Samson (ssamson@mhglegal.com), Mark Marong
(mmarong@mhglegal.com), Matty, Henrickson & Greve, 55 Public Square, Suite 1775,
Cleveland, Ohio 44113 on this 23rd day of March, 2018.
/s/ Brian C. Shrive

Brian C. Shrive
Christopher P. Finney
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT,

PATRICIA MEADE
Appx. 3
FEB 0
Court of glppealsfuffil <0f)to
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

No. 105281
STATE OF OHIO EX REL.

MORE BRATENAHL, ET AL.
RELATORS-APPELLANTS
vs.
VILLAGE OF BRATENAHL, OHIO, ET AL.
RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Civil Appeal from the

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CV-16-857888
BEFORE: Kilbane, J., Keough, P.J., and McCormack, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: February 8, 2018
CV16857888
102457188
Appx. 4
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Christopher P. Finney
Finney Law Firm, L.L.C.
4270 Ivy Pointe Boulevard, Suite 225
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
David J. Matty
Mark B. Marong
Shana Samson
Matty Henrikson & Greve, L.L.C.
55 Public Square, Suite 1775
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
Appx. 5
ON RECONSIDERATION1
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J.:
{ifl} Upon review, this court reconsiders its decision in this case. After
reconsideration, the opinion as announced by this court on November 9, 2017,
State ex rel. MORE Bratenahl v. Bratenahl, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105281,
2017-Ohio-8484, is hereby vacated and substituted with this opinion.
{f 2} Relator-appellant, state of Ohio ex rel. Patricia Meade (“Meade”),
appeals from the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of
respondents-appellees, the village of Bratenahl (“Bratenahl”), Mayor John
Licastro, and Councilmembers Mary Beckenbach, James Puffenberger, Erin
Smith, Geoffrey Williams, and Marla Murphy (collectively referred to as
“Bratenahl Councilmembers”). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
{^[3} In January 2016, Meade, a Bratenahl resident, and State ex rel.
MORE Bratenahl, a community news publication disseminated by Meade, filed
a complaint against Bratenahl and its councilmembers (collectively referred to
as “Bratenahl respondents”) alleging that they violated or threatened to violate
various provisions of Ohio’s Open Meetings Act (“OMA”) by casting secret ballots
at an open meeting when selecting the Bratenahl Council President pro tempore
^he original announcement of decision, State ex rel. MORE Bratenahl v.

Bratenahl, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105281, 2017-Ohio-8484, released November 9,
2017, is hereby vacated. This opinion, issued upon reconsideration, is the court’s
journalized decision in this appeal. See App.R. 22(C); see also S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.01.
Appx. 6
in January 2015.2 The OMA, which is popularly known as the Sunshine Law,
mandates that all meetings of any public body are to be public meetings open to
the public at all times. R.C. 121.22(C). Meade sought injunctive relief and an
award of civil forfeiture and attorney fees.
{^[4} In April 2016, Meade filed an amended complaint, naming Bratenahl
Mayor John Licastro as a respondent and adding three counts that expanded on
the alleged violations of the OMA. Count 2 alleged that Licastro, Murphy,
Puffenberger, and Williams threatened to violate the OMA by failing to keep and
maintain minutes of the Bratenahl Council Finance Committee for the meetings
held on January 19, 2016, February 16, 2016, March 14, 20 6, and April 18,
2016. In Counts 3 and 4, Meade alleges that Bratenahl Council conducted public
business in illegal executive sessions in violation of the OMA on August 19, 2015
(Count 3) and November 19, 2014 (Count 4).3
{f5} Meade sought a declaratory judgment that the Bratenahl
Councilmembers violated or threatened to violate the OMA and sought an
injunction prohibiting the councilmembers from conducting any votes by secret
ballot, unless authorized by Ohio law, and mandating all defendants to maintain
and prepare accurate council meeting minutes. Meade furtner sought a civil
2In July 2016, State ex rel. MORE Bratenahl voluntarily dismissed all of its
claims against defendants, leaving Meade as the sole plaintiff.
3Meade dismissed Count 4 of the amended complaint in December 2016.
Appx. 7
forfeiture fee of $500 for each distinct violation or threatened violation of the
OMA, as well as court costs and attorney fees.
{16} In September 2016, Meade moved for summary judgment. In her
motion, Meade alleges the following three separate violations or threatened
violations of the OMA by the Bratenahl respondents:
(i) using secret ballots to conduct official business of Bratenahl

Council!;
(ii) failing to keep and maintain minutes of the [Bratenahl

Council Finance Committee,] which contain sufficient facts
and information so as to permit the public to understand and
appreciate the rationale behind the Committee’s actions; and
(iii) during the course of a public meeting [Bratenahl Council] held

on August 19, 2015, conducting public business of the Council
in an illegal executive session and/or entering in such
executive session in violation of the requirements of the
[OMA].
{17} The Bratenahl respondents opposed Meade’s motion for summary
judgment and filed their own cross-motion for summary judgment. In their
motion, the Bratenahl respondents argued that Meade failed to meet her burden
of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence that they violated or
threatened to violate the OMA.
{18} In December 2016, the trial court denied Meade’s motion for
summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of the Bratenahl
respondents.
Appx. 8
{1f9} It is from this order that Meade appeals, raising the following two
assignments of error, which shall be discussed together:
Assignment of Error One
The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of [the

Bratenahl respondents].
Assignment of Error Two
The trial court erred in denying summary judgment in favor of

[Meade].
{flO} Within these assigned errors, Meade argues that the evidence
establishes multiple violations or threatened violations of the OMA by the
Bratenahl respondents. Specifically, the Bratenahl respondents: (1) used secret
ballots to conduct official business of council; (2) failed to keep and maintain
minutes of the Bratenahl Council Finance Committee; and (3) conducted public
business in an illegal session on August 19, 2015. As a result, Meade contends
that trial court erred when it denied her summary judgment motion and granted
summary judgment in favor of the Bratenahl respondents.
Standard of Review — Summary Judgment
{^[11} Appellate review of summary judgment is de novo Grafton v. Ohio
Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105, 1996-Ohio-336, 671 N.E.2d 241. Summary
judgment is appropriate under Civ.R. 56 when: (1) there is no genuine issue of
material fact; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law;
and (3) viewing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party
Appx. 9
reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that cone usion is adverse
to the nonmoving party. Temple u. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317, 327,
364 N.E.2d 267 (1977), citing Civ.R. 56(C).
{f 12} Once the moving party satisfies its burden, the nonmoving party
“may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the party’s pleadings, but
the party’s response, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set
forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Civ.R. 56(E);
Mootispaw v. Eckstein, 76 Ohio St.3d 383, 385,1996-Ohio-389, 667 N.E.2d 1197.
Doubts must be resolved in favor of the nonmoving party. Murphy v.
Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356, 358-359, 1992-Ohio-95, 604 N.E.2d 138.
The OMA
{113} R.C. 121.22 requires public bodies in Ohio to take official action and
conduct all deliberations on official business in open meetings where the public
can attend and observe such deliberations. Public bodies must provide advance
notice to the public, indicating where and when the meetings will occur and, in
the case of special meetings, state the specific topics the body will discuss.
R.C. 121.22(F). “A plain reading of R.C. 121.22 reveals the legislature’s intent
to require that all public bodies generally conduct their meetings in the open so
that the public can have access to the business discussed or transacted therein.”
Wyse u. Rupp, 6th Dist. Fulton No. F-94-19,1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 4008, 11-12
(Sept. 15, 1995). “Its purpose is to assure accountability of elected officials by
Appx. 10
prohibiting their secret deliberations on public issues.” State ex rel. Cincinnati
Enquirer v. Hamilton Cty. Commrs., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-010605,
2002-0hio-2038, 1 2, citing State ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. Cincinnati, 76 Ohio
St.3d 540, 668 N.E.2d 903 (1996). However, if specific procedures are followed,
public officials may discuss certain sensitive information privately in conformity
with R.C. 121.22(G). Id. at 1 2-3.
14} The party alleging a violation of the OMA must establish that the
public body held a meeting with a majority of its members and that the meeting
improperly excluded the public. State ex rel. Hardin v. Clermont Cty. Bd. of
Elections, 2012-Ohio-2569, 972 N.E.2d 115, 1 22-24 (12th Dist!.), citing State ex
rel. Stern v. Butler, 7th Dist. Jefferson No. 98-JE-54, 2001-0hio-3404; State ex
rel. Sigall v. Aetna, 45 Ohio St.2d 308, 345 N.E.2d 61 (1976). The burden then
shifts to the public body to produce evidence demonstrating that the meeting at
issue properly fell within one of the statutory exceptions. Id. at 1 25.
Election of President Pro Tempore
{1 15} Meade first argues that the Bratenahl respondents violated the
OMA at the January 21, 2015 Bratenahl Council meeting when the Bratenahl
councilmembers used “secret written ballots” to elect the president pro tempore.
{116} In the instant case, a review of the record reveals that two
councilmembers were nominated to serve as president pro tempore at the
January 2015 meeting. Councilmember Beckenbach then expressed her desire
Appx. 11
to take the vote by secret ballot. Then-Councilmember Laura Bacci inquired as
to whether voting by secret ballot was legal. Councilmember Beckenbach noted
that Bratenahl has always used secret ballot to elect the president pro tempore
The members of the Bratenahl Council proceeded to vote by handwriting their
respective votes on a piece of paper and handing their votes to David Matty
(“Matty”), Bratenahl’s Solicitor. Matty reviewed and counted the ballots. After
counting the votes, Matty declared that another vote had to be taken because a
vote had been cast for an individual who was not nominated ‘or president pro
tempore. Matty advised the councilmembers that they could only vote for one
of the two individuals that had been nominated for president pro tempore.
{^[17} A second set of ballots was then cast by the councilmembers. Matty
reviewed and counted the second set of ballots. Thereafter, Matty announced
that the results of the second set of ballots for president pro tempore resulted in
a tie vote. As a result, the councilmembers cast a third set of ballots in the same
manner as the first and second set of votes. After Matty reviewed and counted
the third set of ballots, he announced that Councilmember Puffenberger had
been elected president pro tempore of Bratenahl Council. Councilmember
Puffenberger served in the capacity of president pro tempore until December 31,
2015. Councilmember Puffenberger was reappointed as president pro tempore
by a public vote on January 21, 2016.
Appx. 12
{f 18} In support other argument, Meade relies on 2011 Ohio Atty. Gen.
Ops. No. 2011-038 for the proposition that secret ballots are a violation of the
OMA. In this opinion, the Ohio Attorney General was specifically asked whether
it was permissible for the Ohio Board of Education to vote by secret ballot in an
open meeting. The Attorney General concluded that “the State Board of
Education may not vote in an open meeting by secret ballot.” Id. In reaching his
decision, the Attorney General stated:
R.C. 121.22 does not address explicitly the use of secret ballots by
the members of a public body, nor does any other provision of the
Revised Code address the use of secret ballots by the Boa.rd. Voting
by secret ballot is a process of voting by slips of paper on which the
voter indicates his vote. [Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised,
412 (11th Ed.2011)]; Black’s Law Dictionary 143 (6tli Ed.1990).
Voting by secret ballot is “used when secrecy of the members’ votes
is desired.” Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised, at 412. When
a secret ballot is used, the vote “is cast in such a manner that the
person expressing such choice cannot be identified withj the choice
expressed.” Black’s Law Dictionary 143 (6th Ed. 1990); see also
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2052 (unabr. ed. 1993)
(defining “secret” as something “kept hidden” or “kept from the
knowledge of others, concealed as part of one’s private knowledge”).
No Ohio courts and only one Attorney General opinion have

confronted the use of secret ballot voting by a public body that is
subject to the requirements of R.C. 121.22. See 1980 OpJ Att’y Gen.
No. 80-083 (syllabus, paragraph 4) (“R.C. 121.22 does not require a
roll call vote or prohibit voting at a meeting subject to that section
by ‘secret ballot’”).
(Emphasis added.) Id. at 3.
{^19} The Attorney General went on to state that “[i]f the votes of the
individual members of a public body are denied public scrutiny, the public is
Appx. 13
unable to properly evaluate the decision-making of the public body and hold its
members responsible for their decisions.” Id. at 5.
{f 20} In the instant case, the ballots were handwritten in open session
and included the name of the nominated individual. The written ballots were
then maintained by Bratenahl as a public record and subsequently produced to
Meade. Because the votes were cast in open session and were made public
record, the votes were not “secret” like the votes in the Attorney General’s
opinion.4 There is no evidence that Bratenahl attempted to conceal information
from the public. Thus, based on these circumstances, Meade is unable to
establish her burden by the preponderance of the evidence that the Bratenahl
respondents violated or threatened to violate the OMA on January 21, 2015.
Finance Committee Minutes
{f21} Meade next argues that the Bratenahl respondents violated or
threatened to violate the OMA when the Finance Committee’s meeting minutes
failed to contain sufficient facts and information to permit the public to
understand and appreciate the rationale behind the committee’s actions.
Specifically, Meade contends certain meeting minutes indicate that various
items came before the committee, the action taken thereon, and the votes of the
4We note that during discovery, Bratenahl provided copies of the handwritten
ballots including post-it notes identifying each Bratenahl councilmember’s respective
votes.
Appx. 14
committee members on a motion to effectuate that action, but when
consideration is given to the length of these meetings and the limited number
of items considered, there clearly would have been significantly more involved
than simply a motion and vote concerning each item.
{f 22} R.C. 121.22(C) provides that
[t]he minutes of a regular or special meeting of any public body shall

be promptly prepared, filed, and maintained and shall be open to
public inspection. The minutes need only reflect the genejral subject
matter of discussions in executive sessions authorized under
division (G) or (J) of this section.
{f23} The Ohio Supreme Court has defined “minutes” by its common
definition: “‘a series of brief notes taken to provide a record of proceedings * * *.
an official record composed of such notes. Webster’s Third New International
Dictionary (1986) 1440.’” White v. Clinton Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 76 Ohio St.3d
416, 421, 667 N.E.2d 1223, fn. 3 (1996).
{^f 24} White involved a request of certain meeting minutes of the Clinton
County Board of Commissioners, and the court’s interpretation of R.C. 305.10
(Record of proceedings by Board of County Commissioners) and its interplay
with R.C. 121.22 and 149.43 (Ohio Public Records Act).5 White argued that
these statutes impose a duty on boards of county commissioners to prepare
5White sought a writ of mandamus compelling the Clinton County Board of

Commissioners to prepare complete and accurate minutes of all Board policies. The
minutes provided by the Board failed to document new policies adopted by the Board
and were missing a page.
Appx. 15
minutes that reflect the substance of their meetings and provide some indication
of the nature and direction of their discussions. The court agreed, and concluded
that these statutes, when read together, impose a duty on boards of county
commissioners to maintain a full and accurate record of their proceedings. Id.
at 418. In reaching its decision, the White court stated:
We recognize that it is not the business of this court to

micro-manage the public record-keeping procedures of local
governments; public bodies should be trusted with a certain degree
of latitude in the preparation of minutes and other records of their
proceedings. Accordingly, we resist the temptation to prescribe any
particular means of satisfying R.C. 121.22 and 305.10. Audio- or
videotape recordings, word-for-word transcripts, even abstracts of
the discussions indicating the identity of the speakers and the
chronology and substance of their statements, are all legitimate
means of satisfying the requirements of R.C. 121.22 and 305.10.
Accordingly, we refrain from laying down specific guidelines, other
than the dictate that for public records maintained under
R.C. 121.22 and 305.10, full and accurate minutes must contain
I
sufficient facts and information to permit the public to understand
and appreciate the rationale behind the relevant public body’s
decision.
Id. at 424.
25} In the instant case, the meeting minutes in question, along with the
transcripts of the subsequent Bratenahl Council meetings, provide an accurate
and adequate record of the Finance Committee’s recommendations on financial
matters, and the Bratenahl Council’s actions on the same. The minutes at issue
reference the ordinance and resolution numbers being considered for
recommendation to council, identification of each motion, some discussion, and
Appx. 16
the votes of the committee members. Furthermore, the transcripts of the
subsequent council meetings demonstrate additional reports from the Finance
Committee as to its discussions and recommendations to Council. Under White,
abstracts of the discussions indicating the identity of the speakers and the
chronology and substance of their statements are legitimate means of satisfying
the requirements of R.C. 121.22. Id. at 424.
{f 26} Based on these circumstances, Meade failed to establish a violation
or threatened violation with regard to the Finance Committee’s minutes.
Executive Session
{f27} Lastly, Meade argues that the Bratenahl respondents did not
comply with the conditions precedent for holding an executive session at the
August 19, 2015 Bratenahl Council meeting.
{f 28} An executive session is a closed-door conference convened by a
public body, after a roll call vote, that is attended by only the members of the
public body (and those they invite), that excludes the public. R.C. 121.22(G).
The OMA allows for executive sessions in certain limited circumstances.
R.C. 121.22(G)(l)-(8); State ex rel. Long v. Cardington Village Council, 92 Ohio
St.3d 54, 2001-0hio-130, 748 N.E.2d 58. As relevant here, they include the
consideration of the purchase of property for public purposes and conferences
with an attorney concerning disputes involving the public body that is the
subject of pending or imminent court action. R.C. 121.22(G)(2)-(3).
Appx. 17
{f29} Meade acknowledges that the record provides an after-the-fact
assertion that a motion to enter executive session was made, but contends that
the official record fails to indicate whether the motion to enter executive session
stated an actual purpose and whether there was a roll call vote.
{^[30} A review of the transcript of the August 19, 2015 Bratenahl Council
Meeting evidences that council began its meeting with an executive session.
Mayor Licastro asked that the record reflect that council went into executive
session to talk about acquisition of land and threatened litigation, which is
permissible under R.C. 121.22(G)(2)-(3). Mayor Licastro also states that the
motion to enter executive session was made by Councilmember Puffenberger and
seconded by Councilmember Murphy. Mayor Licastro t len states that
Councilmember Puffenberger made the motion to return to the public session
and the motion was seconded by then-Councilmember Bacci. The foregoing
satisfies the statutory requirements for entering an executive session.
{f 31} In light of the foregoing, we find that Meade offered no evidence to
rebut the presumption that the Bratenahl respondents did not comply with the
OMA. Therefore, we find that the trial court properly granted summary
6We note that Meade’s own audio recording of the meeting, which was provided
to the Bratenahl respondents in discovery, reveals that the motion and roll call vote
to hold executive session were taken before the reporter began transcribing the record.
The roll call vote is also reflected in the Bratenahl Clerk’s notes, which was also
provided during discovery.
Appx. 18
judgment in favor of the Bratenahl respondents and properly denied Meade’s
motion for summary judgment.
{^[32} The first and second assignments of error are overruled.
{^33} Judgment is affirmed.
It is ordered that appellees recover of appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the
common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule
27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

FILED AND JOUD ' i. ft t
n
! 7 u.
pw H
PER APP.R. i
FEB Ob 2018
CUYAHOGA COUN t:-* ;u
0FIHE£°4uT
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, P.J., and _ _ v i* »;T?y
TIM McCORMACK, J., CONCUR
Appx. 19
96873051
96873051
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO EX REL. MORE BRATENAHL, ET Case No: CV-16-857888
AL
Plaintiff Judge: NANCY R MCDONNELL
VILLAGE OF BRATENHAL, OHIO, ET AL

Defendant
JOURNAL ENTRY
PLAINTIFF STATE OF OHIO EX RELATOR PATRICIA MEADE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED ON
9/12/16 IS DENIED. DEFENDANTS' CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED ON 11/2/16 IS GRANTED. IN
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF INDICATES THAT SHE IS NOT PURSUING COUNT IV
OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT. NO DISMISSAL HAS BEEN FILED AS TO COUNT IV AND THE CLAIM REMAINS
PENDING. PRETRIAL SET FOR 1/5/17 AT 10:00 A.M.
Judge Signature 12/15/2016
12/14/2016
RECEIVED FOR FILING
12/15/2016 15:30:35
NAILAH K. BYRD. CLERK
Page 1 of 1
Appx. 20
NAILAH K. BYRD
CUYAHOGA COUNTY CUERK OF COURTS
1200 Ontario Street
Court of Common Pleas
ANSWERS Electronically Filed:

May 4, 2016 13:22
By: SHANA SAMSON 0072871
Confirmation Nbr. 743121
STATE OF OHIO EX REL. MORE BRATENAHL, ET AL CV 16 857888
vs.
Judge:
NANCY R. MCDONNELL
Pages Filed: 14
Appx. 21
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
STATE OF OHIO ex rel. MORE ) CASE NO. CV 16 857888

BRATENAHL, et al., )
)
Relator, ) JUDGE NANCY MCDONNELL
)
v. )
)
VILLAGE OF BRATENAHL, OHIO, et al.,) ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED
) COMPLAINT
Respondents. )
)
Now comes the Respondents, Village of Bratenahl, Ohio, Mary Beckenbach (incorrectly
referred to as Mary Bechenbach in the Amended Complaint), James Puffenberger, Erin Smith,
Geoffrey B.C. Williams, Marla Murphy and John M. Licastro, and hereby submit answers to
Relators’ First Amended Complaint (hereinafter “Relators’ Complaint”) and states as follows:
1. Respondents are without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth or veracity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of Relators’ Complaint,
therefore, Respondents deny for want of knowledge.
2. Respondents admit the allegations containing in Paragraph 2 of Relators’
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Appx. 22
Complaint.
Complaint.
8. Respondents admit that Joyce Burke-Jones began serving her term with Bratenahl
Village Council in January 2016 and Respondents are without information or knowledge
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the remaining allegations contained in
Paragraph 8 of Relators’ Complaint, therefore, Respondents deny for want of knowledge.
9. Respondents admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of Relators’
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
13. Respondents incorporate by reference as if fully rewritten herein its responses
contained in Paragraphs 1 through 12 of its Answer as realleged in Paragraph 13 of Relators’
Complaint.
14. Section 731.10 of the Ohio Revised Code speaks for itself.
15. Section 121.05(a) of the Codified Ordinances for the Village of Bratenahl, Ohio
speaks for itself.
Appx. 23
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
22. The transcript of the January 21, 2015 meeting attached as Exhibit A speaks for
itself.
itself. Respondents admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of Relators’ Complaint.
itself. Respondents admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of Relators’ Complaint.
itself. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 25 of Relators’ Complaint.
itself. Respondents admit that Mary Beckenbach has been a member of the Village Council
for the Village of Bratenahl, Ohio, since 2002 and are without information or knowledge
sufficient to for a belief as to the truth or veracity of the remaining allegations contained in
Appx. 24
Paragraph 26 of Relators’ Complaint, therefore, Respondents deny these allegations for want
of knowledge.
itself. Respondents are without information or knowledge sufficient to for a belief as to the
truth or veracity of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 27 of Relators’
Complaint, therefore, Respondents deny these allegations for want of knowledge.
itself.
29. Respondents admit that the members of the Village Council for the Village of
Bratenahl, Ohio, voted by secret ballot for the selection of president pro tempore of the
Village Council at the meeting held on January 21, 2015 and deny the remaining allegations
set forth in Paragraph 29 of Relators’ Complaint.
Complaint.
itself.
itself.
itself.
Complaint.
35. Respondents admit that at the meeting of the Bratenahl Village Council held on
Appx. 25
January 21, 2015, after the individual members had cast their second vote for president pro
tempore, David Matty announced that there was a tie vote for Mr. Puffenberger and Ms.
Murphy and Respondents deny the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 35.
itself.
Complaint.
38. Respondents admit that at the meeting of the Bratenahl Village Council held on
January 21, 2015, after the individual members had cast their third vote for president pro
tempore, David Matty announced the results of the vote, declaring Mr. Puffenberger as
president pro tempore, and Respondents deny the remaining allegations set forth in
Paragraph 38.
Complaint.
Complaint.
41. Respondents are without information or knowledge sufficient to for a belief as to
the truth or veracity of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 41 of Relators’
Complaint, therefore, Respondents deny these allegations for want of knowledge. The
referenced portions of the transcript of the January 21, 2015 meeting attached as Exhibit A
speak for themselves.
42. Section 121.03(h) of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Bratenahl speaks
for itself.
Appx. 26
43. Paragraph 43 contains legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Respondents deny the allegations within this paragraph.
47. Respondents deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 47 of Relators’
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
50. Ohio Revised Code §121.22(A) speaks for itself.
51. Ohio Revised Code §121.22(A) speaks for itself.
extent a response is required, Respondents state that this paragraph contains no factual
allegations that require a response.
extent a response is required, Respondents state that this paragraph contains no factual
allegations that require a response and the cases cited in Paragraph 53 speak for themselves.
54. Ohio Attorney General Opinion No. 2011-038 attached as Exhibit B speaks for
Appx. 27
itself.
55. Ohio Sunshine Law manual published by the Ohio Attorney General and the Ohio
Auditor speaks for itself.
56. Ohio Sunshine Law: An Open Government Resource Manual attached as Exhibit
C speaks for itself.
Complaint.
58. Respondents deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 58 of
Relators’ Complaint.
61. Respondents deny each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 61 of Relators’
Complaint. The Ohio Attorney General Opinion No. 2011-038 and the Ohio Sunshine Law
manual speak for themselves.
Complaint. The Ohio Attorney General Opinion No. 2011-038 and the Ohio Sunshine Law
manual speak for themselves.
Complaint.
Appx. 28
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
69. Section 121.08 of the Codified Ordinances speaks for itself.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
73. Section 121.08 of the Codified Ordinances speaks for itself.
74. Respondents deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 74 of Relators’
Complaint.
75. Respondents deny any violation of Section 121.08(a) by Mayor Licastro in
making the appointments to the Finance Committee. Paragraph 75 contains legal conclusions
Appx. 29
to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Respondents state that
this paragraph contains no factual allegations that require a response and the cases cited in
Paragraph 75 speak for themselves.
Complaint and the case and statutes cited in Paragraph 77 speak for themselves.
78. Ohio Revised Code §121.22(C) speaks for itself.
extent a response is required, Respondents deny the allegations within this paragraph and the
case cited in Paragraph 79 speaks for itself.
81. Paragraph 81 contains no factual allegations that require a response and the case
cited in Paragraph 81 speaks for itself.
82. The minutes from the 2016 Finance Committee meetings attached as Exhibit D,
speak for themselves.
Complaint.
Complaint.
85. Respondents deny each and every allegations contained in Paragraph 85 of
Appx. 30
Complaint.
87. Ohio Revised Code §121.22 speaks for itself.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
91. The transcript of the August 19, 2015 meeting attached as Exhibit E speaks for
itself.
92. The transcript of the August 19, 2015 meeting attached as Exhibit E speaks for
itself.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
10
Appx. 31
97. Ohio Revised Code §121.22(G)(1) speaks for itself.
98. Ohio Revised Code §121.22(G)(1) speaks for itself.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
102. The transcript of the November 19, 2014 meeting attached as Exhibit F speaks for
itself.
103. The transcript of the November 19, 2014 meeting attached as Exhibit F speaks for
itself.
104. The portions of the transcript referenced in Paragraph 104 speak for themselves.
Respondents deny the remaining allegations containing in Paragraph 104 of Relators’
Complaint.
Complaint.
106. Respondents deny all remaining allegations set forth in Relators’ Amended
Complaint.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. Relators’ Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
2. Relators’ claims are barred by the doctrine of absolute immunity.
11
Appx. 32
3. Relators’ claims are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity.
4. Relator More Bratenahl has no standing to assert a claim in this action.
5. Relator Patricia Meade has no standing to assert a claim in this action.
6. Respondents acted in good faith and had reasonable grounds at all times to
believe that their actions complied with state law.
7. The doctrines of waiver and estoppel bar some, if not all, of Relators’ claims.
8. Relators’ claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
9. Pursuant to Rule 19 and Rule 19.1 of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, Relators
have failed to join a party and/or parties necessary for the just adjudication of their claims.
Specifically, prior councilmember Laura Bacci Merhaut was present at the January 21, 2015
Bratenahl Village Council Meeting and participated in the vote referenced in Count I of the
Amended Complaint.
10. To the extent applicable to Relators’ claims, Respondents assert all available
defenses and immunities applicable to political subdivisions and their employees as are set forth
in Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2744 and as developed under Ohio Common Law.
11. This Court lacks jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment claims because of
Relators’ failure to comply with Chapter 2721 of the Ohio Revised Code.
12. Relators are not entitled to injunctive relief.
13. Relators’ claims against Respondents are not warranted under existing law or
were filed to harass or maliciously injure Respondents and, therefore, claims made by
Relators are frivolous and/or constitute an abuse of process and/or a violation of Rule 11.
14. Respondents are entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees, as determined by the court,
in accordance with ORC § 121.22(I)(2)(b).
12
Appx. 33
15. Respondents give notice that they intend to rely on other defenses and/or
affirmative defenses as may become available or known during discovery in this case and
hereby reserve the right to amend this answer to assert those additional defenses.
WHEREFORE, having answered Relators’ Amended Complaint, Respondents, Village of
Bratenahl, Ohio, Mary Beckenbach, James F. Puffenberger, Erin E. Smith, Geoffrey B.C.
Williams, Marla Murphy and John M. Licastro pray that the Complaint be dismissed, with
prejudice, at Relators’ costs and expenses and that Respondents be awarded reasonable costs,
expenses, and attorneys’ fees and such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Shana A. Samson

DAVID J. MATTY (0012335)
dmatty@mhglegal. com
SHANA A. SAMSON (0072871)
ssamson@mhglegal.com
MARK B. MARONG (0082865)
mmarong@mhglegal .com
Matty, Henrikson & Greve
Phone (216) 621-6570
Fax (216)621-1127
Attorneys for Respondents
13
Appx. 34
I hereby certify that on this 4th day of May 2016, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
Answer of Respondents was filed electronically and served through the Court’s electronic filing
system:
Curt C. Hartman
The Law Firm of Curt C. Hartman
7394 Ridgepoint Drive, Suite 8
/s/ Shana A. Samson

Shana A. Samson
14
Appx. 35
NAILAH K. BYRD
CUYAHOGA COUNTY CUERK OF COURTS
1200 Ontario Street
Court of Common Pleas
COMPUAINT Electronically Filed:

April 21, 2016 15:57
By: CURT C. HARTMAN 0064242
Confirmation Nbr. 732251
STATE OF OHIO EX REL. MORE BRATENAHL, ET AL CV 16 857888
vs.
Judge:
NANCY R MCDONNELL
Pages Filed: 84
Electronically Filed 04/21/2016 15:57 / COMPLAINT / CV 16 857888 / Confirmation Nbr. 732251 / CLDLJ
Appx. 36
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
STATE OF OHIO ex rel. MORE Bratenahl, Case No. CV-16-857888

et ill.,
Judge McDonnell
Relators,
VILLAGE OF BRATENHAL, OHIO, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

et al.,
and
JOHN M. LICASTRO
Mayor, Village of Bratenahl, Ohio
12207 Coit Road
Bratenahl, OH 44108,
Respondents.
COMES NOW the State of Ohio, on relation to MORE Bratenahl and PATRICIA
MEADE (hereinafter, “Relators”), and, for its Amended Complaint, alleges as follows:
1. Relator MORE Bratenahl is a community news publication issued and
disseminated by PATRICIA MEADE and that reports on events and happenings occurring in and
around the Village of Bratenahl, Ohio, including its government.
2. Relator PATRICIA MEADE is a resident and taxpayer of the Village of
Bratenahl, Ohio, which is located in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. PATRICIA MEADE regularly
attends and speaks at meetings of the Bratenahl Village Council and its committees.
3. MARY BECHENBACH is a resident of the Village of Bratenahl, Ohio, which is
located in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and is currently one of the six members of the Bratenahl
Appx. 37
Village Council. Additionally, MARY BECHENBACH was a member of the Bratenahl Village
Council at all pertinent times herein.
4. JAMES PUFFENBERGER is a resident of the Village of Bratenahl, Ohio,
which is located in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and is currently one of the six members of the
Bratenahl Village Council. Additionally, JAMES PUFFENBERGER was a member of the
Bratenahl Village Council at all pertinent times herein.
5. ERIN SMITH is a resident of the Village of Bratenahl, Ohio, which is located in
Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and is currently one of the six members of the Bratenahl Village
Council. Additionally, ERIN SMITH was a member of the Bratenahl Village Council at all
pertinent times herein.
6. GEOFFREY B.C. WILLIAMS is a resident of the Village of Bratenahl, Ohio,
which is located in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and is currently one of the six members of the
Bratenahl Village Council. Additionally, GEOFFREY B.C. WILLIAMS was a member of the
Bratenahl Village Council at all pertinent times herein.
7. MARLA MURPHY is a resident of the Village of Bratenahl, Ohio, which is
located in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and is currently one of the six members of the Bratenahl
Village Council. Additionally, MARLA MURPHY was a member of the Bratenahl Village
Council at all pertinent times herein.
8. The individual who is currently the remaining member of the Bratenahl Village
Council was not a member of the Bratenahl Village Council or the pertinent committee thereof at
the time that the pertinent violations of the Open Meetings Act occurred and, thus, is not named
a party herein.
- 2
-
Appx. 38
9. JOHN M. LICASTRO is a resident of the Village of Bratenahl, Ohio, which is
located in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and, at all pertinent times herein served as the mayor of the
Village of Bratenahl, a public office he continues to hold to this day.
10. Pursuant to Section 121.04 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of
Bratenahl, JOHN M. LICASTRO, as mayor of the Village of Bratenahl, presides at all meetings
of the Bratenahl Village Council.
11. Respondent VILLAGE OF BRATENAHL, OHIO, is a municipal corporation
located in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and is organized and existing pursuant to Chapter 7 of the
Ohio Revised Code. Pursuant to Section 715.01 of the Ohio Revised Code, the VILLAGE OF
BRATENAHL, OHIO, is a body politic and corporate organized under the laws of the State of
Ohio, and is capable of being sued.
12. The Bratenahl Village Council serves and functions as the legislative authority for
the VILLAGE OF BRATENAHL, OHIO.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Open Meetings Violation)
13. Relator restates and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully
stated here.
14. Section 731.10 of the Ohio Revised Code mandates that, “[a]t the first meeting in
January of each year, the legislative authority of a village shall immediately proceed to elect a
president pro tempore from its own number, who shall serve until the first meeting in January
next after his election.”
15. Section 121.05(a) of the Codified Ordinances for the VILLAGE OF
BRATENAHL, OHIO, mandates that “[a]t the first meeting in January of each year, the Council
-3 -
Appx. 39
shall immediately proceed to elect a president pro tempore from its own number, who shall serve
until the first meeting in January next after his/her election”.
16. On January 21, 2015, the Bratenahl Village Council held and conducted a regular
meeting of the Village Council.
17. Respondent JOHN M. LICASTRO, as mayor of the Village of Bratenahl,
presided over the meeting of the Bratenahl Village Council held on January 21, 2015.
18. Respondent MARY BECHENBACH, Respondent JAMES PUFFENBERGER,
Respondent ERIN SMITH, Respondent GEOFFREY B.C. WILLIAMS, and Respondent
MARLA MURPHY, as members of the Bratenahl Village Council, attended and participated
throughout the meeting of the Bratenahl Village Council held on January 21, 2015.
19. The meeting of the Bratenahl Village Council on January 21, 2015, was the first
regular meeting in January of the Village Council.
20. Thus, pursuant to Section 731.10 of the Ohio Revised Code and Section 121.05(a)
of the Codified Ordinances for the VILLAGE OF BRATENAHL, OHIO, one of the matters
considered by the Bratenahl Village Council was the election of a president pro tempore.
21. Since at least January 2015 and continuing to the present, the Bratenahl Village
Council causes a stenographic record to be made of all meetings of the Village Council and said
stenographic record constitutes the official minutes of the meetings of the Bratenahl Village
Council.
22. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a copy of the official stenographic record as
obtained from the website of the VILLAGE OF BRATENAHL, OHIO, for the meeting of the
Bratenahl Village Council held on January 21, 2015, and published thereon as the official
minutes of said meeting of the Bratenahl Village Council.
-4-
Appx. 40
23. Starting at page 15, line 20, of the official stenographic record for the meeting of
the Bratenahl Village Council held on January 21, 2015, i.e., Exhibit A, attached hereto, the
Bratenahl Village Council began the process of electing the president pro tempore of the Village
Counsel pursuant to Section 731.10 of the Ohio Revised Code and Section 121.05(a) of the
Codified Ordinances for the VILLAGE OE BRATENAHL, OHIO.
24. As indicated on page 16 in the official stenographic record for the meeting of the
Bratenahl Village Council held on January 21, 2015, i.e., Exhibit A, two individuals were
nominated to serve as president pro tempore of the Bratenahl Village Council during 2015, viz.,
JAMES PUFFENBERGER and MARLA MURPHY.
25. As indicated at page 16, line 19, in the official stenographic record for the
meeting of the Bratenahl Village Council held on January 21, 2015, i.e., Exhibit A, MARY
BECHENBACH declared her desire that the members of the Bratenahl Village Council conduct
by secret ballot the election for the president pro tempore of the Bratenahl Village Council as
mandated by Section 731.10 of the Ohio Revised Code and Section 121.05(a) of the Codified
Ordinances for the VILLAGE OF BRATENAHL, OHIO.
26. As indicated at page 16, line 19, in the official stenographic record for the
meeting of the Bratenahl Village Council held on January 21, 2015, i.e., Exhibit A, MARY
BECHENBACH expressly declared that, with respect to voting by secret ballot, “We’ve always
done that.” MARY BECHENBACH has been a member of the Bratenahl Village Council for
several years and, thus, would have a basis of knowledge of the Bratenahl Village Council
conducting business by secret ballot.
27. As indicated at page 16, starting at line 21, in the official stenographic record for
the meeting of the Bratenahl Village Council held on January 21, 2015, i.e., Exhibit A, in
-5 -
Appx. 41
response to the effort or demand of MARY BECHENBACH to conduct official business of the
Bratenahl Village Council by secret ballot, then-Councilmember Laura Bacci made the express
inquiry as to whether voting by secret ballot was legal.
28. As indicated at page 17, starting at line 2, in the official stenographic record for
the meeting of the Bratenahl Village Council held on January 21, 2015, i.e., Exhibit A, then-
Councilmember Laura Bacci expressly declared that “I thought I saw something in the Sunshine
Law of the ORC that you can't have a secret ballot.”
29. Notwithstanding then-Councilmember Laura Bacci raising or questioning the
legality of voting by secret ballot, the individual Respondents herein, i.e., the members of the
Bratenahl Village Council, proceeded to vote by secret ballot for the selection of president pro
tempore of the Bratenahl Village Council at the meeting held on January 21, 2015.
30. At the meeting of the Bratenahl Village Council held on January 21, 2015, after
the individual members of the Bratenahl Village Council had cast their secret ballot for president
pro tempore, these secret ballots, based upon information and belief, were not handed to any
designated tellers but, instead, were handed to David J. Matty, the Village Solicitor, who, based
upon information and belief, alone reviewed and counted the ballots.
31. Lor, according as indicated at page 17, starting at line 10, in the official
stenographic record for the meeting of the Bratenahl Village Council held on January 21, 2015,
i.e., Exhibit A, following the casting of the secret ballots by the members of the Bratenahl
Village Council, David Matty declared that another vote had to be taken, indicating that a vote
had been casted for an individual who was not nominated for president pro tempore. At no time
did David Matty announce the supposed results of this secret ballot vote nor did he identify the
individual or individuals who had received a vote but was not nominated.
- 6 -
Appx. 42
32. According as indicated at page 17, starting at line 13, in the official stenographic
record for the meeting of the Bratenahl Village Council held on January 21, 2015, i.e., Exhibit A,
David Matty declared and directed to the members of the Village Council that they could only
vote for one of the two individuals that had actually been nominated for president pro tempore.
33. Thus, as indicated at page 18, starting at line 1, in the official stenographic record
for the meeting of the Bratenahl Village Council held on January 21, 2015, i.e., Exhibit A, the
individual Respondents herein, i.e., the members of the Bratenahl Village Council, casted a
second secret ballot vote in order to elect the president pro tempore.
34. At the meeting of the Village Council for the VILLAGE OF BRATENAHL,
OHIO, held on January 21, 2015, after the individual members of the Bratenahl Village Council
had cast their second secret ballot for president pro tempore, these secret ballots, based upon
information and belief, were not handed to any designated tellers but, instead, were handed to
David J. Matty, the Village Solicitor, who, based upon information and belief, alone reviewed
and counted the ballots.
the individual members of the Village Council for the VILLAGE OF BRATENAHL had cast
their second secret ballot for president pro tempore, David Matty announced that the supposed
results of the second secret ballot for president pro tempore resulted in a tie vote in favor of
JAMES PUFFENBERGER and MARLA MURPHY.
36. Thus, as indicated at page 18, starting at line 23, in the official stenographic
record for the meeting of the Bratenahl Village Council held on January 21, 2015, i.e., Exhibit A,
the individual Respondents herein, i.e., the members of the Village Council for the Bratenahl
Village Council, casted a third secret ballot vote in order to elect the president pro tempore.
-7-
Appx. 43
37. At the meeting of the Village Council for the VILLAGE OF BRATENAHL,
OHIO, held on January 21, 2015, after the individual members of the Bratenahl Village Council
had cast their third secret ballot for president pro tempore, these secret ballots, based upon
information and belief, were not handed to any designated tellers but, instead, were handed to
David J. Matty, the Village Solicitor, who, based upon information and belief, alone reviewed
and counted the ballots.
the individual members of the Village Council for the VILLAGE OF BRATENAHL had cast
their third secret ballot for president pro tempore, David Matty announced that the supposed
results of the third secret ballot for president pro tempore, declaring that JAMES
PUFFENBERGER had been elected president pro tempore of the Village Council.
39. Neither David Matty nor any official of the VILLAGE OF BRATENAHL, OHIO,
announced or published the tally of the first secret ballot for president pro tempore of the
Bratenahl Village Council which was conducted on January 21, 2015.
40. Neither David Matty nor any official of the VILLAGE OF BRATENAHL, OHIO,
announced or published the tally of the third secret ballot for president pro tempore of the
Bratenahl Village Council which was conducted on January 21, 2015.
41. As indicated above, David Matty unilaterally rejected the first secret ballot vote
for president pro tempore, without even announcing the results thereof, because at least one vote
had been casted for an individual who was not nominated. In fact, as indicated at page 18,
starting at line 19, in the official stenographic record for the meeting of the Bratenahl Village
Council held on January 21, 2015, i.e., Exhibit A, David Matty expressly requests “if the record
-8-
Appx. 44
could reflect that the first ballot was not acceptable because of a vote of someone who was not
nominated.”
42. However, according to Section 121.03(h) of the Codified Ordinances of the
Village of Bratenahl, “[t]he Ohio Revised Code, the Codified Ordinances of the Village of
Bratenahl,... the Ohio Ethics Law, and, if none of the aforementioned laws are applicable, then
Robert’s Rules of Order as revised from time to time, shall govern all proceedings of the
Bratenahl Village Council and its Committees and it shall be the duty of the presiding officer or
chairperson thereof to adhere to and enforce such rules.”
43. Nothing in the Ohio Revised Code, the Codified Ordinances of the Village of
Bratenahl, or the Ohio Ethics Law addresses the conducting of elections for legislative bodies
and, in particular, the ability to vote in favor of a person who had not been nominated to a
position in such a body. Thus, Robert’s Rules of Order control the issue of the validity of a
member of the Bratenahl Village Council casting his or her vote for president pro tempore in
favor of someone who had not been nominated.
44. Section 66 of Robert’s Rules of Order addresses nominations and elections to
offices of a body. Specifically, Section 66 of Robert’s Rules of Order provides in pertinent part
and with emphasis added:
Before proceeding to an election to fill an office it is customary to nominate one

or more candidates. This nomination is not necessary when the election is by
ballot or roll call, as each member may vote for any eligible person whether
nominated or not.
45. As all members of the Bratenahl Village Council were eligible to serve as
president pro tempore, there was no requirement for the Bratenahl Village Council to require
nominations and, more significantly and importantly, “each member [of the Village Council]
[could] vote for any eligible person whether nominated or not.”
-9-
Appx. 45
46. Thus, David Matty’s unilateral declaration as invalid the results of the first secret
ballot casted on January 21,2015, was contrary to and in violation ofRobert’s Rules of Order.
47. Notwithstanding David Matty’s unilateral declaration as invalid the results of the
first secret ballot casted on January 21, 2015, the results of such first secret ballot were valid
under Robert’s Rules of Order and, accordingly, should have been announced and implemented.
48. The Bratenahl Village Council constitutes a “public body” as defined in the Open
Meetings Act. R.C. § 121.22(B)(1).
49. The Bratenahl Village Council and its individual members, i.e., the individual
Respondents named herein, are subject to, inter alia, the mandates of the Open Meetings Act
which is codified at Section 121.22 of the Ohio Revised Code.
50. The Open Meetings Act mandates that the Act itself “shall be liberally construed
to require public officials to take official action and to conduct all deliberations upon official
business only in open meetings unless the subject matter is specifically excepted by law.” R.C. §
121.22(A).
51. The Open Meetings Act also mandates that “[a]ll meetings of any public body” be
“public meetings open to the public at all times.” R.C. § 121.22(C).
52. The purposes of the Open Meetings Act include: (i) ensuring openness and
accountability in government; (ii) affording citizen the maximum opportunity to observe the
conducting of public business by public bodies; and (iii) affording the accountability of public
officials.
53. Voting by the members of a public body is a formal action that must occur in a
meeting open to the public. See State ex rel. Schuette v. Liberty Twp. Bd.of Trs., Delaware App.
2004-0hio-4431 ^28 (5th Dist.)(“the vote of the public body must be open to the public”);
- 10 -
Appx. 46
Mathews v. E. Local Sch. Dist., 2001-Ohio-2372 (4th Dist.); Angerman v. State Med. Bd. of
Ohio, 70 Ohio App. 3d 346, 352, 591 N.E.2d 3 (10th Dist 1990).
54. In fact, the Ohio Attorney General has concluded that “[v]oting by secret ballot is
at variance with the purpose of the open meetings law and only denies the people their right to
view and evaluate the workings of their government. Accordingly, a public body that is subject
to the requirements of the Open Meetings law may not vote in an open meeting bv secret ballot.”
Ohio Att’y Gen’l Opin. No. 2011-038 (emphasis added). A copy of this Attorney General
Opinion is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
55. Additionally, in a manual on Ohio’s Sunshine Law published annually by the
Ohio Attorney General and the Ohio Auditor, the following is expressly stated with respect to a
public body voting by secret ballot on public business:
The [Open Meetings] Act does not specifically address the use of secret ballots;
however, the Ohio Attorney General has opined that a public body may not vote
in an open meeting by secret ballot.839 Voting by secret ballot contradicts the
openness requirement of the Open Meetings Act by hiding the decisionmaking
process from public view.
56. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is an excerpt from the 2013 edition Ohio Sunshine
Laws: An Open Government Resource Manual, the manual published annually by the Ohio
Attorney General and the Ohio Auditor wherein the foregoing statement is taken.
57. The selection of a president pro tempore of a village council constitutes public
business of the village government and the associated village council.
58. In casting secret ballots on January 21, 2015, for the selection of president pro
tempore of the Bratenahl Village Council, Respondent MARY BECHENBACH, Respondent
JAMES PUFFENBERGER, Respondent ERIN SMITH, Respondent GEOFFREY B.C.
WILLIAMS, and Respondent MARLA MURPHY, individually and collectively, and
- 11 -
Appx. 47
Respondent JOHN M. LICASTRO in presiding over the meeting where said secret ballots were
casted, committed three separate and distinct violations of the Open Meetings Act by, inter alia,
conducting public business of the Bratenahl Village Council by secret ballot.
59. As Respondent MARY BECHENBACH declared “We’ve always done that”
(thus, indicating the Bratenahl Village Council has a policy, practice or custom or conducting
certain public business by secret ballot votes), there exists a threatened violation in the future of
the Open Meetings Act by all the individual Respondents named herein have violated the Open
Meeting Act.
60. Thus, the selection of president pro tempore of the Bratenahl Village Council at
the meeting of the Village Council held on January 21, 2015, was done in violation of the Open
Meeting Act.
61. In light of, inter alia: (i) Ohio Att’y Gen’l Opin. No. 2011-038, i.e., Exhibit B,
expressly declaring that “a public body that is subject to the requirements of the Open Meetings
law may not vote in an open meeting by secret ballot”; and (ii) the statement in the 2013 edition
Ohio Sunshine Laws: An Open Government Resource Manual, similarly indicating and further
declaring that “[v]oting by secret ballot contradicts the openness requirement of the Open
Meetings Act by hiding the decisionmaking process from public view,” when Respondents
committed three separate and distinct violations of the Open Meetings Act by conducting public
business of the Village Council for the VILLAGE OF BRATENAHL, OHIO, by secret ballot, no
well-informed public body would reasonably believe that it was not violating or threatening to
violate the Open Meetings Act as there was not any existing statutory law or case law that
supported conducting public business by secret ballot votes.
- 12
-
Appx. 48
62. In light of, inter alia: (i) Ohio Att’y Gen’l Opin. No. 2011-038, i.e., Exhibit B,
expressly declaring that “a public body that is subject to the requirements of the Open Meetings
law may not vote in an open meeting by secret ballot”; and (ii) the statement in the 2013 edition
Ohio Sunshine Laws: An Open Government Resource Manual, similarly indicating and further
declaring that “[vjoting by secret ballot contradicts the openness requirement of the Open
Meetings Act by hiding the decisionmaking process from public view,” when Respondents
committed three separate and distinct violations of the Open Meetings Act by conducting public
business of the Bratenahl Village Council by secret ballot, a well-informed public body would
not reasonably believe that conducting public business by secret ballot votes would serve the
public policy of the Open Meetings Act.
63. Pursuant to the Open Meetings Act (R.C. 121.22), Relator is entitled to the
issuance of injunctive relief so as to preclude and prohibit Respondents from conducting any
business of the Bratenahl Village Council by secret ballot, including, without limitation, taking
votes on official business by secret ballot unless expressly authorized to do so by the Ohio
Revised Code, together with an award of a civil forfeiture and attorney fees.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

stated here.
65. The Bratenahl Village Council constitutes a “public body” as defined in the Open
Meetings Act. R.C. § 121.22(B)(1).
66. Additionally, any committee of the Bratenahl Village Council constitutes a
“public body” as defined in the Open Meetings Act. R.C. § 121.22(B)(1).
- 13 -
Appx. 49
67. Thus, Respondents when acting in their official capacity as members of a
committee of the Bratenahl Village Council are subject to the requirements and mandates of the
Open Meetings Act.
68. One of the committees of the Bratenahl Village Council is the Finance
Committee.
69. Pursuant to Section 121.08 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of
Bratenahl, the members of various committees of the Bratenahl Village Council are appointed by
the mayor after consultation and mutual agreement.
70. Respondent JOHN M. LICASTRO, as the mayor of the Village of Bratenahl,
appointed the members of various committees of the Bratenahl Village Council at the meeting of
the Bratenahl Village Council held on December 16, 2015.
71. One of the committees of the Bratenahl Village Council to which Respondent
JOHN M. LICASTRO, as the mayor of the Village of Bratenahl, made an appointment at the
meeting of the Bratenahl Village Council held on December 16, 2015, was the Finance
Committee to which JOHN M. LICASTRO appointed Respondents MARLA MURPHY,
JAMES PUFFENBERGER, and GEOFFREY B.C. WILLIAMS as the members of the Finance
Committee.
72. Thus, at present, Respondents MARLA MURPHY, JAMES PUFFENBERGER,
and GEOFFREY B.C. WILLIAMS are the members of the Finance Committee of the Bratenahl
Village Council.
73. However, pursuant to Section 121.08(a) of the Codified Ordinances of the Village
of Bratenahl, the appointment by the mayor of the Village of Bratenahl of the members of
various committees of the Bratenahl Village Council is mandated to occur “[a]t the first meeting
- 14-
Appx. 50
of the [Village] Council in January of each even-numbered year, or as soon thereafter as may be
practicable.”
74. Thus, Respondent JOHN M. LICASTRO, as the mayor of the Village of
Bratenahl, violated Section 121.08(a) of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Bratenahl
when he appointed Respondents MARLA MURPHY, JAMES PUFFENBERGER, and
GEOFFREY B.C. WILLIAMS in December 2015 to be the members of the Finance Committee
of the Bratenahl Village Council.
75. Notwithstanding the violation of Section 121.08(a) of the Codified Ordinances of
the Village of Bratenahl by Respondent JOHN M. LICASTRO in making the appointments to
the Finance Committee of the Bratenahl Village Council, Respondents MARLA MURPHY,
JAMES PUFFENBERGER, and GEOFFREY B.C. WILLIAMS serve as de facto officers of the
Finance Committee of the Bratenahl Village Council even if they are not de jure officers of said
Finance Committee. See State v. Gardner, 54 Ohio St. 24, 31, 42 N.E. 999 (1896); State v.
Staten, 25 Ohio St.2d 107, 110, 267 N.E.2d 122 (1971).
76. Thus, as de facto officers of the Finance Committee of the Bratenahl Village
Council, Respondents MARLA MURPHY, JAMES PUFFENBERGER, and GEOFFREY B.C.
WILLIAMS have the same duties, responsibilities and liabilities as if they were properly and
legally appointed as de jure officers in conformity with Section 121.08(a) of the Codified
Ordinances of the Village of Bratenahl.
77. Pursuant to R.C. 121.22, 149.43 and 733.27, Respondents have the legal duty to
prepare, file, and maintain full and accurate minutes for council meetings and council committee
meetings, and to make such minutes them available for public inspection. See State ex rel. Long
v. Cardington Village Council, 2001-0hio-130, 92 Ohio St.3d 54, 748 N.E.2d 58
- 15 -
Appx. 51
(2001)(“[c]onstruing R.C. 121.22, 149.43, and 733.27 in pari materia, respondents, the
Cardington Village Council, its members, the village clerk, as well as the mayor, who presides
over the village council meetings, have a duty to prepare, file, and maintain full and accurate
minutes for council meetings, and to make them available for public inspection”).
78. Pursuant to Section 121.22(C) of the Ohio Revised Code, the “minutes of a
regular or special meeting of any public body shall be promptly prepared, filed, and maintained
and shall be open to public inspection.”
79. Additionally, pursuant to the Open Meetings Act, the minutes of all meetings of
public bodies, which include the Bratenahl Village Council and its committees, must contain
sufficient facts and information to permit the public to understand and appreciate the rationale
behind the relevant public body's decision. See White v. Clinton Cty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 1996-
Ohio-380, 76 Ohio St.3d 416, 667 N.E.2d 1223 (1996).
80. Additionally, pursuant to the Open Meetings Act, the minutes of all meetings of
public bodies, which includes the Bratenahl Village Council and its committees, must document
the presentations to, discussions by or other activities occurring during the meetings of the public
body and may not simply be limited to a mere recounting of the public body’s votes or decisions.
81. “The minutes of any other meeting of a public body must contain a more
substantial treatment of the items discussed, and certainly should not be limited to a mere
recounting of the body's roll call votes.” White v. Clinton Cty. Bd. of Comm ’rs, 1996-Ohio-380,
76 Ohio St.3d 416,423, 667 N.E.2d 1223 (1996)
82. Attached hereto as Exhibit D are true and accurate copies of the minutes of
meetings held in 2016 of the Finance Committee of the Bratenahl Village Council, obtained from
the website of the VILLAGE OF BRATENAHL, OHIO, for the meetings of the Finance
- 16-
Appx. 52
Committee on the dates indicated thereon and published thereon as the official minutes of said
committee of the Bratenahl Village Council.
83. The minutes of meetings held in 2016 of the Finance Committee of the Bratenahl
Village Council, i.e., Exhibit D, simply contain a recitation of the motions or actions of the
Finance Committee and the votes of its member, but fails to contain sufficient facts and
information to permit the public to understand and appreciate the rationale behind the relevant
public body's decision, including, without limitation the presentations to, discussions by or other
activities occurring during the meetings of the Finance Committee of the Bratenahl Village
Council.
84. In fact, in violation of clear court precedent, the minutes of meetings held in 2016
of the Finance Committee of the Bratenahl Village Council, i.e., Exhibit D, are limited to a mere
recounting of the body's votes.
85. Based upon their past conduct and current practice, Respondents MARLA
MURPHY, JAMES PUFFENBERGER, and GEOFFREY B.C. WILLIAMS, as members of the
Finance Committee of the Bratenahl Village Council, have violated, and threaten to violate, the
Section 121.22(C) of the Ohio Revised Code as it relates to promptly preparing, filing and
maintaining of the minutes of the Finance Committee of the Bratenahl Village Council, as well
as the requirement that minutes must contain sufficient facts and information to permit the public
to understand and appreciate the rationale behind the relevant public body's decision and such
minutes may not simply be limited to a mere recounting of the public body’s votes or decisions.
- 17-
Appx. 53
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
stated here.
87. The Open Meetings Act, R.C. 121.22, specifically mandates that, if a public body
convenes an executive session during the course of a meeting, “the motion and vote to hold that
executive session shall state which one or more of the approved matters listed in [division (G) of
Section 121.22] are to be considered at the executive session.”
88. On August 19, 2015, the Bratenahl Village Council held and conducted a regular
89. Respondent JOHN M. LICASTRO, as mayor of the Village of Bratenhal,
presided over the meeting of the Bratenahl Village Council held on August 19, 2015.
throughout the meeting of the Bratenahl Village Council held on August 19, 2015.
91. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a copy of the official stenographic record as
Bratenahl Village Council held on August 19, 2015, and published thereon as the official
minutes of said meeting of the Bratenahl Village Council.
92. Starting at page 2, line 4, of the official stenographic record for the meeting of the
Bratenahl Village Council held on August 19, 2015, i.e., Exhibit E, attached hereto, after the
convening of the meeting, the mayor of the Village of Bratenahl announced that the Bratenahl
Village Council had previously convened in an executive session.
- 18 -
Appx. 54
93. While announcing the convening of a meeting in executive session after-the-fact,
as well as which members of the Bratenahl Village Council supposedly made and seconded a
motion to enter into executive session may satisfy the requirements of fair and accurate meeting
minutes, there is no record or mention that there was a vote of the members of the Bratenahl
Village Council to actually enter into executive session on August 19, 2015, let alone how the
members of the Bratenahl Village Council actually voted to enter into executive session.
94. In failing to vote on any motion to enter into executive session during the meeting
of the Bratenahl Village Council held on August 19, 2015, Respondent MARY BECHENBACH,
Respondent JAMES PUFFENBERGER, Respondent ERIN SMITH, Respondent GEOFFREY
B.C. WILLIAMS, and Respondent MARLA MURPHY, and Respondent JOHN M.
LACASTRO, individually and collectively, violated the Open Meetings Act by, inter alia,
conducting public business of the Bratenahl Village Council in an illegal executive session.
95. Alternatively, if Respondent MARY BECHENBACH, Respondent JAMES
PUFFENBERGER, Respondent ERIN SMITH, Respondent GEOFFREY B.C. WILLIAMS, and
Respondent MARLA MURPHY actually voted to enter into executive session on August 19,
2015, then said Respondents and Respondent JOHN M. LACASTRO, individually and
collectively, violated the Open Meetings Act by failing to keep and maintain full and accurate
minutes for meetings of the Bratenahl Village Council.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

stated here.
- 19-
Appx. 55
97. Under R.C. 121.22(G)(1), the Open Meetings Act allows for a public body to
meet in executive session “[t]o consider the appointment, employment, dismissal, discipline,
promotion, demotion, or compensation of a public employee or official, or the investigation of
charges or complaints against a public employee, official, licensee, or regulated individual,
unless the public employee, official, licensee, or regulated individual requests a public hearing.”
98. The Open Meetings Act specifically mandates that, if a public body convenes an
executive session during the course of a meeting, “”[i]f a public body holds an executive session
pursuant to [R.C. § 121.22(G)(1)], the motion and vote to hold that executive session shall state
which one or more of the approved purposes listed in [R.C. § 121.22(G)(l)]are the purposes for
which the executive session is to be held, but need not include the name of any person to be
considered at the meeting.”
99. On November 19, 2014, the Bratenahl Village Council held and conducted a
100. Respondent JOHN M. LICASTRO, as mayor of the Village of Bratenhal,
presided over the meeting of the Bratenahl Village Council held on November 19, 2014.
throughout the meeting of the Bratenahl Village Council held on November 19, 2014.
102. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a copy of the official stenographic record as
Bratenahl Village Council held on November 19, 2014, and published thereon as the official
minutes of said meeting of the Village Council.
- 20-
Appx. 56
the Bratenahl Village Council held on November 19, 2014, i.e., Exhibit F, attached hereto, the
mayor of the Village of Bratenahl announce that the Bratenahl Village Council would be holding
an employee disciplinary hearing at the end of the meeting.
the Bratenahl Village Council held on November 19, 2014, i.e., Exhibit F, attached hereto,
JOHN M. LACASTRO indicated that the Bratenahl Village Council would then proceeding to
such employee-related matter, yet no motion or vote was undertaken by the Respondents to
actually enter into executive session, let alone such motion stating the specific statutory
authorization for such executive session.
105. By Respondent MARY BECHENBACH, Respondent JAMES
PUFFENBERGER, Respondent ERIN SMITH, Respondent GEOFFREY B.C. WILLIAMS, and
Respondent MARLA MURPHY failing to vote on any motion to enter into executive session on
November 19, 2014, said Respondents and Respondent JOHN M. LACASTRO, individually and
collectively, violated the Open Meetings Act by, inter alia, conducting public business of the
Bratenahl Village Council in an illegal executive session.
WHEREFORE, the State of Ohio, on relation to Relators, hereby pray and request that
the Court:
a. issue judgment in favor of Relators and against the Respondents;
b. issue a declaratory judgment that Respondent MARY BECHENBACH, Respondent

WILLIAMS, and Respondent MARLA MURPHY, individually or collectively,
committed a violation of the Open Meetings Act by conducting public business of the
Bratenahl Village Council by secret ballot on January 21, 2015;
c. issue a declaratory judgment that Respondent MARY BECHENBACH, Respondent

-21 -
Appx. 57
WILLIAMS, and Respondent MARLA MURPHY, individually or collectively, threaten
to violate the Open Meetings Act by conducting, in the future, public business of the
VILLAGE OF BRATENAHL, OHIO, and the Bratenahl Village Council by secret ballot
votes;
d. issue an injunction prohibiting Respondent MARY BECHENBACH, Respondent

WILLIAMS, and Respondent MARLA MURPHY, from conducting any votes of the
Bratenahl Village Council, by secret ballot unless Ohio law expressly permits voting by
secret ballot for the particular matter;
e. issue an injunction mandating all RESPONDENTS herein to prepare and maintain full
and accurate minutes of all meetings of the Bratenahl Village Council and any
committees thereof;
f. pursuant to the Open Meetings Act (R.C. 121.22), award each Relators a civil forfeiture
of five hundred dollars for each distinct violation or threatened violation of the Act, as
well as an award of all court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees;
g. grant Relators such other relief to which they may be entitled in law or in equity.
/s/ Curt C. Hartman_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Curt C. Hartman (0064242)
The Law Firm of Curt C. Hartman
7394 Ridgepoint Drive, Suite 8
(513) 379-2923
hartmanlawfirm@fuse. net

Finney Law Firm LLC
(513)943-6655
chris@finneylawfirm. com
Attorneys for Relators
- 22 -
Appx. 58
I certify that a copy of the foregoing was or will be served by e-mail upon the following
on the 21st day of April 2016:
David J. Matty
Shana A. Samson
Mark B. Marong
Matty, Henrikson & Greve
Cleveland, OH 44113
dmatty@mhglegal. com
ssamson@mhglegal. com
mmarong@mhglegal. com
/s/ Curt C. Hartman
-23 -
Appx. 59
bratenahl village 1 MAYOR LICASTRO: Good evening. I'd like
Barbara byrd-bennett center 2 to call the meeting to order. Would you please
ii404 lake shore boulevard 3 stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance.
bratenahl, ohio 44108 4 (Pledge of Allegiance.)
(216) 681-4266 5 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you. We have Ms.
FAX (216) 681-3811 6 Cooks with us and please call the roll.
7 MS. COOKS: Ms. Bacci?
VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING 8 MS. BACCI: Present.
January 21, 2015 9 MS. COOKS: Ms. Beckenbach?
5:32 P.M. 10 MS. BECKENBACH: Here.
11 MS. COOKS: Ms. Murphy?
MAYOR JOHN LICASTRO 12 MS. MURPHY: Here.
LAURA BACCI 13 MS. COOKS: Mr. Puffenberger?
MARY BECKENBACH 14 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Here.
MARLA MURPHY 15 MS. COOKS: Ms. Smith.
JIM PUFFENBERGER 16 MS. SMITH: Here.
ERIN SMITH 17 MS. COOKS: Mr. Williams?
GEOFFREY B.C. WILLIAMS 18 MR. WILLIAMS: Here.
DAVID J. MATTY, ESQ 19 MAYOR LICASTRO: We have the minutes
MARK MARONG, ESQ. 20 from the December council meeting. Is there a
NANCY L. MOLNAR, RPR, CLR 21 motion to move or amend.
T 22 MS. MURPHY: So move.
0 23 MR. WILLIAMS: Second.
COURT KEfOATtKS, LLC 24 MAYOR LICASTRO: Any further discussion?
25 All in favor of the motion?
Molnar & Munguia Court Reporting (440) 377-5030 DRAFT
3 4
1 Ayes: 6 Nays: 0. 1 $223.50. For the year, we brought in $540,708.
2 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you. Ms. Cooks. 2 Last year we brought in $528,397, so we're a
3 MS. COOKS: We received $196,550 from 3 little bit ahead of last year. Congratulation to
4 the Central Collection Agency this month for 4 the Chief. His men and women do a great job and
5 December income tax collection. Cash on hand and 5 to Ms. Kreiner who processes all of this money
6 investments at the end of December was 6 and all the computer work, paperwork. So any
7 approximately $2,498,000. That concludes my 7 questions on that?
8 report. 8 Moving to my report, you were all sent a
9 MAYOR LICASTRO: Any questions for Ms. 9 copy of the International Property Maintenance
10 Cooks? 10 Code. There's been some discussion in committee
11 MS. BACCI: I have a question, not on 11 about adopting a nuisance ordinance. And Mr.
12 her report, but, Diana, can you share with us 12 Jamieson has weighed in on this at our request.
13 when the auditor state expects to arrive here for 13 He thinks that the International Property
14 our audit this year? 14 Maintenance Code would solve a lot of ills and
15 MS. COOKS: It's my understanding, since 15 address our concerns.
16 we're a smaller entity, it will probably be 16 So, Mr. Jamieson, if you please.
17 summer. 17 MR. JAMIESON: Thank you, Mayor. Our
18 MS. BACCI: Summer? When people want to 18 housing code, as it stands, is pretty outdated.
19 take vacation? Thank you. 19 I think it was based on the old regional dwelling
20 MAYOR LICASTRO: Mayor's court report 20 house code that just doesn't even exist anymore.
21 for December. County treasurer received $615; 21 So the International Property of Maintenance
22 the Village of Bratenahl, $27,298; Treasurer of 22 Code, which would become the Village of
23 State of Ohio, $5,711; the Village of Bratenahl 23 Bratenahl, it's property maintenance code,
24 court computer fund, $1,609; and the City of 24 addresses everything we are doing as a policy and
25 Cleveland Indigent Driver Alcohol Treatment Fund 25 more .
Molnar & Munguia Court Reporting (440) 377-5030 DRAFT Molnar & Munguia Court Reporting (440) 377-5030 DRAFT
Exhibit A
Appx. 60
1 We're thinking about incorporating 1 change in the bui lding code and going to the
2 nuisance abatement. And it just didn't make 2 i nternati onal . And I remember, because Bi ll
3 sense to me to just try to add things in there. 3 Bolton, he was on council , he had some iss ues
4 This is a modern day property mai ntenance code 4 with it, but I thought we passed that.
5 that will address anything that comes up. It 5 MAYOR LICASTRO: Mr. Matty?
6 cross-references our Residential Code of Ohio and 6 MR. MATTY: Mayor, I think what we
7 the Ohio Building Code. It's a consensus code 7 need — Mrs. Murphy is partially correct. In
8 going through a three-year code cycle and hearing 8 Apri l of 2013 , we pas sed what was then the 200 9
9 that various people have input into it. So it's 9 International Residential Code. And we had
10 a modern tool and modern defi niti ons and I just 10 l anguage in it that i ndicated that any amendment
11 highly recommend that we do that. 11 to that code would be incorporated in our code.
12 MAYOR LICASTRO: Is it in place in other 12 And that's in 1301.01.
13 communities, Mr. Jamieson? 13 What's being recommended here is the
14 MR. JAMIESON: Yes, it is. It's in 14 2012 International Property Maintenance Code.
15 place in a lot of communities. They simply 15 What I would ask Mr. Jami eson to do if that's his
16 adopted it and use that as a tool . A lot of 16 recommendation and certai nly I wi ll abide by his
17 communiti es in Cuyahoga County, a lot of 17 recommendation, I would ask Mr. Jamieson to take
18 communiti es across the State of Ohio and the 18 a look at the 201 2 International Property
19 country for that matter. There are some 19 Maintenance Code that he is recommending. I'd
20 communiti es in this area, like Shaker Heights and 20 ask him to take a look at the current
21 Cleveland Heights, they have their own code for 21 I nternati onal Res idential Code, because it als o
22 decades and don't feel a need to do that. 22 has provi sions as it relates to unsafe bui ldings
23 MAYOR LI CASTRO: Ms. Murphy. 23 and property maintenance, and make sure that they
24 MS. MURPHY: Last year, I bel ieve it was 24 are consi stent, because if they are, we can add
25 last year, I recall a dis cuss ion regarding the 25 2 012 International Property Maintenance Code to
7 8
1 1301.01. If they're not, I need to be told which 1 our own processes in, whi ch a lot of communiti es
2 code we should delete. 2 do. I understand what you're saying. The
3 The bigger problem, the bigger problem 3 I nternati onal Res idential Code of Ohi o for one,
4 is our chapter 1 327, which is our own section on 4 two and three families is for new construction.
5 unsafe buildi ngs , and in our own chapter in 1 327, 5 New construction. Buildi ng new homes , new
6 Tom, we have an appeal proces s penalty section 6 additions.
7 and there may be other sections that may be 7 The I nternati onal Property Maintenance
8 inconsistent with these international codes. So 8 Code is to maintain existing properties. And I
9 I need some direction as to, firs t from Mr. 9 s aid that they cross-reference each other. Yeah,
10 Jami eson and, secondl y from council, which code, 10 they're not going to have — the International
11 which enforcement, which appeal process are we to 11 Code is not going to have the definition of an
12 follow. 12 non-safe buil ding in a residential building code
13 I understand what the International 13 and not have the same — it's going to have the
14 Property Maintenance Code does, but already I 14 same one. They're intertwined. And different
15 think if we j ust add it to our code, we may have 15 communities adopt that in different ways.
16 conflicts here that I haven't had time to ful ly 16 So to decide what adminis trativel y we
17 revi ew, Tom, and I don't know if you have the 17 want to keep, sure, for the nuisance abatement
18 answers. 18 s ection, there is a process and it refers to
19 MR. JAMIESON: I don't have all the 19 going to the Court of Appeals. We can simply
20 answers for that either. There's a s ample copy 20 keep every bi t of the way we do things
21 of the legislation in there. And I was hoping 21 admi nistratively in there by not adopting the
22 that you woul d take a look at what part of our 22 administrative part of that. And it's something
23 administrative code — we don't have to adopt it 23 that you and I can talk more about.
24 in i ts entirety. We can delete the whole, we 24 MAYOR LICASTRO: In fact, Mr. Jamieson,
25 cannot adopt the admi nistrati ve s ecti on and keep 25 j ust for the sake of brevity, let me recommend
Appx. 61
1 the two of you have a sit-down and hash this out 1 Solon, for exampl e, culls thei r herd and s pends
2 and come up with a recommendation on which you're 2 tens of thousands of dollars to do so. We met in
3 both on the same page for Council to consider. I 3 Columbus a couple weeks ago with ODNR. And we're
4 just think that would be more thorough. We've 4 l ooking to garner information from other
5 waited this long. If we need another month, I 5 communiti es on what they do or what they don't
6 don't think it's a big deal. 6 do .
7 MR. JAMIESON: No, I understand his 7 I thi nk the thrus t of our approach has
8 concerns and I'm glad we can talk about it. 8 been we need ODNR to help. They're a state
9 MAYOR LICASTRO: So let's defer it to 9 i nstitute and they have a much bi gger budget than
10 this discussion and we'll come back next month 10 we do certainly. So given that ask, we're
11 and hopefully have something more definiti ve we 11 waiting to see what they can come back with that
12 can consider. 12 fits within their budget. There's no state
13 Ms. Bacci . 13 dollars really allocated for this purpose, but we
14 MS. BACCI: I think when the two 14 think they are the entity -- the governor, by the
15 gentlemen are through tal king, it should probably 15 way, is about to introduce his budget to i nclude
16 go to legislative committee. We can have a quick 16 budgetary dol lars that can addres s this and help
17 look at it and then go from there. 17 communities deal with an issue that doesn't seem
18 MAYOR LICASTRO: Let's see what they 18 to do anything but grow with each new populati on
19 have for us next month. Thank you. 19 of deer be born in the spring.
20 As you know, or perhaps you don't know, 20 So let's see where they go wi th us and
21 the Cuyahoga County Mayors and Ci ty Managers 21 then we'll come back and see where we fit in. I
22 Associati on formatted a deer committee to tal k 22 know that several communi ties have as ked for an
23 about deer as nuisance animal s. We've approached 23 informal quote. We are one. To do a flyover to
24 ODNR to try to get their help in dealing with 24 assess what our deer population is at a starti ng
25 this problem, given how it can be very costly. 25 point. I don't have that quote yet, but when I
11 12
1 do, I'll bring it to you to consider. This is 1 proper. So two separate things. The Metro
2 still in flux. It seems to be gathering momentum 2 Parks, their area of expertise and authori ty and
3 and the s tates are more attentive than they have 3 beyond that with ODNR. So they already have a
4 of late. 4 plan in place, which helps us. Most of our deer
5 Ms . Bacci . 5 come from dike 14, which is part of the Metro
6 MS. BACCI: Were the Metro Parks 6 Parks, so they're goi ng to do their proces s
7 involved in that conversation? 7 regardless. This is over and above. I'll keep
8 MAYOR LI CASTRO: No. 8 you all i nformed.
9 MS. BACCI: Because they are culling 9 One final note not on the agenda. We
10 again in assorted reservations. And I don't know 10 did yesterday tear down the former Dawson home on
11 if any of the lakefront reservati ons will be part 11 Lake Shore Drive. This is the fi rst one done
12 of that, but you might want to speak with them. 12 under the auspices of the land bank. The one
13 MAYOR LICASTRO: Well, actually, this is 13 that was torn down on Burton was torn down, that
14 real ly more than j ust Metro Parks . This is in 14 was actually adjudicated through Mayor's Court.
15 the communities themselves. 15 So the one on Lake Shore Drive is down. The
16 MS. BACCI: I understand, but if they're 16 neighbors were thrill ed. It's been an eyesore
17 doing somethi ng and it would affect even 17 for 10 years. It was cold, but they were out
18 Bratenahl , the s tate park right at the edge of 18 there.
19 Bratenahl or dike 14, whi ch I thi nk they're now 19 And we are on track to do the second
20 taking over. 20 demolition, the former Heffernan property,
21 MAYOR LI CASTRO: If you'd let me fini sh, 21 sometime hopefully within the month. We've
22 the Metro Park already has a plan to cull their 22 already have Council approval for that to
23 herds. They have their own process and they 23 proceed. These reall y are eyesores that make our
24 operate independently. We're looking to go 24 community better, our property values better, et
25 beyond that and have ODNR hel p in the communi ty 25 cetera, et cetera, so if you haven't gone by and
Appx. 62
1 seen them before on Lake Shore Drive, check out 1 MAYOR LICASTRO: By the way, the
2 the avenue. It's really impressive. 2 contract is not compl ete until the grass grows in
3 Ms. Beckenbach. 3 the spring. They'll have straw and hay there for
4 MS. BECKENBACH: The Heffernan property 4 now. Thi s is not the time of year to plant grass
5 is on Garfield Lane. 5 s eed, obvious ly, so they' ll pl ant in the s pring,
6 MAYOR LICASTRO: Yes. Ms. Bacci. 6 but they holdback monies. The land bank holds
7 MS. BACCI: There were questions about 7 back moni es to demoli tion company until grass
8 what went into the void on the Burton property. 8 s pouts in the spring.
9 Who stands and i nspects when thes e are torn down 9 MS. MURPHY: Mr. Mayor, can we explain,
10 under the auspices of the land bank. 10 because when we passed this I thi nk in 201 2, so
11 MAYOR LICASTRO: It's clean fill. Mr. 11 now the property, once the grass starts to grow,
12 Jamieson inspects . 12 then someone can come in to purchase that land.
13 MR. JAMIESON: I was out there today. I 13 MAYOR LICASTRO: That's correct.
14 was out there yesterday and today. Everything is 14 MS. MURPHY: It's purchas ed, we now own
15 gone, except for the clean fill, and the land 15 that, correct?
16 bank contractors layered it. 16 MAYOR LICASTRO: No.
17 MS. BACCI: What do they consider clean 17 MS. MURPHY: The county land bank.
18 fill? Some communities require sand. 18 MR. MATTY: The land bank owns it.
19 MR. JAMIESON: No. It's clean fill, 19 MAYOR LICASTRO: Land bank.
20 clean dirt. You can use — they crack the 20 MS. MURPHY: And someone can come in and
21 foundation fl oor up, I think I said that before, 21 develop that property.
22 so it wouldn' t collect water in there, clean fill 22 MAYOR LICASTRO: Yes.
23 by any means, pristine soil. 23 MR. JAMIESON: The people who own the
24 MS. BACCI: Right. 24 property now owns — still own it and the land
25 MR. JAMIESON: It's just clean fill. 25 bank comes after.
15 16
1 MAYOR LICASTRO: That's right. Unless 1 Beckenbach has been our counci l presi dent at
2 the property is in tax forecl osure, if it' s a tax 2 vari ous times . She is the seated president.
3 foreclosure, we can obtain the property. This 3 At this point in time, we're going to
4 property is not a tax foreclosure, it's in 4 have an election to choos e the one for 201 5. So
5 foreclosure. The bank owns it al ong with the 5 I ' d like to open the floor for nominations .
6 former owner, I guess , but the land bank's fees 6 MS. BECKENBACH: Mr. Mayor, I would li ke
7 go as a l ien on the property. So the correction, 7 to nominate Jim Puffenberger.
8 the land bank does not own it. It's retained by 8 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you. There's no
9 the original owner. 9 need for a second to this . Are there any other
10 Mr. Marong, who has been very hel pful in 10 nomi nations? Do we have a need for a secret
11 this, by the way, we call him demolition Mark. 11 ball ot here?
12 I'm just j oking. 12 MR. PUFFENBERGER: I have a nomination.
13 MR. MARONG: That's nice. 13 MAYOR LICASTRO: Yes.
14 MAYOR LICASTRO: He's been very helpful. 14 MR. PUFFENBERGER: I woul d li ke to
15 So yeah, the ori ginal owner or bank retains 15 nominate Marla Murphy.
16 ownership. Unlike the property on Burton, which 16 MAYOR LICASTRO: Any other nominations ?
17 was done by the homeowner, that homeowner retains 17 Do you want to do a s how of hands ? Do you want
18 ownership of the now vacant parcel. Anyone else? 18 to do a s ecret ballot?
19 Thank you. 19 MS. BECKENBACH: Let's do secret ballot.
20 Every year on the ORC, we are mandated 20 We've always done that.
21 to elect a council president pro tem. That 21 MAYOR LICASTRO: Secret ballot. Mr.
22 indi vidual reall y has no addi tional 22 Matty?
23 responsibilities than a regul ar council person, 23 MS. BACCI : Is that l egal ?
24 unless I am in s ome manner incapacitated, that 24 MR. MATTY: Yes, it is legal.
25 person then becomes the acting Mayor. So Ms. 25 MAYOR LICASTRO: Mr. Matty is preparing
Appx. 63
1 the ballot. So just give us a moment, please. 1 (Secret ballot vote taken.)
2 MS. BACCI: I thought I saw something in 2 MR. MATTY: Well, this is going to be a
3 the Sunshine Law of the ORC that you can't have a 3 long evening. Okay. Let's try round three.
4 secret ballot. 4 MAYOR LICASTRO: Is it three to three?
5 MR. MATTY: If you would each indicate 5 MR. MATTY: Yes, sir.
6 your choice, please, and then give these to me 6 MAYOR LICASTRO: Do I have the right to
7 folded. Even those that have been nominated are 7 cast the tie breaking vote?
8 entitled to vote. 8 MR. MATTY: No, sir.
9 (Secret ballot vote taken.) 9 MAYOR LICASTRO: I wasn't going to
10 MR. MATTY: We need to do this again. 10 anyway. You guys have to figure this out.
11 And I don't know who did it, but somebody voted 11 MR. MATTY: The statute says Council
12 for somebody that hasn't been nominated and we 12 shall elect from its own members.
13 can't do that. So let's try again. You have to 13 MAYOR LICASTRO: Remember these chairs
14 vote for either Ms. Murphy or Mr. Puffenberger. 14 are harder.
15 You can't vote for somebody who is not in 15 MS. BACCI: Yes, you should have
16 nomination. 16 provided cushion. Did you bring water?
17 MAYOR LICASTRO: Unless it was Barack 17 MAYOR LICASTRO: No water, sorry.
18 Obama, then it's okay. 18 Ms. Cooks says she promises to.
19 MR. MATTY: Well, even in that case, 19 MR. MATTY: Nancy, if the record could
20 Mayor, in this jurisdiction, it won't work. The 20 reflect that the first ballot was not acceptable
21 state statutes specifically says that Council 21 because of a vote of someone who was not
22 shall elect from its own members for the term of 22 nominated; and the second ballot was a tie vote.
23 this year. And you can only vote for those 23 (Secret ballot vote taken.)
24 nominated as far as the election. So let's try 24 MR. MATTY: Okay. Following Ohio
25 again. 25 Revised Code Section 731.10, to serve from this
19 20
1 date forward until December 31 of this year, the 1 mills. One of which expired last year and
2 Council's president pro tem is Jim Puffenberger. 2 collects through this year. So if it's Council
3 MAYOR LICASTRO: Congratulations, Jim. 3 desires, we can put this back on the ballot or
4 (Applause.) 4 not, renew it, replace it various options. So
5 Thank you. Moving to committee reports, 5 I' ve asked Mr. Williams to reach out to Tom
6 finance. 6 McDonald, the chair of our auditing committee. I
7 MR. WILLIAMS: Finance met this past 7 can't remember who the other two members were. I
8 Friday. There were three ordinances, which are 8 think Brenda Brownrigg and I'm not sure of the
9 on the agenda this evening, that were sent forth 9 third. So Council can meet with the auditing
10 to Council for passage, 3799, 3800 and 3001. We 10 committee and make sure we're all on the same
11 had a brief discussion around employee 11 page. Any questions for Mr. Williams?
12 compensation talking about that for a while. 12 MS. BACCI: If Jeff could just expand a
13 We'll have a separate meeting where all Council 13 bit when you say "employee compensation", it
14 will be invited to talk through some issues 14 sounds like it's everybody and it really has to
15 there. That's it. 15 do with some specific.
16 MAYOR LICASTRO: And, sir, you saw the 16 MR. WILLIAMS: Administrative employees,
17 e-mail correspondence with Mr. McDonald, the 17 not the police department.
18 chair of the auditing committee? 18 MS. BACCI: Thank you.
19 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. Do you want the 19 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you. Public
20 property tax issue that will be coming up this 20 improvements.
21 fall on the ballot. 21 MS. BECKENBACH: Public improvements did
22 MAYOR LICASTRO: The village has two 22 not meet. Would you like me to give the building
23 property tax issues. Three, actually, four if 23 department report?
24 you count the bond issue. Two for general 24 MAYOR LICASTRO: Please.
25 operating expenses, both are four and a half 25 MS. BECKENBACH: Village building
Appx. 64
1 department report for December of 2014, total 1 MAYOR LICASTRO: Any ques tions for the
2 number inspections 13; total permits issued, 2 Chief? Thank you. Community affairs.
3 three, total contractor registrations, two; total 3 MS. BACCI : Community affairs did not
4 certificates of compliance, five. 4 meet, but I have a couple ques tions,
5 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you. Any 5 announcements, and updates. I am serving on the
6 questions for Ms. Beckenbach? Thank you. 6 Eastside Greenway Committee. I passed out some
7 Legislative. 7 little fliers of the meetings that they're going
8 MS. MURPHY: The legi slative committee 8 to have in the near future. The land studio and
9 did not meet. 9 the Cuyahoga County Planning Commissi on came
10 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you. Public 10 together and appl ied for a grant through NOACA
11 safety. 11 for trans portation for li veabl e communities
12 MR. PUFFENBERGER: The next public 12 initiative.
13 safety meeting is tentatively scheduled for 13 And they are working on — they're
14 February the 9th, Monday, February the 9th. 14 s tudying ways to link the eastside 18 different
15 Agenda to fol low. 15 s uburbs and Cleveland bike routes and different
16 MAYOR LI CASTRO: Chief, do you have the 16 methods of transportation. If you have an
17 stats? 17 i nterest, there's a s urvey website that is goi ng
18 CHIEF DOLBOW: Sure. Okay. We had one 18 l ive tomorrow, and the address is on the fliers
19 felony arrest, 25 misdemeanor arrests, 13 19 that we have. If you didn't get one, I'll be
20 warrants were served, 23 driving under sus pension 20 more than happy to share it with you. There will
21 arrests, 14 OVI arres ts, had 20 motor vehi cle 21 be some fliers at the community center.
22 acci dents , 52 vehicles were towed. We had one 22 I wondered, Mayor if you coul d update us
23 false alarm drop. We had 18 911 calls. And a 23 on the Sander Schwartz complaint. I see that
24 total of 380 tickets were iss ued and a total of 24 we're paying a legal bill of $700 regarding this
25 967 calls for service. 25 issue and I wondered what the status is.
23 24
1 MAYOR LI CASTRO: Mr. Schwartz has 1 this process, but there are no further updates .
2 complained about the condition of the home to the 2 MS. BACCI: Thank you.
3 west owned by Mr. Alerbasky. We've gained 3 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you.
4 entrance to the home. Mr. Jamieson was there a 4 MS. BACCI : I ' m not through. There's
5 couple days ago. I'm waiting for his memo. 5 been a great deal of discussion in the las t few
6 MS. BACCI: Okay. And the sewer 6 years. And we passed legislation regarding
7 district nuis ance complai nts that Mrs . Lyons made 7 ethi cs, a code of conduct, we codified our
8 last month, do you have any update? 8 Council rules of order, all in the name of
9 MAYOR LICASTRO: I do not. 9 behavior and especially civility.
10 MS. BACCI: Were you able to speak with 10 And I want to go on the record tonight
11 the District? 11 that I can't state strongly enough that every
12 MAYOR LI CASTRO: I as ked them about her 12 resi dent in this Vill age shoul d be treated
13 issues and they said they're speaking directly 13 equally and with respect. And I would hope and
14 with Ms. Lyons and weren't really certain what 14 think that you all agree. I don't see it as
15 her concerns were. So I don't know. I can't 15 professional and I think it's unfair that certain
16 real ly comment on it. 16 Council members when they chai r their committee
17 MS. BACCI: Okay. On the legal bill for 17 meetings, they tend to demean our res ident Pat
18 Mr. Matty, there was also $500 for Arcadia Lane. 18 Meade and they refuse to allow her to interact as
19 Do you have an update on the status of that 19 agenda items are reviewed during our meetings.
20 issue — 20 And every res ident brings different
21 MAYOR LICASTRO: I do not. 21 thoughts, ideas, skil ls, and concerns to the
22 MS. BACCI: -- for the waterline? 22 tabl e that we then look at, act upon and actually
23 MAYOR LI CASTRO: No. It' s a private 23 bring to Council as a whole. Our Council meeting
24 lane. They're looking at options. We're going 24 agenda al lows two different ti mes when citizens
25 to have a meeting with them to help them through 25 can speak. And I think our Council committee
Appx. 65
1 meetings should follow the same process. 1 deliver. All I ask as a courtesy is that you
2 Demanding any resident to wait until items are 2 inform the Chair.
3 discussed and a vote is taken seems juvenile and 3 MS. BACCI : I tol d you before, Mr.
4 discriminatory no matter what Chair acts in this 4 Mayor, please don't try to bully me, don't try to
5 matter. And we, as Council members, we represent 5 intimidate me.
6 our Village, citizens and we should put aside 6 MAYOR LICASTRO: That's uncalled for.
7 pers onal feel ings no matter who is speaking. 7 MS. BACCI : And I never know what I
8 I als o wanted to know, John, you 8 write whether I'm goi ng to share it or not, so
9 mentioned — 9 I ' m not going to send you a li st of things and
10 MAYOR LICASTRO: Can I make a comment I 10 then find out that I' m not even going to talk
11 seem to make every couple months. If you have 11 about it.
12 these statements you'd like to read at a Council 12 MAYOR LICASTRO: When you tal k about
13 meeting, do what other Council members do, inform 13 courtesy and civility, that comes under the same
14 the Chair of your intenti on so we know they're 14 heading. Do what you wil l.
15 forthcoming. This really has nothing to do with 15 MS. BACCI : Well, I wondered if you can
16 your committee since you haven't met. So all I 16 s hare with us the status of our s ervi ce
17 ask is a courtesy — 17 department employee s taffing. You stated a while
18 MS. BACCI: It does have to do with my 18 back that you were going to promote a couple
19 community. 19 permanent part-time employees to full-time.
20 MAYOR LICASTRO: -- is you inform the 20 And the question has been asked of me
21 Chair. 21 whether we could do this if the person has n't
22 MS. BACCI: It's a community affairs 22 completed their probationary peri od required by
23 issue. 23 our codified ordinances.
24 MAYOR LICASTRO: But it is a soliloquy 24 MAYOR LICASTRO: We took a part-timer
25 that you knew beforehand you were goi ng to 25 and made the indi vidual full-time effective
27 28
1 January 1 . We have not hired a s econd. 1 MAYOR LICASTRO: They were meant to be
2 MS. BACCI: Can Mr. Matty address the 2 long-term. It didn't work out that way. One
3 probationary period i ssue so I can -- 3 left and the other was promoted to full-time.
4 MAYOR LI CASTRO: They were part-time, 4 MS. BACCI: Thank you.
5 now they're full-time, two different positions. 5 MAYOR LICASTRO: Master Plan.
6 Probationary period begins when they become a 6 MS. SMITH: On Thursday, January 29,
7 full-timer. 7 5:45, we're going to have a meeting with Allegro.
8 MS. BACCI: Well, if you have a 8 If anyone would l ike to come and listen to what
9 permanent part-time person. 9 they have to report on, please come join us.
10 MAYOR LI CASTRO: No. 10 There's clarification, the reason why my agenda
11 MS. BACCI: They don't have a 11 is so lengthy is that we're going to approve
12 probationary period? 12 those meeting minutes and also the next steps in
13 MAYOR LICASTRO: I think that's a 13 the plan. So I'm not going to be as succinct as
14 ques tion of s emantics . We have hired a full-time 14 I am with my agenda, because I have an e-mail on
15 service department employee who was a part-ti me 15 that. So I want to clarify that to the residents
16 employee and he'll begin his probationary period 16 that that's why it's so lengthy. It has meeting
17 effective January 1. 17 minutes and the next steps in what we're doing
18 MS. BACCI: So that was not a part-time 18 for the plan. And that's all I have to offer.
19 permanent person? 19 The s econd thing for Recreati on
20 MAYOR LICASTRO: He was a part-time 20 Commission, I know that I ' m on, I wanted to
21 employee. He is now full-time. His probationary 21 congratul ate Davi d for continuing for another
22 peri od begins January 1. 22 year on our commission, so thank you very much.
23 MS. BACCI: The last two employees we 23 I think he deserves a round of applause.
24 hired in the service department were speci fically 24 (Applause.)
25 categoriz ed as part-time permanent. 25 So thank you very much for serving
Appx. 66
1 again. 1 in until you said the age.
2 MAYOR LICASTRO: Erin, your agenda were 2 MR. KOZINSKI: They're bringing us $50 a
3 the minutes. 3 week and they'll stick around until April, March,
4 MS. SMITH: Were the minutes and the 4 Apri l.
5 next steps basically, yes. So everyone complains 5 We have our wine tasting. We had a
6 I don't give enough information, so you have it 6 l ittle bi t of a faux pas with the permit, so
7 now. 7 January was cancelled. We have one coming up
8 MAYOR LI CASTRO: There's a lot of 8 February 17, $10, seven to nine.
9 information. Thanks. Perfect segue to Mr. 9 Chinese New Year, the date is for March
10 Kozinski. David. 10 6, cocktails at 5:30 at Li Wah. We do have swing
11 MR. KOZINSKI: Rec met on Wednesday, 11 dancing, begi nning on February 12 . You don't
12 January 7. It was a little long, but I'll try to 12 necessarily have to bring a partner. It's a good
13 be short. Brunch with Santa was a success with 13 group of people coming in and they're willing to
14 75 people, 40 were kids. Thank you, Arlene, as 14 help us dance. It's three to five. And —
15 Mrs. Claus and John as Santa Claus. 15 FEMALE VOICE: Seven to nine.
16 The firs t pl ay group was on December 4 16 MR. KOZINSKI: Seven to nine, I'm sorry.
17 with eight families and a total of 12 kids 17 And then I would like to thank Marla very much
18 attended. 18 for helpi ng me as it was menti oned and thank you
19 We had a new men's basketball being 19 for all of your applause. I will be stayi ng and
20 started. A group of guys from church. They're 20 Brad DiFranco wil l al so be staying. A lot of
21 all older, 20, 26. 21 people leaving rec at the same ti me, so wi th the
22 MAYOR LICASTRO: That's older? What do 22 advi sement from the Mayor that it was n' t a
23 you call young? (Laughter.) 23 three-year mandatory leave, with discussions with
24 MR. KOZINSKI: Instead of 15 year old. 24 s everal members and the Mayor himself, I'l l stay,
25 MAYOR LICASTRO: I thought I could join 25 Brad will stay.
31 32
1 Marla helped me to gather the names. 1 aboard. Thank you.
2 And I' d l ike to propose it to the board and to 2 MR. KOZINSKI: Thank you, everyone. And
3 the Mayor, if you can approve, our resident Anita 3 j ust new a fi nal note, February 2 0 is Bratenahl
4 Gray would like to come on board and help. And 4 Community Foundation' s fundrai ser at Sterl e's at
5 another resident Laurel Herbold would like to 5 6 : 30 .
6 come help out, which means rec wi ll be moving 6 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you, sir. Any
7 instead, fully manned and proceed along. 7 questions for Mr. Kozinski? Thank you.
8 MAYOR LI CASTRO: Thank you, David. 8 Shade tree commis sion?
9 Under our ordinance, rec commission members must 9 MS. HOWLEY: Shade tree commission met
10 be approved by Counci l. Thes e indivi duals , I ' m 10 on January 19 . We talked about two i mportant
11 assuming, were approved by the rec commission for 11 topi cs that we're goi ng to continue in February.
12 those purposes. 12 One is working on the mission, the mission of the
13 MR. KOZINSKI: Very much some. 13 shade tree commission, and also how to
14 MAYOR LI CASTRO: The names again are 14 communicate to our Vi llagers and what we're doing
15 Anita Gray and Laurel Herbole H-E-R-B-O-L-D. 15 and what they need to know about thei r trees,
16 This is recommended by the rec commission. These 16 thei r plants, jus t general education about shade
17 two peopl e wi ll be appointed to the rec 17 trees .
18 commis sion. 18 Also, you may have seen pruni ng in the
19 Is there a motion to do s o by Council ? 19 village. I think they're getting close to done
20 MS. BECKENBACH: I so move. 20 now. They're still coming back to do a little
21 MS. MURPHY: And I'll second. 21 bit of cl eanup, s o they're around. They got a
22 MAYOR LI CASTRO: Any discussi on? All in 22 l ot of pruning done in December and January.
23 favor of the motion? 23 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you. Ms. Howley,
24 Ayes: 6 . Nays: 0. 24 I understand that the benefit to always look at a
25 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you. They are 25 mission statement and tweak it. There are things
Appx. 67
1 that are restricted in both our ordinances and 1 say they want to send out — use Erin's e-mail
2 Ohio Revised Code. So if you'd like to have a 2 list, could they send an e-mail blast to those on
3 discussion with us, including myself and the law 3 that list and then at the bottom place an
4 director on what direction you're taking it, we 4 unsubscribe if they wish to be removed from
5 can help you get on the right path. 5 e-mail?
6 MS. HOWLEY: Okay. Thank you. 6 MR. MATTY: Yes. If they are in
7 MAYOR LICASTRO: Yes, please. 7 consents to the use of that.
8 MS. MURPHY: I wanted to mention 8 MS. MURPHY: And you did collect them
9 something. When I attended the rec commission 9 from people that wanted to be informed?
10 meeting, a discussion came up about how do we get 10 MS. SMITH: Right. I can include it for
11 information out to our community via e-mail. And 11 shade tree.
12 now I know you also, Mrs. Howley, have 12 MS. MURPHY: Great. And so maybe we
13 information that you'd like to share to our 13 could use that for our template for all
14 community about the Village's tree canopy. 14 shout-outs to the whole community if somebody is
15 And if I recall, Erin, didn't you 15 willing to maintain that list?
16 collect names while you were walking the parade 16 MAYOR LICASTRO: I think some other
17 of e-mail addresses so that people could be 17 people have lists. I do. I think Ms. Bacci
18 informed of different events through the rec 18 does. So let's try to get — as long as you
19 commis sion? 19 allow people the ability to unsubscribe.
20 MS. SMITH: Sue asked me about that, so 20 MS. MURPHY: Absolutely.
21 I e-mailed the people and so I'm getting a 21 MAYOR LICASTRO: And they understand the
22 response back. 22 purpose, then I think it's acceptable. I'll
23 MS. MURPHY: And so, Mr. Matty, is it 23 discuss it with Mr. Matty. So much is done via
24 possible for rec to send out a notice to 24 e-mail. Everything is done via e-mail. So let's
25 residents and note at the bottom of the e-mail, 25 try to get the message out as best we can.
35 36
1 MS. MURPHY: And if anybody wants to get 1 point it was talked about on ordinances, I don't
2 together and talk about it or try to set up a 2 know who said it, bit it was the Mayor or Mr.
3 template for that main list, I'd be happy to 3 Matty, that only one item per ordinance could be
4 help . 4 permitted. And on the street commissioner, it's
5 MAYOR LICASTRO: We have some partial 5 not only restating him, but also with a cell
6 lists that just need to be augmented. 6 phone. So I didn't know if that was proper or
7 MS. MURPHY: But the sooner we do this, 7 not.
8 the better, because there's a lot of information 8 MAYOR LICASTRO: As you were told at the
9 the folks would appreciate receiving. 9 meeting, it's been reviewed by Mr. Matty. The
10 MAYOR LICASTRO: Permission has been 10 ordinance is proper.
11 granted. 11 MS. MEADE: And then on resolution 978
12 MS. SMITH: Once I get everyone's 12 for the recycling grant, if I read it right,
13 permission, I'll forward that to you. 13 you're basically just asking for permission
14 MS. MURPHY: Thanks. 14 tonight to go ahead and proceed with the grant
15 MAYOR LICASTRO: Planning commission. 15 proposal. If that's an accurate portrayal, then
16 MS. BECKENBACH: Planning commission did 16 as a public record request, whenever the request
17 not meet. 17 is actually the grant application is filled out
18 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you. Moving to 18 and for what items, for what amounts, and if
19 new business, this is the portion of the meeting 19 there are any bids, I would like a copy of all
20 where residents have three minutes to comment on 20 documentation prior to its submittal. Thank you.
21 the agenda items. Is there anyone who would like 21 MAYOR LICASTRO: Anyone else? Thank
22 to comment? Ms. Meade. 22 you .
23 MS. MEADE: Yes. On ordinance 3799, it 23 Moving to old business, ordinance 3799.
24 was asked for clarification and it wasn't 24 Before we have Council introduce this, it is my
25 clarified during the meeting. I think at one 25 pleasure to appoint Mr. Zalar again as our street
Appx. 68
1 commissioner for the year 2015. The one change 1 MS. COOKS: Mr. Willi ams?
2 in this is we are changing the cell phone 2 MR. WILLIAMS: Aye.
3 allotment from $75 a month to $80 a month. So 3 MS. MURPHY: And 3799 for passage.
4 having offered that appointment for Council's 4 MS. BACCI : Second.
5 consideration, Ms. Murphy, would you start us off 5 MAYOR LICASTRO: Discussion? There
6 with ordinance 3799. 6 being none, roll call on passage, please.
7 MS. MURPHY: I'd like to introduce 7 MS. COOKS: Ms. Bacci ?
8 ordi nance 379 9, an ordinance confirmi ng the 8 MS. BACCI: Aye.
9 appointment by the Mayor of Joseph Zalar as 9 MS. COOKS: Ms. Beckenbach?
10 street commis sioner for the year 2015 , and 10 MS. BECKENBACH: Aye.
11 declaring an emergency, and that's for 11 MS. COOKS: Ms. Murphy?
12 suspension. 12 MS. MURPHY: Aye.
13 MS. BECKENBACH: Second. 13 MS. COOKS: Mr. Puffenberger?
14 MAYOR LI CASTRO: Roll cal l on 14 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Aye.
15 suspension, please. 15 MS. COOKS: Ms. Smith?
16 MS. COOKS: Ms. Bacci? 16 MS. SMITH: Aye.
17 MS. BACCI: Aye. 17 MS. COOKS: Mr. Willi ams?
18 MS. COOKS: Ms. Beckenbach? 18 MR. WILLIAMS: Aye.
19 MS. BECKENBACH: Aye. 19 MAYOR LICASTRO: Ms. Beckenbach,
20 MS. COOKS: Ms. Murphy? 20 ordi nance 380 0, pleas e.
21 MS. MURPHY: Aye. 21 MS. BECKENBACH: I'd like to introduce
22 MS. COOKS: Mr. Puffenberger? 22 ordi nance number 3800 , introduced by: That the
23 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Aye. 23 following claims against the Village of Bratenahl
24 MS. COOKS: Ms. Smith? 24 are hereby di rected from the funds and the clerk
25 MS. SMITH: Aye. 25 is hereby authorized and directed to draw her
39 40
1 warrants upon the treasurer for payment, to wit a 1 MS. BACCI : I overlooked this at a
2 total of $509,604.61. 2 finance meeting. There's a bill there for
3 MS. BACCI: Second. 3 Lanhan, repai r at 103 00 Lake Shore Boulevard.
4 MAYOR LI CASTRO: Roll cal l on 4 Could somebody explain what that is?
5 suspension, please. 5 MS. HOWLEY: How much was it?
6 MS. COOKS: Ms. Bacci ? 6 MAYOR LICASTRO: There was some damage
7 MS. BACCI: Aye. 7 done to a sewer on Corning Dri ve that was
8 MS. COOKS: Ms. Beckenbach? 8 repaired by the water department and subsequently
9 MS. BECKENBACH: Aye. 9 we added to it as wel l. I' m not certain if
10 MS. COOKS: Ms. Murphy? 10 that's what Lanhan, I'll have to get back to you
11 MS. MURPHY: Aye. 11 on that.
12 MS. COOKS: Mr. Puffenberger? 12 MS. BACCI: Would you, please.
13 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Aye. 13 MAYOR LICASTRO: Any other questions?
14 MS. COOKS: Ms. Smith? 14 There being none, roll call on passage, please.
15 MS. SMITH: Aye. 15 MS. COOKS: Ms. Bacci ?
16 MS. COOKS: Mr. Willi ams? 16 MS. BACCI: Aye.
17 MR. WILLIAMS: Aye. 17 MS. COOKS: Ms. Beckenbach?
18 MS. BECKENBACH: I'd like to introduce 18 MS. BECKENBACH: Aye.
19 ordinance number 3800 for passage. 19 MS. COOKS: Ms. Murphy?
20 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Second. 20 MS. MURPHY: Aye.
21 MS. BACCI: I have a question. 21 MS. COOKS: Mr. Puffenberger?
22 MAYOR LI CASTRO: The reas on the amount 22 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Aye.
23 is so high is there is $405,0 00 in notes we have 23 MS. COOKS: Ms. Smith?
24 rolled. So that's most of the 500 some thousand 24 MS. SMITH: Aye.
25 that's on pay claims. Yes, Ms. Bacci. 25 MS. COOKS: Mr. Willi ams?
Appx. 69
1 MR. WILLIAMS: Aye. 1 MS. COOKS: Mr. Puffenberger?
2 MAYOR LICASTRO: Ms. Bacci, 3801, 2 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Aye.
3 please. 3 MS. COOKS: Ms. Smith?
4 MS. BACCI: Ordinance 3801, an ordinance 4 MS. SMITH: Aye.
5 fixing compensation for the building department 5 MS. COOKS: Mr. Willi ams?
6 administrator and declaring an emergency. This 6 MR. WILLIAMS: Aye.
7 ordinance takes our building department 7 MS. BACCI: Ordinance 3801 for passage.
8 administrator from part-time to full-time at a 8 MAYOR LICASTRO: Is there a s econd?
9 salary of $42,680, which is a little bit over 10 9 MR. WILLI AMS: Second.
10 percent increase. 10 MAYOR LICASTRO: This is the last piece
11 MAYOR LICASTRO: Did you offer it for 11 in the wage i ncreases that Counci l gave to almost
12 suspension, please? 12 all employees last year. Ms. Ranney does just an
13 MS. BACCI: Yes. 13 amazing job for us. She's got the building
14 MAYOR LI CASTRO: Is there a s econd on 14 department incredibly organized. She does
15 suspension? 15 website stuff. She, like the rest of the staff,
16 MS. BACCI: For suspension. 16 is a real gem to work with. I t's a real pleas ure
17 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Second. 17 to have her work full-time. She's pleased as
18 MAYOR LI CASTRO: Roll cal l on 18 well, so hopefully we can offer congratulations.
19 suspension, please. 19 Are there any further comments ? Roll call on
20 MS. COOKS: Ms. Bacci ? 20 pass age, please.
21 MS. BACCI: Aye. 21 MS. COOKS: Ms. Bacci ?
22 MS. COOKS: Ms. Beckenbach? 22 MS. BACCI: Aye.
23 MS. BECKENBACH: Aye. 23 MS. COOKS: Ms. Beckenbach?
24 MS. COOKS: Ms. Murphy? 24 MS. BECKENBACH: Aye.
25 MS. MURPHY: Aye. 25 MS. COOKS: Ms. Murphy?
43 44
1 MS. MURPHY: Aye. 1 MS. MURPHY: I abstai n.
2 MS. COOKS: Mr. Puffenberger? 2 MS. COOKS: Mr. Puffenberger?
3 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Aye. 3 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Aye.
4 MS. COOKS: Ms. Smith? 4 MS. MURPHY: Aye.
5 MS. SMITH: Aye. 5 MS. COOKS: Ms. Smith?
6 MS. COOKS: Mr. Willi ams? 6 MS. SMITH: Aye.
7 MR. WILLIAMS: Aye. 7 MS. COOKS: Mr. Willi ams?
8 MAYOR LI CASTRO: Congratulati ons, Ms. 8 MS. SMITH: Aye.
9 Ranney. I don't think she's here. (Applause.) 9 MR. WILLI AMS: And 978 for passage.
10 Mr. Will iams , would you pleas e, 9 78, 10 MAYOR LICASTRO: Wait a s econd. You can
11 please. 11 vote for suspension, but not for passage.
12 MR. WILLIAMS: I' d li ke to introduce 12 MS. MURPHY: Right. Thank you.
13 resolution number 978 for suspension, a 13 MAYOR LICASTRO: So what is your vote on
14 resolution authorizing the Mayor to s ubmit an 14 suspension?
15 appl icati on to the Cuyahoga County Solid Waste 15 MS. MURPHY: On s uspension is yes .
16 Management Di strict for a communi ty recycl ing 16 MAYOR LICASTRO: So is that five votes
17 awareness grant and declaring an emergency. 17 on suspension.
18 MR. PUFFENBERGER: I' ll s econd. 18 MS. COOKS: It is .
19 MAYOR LI CASTRO: Roll cal l on 19 MAYOR LICASTRO: Is it offered for
20 suspension, please. 20 pass age?
21 MS. COOKS: Ms. Bacci . 21 MR. WILLI AMS: Yes, pleas e.
22 MS. BACCI: No. 22 MAYOR LICASTRO: Is there a s econd?
23 MS. COOKS: Ms. Beckenbach? 23 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Second.
24 MS. BECKENBACH: Aye. 24 MAYOR LICASTRO: Ms. Beckenbach, do you
25 MS. COOKS: Ms. Murphy? 25 want to explain this, please?
Appx. 70
1 MS. BECKENBACH: What do you want me to 1 her on the grant appl ication, which will again
2 explain? 2 allow us to put out a flier so you understand the
3 MAYOR LICASTRO: Well, since you've been 3 recycling and awareness, if you will, in s hort
4 doing this kind of on your own, you have a more 4 order. So that's why we're going through a
5 formal proces s. 5 formal process. It's a good thing we're doing
6 MS. BECKENBACH: The Mayor's office, it 6 so.
7 will be writing the grant and okaying the grant. 7 Does anyone have questions from Council
8 MAYOR LICASTRO: Right. 8 on this? Ms. Bacci.
9 MS. BACCI: Can you share what was the 9 MS. BACCI : Our contract with our tras h
10 grant? 10 haul er, as you mentioned, incl udes an annual
11 MAYOR LI CASTRO: You can give us more 11 brochure, the mailing to every resident in this
12 than that . 12 Vill age and to the towers , both towers, which is
13 MS. BECKENBACH: The grant is basically 13 a little different recycling program. But we
14 for the rubbish collection. 14 have not ever asked them to live up to the
15 MAYOR LI CASTRO: It's for recycling. 15 agreement that is built into our fees, I'm sure.
16 The first year the provider offered a flier. We 16 And I think that what we're doing is less than
17 didn't think it was up to our standards. Since 17 l ega l .
18 then, we've been getting a grant that Ms. 18 In the meeting to dis cuss this grant,
19 Beckenbach has pursued to all ow us to do this so 19 s hred days were talked about, more recycling
20 there's no cost to the village. 20 containers. I was in a meeting the other night
21 Since we've asked all Council members to 21 at the community center. And I had a plastic
22 go through a more formal process to have 22 water bottle and there's no pl ace to put it in
23 resolutions that support thes e grant efforts, Ms. 23 the room. In the Internet cafe, we say we're a
24 Beckenbach has generously all owed the 24 green community, but it doesn't look like we
25 administration to weigh in on this and work with 25 real ly fully walk the wal k.
47 48
1 So in that meeting, peopl e as ked if 1 the flier they offered, they tell you some
2 there would be an informal bid proces s for this, 2 communities do this, some communities don't and
3 a brochure that we insist on creating. And I 3 it was confus ing to the residents . And that's
4 don't — I asked for the application. Maybe the 4 why we went through with this program.
5 appl ication isn' t completed yet, but nobody got 5 Now, Republic Industries also to
6 back to me, so I can't support this. 6 compensate for that, there's a program on the
7 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you. Anyone 7 fliers called my — is it My Recycling? I can't
8 else? 8 think of the name of it. My Recycling Rewards.
9 MS. BECKENBACH: May I speak? 9 And if you log on and you participate in that
10 MAYOR LICASTRO: Sure. 10 program, you get all kinds of coupons for
11 MS. BECKENBACH: In 2 009, there was a 11 everything you can possibly imagine. And then
12 brochure that came out from the recycling company 12 plus , there's information given on where s tuff
13 that was pasted on each can throughout the 13 goes and how it goes into the landfills or the
14 Village. I received numerous phone calls about 14 recycling. And they cover the cost of that.
15 it that it didn't quite say what we were doing in 15 They have als o been very generous throughout the
16 our contract because it comes from the national 16 years and given us extra containers without cost.
17 headquarters. And it's just kind of a blanket 17 Not only to service department, but to residents.
18 saying that s ome communities do this and s ome 18 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you. Bratenahl
19 people don't. 19 always scores on the highest grades, if you will,
20 In the phone call s I received, they s aid 20 by the Cuyahoga County Solid Waste District as
21 that they were unhappy with that, that it didn't 21 far as recycling. We can always do better. So
22 explain anything the way our program was working 22 if we need containers at Village Hall or
23 at that time. We're the only community that has 23 community center, let's make sure we get them.
24 at that time that has one driver and an automatic 24 We'll make certain that the grant is specific
25 system. And a lot of communities don't. So in 25 enough and the fl ier deal s with issues that are
Appx. 71
1 of concern. 1 letting them off the hook and we're paying for
2 So if there's no further discussion, 2 it?
3 roll call on passage, please. 3 MAYOR LICASTRO: We're seeking a grant
4 MS. BACCI: I have a further question. 4 for it and we feel we can do it better.
5 Can we arbitrarily, one member of Council in 5 MS. BACCI: So just because the county
6 discussion with a vendor, adjust their contract 6 is going to give us some money, we'll spend it
7 without a formal written manner? 7 when somebody else is supposed to be picking up
8 MAYOR LICASTRO: I'm not certain if it 8 the tab?
9 was done by one Council person. I think this was 9 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you for your
10 offered by the waste provider. If they're going 10 opinion.
11 above and beyond the contract without cost to the 11 MS. BACCI: You're welcome, sir.
12 Village, it certainly is proper. 12 MAYOR LICASTRO: Roll call on passage,
13 MS. BACCI: Well, we're paying for 13 please.
14 postage to send out a brochure that they agreed 14 MS. COOKS: Ms. Bacci .
15 to do. 15 MS. BACCI: No.
16 MAYOR LICASTRO: I think it's covered by 16 MS. COOKS: Ms. Beckenbach?
17 the grant. 17 MS. BECKENBACH: Aye.
18 MS. BACCI: So we take money just 18 MS. COOKS: Ms. Murphy?
19 because it's there when somebody else already 19 MS. MURPHY: I abstain.
20 committed to doing a job? 20 MS. COOKS: Mr. Puffenberger?
21 MAYOR LICASTRO: We found their product 21 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Aye.
22 to be unacceptable and can do a better job. 22 MS. COOKS: Ms. Smith?
23 MS. BACCI: That's not the point. The 23 MS. SMITH: Aye.
24 point is they have a contractual agreement with 24 MS. COOKS: Mr. Williams?
25 this community to do a certain thing. And we're 25 MR. WILLIAMS: Aye.
51 52
1 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you. That ends 1 The once that Council passed?
2 the agenda. Anything else from Council members? 2 MS. GOYANES: Yes.
3 MS. BACCI: I have a questions. 3 MAYOR LICASTRO: No, the police have
4 Hopefully Mr. Matty can clarify this for us. Can 4 their own policies and procedures. Anyone else?
5 you detail not only to residents, but me as a 5 Ms. Meade.
6 member of Council, I was here last week, but I'm 6 MS. MEADE: To piggyback on that, what
7 not clear on the process regarding the Ivy 7 she was asking, the 21 standards of conduct that
8 employee disciplinary appeal hearing. I know 8 were created for the police department, are those
9 there's going to be transcripts and briefs, but 9 part of the police department's policies and
10 could you clarify the timeline? 10 procedures?
11 MR. MATTY: No, I cannot do that for you 11 MAYOR LICASTRO: We have a new format, a
12 this evening. You are to call Mr. Lobe with any 12 new policy and procedure manual that superseded
13 questions you may have as a member of Council, 13 that.
14 since he is your counsel in that matter. I am 14 MS. MEADE: So yes?
15 counsel for the administration in that matter and 15 MAYOR LICASTRO: Some of that is
16 I will not render an opinion to you because it is 16 incorporated. It's an updated version.
17 not ethically proper for me to do so. 17 MS. MEADE: So they are part of the
18 MS. BACCI: Okay. Thank you very much. 18 policies and procedures?
19 MAYOR LICASTRO: Anyone from the 19 MAYOR LICASTRO: In general, yes. I'm
20 audience? Ms. Goyanes. 20 not familiar about the specifics, but one is an
21 MS. GOYANES: Clarification: When the 21 updated.
22 21 standards of conduct were consolidated to 10, 22 MS. MEADE: I just wanted to make sure I
23 are these part of the police policies and 23 was understanding.
24 procedures? 24 For the final votes for the Council
25 MAYOR LICASTRO: I don't believe so. 25 present this evening, since they weren't shown or
Appx. 72
1 read allowed, there may be a problem like in 1 full -time service employee that was mentioned
2 previous years per Ohio Sunshine Laws. Number — 2 this evening, is that Pol ice Chief Dolbow' s
3 let's see, next, last month, Mr. Mayor, you said 3 stepson?
4 you'd get back to me on if Bratenahl receives 4 MAYOR LICASTRO: It is --
5 state funding for its 911 program. It's been a 5 MS. MEADE: Or a relative thereof if I
6 month and I have not received any follow-up from 6 have the wrong.
7 you. 7 MAYOR LICASTRO: It is his wife's son.
8 Do you or the Pol ice Chief this eveni ng 8 MS. MEADE: Thank you. And then I
9 have an answer for me? 9 wasn't sure, I could be wrong, Dave, but with the
10 MAYOR LICASTRO: No, ma'am. As a matter 10 voting of the two new rec members, I didn't think
11 of fact, if I recall, I asked you to send me an 11 that was actually voted and recommended at the
12 e-mail as a follow-up on that. I did not receive 12 l ast rec meeting, but you guys were j ust talki ng
13 an e-mail and I did not follow-up. 13 about names, because you weren't sure if Laura
14 MS. MEADE: As you recall , I said when I 14 had accepted or not and were l ooking into it.
15 ask these questions as a public request, I don't 15 MR. KOZINSKI: To the best of my
16 have to put them in writing. 16 knowledge, it was approved. I can call and
17 MAYOR LICASTRO: Again, ma'am, it's a 17 clarify.
18 courtesy as a reminder. If you send me an 18 MS. MEADE: I can lis ten to the
19 e-mail, I wil l get back to you. 19 recording, but I don't think a vote was actually
20 MS. MEADE: As a courtesy, if you take a 20 taken at your meeting for recommendation.
21 look at the minutes and notes, it's wise if you 21 MAYOR LICASTRO: Well, it's been
22 just give me a call or an e-mail when you have an 22 approved by Council, so it is a moot point.
23 answer, that would be great. 23 MS. MEADE: If you're supposed to foll ow
24 MAYOR LI CASTRO: Thank you. 24 proper procedure, I was j ust tryi ng to be
25 MS. MEADE: Next, for clarifi cati on, the 25 helpful. And then regarding the —
55 56
1 MAYOR LICASTRO: 30 seconds. 1 MS. COOKS: Mr. Puffenberger?
2 MS. MEADE: And then regarding the trash 2 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Aye.
3 contract, I agree with Ms. Bacci's perspective 3 MS. COOKS: Ms. Smith?
4 that if i t's actually in the contract and they 4 MS. SMITH: Aye.
5 have not fulfill ed their obli gati on, I' m 5 MS. COOKS: Mr. Willi ams?
6 wondering what, if any, attempts have been made 6 MR. WILLIAMS: Aye.
7 to ask them to actual ly i mprove their brochure so 7 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you. Have a ni ce
8 it will be acceptable for the Vil lage of 8 evening, everybody.
9 Bratenahl ' s resi dents to incl ude the information 9 (Meeting concluded at 6:32 p.m.)
10 that would be relevant and pertinent. And I 10 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
11 don't think those steps have been taken. Thank 11
12 you. 12
13 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you. Anyone 13
14 else? Is there a motion to adjourn, pleas e? 14
15 MS. BECKENBACH: I so move. 15
16 MAYOR LI CASTRO: Second? 16
17 MS. MURPHY: Second. 17
18 MAYOR LI CASTRO: Roll cal l on 18
19 adjournment, please. 19
20 MS. COOKS: Ms. Bacci ? 20
21 MS. BACCI: Aye. 21
22 MS. COOKS: Ms. Beckenbach? 22
23 MS. BECKENBACH: Aye. 23
24 MS. COOKS: Ms. Murphy? 24
25 MS. MURPHY: Aye. 25
Appx. 73
CERTIFICATE
3 I, Nancy L. Molnar, do hereby certify that
4 as such Reporter I took down in Stenotypy all of
5 the proceedings had in the foregoing transcript;
6 that I have transcribed my said Stenotype notes
7 into typewritten form as appears in the foregoing
8 transcript; that said transcript is the complete
9 form of the proceedings had in said cause and
10 constitutes a true and correct transcript therein.
11
12
13
14
15 Nancy L. Molnar, Notary Public
16 within and for the State of Ohio
17
18 My commission expires June 22, 2018.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Appx. 74
October 18, 2011
Debe Terhar, President

State Board of Education
25 South Front Street, Mail Stop 703
Columbus, Ohio 43215
SYLLABUS: 2011-038
The State Board of Education may not vote in an open meeting by secret ballot. (1980
Op. Att’y Gen. No. 80-083 (syllabus, paragraph 4), overruled.)
Exhibit B
Appx. 75
Opinions Section
Mike DeWine Office 614-752-6417

Fax 614-466-0013
= * OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL * = 30 East Broad Street, 15th Floor

www.OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov
October 18, 2011
OPINION NO. 2011-038
Debe Terhar, President

Dear President Terhar:
You have requested an opinion whether the State Board of Education (Board) may vote by
secret ballot during an open meeting of the Board. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that
the Board may not vote in an open meeting by secret ballot.
R.C. 121.22, Ohio’s open meetings law, requires that “[a]ll meetings of any public body” be
“public meetings open to the public at all times.” R.C. 121.22(C).1 For purposes of the open
meetings law, “[p]ublic body” is defined to include “[a]ny board, commission, committee, council, or
similar decision-making body of a state agency, institution, or authority.” R.C. 121.22(B)(1)(a). As a
board of a state agency, the Department of Education, the Board comes within R.C. 121.22’s
definition of a public body and is subject to the statute’s requirements.2 See R.C. 3301.13; State ex
1 R.C. 121.22 permits a public body to hold an executive session from which members of the
public may be excluded. R.C. 121.22(G); State ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. City of Cincinnati, 76 Ohio
St. 3d 540, 544, 668 N.E.2d 903 (1996); 1985 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 85-049, at 2-176 n.2. An executive
session may be held only after certain statutorily prescribed procedures are followed. R.C. 121.22(G);
State ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. City of Cincinnati, 76 Ohio St. 3d at 544. During an executive session,
a public body may discuss only matters specifically enumerated in R.C. 121.22(G) and only if those
subjects are specified publicly before the members of the public body adjourn into executive session.
For example, a public body may hold an executive session to discuss certain personnel matters, the
purchase of property, pending or imminent litigation, or collective bargaining matters. R.C.
121.22(G).
2 R.C. 3301.05 makes clear that the State Board of Education (Board) is subject to the open
meetings law’s requirements of R.C. 121.22. R.C. 3301.05 states that “[official actions of the state
board [of education] ... shall be transacted only at public meetings open to the public.” R.C.
3301.041 also explicitly requires the Board to comply with R.C. 121.22(G).
Appx. 76
rel. Nation Bldg. Technical Acad. v. Ohio Dep’t ofEduc., 123 Ohio St. 3d 35, 2009-Ohio-4084, 913
N.E.2d 977, at ^17 n.1 (State Board of Education is an agency of the Department of Education).
The purpose of Ohio’s open meetings law is to ensure openness and accountability in
government. As stated by an analysis prepared by the Legislative Service Commission, R.C. 121.22
is intended to “afford to citizens the maximum opportunity ... to observe and participate in the
conduct of the public business.” Ohio Legislative Service Comm’n, Analysis, Am. Sub. S.B. 74
(1975) (as quoted in 1985 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 85-049, at 2-176). See also Wyse v. Rupp, No. F-94-19,
1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 4008, at **11-12 (Fulton County Sept. 15, 1995) (“[a] plain reading of R.C.
121.22 reveals the legislature’s intent to require that all public bodies generally conduct their meetings
in the open so that the public can have access to the business discussed or transacted therein”);
Thomas v. Bd. of Trs. ofLiberty Twp., 5 Ohio App. 2d 265, 267, 215 N.E.2d 434 (Trumbull County
1966) (R.C. 121.22 “was originally enacted when the writer of this opinion was a member of the Ohio
General Assembly, and he is familiar with its background.. The rationale for this law is that the
public has a right to know everything that happens at the meetings of governmental bodies”). Ohio
courts also have repeatedly affirmed that R.C. 121.22’s mandates are intended to ensure the
accountability of public officials. See State ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. City of Cincinnati, 76 Ohio St.
3d 540, 544, 668 N.E.2d 903 (1996) (the “very purpose” of R.C. 121.22 is to prevent elected officials
from “meeting secretly to deliberate on public issues without accountability to the public” (emphasis
added)); Cincinnati Enquirer v. Cincinnati Bd. ofEduc., 192 Ohio App. 3d 566, 2011-Ohio-703, 949
N.E.2d 1032, at ^9 (Hamilton County) (R.C. 121.22 “seeks to prevent public bodies from engaging in
secret deliberations with no accountability to the public”); State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v.
Hamilton County Comm’rs, No. C-010605, 2002-Ohio-2038, 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 1977, at *2
(Hamilton County Apr. 26, 2002) (the purpose of R.C. 121.22 “is to assure accountability of elected
officials by prohibiting their secret deliberations on public issues” (emphasis added)).
To this end, R.C. 121.22(A) provides as follows:
This section shall be liberally construed to require public officials to take

official action and to conduct all deliberations upon official business only in open
meetings unless the subject matter is specifically excepted by law.
The law also declares that “formal action of any kind is invalid unless adopted in an open
meeting of the public body.” R.C. 121.22(H). 3 Voting by the members of a public body is a formal
action that must occur in a meeting open to the public.4 See State ex rel. Schuette v. Liberty Twp. Bd.
3 As previously mentioned, the Board also is subject to the open meetings requirement of R.C.
3301.05, the language of which mirrors the language of R.C. 121.22.
4 Although R.C. 121.22 permits the members of a public body to deliberate upon certain topics
in an executive session closed to the public, a public body is prohibited from adopting any resolutions
or rules or taking any formal actions during executive sessions. See, e.g., Mathews v. E. Local Sch.
Dist, No. 00CA647, 2001-Ohio-2372, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 1677, at **8-10 (Pike County Jan. 4,
Appx. 77
ofTrs., Delaware App. No. 03-CAH-11064, 2004-Ohio-4431, 2004 Ohio App. LEXIS 4015, at ^28
(Aug. 19, 2004); Mathews v. E. Local Sch. Dist, No. 00CA647, 2001-Ohio-2372, 2001 Ohio App.
LEXIS 1677, at **8-10 (Pike County Jan. 4, 2001); Angerman v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, 70 Ohio
App. 3d 346, 352, 591 N.E.2d 3 (Franklin County 1990); 2000 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2000-010, at 2-55;
1980 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 80-083, at 2-329.
R.C. 121.22 makes limited references to a public body’s method of voting. In particular, R.C.
121.22(G) declares that a roll call vote is required when a public body adjourns into executive session.
R.C. 121.22(G). A roll call vote requires each member of the public body to vote “yea” or “nay” as
the member’s name is called, and the vote of each member is placed on the record. See Robert’s
Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 420 (11th ed. 2011). This type of vote “enables constituents to know
how their representatives voted on certain measures.” Id.
R.C. 121.22 does not address explicitly the use of secret ballots by the members of a public
body, nor does any other provision of the Revised Code address the use of secret ballots by the Board.
Voting by secret ballot is a process of voting by slips of paper on which the voter indicates his vote.
Id. at 412; Black’s Law Dictionary 143 (6th ed. 1990). Voting by secret ballot is “used when secrecy
of the members’ votes is desired.” Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised, at 412. When a secret
ballot is used, the vote “is cast in such a manner that the person expressing such choice cannot be
identified with the choice expressed.” Black’s Law Dictionary 143 (6th ed. 1990); see also Webster’s
Third New International Dictionary 2052 (unabr. ed. 1993) (defining “secret” as something “kept
hidden” or “kept from the knowledge of others, concealed as part of one’s private knowledge”).
No Ohio courts and only one Attorney General opinion have confronted the use of secret
ballot voting by a public body that is subject to the requirements of R.C. 121.22. See 1980 Op. Att’y
Gen. No. 80-083 (syllabus, paragraph 4) (“R.C. 121.22 does not require a roll call vote or prohibit
voting at a meeting subject to that section by ‘secret ballot’”). You now ask us to advise the Board
whether it may vote by secret ballot during a public meeting of the Board.
The State Board of Education is charged with the “general supervision of the system of public
education in the state.” R.C. 3301.07. The Board’s general powers, duties, and responsibilities are set
forth in R.C. Chapter 3301. The Board is required to develop statewide academic standards as well as
standards prescribing the minimum standards for elementary and secondary schools in the state, for
the education of children with disabilities, and for the effective organization, administration, and
supervision of each school. R.C. 3301.07; R.C. 3301.079. The Board also is required to adopt rules
governing a broad range of issues, including, for example, establishing a statewide program to assess
student achievement, licensing of school district treasurers and business managers, and purchasing and
leasing data processing services and equipment. R.C. 3301.074-.075; R.C. 3301.0710. The Board
also is responsible for appointing the Superintendent of Public Instruction. R.C. 3301.08. With the
exception of those topics set forth in R.C. 121.22(G), which may be discussed in executive session,
2001); State ex rel. Kinsley v. Berea Bd. of Educ., 64 Ohio App. 3d 659, 664, 582 N.E.2d 653
(Cuyahoga County 1990); 1985 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 85-049, at 2-176 n.2.
Appx. 78
the Board must deliberate and take action on these matters in meetings open to the public. See R.C.
121.22(A); R.C. 121.22(H). Formal action of the Board is invalid unless the action is taken during an
open meeting. R.C. 121.22(H).
The “open meetings” mandate of R.C. 121.22 requires more than simply granting members of
the public physical access to a meeting of a public body. The clear intent and purpose of R.C. 121.22
are to ensure openness and accountability in government, and the statute must be read and applied
consistent with these goals. State ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. City of Cincinnati, 76 Ohio St. 3d at 543
(when construing a statute, our “paramount concern” is to give effect to the intent and purpose of the
General Assembly). R.C. 121.22 itself instructs us to liberally construe its mandates in favor of
openness. R.C. 121.22(A). See also State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Econ. Opportunity Planning
Ass’n of Greater Toledo, 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 631, 640, 582 N.E.2d 59 (C.P. Lucas County 1990) (the
open meetings law “is to be given a broad interpretation to ensure that the official business of the state
is conducted openly”).
In Manogg v. Stickle, No. 97 CA 104, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 1961, at **6-7 (Licking
County Apr. 8, 1998), the court found that a meeting was not “open” for purposes of R.C. 121.22. In
that case, members of the public body, a board of township trustees, whispered among themselves so
that “the majority of the discussion among the trustees [was] inaudible.” Id. at *6. Further, the
township trustees passed documents among themselves during the meeting. The trustees’ actions
“intentionally prevented the audience from hearing or knowing what business was being conducted at
the meeting.” Id. Although nothing in the statute explicitly prohibits public officials from whispering
or passing documents among themselves, the court nevertheless held that the township trustees’
actions violated the “open meetings” requirement of R.C. 121.22.
Similarly, a meeting is not “open” to the public where members of a public body vote by way
of secret ballot. “Voting by ballot is rarely, if ever, used in legislative bodies, because the members
vote in a representative capacity and their constituents are entitled to know how their representatives
vote.” Mason’s Manual ofLegislative Procedure § 536 (rev. ed. 2000) (emphasis added). Voting by
secret ballot prevents the public from knowing how each of the members of a public body votes on a
particular matter. See Black’s Law Dictionary 143 (6th ed. 1990). Voting by secret ballot produces
the same result as where public officials whisper or pass documents among themselves. Members of
the public are prevented from knowing a critical part of a public body’s decision-making process.
Voting by secret ballot is inimical to R.C. 121.22’s goals of enabling the public to know the actions of
its appointed and elected representatives.
That an “open meeting” requires more than granting physical access to the meeting is further
supported by the common understanding of the word “open.” Left undefined by statute, “open” must
be “read in context and construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage.” R.C. 1.42.
“Open” has several definitions, all of which indicate that a meeting so qualified must be free from
concealment in all its aspects. According to Black’s Law Dictionary 1117 (7th ed. 1999), “open”
means “[v]isible; exposed to public view; not clandestine.” Similarly, Webster’s Third New
International Dictionary 1579 (unabr. ed. 1993), defines “open” as “completely free from
concealment.” These definitions support the conclusion that all aspects of an “open meeting,”
Appx. 79
including final actions such as voting, must be “exposed to public view.” Voting by secret ballot is
the antithesis of the definition of “open.”
With the exception of executive sessions, meetings of a public body must be open in all
respects in order for the public to hold the public body accountable for its actions. If the votes of the
individual members of a public body are denied public scrutiny, the public is unable to properly
evaluate the decision-making of the public body and hold its members responsible for their decisions.
In addressing whether a public body is permitted to adopt rules for the conduct of its meetings, 1988
Op. Att’y Gen. No. 88-087 noted at 2-418 that R.C. 121.22 was meant to partially codify the public’s
“right to know” what business takes place in government proceedings. As explained in that opinion:
In the context of local governmental legislative proceedings the right to know is

deeply-rooted: “Our American democracy is partly founded on the premise that the
public has a right, yea even a duty, to oversee the decision-making procedures of
those who have been chosen to govern. A public, not given the right of government
oversight, is an uninformed public. With such action, the very integrity of the
governing process is threatened.” State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Barnes,
38 Ohio St. 3d 165, 169 (1988) (Douglas, J., concurring).
1988 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 88-087, at 2-419 (emphasis added).
The twin civic duties of overseeing governmental decision-making and holding public
officials accountable for their decisions require that the governed possess and enforce a right to know
not only why decisions are made (open deliberations), but also the right to know the position and final
vote of each individual official. “The statute that exists to shed light on deliberations of public bodies
cannot be interpreted in a manner which would result in the public being left in the dark.” State ex rel.
Cincinnati Post v. City of Cincinnati, 76 Ohio St. 3d at 544. Voting by secret ballot thwarts openness
and denies the public the ability to hold members of a public body accountable for their decisions,
thereby impeding the manifest intent and purpose of R.C. 121.22.
Ohio courts and our opinions also have rejected attempts of public bodies to evade the salutary
purposes of the open meetings law. In State ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. City of Cincinnati, a city council
held back-to-back meetings and purposefully scheduled the meetings so that no gathering of the city
council would have a majority of council members present in order to avoid the requirements of the
open meetings law. 76 Ohio St. 3d at 541. The Ohio Supreme Court held that “the statute prevents
such maneuvering in order to avoid its clear intent.” Id. at 543. The court further stated that “[t]o find
that Cincinnati’s game of ‘legislative musical chairs’ is allowable under the [open meetings law]
would be to ignore the legislative intent of the statute, disregard its evident purpose, and allow an
absurd result.” Id. at 544. See also Manogg v. Stickle, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 1961, at *6
(whispering and passing notes “circumvented the intent of R.C. 121.22”); State ex rel. Toledo Blade
Co. v. Econ. Opportunity Planning Ass’n of Greater Toledo, 61 Ohio Misc. 2d at 640 (a
“governmental decision-making body cannot assign its decisions to a nominally private body in order
to shield those decisions from public scrutiny”); 2009 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2009-034, at 2-233 n.3
(“[m]embers of a public body must not attempt to circumvent the intent of the open meetings law by
Appx. 80
conducting a conference call and claiming it does not meet the definition of a ‘meeting’ of the public
body because a majority of the members are not ‘present in person’”); 1992 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 92
077, at 2-325 (“[t]o conclude otherwise would allow a public body to circumvent the requirements of
R.C. 121.22 merely by assigning to an advisory body those portions of its deliberations of the public
business which it seeks to shield from public scrutiny; such a result would be clearly contrary to the
legislative intent expressed in R.C. 121.22(A)”).
Construing R.C. 121.22 as permitting a public body to vote by secret ballot also produces an
unreasonable and absurd consequence. R.C. 1.47(C) (in enacting a statute, it is presumed that “[a] just
and reasonable result is intended”); Canton v. Imperial Bowling Lanes, Inc., 16 Ohio St. 2d 47, 242
N.E.2d 566 (1968) (syllabus, paragraph 4) (“[t]he General Assembly will not be presumed to have
intended to enact a law producing unreasonable or absurd consequences”); State ex rel. Cincinnati
Post v. City of Cincinnati, 76 Ohio St. 3d at 543-44. R.C. 121.22(H) requires a public body to adopt a
resolution or rule or take formal action “in an open meeting of the public body.” While R.C. 121.22
permits a public body’s members to deliberate in executive session, the law prohibits them from
voting while in executive session. R.C. 121.22(G)-(H). A public body may vote only during a
meeting open to the public, and a public body in executive session must return to an open meeting
before voting. Id. A secret ballot vote during an open meeting is no different from a vote taken
during an executive session. In either case, the public is denied the opportunity to know and evaluate
the decision-making of the public body and to hold its members accountable for their decisions. It is
patently unreasonable to explicitly prohibit a public body from voting during a closed executive
session only to permit the public body to vote by secret ballot once it reconvenes in an open meeting.
Finally, where R.C. 121.22 authorizes exceptions to the open deliberations requirement, the
law expressly enumerates those exceptions and the procedures that the public body must follow in
order to lawfully adjourn to an executive session from which the public may be excluded. R.C.
121.22(G). No similar exceptions permit a public body to take formal actions secretly. Had the
General Assembly intended to permit a public body to take formal actions in a manner that excluded
the public, it could have done so with similarly explicit language. See Lake Shore Elec. Ry. Co. v.
P.U.C.O., 115 Ohio St. 311, 319, 154 N.E. 239 (1926) (had the legislature intended a particular
meaning, “it would not have been difficult to find language which would express that purpose,”
having used that language in other connections); State ex rel. Enos v. Stone, 92 Ohio St. 63, 69, 110
N.E. 627 (1915) (if the General Assembly intended a particular result, it could have employed
language used elsewhere that plainly and clearly compelled that result).
Accordingly, we conclude that the “open meetings” requirement of R.C. 121.22 is not
satisfied when members of a public body, in this instance, the State Board of Education, vote by secret
ballot. To conclude otherwise would permit the Board to disregard the primary purpose of the open
meetings law by concealing the decision-making of its members from the public.
Other states with open meetings laws that employ language nearly identical to that in R.C.
121.22 have reached the same conclusion. These statutes explicitly require that public bodies conduct
business in open meetings and that formal actions of those public bodies occur in an open meeting.
Appx. 81
As in the case of R.C. 121.22, the open meetings laws of those states are silent with respect to the
members of a public body voting by secret ballot.
As early as 1933, the Illinois Attorney General addressed the use of secret ballots by a public
body and concluded that a vote by secret ballot violated the law and public policy. 1933 Ill. Op. Att’y
Gen. No. 246, p. 334. The law in question required a “board of supervisors” to “sit with open doors”
and declared that “all persons may attend their meetings.” Id. The Illinois Attorney General reasoned:
“[o]f what avail is an open door to the public if the proceedings are secret.... It is no advantage to the
citizen to see a member write a name secretly on a ballot unless he is privileged to read what is
thereon written.” Id. at 335. Forty-two years later, the Illinois Attorney General again addressed the
issue of secret ballots and reached the same conclusion:
The public has a right to know how their public officials and representatives vote on
issues, not only so they may try to persuade them to change their position or
congratulate them on actions they have taken, but also that they may have the
necessary information to decide whether they want to retain that person in public
office.
1975 Ill. Op. Att’y Gen. No. S-917, p. 3574, at 3576, 1975 Ill. AG LEXIS 37, at *8.
An Illinois appellate court affirmed the conclusions of these two opinions when the court
addressed whether a county board was permitted, under Illinois’ open meetings law, to vote by secret
written ballot in the election of the county board’s chairman. WSDR, Inc. v. Ogle County, 427 N.E.2d
603 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981). The intent of the Illinois open meetings law is to require that “the actions of
public bodies be taken openly.” 5 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 120/1 (2011). The law requires that “[a]ll
meetings of public bodies shall be open to the public.” 5 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 120/2(a) (2011). The
court held that a secret ballot for the election violated the state law. “A secret ballot ... is the
antithesis of an open meeting even though the vote was conducted in the presence of the public.”
WSDR, Inc. v. Ogle County, 427 N.E.2d at 604. The court further explained that the votes of public
officials “can be highly indicative to their voters and the public of the quality of their public service.”
Id. at 605. Although the public officials sought to avoid antagonism between the board members by
keeping their votes private, the court rejected this as a valid reason to vote by secret ballot because
“[t]he voters who elected these board members are no longer in a position to judge the competency of
their representatives.” Id.
The Texas Attorney General echoed the same reasoning and concluded that voting by secret
ballot violated the Texas open meetings act. Texas law requires that “[a] final action, decision, or vote
... may only be made in an open meeting.” Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 551.102 (2011). The Texas
Attorney General concluded that “[t]he secret ballot, ... when it is used to conceal a public official’s
vote, . violates the fundamental tenet of an elected or appointed official’s ultimate accountability to
the electorate. We believe it is the antithesis of the requirements of the Texas Open Meetings Act.”
Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. H-1163, p. 4707 (1978) (citations omitted).
Florida’s open meetings law states that “[a]ll meetings ... at which official acts are to be taken
are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times, and no resolution, rule, or formal
Appx. 82
action shall be considered binding except as taken or made at such meeting.” Fla. Stat. § 286.011(1)
(2011). The Florida Attorney General concluded that a vote by secret ballot violates this mandate
“since the public and the news media are denied the right to know who voted for whom, and the
meeting cannot therefore be regarded as ‘open to the public at all times.’” Op. Att’y Gen. Fla. 1971
32, 1971 Fla. AG LEXIS 292, at **3-4.
Michigan law provides that “[a]ll decisions of a public body shall be made at a meeting open
to the public.” Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.263(2) (2011). The Michigan Attorney General found that a
vote by secret ballot violated the requirement that meetings be open. “Since the statute requires that a
vote be taken at a public meeting, the Legislature clearly intended this vote be open to the public as
well.” 1977-78 Op. Att’y Gen. Mich. 338, 1978 Mich. AG LEXIS 164, at *2. A Michigan court
subsequently reached the same conclusion. Esperance v. Chesterfield Twp., 280 N.W.2d 559 (Mich.
App. Ct. 1979). In holding that Michigan’s open meetings law prohibits a public body from voting by
secret ballot, the court stated as follows: “[i]t can hardly be contended that a vote by secret ballot at an
open meeting is any more open than a vote at a closed meeting. In either case the public official has
shielded his stand from public scrutiny and accountability.” Id. at 563.
R.C. 121.22 is intended to ensure openness and accountability in government. To permit the
Board to vote by secret ballot is inimical to these purposes and would enable the Board to conceal the
decision-making of its members from the public. Rather, a public body must conduct its business in a
way that permits the public to know what business is conducted at the meeting, which includes
knowledge about the votes cast by individual members of the public body.
We recognize that in 1980 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 80-083 (syllabus, paragraph 4), the Attorney
General advised that R.C. 121.22 “does not ... prohibit voting at a meeting subject to that section by
‘secret ballot.’” The opinion rejected the proposition that R.C. 121.22’s “liberal construction”
mandate should apply to the method of voting used by the members of a public body. The opinion
stated that doing so would add a requirement “not imposed by the specific language of [R.C. 121.22].”
1980 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 80-083, at 2-330. The opinion reasoned that insofar as R.C. 121.22(H) states
that formal action of a public body is invalid “unless adopted in an open meeting of the public body,”
only the meeting itself need be open. Id. (“[a]s long as the public body’s meeting is open to the
public, and complies in all other respects with R.C. 121.22, I am constrained by the plain language of
the statute to conclude that it does not ... prohibit voting by ‘secret ballot’” (footnote omitted)). 1980
Op. Att’y Gen. No. 80-083 appears to have determined that voting by secret ballot is compatible with
the plain language ofthe statute.
Since the issuance of the 1980 opinion, however, Ohio courts, including the Ohio Supreme
Court, repeatedly have endorsed a liberal reading of the open meetings law’s requirements in the
interest of ensuring that the purpose of the law is upheld and preventing public bodies from evading
that purpose. See, e.g., State ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. City of Cincinnati, 76 Ohio St. 3d at 544;
Manogg v. Stickle, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 1961, at **6-7; Thomas v. Bd. of Trs. ofLiberty Twp., 5
Ohio App. 2d at 267; State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Econ. Opportunity Planning Ass ’n of Greater
Toledo, 61 Ohio Misc. 2d at 640; see also 2009 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2009-034; 1992 Op. Att’y Gen.
No. 92-078. The current state of that jurisprudence persuades us that R.C. 121.22’s “liberal
Appx. 83
construction” mandate should be applied to the method of voting used by the members of a public
body in taking formal action at an open meeting. Voting by secret ballot is at variance with the
purpose of the open meetings law and only denies the people their right to view and evaluate the
workings of their government. Accordingly, a public body that is subject to the requirements of the
Ohio open meetings law may not vote in an open meeting by secret ballot. We overrule syllabus,
paragraph 4 of 1980 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 80-083.
In conclusion, it is my opinion, and you are hereby advised that the State Board of Education
may not vote in an open meeting by secret ballot. (1980 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 80-083 (syllabus,
paragraph 4), overruled.)
Very respectfully yours,
MICHAEL DEWINE
Ohio Attorney General
Appx. 84
Meeting Ohio’s Families
iQhio
►^SUNSHINE
LAWS
An Open Government
Resource Manual
Mike DeWine
■ * OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL ★ ■
Exhibit C
Appx. 85
HIO SUNSHINE LAWS
An Open Government Resource Manual
2013
Appx. 86
Ohio Sunshine Laws 2013
Dear Ohioans,
My number one priority as Attorney General is to protect Ohio families. My office does this
in a variety of ways. One way is making sure the public has access to information. My office
fosters a spirit of open government by promoting Ohio's Public Records Law and Open
Meetings Law. Together, these laws are known as "Ohio Sunshine Laws" and are among the
most comprehensive open government laws in the nation.
Along with this 2013 Ohio Sunshine Laws Manual, our office and the Ohio Auditor of State's
office provide Ohio Sunshine Laws training for elected officials throughout the state, as
mandated by Ohio Revised Code Sections 109.43 and 149.43(E)(1). By providing elected
officials and other public employees with information concerning public records and
compliance, we help ensure accountability and transparency in the conduct of public
business. Any citizen is welcome to attend these trainings and benefit from the same
knowledge.
The Attorney General's Office and its Public Records Unit stand as one of the state's foremost
authorities on public records and open meetings law. The office provides training, guidance,
and online resources. Additionally, the Attorney General has created a model public records
policy. Local governments and institutions can use this model as a guide for creating their
own public records policies. This model policy and other online resources are available at
www.OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov/Sunshine.
This manual is intended as a guide, but because much of open government law comes from
interpretation of the Ohio Sunshine Laws by the courts, we encourage local governments to
seek guidance from their legal counsel when specific questions arise.
Thank you for your part in promoting open government in Ohio.
Very respectfully yours,
Mike DeWine
Attorney General
Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine • Ohio Sunshine Laws 2013: An Open Government Resource Manual Page ii
Electronically Filed 04/21/2016 15:57 / COMPLAINT / CV 16 857888 / Confirmation Nbr. 732251 / CLDLJ
Appx. 87
Ohio Sunshine Laws 2013
Readers may find the latest edition of this publication and the most updated open meetings and public
records laws by visiting the following web sites. To request additional paper copies of this publication,
contact:
Ohio Attorney General

Public Records Unit
Re: Sunshine Manual Request
30 E. Broad St., 16th Floor
(800) 282-0515 or (614) 466-2872
www.OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov/Sunshine
or
Ohio Auditor of State

Open Government Unit
Legal Division
88 E. Broad St., 9th Floor
(800) 282-0370 or (614) 466-4514
www.OhioAuditor.gov
We welcome your comments and suggestions.
Acknowledgments
Warm thanks to employees of the Ohio Attorney General whose contributions have made this
publication possible over the years, with special recognition to those authors and editors of this edition:
Attorney General's Office Public Records Unit:
Assistant Attorneys General:
Erin Butcher-Lyden, Jeffery W. Clark, Darlene Fawkes Pettit, Lauren Lubow, Sarah Pierce,
Damian W. Sikora, and Renata Y. Staff
Administrative Staff:
Kristen Montgomery, Brittnie Reed, and Pari Swift
Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine • Ohio Sunshine Laws 2013: An Open Government Resource Manual Page iii
Appx. 88
The Ohio Open Meetings Act
Chapter Two: Duties of a Public Body
II. Chapter Two: Duties of a Public Body
The Open Meetings Act requires public bodies to provide: (A) openness; (B) notice; and (C) minutes.
A. Openness
The Open Meetings Act declares all meetings of a public body to be public meetings open to the public
at all times.829 The General Assembly mandates that the Act be liberally construed to require that public
officials take official action and “conduct all deliberations upon official business only in open meetings
unless the subject matter is specifically excepted by law."830
1. Where Meetings May be Held

A public body must conduct its meetings in a venue that is open to the public.831 Although the Open
Meetings Act does not specifically address where a public body must hold meetings, some authority
suggests that a public body must hold meetings in a public meeting place832 that is within the
geographical jurisdiction of the public body.833 Clearly, a meeting is not “open" where the public
body has locked the doors to the meeting facility.834
Where space in the facility is too limited to accommodate all interested members of the public,
closed circuit television may be an acceptable alternative.835 Federal law requires that a meeting
place be accessible to individuals with disabilities;836 however, violation of this requirement has no
ramifications under the Open Meetings Act.
2. Method of Voting
Unless a particular statute requires a specified method of voting, the public cannot insist on a
particular form of voting. The body may use its own discretion in determining the method it will
use, such as voice vote, show of hands, or roll call.837 The Open Meetings Act only defines a method
of voting when a public body is adjourning into executive session (vote must be by roll call).838 The
Act does not specifically address the use of secret ballots; however, the Ohio Attorney General has
opined that a public body may not vote in an open meeting by secret ballot.839 Voting by secret
ballot contradicts the openness requirement of the Open Meetings Act by hiding the decision
making process from public view.
3. Right to Hear, but Not to be Heard or to Disrupt

Openness requires that the public be permitted to attend and observe all meetings of any public
body.840 A court found that members of a public body who whispered audibly and passed
829 R.C. 121.22(C).

830 R.C. 121.22(A).
831 R.C. 121.22(C). State ex rel. Randles v. Hill, 66 Ohio St.3d 32, 35 (1993) (locking the doors to the meeting hall, whether or not intentional, is
not an excuse for failing to comply with the requirement that meetings be held open to the public).
832 Crist v. True, 39 Ohio App.2d 11 (12th Dist. 1972); 1992 Ohio Op. Att'y Gen. No. 032.
833 1944 Ohio Op. Att'y Gen. No. 7038; 1992 Ohio Op. Att'y Gen. No. 032.
834 Specht v. Finnegan, 149 Ohio App.3d 201, 2002-Ohio-4660 (6th Dist.).
Wyse v. Rupp, No. F-94-19 (6th Dist. 1995) (finding that the Ohio Turnpike Commission dealt with the large crowd in a reasonable and
impartial manner).
836 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, P.L. §§ 201-202).
But see State ex rel. Roberts v. Snyder, 149 Ohio St. 333, 335 (1948) (finding that council was without authority to adopt a conflicting rule
where enabling law limited council president's vote to solely in the event of a tie).
838 R.C. 121.22(G).
9 2011 Ohio Op. Att'y Gen. No. 038 (opining that secret ballot voting by a public body is antagonistic to the ability of the citizenry to observe
the workings of their government and to hold their government representatives accountable).
840 R.C. 121.22(C); Wyse v. Rupp, 6th Dist. No. F-94-19 (1995); Cmty. Concerned Citizens v. Union Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 12 Dist. No. CA91-
01-009 (1991), aff'd 66 Ohio St.3d 452 (1993); Black v. Mecca Twp. Bd. of Trs., 91 Ohio App.3d 351, 356 (11th Dist. 1993) (finding that R.C.
121.22 does not require that a public body provide the public with an opportunity to comment at its meetings, but if public participation is
permitted, it is subject to the protections of the First and Fourteenth Amendments); Forman v. Blaser, 3rd Dist. No. 12-87-12 (1988) (R.C.
Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine • Ohio Sunshine Laws 2013: An Open Government Resource Manual Page 88
Appx. 89
Date: January 19, 2016
Time: 8:00 AM Call to Order
Venue: Bratenahl Village Hall
Committee Attendees: Marla Murphy, Geoff Williams and Jim Puffenberger - Chair
Item 1: Approval of December 14, 2015 Meeting Minutes

Action: No changes.
Motion to approve: Mr. Williams; Second: Mr. Puffenberger.
Item 2: Ord. 3855 - Pay Claims

Action: No changes.
Motion to recommend Council passage: Ms. Murphy; Second: Mr. Williams. Motion carried.
Item 3: Ord. 3856 - Amending Administrative Code re: "Holidays"

Action: Amended to add only Veteran's Day to Holiday list.
Motion to recommend Council passage as amended: Ms. Murphy; Second: Mr. Williams.
Motion carried.
Item 4: Ord. 3857 - Additional Appropriations for Current Expenses

Action: No changes.
Motion to recommend Council passage: Mr. Williams; Second: Ms. Murphy. Motion carried.
Item 5: Preliminary Discussion related to Administrative Compensation Strategy

Action: Administration to provide update/detail on current employee responsibilities. Mr.
Puffenberger to update current compensation detail to facilitate subsequent discussion. 30 day
completion target.
Motion to adjourn at 8:47 AM: Mr. Williams; Second: Ms. Murphy. Motion carried.
Respectfully Submitted by:

James F. Puffenberger
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit D
Appx. 90
Date: February 16, 2016
Committee Attendees: Marla Murphy, Geoff Williams and Jim Puffenberger - Chair
Item 1: Approval of January 19, 2016 Meeting Minutes

Action: No changes.
Motion to approve: Ms. Murphy; Second: Mr. Williams. Motion carried.
Item 2: Ord. 3859 - Authorizing fund balance transfers associated with bond debt refinancing
Action: Amend/correct Section 1., line 1 to read ".... transfer $340,000 from the General Fund
" (vs. $350,000).
Motion to recommend Council passage as amended: Mr. Williams; Second: Ms. Murphy.
Motion carried.

Action: No changes.
Motion to recommend Council passage: Ms. Murphy; Second: Mr. Williams. Motion carried.
Item 4: Administrative compensation strategy discussion/recommendations.

Action: Current compensation detail updated, as committed. Administration to provide
update/detail on new employee job descriptions/responsibilities for subsequent structural
discussions.
Item 5: Recreation Commission budget review/recommendations

Action: Tabled pending receipt of Recreation Commission new budget recommendations.
Motion to adjourn at 8:54 AM: Ms. Murphy; Second: Mr. Williams. Motion carried.

Page 1 of 1
Appx. 91
Date: March 14, 2016
Committee Attendees: Geoff Williams and Jim Puffenberger - Chair
Item 1: Approval of February 16, 2016 Meeting Minutes

Action: No changes.
Motion to approve: Mr. Williams; Second: Mr. Puffenberger. Motion carried.

Action: No changes.
Motion to recommend Council passage: Mr. Williams; Second: Mr. Puffenberger. Motion
carried.
Item 3: Res. 1021 - Agreement with Cleveland Restoration Society

Action: No changes.
Motion to recommend Council passage: Mr. Williams; Second: Mr. Puffenberger. Motion
carried.
Item 4: Administrative compensation strategy discussion/recommendations.

Action: Meeting specific to topic will be scheduled upon receipt of current Administration job
responsibilities and outside data.
Item 5: Recreation Commission budget review/recommendations

Action: Tabled pending receipt of Recreation Commission new budget recommendations.
Item 6: Review of Service Garage Condition and Recommendations

Action: Bids will be accepted to evaluate demolition and replacement options for current
structure prior to year-end.
Item 7: Update on Police Vehicle Fleet Status

Action: Recommend early retirement of oldest (2012) Dodge Charger given its repair
record/cost and replacement with Ford Interceptor SUV. Delay replacement of an additional
vehicle by 1 year.
Motion to Recommend: Mr. Williams; Second: Mr. Puffenberger. Motion carried.
Page 1 of 2
Appx. 92
Item 8: Ord. 3865 - Enact Employee Wellness Program
Action: Motion to recommend Council passage: Mr. Williams; Second: Mr. Puffenberger.
Motion carried.
Motion to adjourn at 9:06 AM: Mr. Williams; Second: Mr. Puffenberger. Motion carried.

Page 2 of 2
Appx. 93
Date: April 18, 2016
Committee Attendees: Marla Murphy and Jim Puffenberger - Chair
Item 1: Approval of March 14, 2016 Meeting Minutes

Action: Tabled pending review by attending committee members.
Item 2: Res. 1025 - Reverse 911 service from Chagrin Valley Dispatch (CodeRED)
Action: No changes; recommend that the ReadyNotify service from Cuyahoga County be
investigated as possible adjunct service to CodeRED.
Motion to recommend Council passage: Ms. Murphy; Second: Mr. Puffenberger. Motion
carried.
Item 3: Police Department full-time staff restructuring

Action: Agreement conceptually and on likelihood of financial feasibility.
Motion to send to Public Safety Committee for final recommendation: Ms. Murphy; Second:
Mr. Puffenberger. Motion carried.

Action: No changes.
carried.
Item 5: Recreation Commission budget/appropriations review

Action: 2016 budget approved with specific recommendations for 2017 review.
Motion: Ms. Murphy; Second: Mr. Puffenberger. Motion carried.
Item 6: Res. 1026 - Renewal of various Village insurance policies

Action: No changes.
carried.
Item 7: Discussion of CCA tax requirement notifications

Action: Invite CCA official(s) to future Finance meeting to discuss strategies to increase resident
filings/receipts.
Page 1 of 2
Appx. 94
Item 8: 2016 employee salary discussion/recommendation
Action: Motion to recommend 1.5% retroactive increase: Ms. Murphy; Second: Mr.
Puffenberger. Motion carried.
Motion to adjourn at 9:17 AM: Ms. Murphy; Second: Mr. Puffenberger. Motion carried.

Page 2 of 2
Appx. 95
BRATENAHL VILLAGE 1 MAYOR LICASTRO: Please rise and join me
BRATENAHL COMMUNITY CENTER 2 in the Pledge of Allegiance.
10300 BRIGHTON ROAD 3 (Pledge of Allegiance.)
BRATENAHL, OHIO 44108 4 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you. Let the
216.681.4266 5 record reflect we went into executive session to
Fax 216.681.3811 6 talk about acquisition of land and threatened
7 l iti gation. The moti on to go into executi ve
VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING 8 session was made by?
AND EXECUTIVE SESSION 9 MR. BLAZEY: Mr. Puffenberger.
TAKEN: 10 MAYOR LICASTRO: Seconded by?
AUGUST 19, 2015 11 MR. BLAZEY: I think it was Ms. Murphy.
5:30 P.M. 12 MAYOR LICASTRO: A motion to come back
13 i nto open ses sion was made by?
MAYOR JOHN LICASTRO 14 MR. BLAZEY: Mr. Puffenberger.
LAURA BACCI 15 MAYOR LICASTRO: And seconded by?
MARY BECKENBACH 16 MS. BECKENBACH: Ms. Beckenbach.
MARLA MURPHY 17 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Bacci.
JAMES PUFFENBERGER 18 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you. Now in open
ERIN SMITH 19 s ess ion. Almost every governmental entity in
GEOFF WILLIAMS 20 Ohio recesses for August. We never s eem to do
DAVID J. MATTY, ESQ 21 that here, so we have an abbreviated agenda.
Nancy L. Molnar, RPR 22 Basically, it's legislation. We don't do
DRAFT 23 committee reports and all that wonderful stuff,
O 24 so hopefully it will be an abbreviated one. One
COURT REPORTING, LlC 25 never knows.
Molnar & Munguia Court Reporting (440) 377-5030 Draft
3 4
1 Before we start on the path of ol d 1 vendor, the court reporter, and pay them because
2 busi ness, is there anyone from the audience who 2 another party may not have paid them yet. The
3 wants to comment on the agenda items? 3 court reporter needs to addres s this issue -- no
4 Ms . Meade. 4 offense, Nancy -- with the other party in
5 MS. MEADE: Yes, for Ordinance 3825 and 5 ques tion and resolve it.
6 3826, for the chairperson Jim Puffenberger to not 6 Perceived vendor favoriti sm was
7 listen to residents' comments and questions by a 7 established with Murphy & Company. And now
8 third-party at resident's request, that was very 8 payi ng other vendor's bil ls may s et precedent and
9 offensive. Elected officials are supposed to 9 have bigger unforeseen consequences down the
10 represent the people, not just their friends. 10 road. Thank you.
11 And when they refuse to l isten, because they 11 MAYOR LICASTRO: Anyone else? Thank
12 didn't want to hear it firsthand, it defeats the 12 you. We'll proceed to old business. These are
13 intended purpose of public input, public 13 the two nuisance animal ordinances we need to
14 participation and denies full dis cuss ion and 14 change to allow bowhunting in the Village if
15 promotes worst practices. 15 i ndeed we proceed with the deer management
16 As he proceeded then with his 16 policy.
17 pres cripted recommendations, as it was percei ved, 17 Council recei ved copi es of the amended
18 after the meeting, the chair, Mr. Puffenberger, 18 tweaked revis ed deer management policy that were
19 made no effort to learn more about the additi onal 19 actually input from pretty much all of you, each
20 ques tions and concerns he did not all ow to happen 20 of you, to try to come up with something that
21 duri ng the publi c meeting, but Counci l member 21 accomplished our basic purpose. They have an
22 Bacci did. 22 ODNR-driven process with overs ight by our poli ce
23 Regarding Resolution 997, I don't 23 department to all ow us to reduce the popul ation
24 support Village Hall, the Village solicitor 24 of nuisance animals in the Village of Bratenahl.
25 vendor, recommending to s ingl e out another 25 To that end, we have to amend the
Molnar & Munguia Court Reporting (440) 377-5030 Draft Molnar & Munguia Court Reporting (440) 377-5030 Draft
Exhibit E
Appx. 96
1 ordinances as mentioned, 3825 and 3826. There 1 The ordinances and the policies s peci fical ly are
2 were a flurry of e-mails today. There always is 2 to i mprove safety, not make it less s afe in this
3 on the day of Council. It's always so much fun 3 Village.
4 to open your computer to see what's there. And 4 And although hunting may be perceived as
5 again, I would like to move forward with this. 5 an unsafe environment or unsafe activity if not
6 Hopefully, we're there. If we're not there, can 6 done appropri atel y, I thi nk that we have taken
7 we get there in short order or do we need to go 7 appropriate measures with thos e four additional
8 back to square one. 8 addi tions to the permit proces s and the polici es
9 Mr. Puffenberger, do you want to comment 9 to make it safe.
10 on this, please? 10 This is the third reading of both 3825
11 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Yes. We've had 11 and 3826. It represents the fifth public meeting
12 obvi ously two Public Safety meeti ngs concerni ng 12 we've had over this. And I think that alone, I
13 this. We made four recommendations following the 13 sent an e-mail to Council earlier today
14 second Public Safety meeting earl ier this month, 14 i ndi cating this, I think that alone is evi dence
15 I believe it was August 3 . And all four of those 15 of the fact that we consi der this very, very
16 have been in one way, shape or form i ncorporated 16 important.
17 into the new pol icy. 17 So in reading these two ordinances
18 There are and there have been additional 18 toni ght, I'm hopeful that we can get through it
19 pieces of information that we dis covered s ince 19 and pass thes e ordinances that wi ll allow the
20 that peri od of time that may or may not be 20 policy. And I think we need to make a
21 incorporated, but I don't think there's any doubt 21 distinction as well. This has been made before
22 that we consi der this a very, very important, I 22 between the ordinances and the policy. The
23 suppose, ordi nance for the Vi llage. This is 23 ordi nance simply enables the poli cies . They're
24 something that's a departure from anything we've 24 two separate things. The policies are
25 done before. Safety is of utmost importance. 25 admi nistrative polici es, the ordi nances that we
7 8
1 pass , both 38 25, simply enabl e those policies to 1 be notifi ed, but this res ident that wrote to me
2 go i nto effect, so we need to look at thos e 2 today sai d that s he'd like to see everybody
3 separatel y. Now, when we accrue 3825 and 382 6, 3 within a half mil e of where the hunti ng is goi ng
4 it allows the adminis tration to go forward wi th 4 on notified so that they could not experience
5 those policies. 5 what Erin did with a deer in her yard with an
6 We have agreed as a Publi c Safety 6 arrow in it or some horrendous experience.
7 committee that we would not, unless those four 7 MAYOR LICASTRO: Did you say half a
8 items that we wanted to have added to the pol icy 8 mile?
9 were added and, in fact, they were. So that's 9 MS. BACCI: That's what this resident
10 where we stand tonight. Toni ght is the third 10 s ays .
11 reading so we can vote on both of those 11 MAYOR LICASTRO: The Village is a mile
12 ordinances this evening and that was the intent. 12 and a hal f long.
13 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you, Mr. 13 MS. BACCI: I know.
14 Puffenberger. Anyone else? Ms. Bacci. 14 MAYOR LICASTRO: Proceed.
15 MS. BACCI: I'm still getting comments 15 MS. BACCI : When Erin had a deer in her
16 from resi dents, despi te the fact that this is the 16 yard that was wounded, I don't know where it came
17 fifth, this is the fifth airing out of the title. 17 from, but I have no i dea how far a deer can
18 We've had two actual meetings where people were 18 travel when it's not hit in the heart shots. So
19 in attendance and could s peak to this issue. 19 I didn't know what we're going to do about the
20 Our Chief was a l ittl e bi t shy at the 20 s ize of the l ot or what we wil l determine as
21 Public Safety meeting. And I was wondering what 21 criteria.
22 the criteria wil l be for his determining a parcel 22 MAYOR LICASTRO: Well , one, to not limit
23 is safe or not safe. Has there been any size 23 i t, to not li mit the lot size was not to punis h
24 discussed at thi s particular point? And we did 24 the individuals with smal ler l ots . We didn't
25 mandate that every neighbor, contiguous neighbor 25 want to make a mi nimum lot siz e so only people
Appx. 97
1 with larger parcels could pursue this. Ms. 1 middle of the night when we're sl eepi ng and
2 Murphy. 2 they've told me their biggest fear is hitting a
3 MS. MURPHY: I'd like to share the 3 deer rushing to an accident.
4 e-mail that I sent to my colleagues and the Mayor 4 My concern is it will be with us for the
5 today that I sent to them last night. I'm going 5 rest of our l ife. I felt that peace officers,
6 to preface it by saying that I have been wanting 6 which include pol ice, national park rangers,
7 this ordinance to pass since 2012. I think it's 7 Cleveland Metroparks rangers, all encompas s the
8 very important. And I'm for the ordinance, but 8 type of peace officer. I would like to see us
9 I'd like to s ee some tweaking to the policy. 9 limit it to peace officers that are bow hunters.
10 And the reas on I have a concern is I 10 I think for the residents , I think they should
11 know a lot about hunting. My father was an 11 s til l be vetted, but I think that they have
12 outdoorsman. He deer hunted. My husband is an 12 expertise in weaponry compared to someone that's
13 avid bird hunter. So I've learned a lot about 13 taken a hunter safety class and may be hunting
14 all different ki nds of hunting. Anybody can pass 14 for many, many years, but we don't know anything
15 a hunter safety course, including me, if I wanted 15 about them.
16 to take it. It's written on a fifth grade level. 16 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you. Again, this
17 It's a prerequisite to encourage young people to 17 policy in my mind is resident driven. We're not
18 get into the outdoors and hunting. It is not a 18 making it — the government of Bratenahl is not
19 certification to say that you are a great hunter 19 cull ing the herd, res idents are doing so. To
20 or a marksman. 20 l imi t it to our police officers or other who wear
21 I' ve tri ed very hard to figure out a way 21 the badge, I think it really becomes a
22 that I could feel comfortable knowing that this 22 governmental effort. And that was not the
23 is going on. And I feel it is really important 23 intention of the Mayors Association to lobby ODNR
24 that we do this, especial ly for our police 24 to i nclude deer as nuisance animals so it coul d
25 department. They' re out on Lake Shore in the 25 be pursued in that vein.
11 12
1 MS. MURPHY: I mi ght add that I would be 1 things. One, just to address the issue about the
2 will ing, and I have no problem requiring that our 2 size of property, according to everyone we've
3 poli ce do not partici pate in this exercise in our 3 talked to, including Mike Burko, who is the
4 Village if that's a concern to anyone. 4 former chief of Lake County Park System we had at
5 MAYOR LI CASTRO: Well , one more point, 5 our last meeting, the single most important is sue
6 Mr. Puffenberger, all ow me a second, so when we 6 is not the si ze of the property, the
7 tweak thi s ordinance, revised it, updated it, 7 configuration of the property or even the method
8 whatever, the intenti on was to addres s the 8 of hunting, i t's the indi vidual doing the
9 concerns we heard from Public Safety commi ttee 9 hunting.
10 members and others. But we have to be careful 10 And I thi nk to li mit the size of the
11 not to raise the bar so high that no one will 11 property woul d render ineffectual thi s pol icy
12 qualify or be able to carry out these hunts. 12 because of the size of our Village. There would
13 So it's sort of a double edged sword and 13 be very few properties, I think, that would
14 that's why we compromised. We changed a couple 14 actually qual ify. And al so, if you l ook at, and
15 words from shall to may, et cetera. The poli cy 15 I di d, actual ly I did earlier today, the policy
16 is fluid. It can be adjusted further. If we 16 Mentor has in place. They' ve actuall y done the
17 find this too cumbers ome, it does n't work, we can 17 opposite. They've li mited the si ze of the
18 make it so it does work, but I'd like to have an 18 property in the other way. They don't want
19 understanding that the way it's written is pretty 19 anybody bigger than, I believe it's five acres.
20 much as it shoul d be, as adjusted per the 20 They want people to be li mited, the hunters to be
21 recommendations of Public Safety so we can move 21 l imi ted in the area that they can go through. So
22 forward with thi s and start the process that many 22 they look at it actually the opposite way. They
23 residents are anxious to have move forward. 23 want to make sure that it's a small parcel that
24 Mr. Puffenberger. 24 they have access to. They feel that that's
25 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Yeah, a couple 25 s afer, so they look at it in a di fferent way.
Appx. 98
1 In terms of peace officers hunting, 1 And perhaps proficiency testing is the way to go.
2 certainly peace officers do have proficiency in 2 We also have to consider that every
3 using firearms. They have experience in using 3 application needs to be approved by both the
4 firearms, but not all of them necessarily have 4 Mayor and the Chief of Police. So that just by
5 proficiency in using bows and that's really what 5 putting the name of a hunter with a license on
6 we're limiting this policy to. Not all of them 6 the application doesn't mean that this
7 are necessarily sharpshooters when using 7 application will be approved. We have the right
8 crossbows or bowhunting. 8 to do a backgroun d te s t on tha t hunte r. We ha ve
9 I think it limits our potential pool of 9 the right and perhaps we will have the right to
10 individuals who can hunt. I think a better way 10 do proficiency testing for that specific hunter.
11 to go, and this wasn't included in the original 11 Just because they have a license doesn' t mean
12 recommendations, but perhaps I can put it out 12 that they will be the individuals who do the
13 there for recommendation prior to our vote 13 hunting for the Village.
14 tonight as something to consider, is proficiency 14 So I think that we are actually more
15 testing. 15 restricted than some other municipalities, some
16 I looked at a couple of other 16 other communities that have considered similar
17 municipalities, Avon Lake being one, Mentor being 17 programs, at least to my knowledge. And perhaps
18 another, and they require proficiency testing. 18 with the addition of the proficiency testing,
19 This is on the head of the hunter. They need to 19 which isn't terribly onerous, I think most of
20 go out and prove that they have the skills so 20 them probably have already gone through that sort
21 that we don't, as someone I think said, have 21 of thing for other municipalities that they've
22 their Uncle Charlie who shot a deer 20 years ago 22 worked with them, would be a good addition to get
23 and still has a license goes out there and hunts 23 this done and to make everybody feel comfortable.
24 a deer. We don't want that to happen. We want 24 MAYOR LICASTRO: So let me offer this:
25 to make sure that they are good at what they do. 25 The Chief and I will be interviewing these
15 16
1 individuals. We will ask for their proficiency 1 of the policy changes should be that you must
2 and experience and make certain it meets a 2 have a deer stand.
3 certain criteria and someone not just going wild 3 MS. SMITH: A what?
4 with a bow and arrow. 4 MS. MURPHY: If you're going to hunt,
5 This is a fluid policy. Let's agree 5 that they require a deer stand, a tree stand.
6 that next August, after a full year of service, 6 Thank you.
7 we will review it and see if it needs to be 7 MS. BACCI: Do you want this to go back
8 tweaked. If it needs to be tweaked before then, 8 to committee and tweak it, Marla?
9 we can certainly talk about it, but in order to 9 MAYOR LICASTRO: If Council feels we
10 move this forward, I don't think there is a 10 should add tree stand to the policy, we can do
11 perfect policy. We can always make it more 11 that. If you want us to again ask the questions
12 restrictive, less restrictive. We need to start 12 about proficiency, we promise to do that. So add
13 somewhere. And I think this incorporates and 13 tree stand, we'll inquire about the proficiency
14 addresses a lot of concerns. 14 and experience, will that allow us to move
15 My recommendation is we move forward 15 forward? We need to get some closure on this or
16 with it as written and, again, agree to review it 16 decide to move on.
17 again in a year. In some sort of crisis, we can 17 MS. BECKENBACH: You're talking two
18 do it beforehand, but regarding proficiency, the 18 different things, doing ordinances tonight, which
19 Chief and I promise to broach that when we 19 allow you to make these changes in the policy.
20 interview. 20 MAYOR LICASTRO: The policy can be
21 Are you okay with that? 21 changed, but it can't be enacted without the
22 MS. MURPHY: I have one more comment. 22 ordinances.
23 When you crossbow hunt, it should be done from a 23 MS. BECKENBACH: That's what I'm saying.
24 deer stand in a tree. And the reason is you do 24 So let's move forward on the ordinances so you
25 not shoot arrows on the ground straight. So one 25 can complete the policy and add those two things
Appx. 99
1 in that we discussed. 1 driveway.
2 MAYOR LICASTRO: Right. But I want to 2 MS. MURPHY: This is serious stuff.
3 be on the same page. 3 This is nothing to rush.
4 MR. PUFFENBERGER: The issue here is 4 MR. PUFFENBERGER: It is. I mean,
5 whether we will pass these ordinances with or 5 safety is of utmost consideration. The hunting
6 without proficiency testing and the requirement 6 won' t be done in anybody else' s property.
7 for a tree stand. Now, I will add this: That I 7 MS. SMITH: Sure. But the deer came
8 originally did not think that a tree stand was 8 from one person's property and three homes over
9 probably doable in our Village, because many of 9 in my driveway and I had no idea they were doing
10 the properties probably couldn't accommodate one. 10 that. And I didn't know I would see a deer
11 And again, the most important issue is 11 bleeding out, so if you don't know that's going
12 the person doing the hunting and that I thought 12 on .
13 was remedied with proficiency testing. But in 13 MAYOR LICASTRO: How does one conduct
14 fact, some of the villages have those, some other 14 proficiency testing?
15 municipalities have enacted that as a policy. 15 MR. PUFFENBERGER: There are
16 I think, this is my recommendation this 16 organizations that do that. We don't have to do
17 evening, is that we should pass both ordinance 17 that.
18 3825 and 3826 with the stipulation that we do 18 MAYOR LICASTRO: Who pays for that?
19 proficiency testing and require a tree stand. I 19 MR. PUFFENBERGER: The hunter. That is
20 would be happy to do that. 20 how other municipalities have done it. They
21 MS. SMITH: I' d add one tiny thing. 21 require the hunter to go through proficiency
22 Three houses on either side should be alerted, 22 testing by the organizations who do such a thing.
23 because a deer did go from three houses down to 23 I have a list of those organizations.
24 my house, wherever it was a couple years ago, it 24 MAYOR LICASTRO: Okay. So let's tweak
25 is alarming if you don't know a deer is in your 25 the policy to include tree stands and proficiency
19 20
1 testing. 1 changes, send you a clean copy. I hope you're
2 MS. MURPHY: And a certificate 2 taking notes, Mr. Matty, or Ms. Garrett, whoever
3 reflecting the passing of the proficiency test. 3 is taking copious notes.
4 MAYOR LICASTRO: We'll change verbiage 4 MS. SMITH: And could the policy just
5 to that end. As far as notification, what are 5 reference the fact that Marla makes a good point
6 you saying? 6 about preferable on whatever you called the
7 MS. SMITH: Call three houses on either 7 person who should be a certified policeman as a
8 side of the house who's doing the activity. It's 8 bow hunter?
9 not that hard, right? 9 MAYOR LICASTRO: That's going to be the
10 MS. MURPHY: Why do we not want to 10 proficiency test.
11 notify people that there's deer hunting going on? 11 MS. SMITH: Right. I'm just saying in
12 MAYOR LICASTRO: I didn't say we didn't. 12 addition.
13 I'm just trying to understand the direction here. 13 MAYOR LICASTRO: A certificate that
14 So you want to include notifying three houses on 14 proves they passed a proficiency test, yes,
15 either side. 15 that's how it will be phrased.
16 MS. SMITH: At least. I think that 16 MS. SMITH: Yes.
17 would be proper. 17 MAYOR LICASTRO: Mr. Puffenberger, would
18 MAYOR LICASTRO: We'll incorporate those 18 you start with Ordinance 3825, please.
19 into the now completely tweaked deer management 19 MR. PUFFENBERGER: I would be happy to.
20 policy. Are we good with that? 20 I' d like to read ordinance 3825. This is the
21 MR. PUFFENBERGER: I am fine with that. 21 third reading. This is an ordinance amending
22 MS. BACCI: What about across the 22 Section 549.09 of the general offenses code to
23 street? 23 permit the use of weapons when used with special
24 MAYOR LICASTRO: So it's administrative, 24 permits provided in Section 505.135 for the
25 we don't need a motion. We'll make those 25 managing of nuisance animals.
Appx. 100
1 MAYOR LICASTRO: Is there a second? 1 the general offenses code to permit hunting wi th
2 MS. MURPHY: Second. 2 a special permit as a method of managing nuisance
3 MAYOR LICASTRO: Roll call on passage, 3 animals and declaring an emergency.
4 please. 4 MAYOR LICASTRO: Is there a s econd?
5 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Bacci? 5 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Second.
6 MS. BACCI: Aye. 6 MAYOR LICASTRO: Roll cal l on pas sage,
7 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Beckenbach? 7 please.
8 MS. BECKENBACH: Aye. 8 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Bacci?
9 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Murphy? 9 MS. BACCI: Aye. And I would like --
10 MS. MURPHY: Aye. 10 I'd rather know sooner than later that everything
11 MR. BLAZEY: Mr. Puffenberger? 11 is working well.
12 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Aye. 12 MS. SMITH: That makes sense.
13 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Smith? 13 MAYOR LICASTRO: I'll consider that.
14 MS. SMITH: Aye. 14 MS. BACCI : Promi se?
15 MR. BLAZEY: Mr. Williams? 15 MAYOR LICASTRO: Yeah. We don't operate
16 MR. WILLIAMS: Aye. 16 in a vacuum here. If it's not working, we're
17 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you. Who else is 17 going to be talki ng about it.
18 on your safety committee, Mr. Puffenberger? 18 MS. SMITH: How are going to get that
19 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Ms . Beckenbach. 19 feedback? How is that feedback s upposed to get
20 MAYOR LICASTRO: Ms. Beckenbach, would 20 to you?
21 you then, or would one of the two of you 21 MAYOR LICASTRO: This is a new thing
22 introduce ordinance 3826, please. 22 we're trying. We're going to be hands on.
23 MS. BECKENBACH: I introduce ordi nance 23 MS. MURPHY: You need lots of open
24 number 38 26 for passage, an ordinance amending 24 communication on this .
25 Section 505.13 and enacting Section 505.135 of 25 MR. PUFFENBERGER: This is new for us,
23 24
1 so I think it's going to be an ongoing proces s. 1 the Heffernan property on Garfiel d. The
2 The policy could be changed at any time. The 2 Heffernan property is down. It took us about
3 ordi nance is simply to enable the pol icy. 3 three years. Mark Marong worked very hard on
4 MAYOR LICASTRO: Right. Look how open 4 t h at . Ma r y R a nne y wo r ked v ery ha r d. We f i nal l y
5 and cooperati ve we've been to try to move thi s 5 got it down after much debate. So because of
6 forward. That will continue. There's a motion 6 that, we can then pas s the las t s ecti on that we
7 on the floor. Continue with the roll call. 7 need to compl ete our internati onal exterior
8 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Beckenbach? 8 maintenance code.
9 MS. BECKENBACH: Aye. 9 Ms. Bacci , would you start wi th
10 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Murphy? 10 Ordi nance 381 8, pleas e.
11 MS. MURPHY: Aye. 11 MS. BACCI : Ordinance 381 8, an ordinance
12 MR. BLAZEY: Mr. Puffenberger? 12 repealing Chapter 132 7 of the bui lding code
13 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Aye. 13 entitled "Unsafe Buildings" and declaring an
14 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Smith? 14 emergency.
15 MS. SMITH: Aye. 15 MS. BECKENBACH: Second.
16 MR. BLAZEY: Mr. Williams? 16 MAYOR LICASTRO: Roll cal l on
17 MR. WILLIAMS: Aye. 17 s uspension, pleas e.
18 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you. So look for 18 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Bacci?
19 the revis ed poli cy and then we'll put it on the 19 MS. BACCI: Aye.
20 web. All right. Ms. Garrett, you're making 20 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Beckenbach?
21 copious notes, thank you. 21 MS. BECKENBACH: Aye.
22 Moving to new bus ines s, we have the l ast 22 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Murphy?
23 step in our i nternati onal mai ntenance -- 23 MS. MURPHY: Aye.
24 international exterior maintenance code. We 24 MR. BLAZEY: Mr. Puffenberger?
25 didn't do this one because we wanted to tear down 25 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Aye.
Appx. 101
1 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Smith? 1 additional properties in the Village that we deem
2 MS. SMITH: Aye. 2 unsafe. This now wil l al low us to proceed and
3 MR. BLAZEY: Mr. Williams? 3 l ook to ways to remediate them, remedy the
4 MR. WILLIAMS: Aye. 4 situations, so thank you.
5 MS. BACCI: Ordinance 3818 for 5 MS. MURPHY: May I add a very special
6 suspension. 6 thank you to Mark Marong and Mary Ranney. They
7 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Second. 7 are worki ng together and they are doi ng an
8 MAYOR LICASTRO: For passage. 8 excellent job in the building department and
9 MS. BACCI: For passage, I'm sorry. 9 taking care of these properties.
10 MS. BECKENBACH: Second. 10 MR. MARONG: Thank you very much.
11 MAYOR LICASTRO: Comments? There being 11 (Applause.)
12 none, roll call on passage, please. 12 MR. MARONG: Undeserved applause, but
13 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Bacci? 13 thank you.
14 MS. BACCI: Aye. 14 MAYOR LICASTRO: Take them when you can
15 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Beckenbach? 15 get them, Mark.
16 MS. BECKENBACH: Aye. 16 Ms. Murphy, would you do Ordi nance 997?
17 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Murphy? 17 MS. MURPHY: Resoluti on Number 99 7, a
18 MS. MURPHY: Aye. 18 resolution authorizing payment to Molnar &
19 MR. BLAZEY: Mr. Puffenberger? 19 Munguia Court Reporti ng, LLC, for court reporting
20 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Aye. 20 s ervices provided for an administrati ve appeal
21 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Smith? 21 hearing and declaring an emergency.
22 MS. SMITH: Aye. 22 MS. BECKENBACH: Second.
23 MR. BLAZEY: Mr. Williams? 23 MAYOR LICASTRO: Roll cal l on
24 MR. WILLIAMS: Aye. 24 s uspension, pleas e.
25 MAYOR LICASTRO: We've had our eyes on 25 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Bacci?
27 28
1 MS. BACCI: Aye. 1 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Murphy?
2 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Beckenbach? 2 MS. MURPHY: Aye. And I'd like to see
3 MS. BECKENBACH: Aye. 3 the Village file a small claims compl aint agai nst
4 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Murphy? 4 Ms. Baioni.
5 MS. MURPHY: Aye. 5 MR. BLAZEY: Mr. Puffenberger?
6 MR. BLAZEY: Mr. Puffenberger? 6 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Aye. And I concur
7 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Aye. 7 with Ms. Murphy.
8 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Smith? 8 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Smith?
9 MS. SMITH: Aye. 9 MS. SMITH: Aye. And I concur.
10 MR. BLAZEY: Mr. Williams? 10 MR. BLAZEY: Mr. Will iams ?
11 MR. WILLIAMS: Aye. 11 MR. WILLIAMS: Aye.
12 MS. MURPHY: And Resoluti on 9 97 for 12 MAYOR LICASTRO: So j ust for the sake of
13 pass age. 13 clarity, if you want to make suggestions like
14 MS. BECKENBACH: Second. 14 that, great, but don't do it when you vote.
15 MAYOR LI CASTRO: This is as a res ult of 15 Voti ng should be aye or nay. Edi tori al comments
16 the work that Ms . Mol nar did duri ng the Ivy 16 are welcomed beforehand, but i t's sort of
17 hearings. The other party did not pay her. We 17 preferred, it's a detailed process, so we heard
18 are going to front her the money and try to get 18 you. We're going to come up with that money one
19 payment from the attorneys ourselves. We didn't 19 way or another, right, Mr. Matty?
20 think it was fai r Ms. Mol nar be punis hed for her 20 MR. MATTY: We will see, Mayor.
21 excellent work. Roll call on passage, please. 21 MAYOR LICASTRO: All right. Mr.
22 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Bacci? 22 Williams, would you introduce 998, please?
23 MS. BACCI: No. And no offense. 23 MR. WILLI AMS: I' d li ke to introduce 9 98
24 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Beckenbach? 24 for suspension, a res olution commendi ng Sheila M.
25 MS. BECKENBACH: Aye. 25 Birch for her service as clerk for the Village of
Appx. 102
1 Bratenahl. 1 MS . MURPHY: Aye.
2 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Second. 2 MR . BLAZEY: Mr. Puffenberger?
3 MAYOR LICASTRO: I think it's easy to 3 MR . PUFFENBERGER Ay e .
4 say we should pass this by acclimation. Does 4 MR . B LAZE Y: Ms. Smith?
5 anyone have an objection to that? So everyone 5 MS . SMITH: Aye .
6 concurs. We will give a copy of this to Ms. 6 MR . B LAZE Y: Mr. Will i ams ?
7 Birch the next time we see her. She hasn't been 7 MR . WI LLI AMS : Ay e .
8 around much. 8 MS . SMITH: Ordinance number 3831 for
9 Okay. So, Ms. Smith, would you 9 pass age.
10 introduce 3831, please. 10 MS . BECKENBACH: Second.
11 MS. SMITH: Introducing 3831 for 11 MAYOR LICASTRO: Ques tions or comments ?
12 suspension that the following claims agai nst 12 There being none, roll call on passage, please.
13 Bratenahl Village are hereby directed from the 13 MR. B LAZE Y: Ms. Bacci?
14 funds and the clerk is hereby authorized and 14 MS . B ACCI : Aye .
15 directed to draw her warrants upon the treasurer 15 MR. B LAZE Y: Ms. Beckenbach?
16 for a payment, to wit, in the amount of 16 MS . BECKENBACH: Aye .
17 $82,186.80. 17 MR. B LAZE Y: Ms. Murphy?
18 MS. BECKENBACH: Second. 18 MS . MURPHY: Aye
19 MAYOR LI CASTRO: Roll call on 19 MR . B LAZE Y: Mr. Puffenberger?
20 suspension, please. 20 MR . PUFFENBERGER: Ay e .
21 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Bacci? 21 MR . B LAZE Y: Ms. Smith?
22 MS. BACCI: Aye. 22 MS . SMITH: Aye .
23 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Beckenbach? 23 MR . B LAZE Y: Mr. Will i ams ?
24 MS. BECKENBACH: Aye. 24 MR . WI LLI AMS : Ay e .
25 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Murphy? 25 MAYOR LICASTRO: Mr. Puffenberger, I
31 32
1 want you to pick up with 999, please. 1 effective August 1 retroactively. We struck the
2 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Yes. I'd like to 2 phrase about purchasi ng and adding 15 percent
3 introduce Resolution Number 9 99, 666 is worse, a 3 over the proposal. That's a large part of the
4 resolution authorizing the Mayor to enter into a 4 agreement. Ms. Bacci.
5 contract with Cleveland On Fire, the name of the 5 MS. BACCI : I thi nk that we definitely
6 company is Cleveland On Fire, for website 6 need an IT person to work on our webs ite. Our
7 management and declaring an emergency. 7 website has been stagnant for a long time. I
8 MS. BECKENBACH: Second. 8 think we should have received several informal
9 MAYOR LI CASTRO: Roll call on 9 proposals to do this work. We're going to let a
10 suspension, please. 10 resident do the work. And I'm sure the person is
11 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Bacci? 11 more than qualified, but I don't like the process
12 MS. BACCI: Aye. 12 we followed.
13 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Beckenbach? 13 MAYOR LICASTRO: Look at the Beachwood,
14 MS. BECKENBACH: Aye. 14 Twinsburg and what was the thi rd one, Ms. Cooks?
15 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Murphy? 15 MS. MEADE: Strongsville.
16 MS. MURPHY: Aye. 16 MS. COOKS: Beachwood and Twi nsburg.
17 MR. BLAZEY: Mr. Puffenberger? 17 MAYOR LICASTRO: Beachwood for sure.
18 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Aye. 18 Beachwood, Twinsburg and Strongsville, look at
19 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Smith? 19 the work he did there, they are exceptional
20 MS. SMITH: Aye. 20 websites. Roll call on passage, please.
21 MR. BLAZEY: Mr. Williams? 21 MS. MURPHY: I'd like to make a motion
22 MR. WILLIAMS: Aye. 22 to amend that to read instead of paying him $500
23 MR. PUFFENBERGER: And for passage. 23 per month, that we pay him his hourly rate. I'm
24 MS. BECKENBACH: Second. 24 not comfortable with payi ng a monthly fee of $ 500
25 MAYOR LI CASTRO: Two thi ngs, this is 25 for web work. Our Village website isn't as
Appx. 103
1 extensive as a city like Beachwood or Twinsburg. 1 going to be a huge upgrade.
2 I would like to see the work done, but I would 2 MS. MURPHY: Really, we need to work
3 feel more comfortable with just paying him an 3 this out. For him to update and make our website
4 hourly rate. 4 more attractive, I am all for, but to expect that
5 MAYOR LICASTRO: I would not. He has an 5 much time on our website weekly after he makes
6 office presence two days a week, which more than 6 those additions to our website, I' m not
7 makes — his hourly rate is actually more than 7 comfortable with that. I don't think we should
8 the $500 per month. We need to have him there to 8 do a monthly consulting. I think we should do it
9 do the updates we need. It's the nature of the 9 on an hourly basis.
10 proposal that I entered into with him. And if we 10 MAYOR LICASTRO: It's a month-to-month
11 change that, we go back to square one. We need 11 contract. If we see his workload diminishes, we
12 to keep that at $500. 12 can adjust accordingly. Believe me, in the
13 MR. WILLIAMS: You're expecting more 13 meantime, we're getting way more bang for our
14 than four hours of a month. 14 buck .
15 MAYOR LICASTRO: Absolutely. Four hours 15 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Just for
16 a week. 16 clarification, you said it was capped at $500, so
17 MR. WILLIAMS: Four hours a week. 17 even if he works more than what would justify
18 Sorry. 18 $500, we're paying him $500?
19 MR. BLAZEY: He spent four hours on my 19 MAYOR LICASTRO: Yes.
20 computer this week alone. 20 MR. PUFFENBERGER: That wasn't how I
21 MR. WILLIAMS: But you're not going to 21 understood it.
22 pay him more than 500? 22 MS. SMITH: Why is that?
23 MAYOR LICASTRO: No, it's capped at 500. 23 MAYOR LICASTRO: Because initially there
24 Unless there's some unusual special project, but 24 will be a lot of front end work. It will
25 he's already taken the bull by the horn. It's 25 diminish as it goes forward. He's already
35 36
1 putting in way more than four hours a week just 1 months to get it going. Let's give it three or
2 to get it up to speed. The website needs a lot 2 four months before we review it again. We have
3 of work, but I mean, I'm comfortable with this. 3 to give it some time.
4 Again, he does excellent work. 4 MS. SMITH: Does he project how much
5 MS. SMITH: So if we revisit in four 5 it's going to take?
6 months, we can lower it down if we don't need the 6 MAYOR LICASTRO: He's just diving in.
7 work? 7 There's so much to do. So let's decide to review
8 MAYOR LICASTRO: He may not agree, but 8 it again in four months.
9 we certainly could discuss it. 9 MS. BACCI: I have a question. Lee, you
10 MS. SMITH: We should then. 10 said he worked on your computer. I thought the
11 MS. MURPHY: I really feel that we 11 TAC people were going to work on the computers.
12 should do this on an hourly basis. I don't 12 MAYOR LICASTRO: That was TAC.
13 understand why we're paying 500 a month more or 13 MR. BLAZEY: I'm sorry, that was TAC.
14 less. $31 an hour is what he charges. 14 MS. BACCI: All right. This gentleman
15 MAYOR LICASTRO: This is our 15 is website, TAC is all our IT.
16 recommendation for Council. He's already on 16 MAYOR LICASTRO: Yes.
17 scene. If you want to review it in four months, 17 MS. BACCI: Thank you.
18 I'm comfortable with that. 18 MAYOR LICASTRO: TAC is IT. This is
19 MS. SMITH: Yes, if the work goes down. 19 strictly website.
20 MR. PUFFENBERGER: If we anticipate that 20 MS. BACCI: I didn't think that I was
21 he's going to actually give us more hours than 21 sleeping during that meeting.
22 would justify $500, it's a good contract. I' m 22 MAYOR LICASTRO: We'll review it again
23 okay with this if we review this on a month to 23 in four months. Roll call on passage, please.
24 month basis. 24 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Bacci?
25 MAYOR LICASTRO: Well, give him a couple 25 MS. BACCI: No.
Appx. 104
1 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Beckenbach? 1 trying to get the best bang for our buck. And I
2 MS. BECKENBACH: Aye. 2 think when you see the results, you'll be
3 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Murphy? 3 thrilled.
4 MS. MURPHY: No. 4 MR. PUFFENBERGER: And we are tracking
5 MR. BLAZEY: Mr. Puffenberger? 5 his hours .
6 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Aye. 6 MAYOR LICASTRO: Absolutely.
7 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Smith? 7 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Okay. So as long as
8 MS. SMITH: I was going to make a 8 we track his hours. Well, I already voted.
9 comment before we started voting on it. Should I 9 MS. SMITH: Who's managing this with
10 do it now ? 10 him?
11 MAYOR LICASTRO: Sure. 11 MAYOR LICASTRO: Ms. Ranney and myself.
12 MS. SMITH: For website transitions, I 12 Mary is hands on with thi s.
13 know it's like $2,000 for hosting, but I think to 13 MS. SMITH: Okay.
14 transition a whole website is about two grand, so 14 MAYOR LICASTRO: So how did you vote?
15 after three months — 15 MS. SMITH: Yes.
16 MS. MURPHY: He's not rebuilding it, 16 MR. BLAZEY: Mr. Will iams ?
17 he's just adding and enhancing and making it look 17 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.
18 nicer. 18 MAYOR LICASTRO: Four to two. Thank
19 MAYOR LI CASTRO: It is pretty much a 19 you. Okay. Anyone else on Council? Ms. Bacci?
20 rebuild. 20 MS. BACCI: I have a couple questions
21 MS. SMITH: So for a rebuild, that' s 21 and comments. Mr. Marong, I guess he left, he
22 pretty good, but if i t's not, it is a little 22 was at our Public Safety meeting. And I know
23 pricey. 23 when our legal counsel comes to commi ttee
24 MAYOR LICASTRO: Well, we're not 24 meetings, I believe it's billable hours.
25 spending this money in a frivolous manner. We're 25 So I wonder at what point we — I didn't
39 40
1 see a need for him to be there. At what point do 1 maintenance. Now, I wasn't around, I wasn't real
2 we bring our legal counsel to a commi ttee meeting 2 acti ve when we implemented it, but in my mind, I
3 and at what point do we j ust communicate with 3 thought our i nspector would walk up to somebody's
4 them via e-mail or telephone? 4 door, knock on the door, say hell o, I ' m Joe so
5 MR. MATTY: Commi ttee meetings are 5 and so and I' m here to inspect your property.
6 handled by the l aw department as requested by the 6 I don't know how we can do an exterior
7 committee chair. And I believe there have been a 7 maintenance if we stand at the street and look at
8 couple of committee meeti ngs that the chairs have 8 the front of a buildi ng and never wal k around the
9 requested the legal department to be there. And 9 perimeter or even look at any auxiliary building.
10 this was one that specifi call y was reques ted by 10 We've had a flurry of e-mails about whether
11 Mr. Puffenberger. 11 somebody is allowed in the backyard or not. And
12 MS. BACCI: Well, I think it's an 12 it just doesn't make any sense to me, how can you
13 unnecessary expense for our taxpayers. What 13 inspect something standing in my neighbor's
14 else? 14 backyard peeking at what's on my property.
15 Lee, if you could go back to 2012 , and 15 So am I wrong in my assumption that we
16 look at some of our January, February, March 16 l iterally do come onto the property and let
17 ordinances, I think they still have Mr. McDonald 17 s omeone know we're there or can you tell me how
18 across the top and he left us in January. So if 18 that actually works?
19 we want our records to be correct, we should 19 MAYOR LICASTRO: He does go on the
20 probably clean that up. 20 property and identifi es himsel f as an empl oyee of
21 MAYOR LI CASTRO: Anyone else? 21 Village of Bratenahl.
22 MS. BACCI: I'm not through. 22 MS. BACCI : Okay. Now, this big issue
23 MAYOR LI CASTRO: Sorry. 23 about the backyard, you mean to tell me he can't
24 MS. BACCI: Is Mr. -- he's not here, is 24 walk around the property with the homeowner's
25 he? Buil ding inspections as far as the exterior 25 approval?
Appx. 105
1 MAYOR LICASTRO: I think he can do it 1 s aid it is Counci l's intent to annual ly transfer
2 certainly with the homeowner's approval. 2 $ 175 , 000 into the capital proj ect res erve and
3 MS. BECKENBACH: He has to get the 3 repl acement funds as budgetary needs of the
4 approval. 4 Vill age will permit.
5 MAYOR LICASTRO: Before we get hung up 5 And we have a big chunk of money. And I
6 in minutiae, realize this program is working 6 real ly believe that we were remis s and we should
7 incredibly well. Since its implementation, 7 go back and put that extra 175 in, because our
8 properties across the Village have been radically 8 Master Pl an is going to have l ots of projects for
9 upgraded and improved. It's not punitive in 9 us to do in addition to the basic things.
10 nature, it's to be helpful. We've only had four 10 MAYOR LICASTRO: In the budget we
11 or five residents end up in Mayor's court because 11 recommended 175 for this year. As I mentioned in
12 we were at an impasse. Those, too, eventually 12 finance, we have a 4. 5 mi ll property tax l evy up
13 get resolved. The detail is as I described, but 13 for renewal this year. We need to see how that
14 it has been an excellent program for the Village 14 plays forward. Hopefully the villagers will
15 and ongoing. Anything else? 15 s upport i t. Havi ng money that is flexible and
16 MS. BACCI: At our finance meeting, we 16 gives us some latitude in the manner in which
17 talked about the annual expectati on that if we 17 it's used is never a bad idea. We haven't been
18 have the money, we would put $175,000 into the 18 able to predi ct at this point in time the
19 capital projects fund. And the point that I made 19 carry-over. We deposited more than 175 last year
20 was that because we got a windfal l last year, we 20 because of the windfall. So I think we met the
21 didn't put the extra 175 into the account. And I 21 nature of the ordinance, but that's Council's
22 mentioned that it was in the ordinance. 22 deci sion. The budget as recommended is from the
23 So if anybody would care to l ook at 23 admi nistration. Council can adjust it in any
24 their ordinance 3620, which was passed in 24 manner they s ee reasonabl e.
25 November of 2 013 , there was a section three that 25 MS. BACCI : A month or so ago we had an
43 44
1 employee matter. And I just wondered if there 1 MR. MATTY: I think that's kind of what
2 was any update on the iss ue that was brought 2 I said, Chief, but in a l ittle di fferent way.
3 before this Council. 3 CHIEF DOLBOW: I' m not being shy.
4 MAYOR LI CASTRO: I'm sorry, I ' m not s ure 4 MAYOR LICASTRO: He was being rus tic in
5 what you're referring to. 5 his comments. Thank you.
6 MS. BACCI: We were hiring a police 6 MS. BACCI : Someone put these fli ers on
7 officer and there was some subsequent 7 our front door at home. And I've gotten multiple
8 conversation about that. 8 call s from residents and they wondered why they
9 MAYOR LI CASTRO: Oh, yes, you kept 9 woul d donate to the K9 funds via our FOP when
10 maki ng and intimating there were concerns or 10 they can donate directly to the Village general
11 allegations. 11 fund, because there is a fund segregated for the
12 Mr. Matty, do you want to comment on 12 K9 .
13 that? 13 MAYOR LICASTRO: Donations of any and
14 MR. MATTY: The only comment I'll make, 14 all types will be accepted at any and all times.
15 Mayor, is Lieutenant LoBello has fini shed what I 15 MS. BACCI : And the other question that
16 would call two-thirds of the investigation. 16 I get when this happens is what does the FOP use
17 There has been no verification of any issue that 17 their funding for besides the K9 unit.
18 we should be concerned about at this time. And 18 CHIEF DOLBOW: FOP business.
19 I'm waiti ng for a report from him as his final 19 MAYOR LICASTRO: It's to support our
20 report. 20 poli ce department in the manner they seem
21 Chief, I don't believe we have it yet, 21 appropriate.
22 do we? 22 MS. BACCI : FOP business, are you
23 CHIEF DOLBOW: It boils down to hogwash. 23 kidding?
24 MAYOR LICASTRO: So far there's been 24 CHIEF DOLBOW: The Fraternal Order of
25 nothing of substance. 25 Police has nothing to do with this Village
Appx. 106
1 Council. 1 MS. BACCI: Sure .
2 MS. BACCI: Well, it does if it comes to 2 MAYOR LICASTRO: Anyone from Council?
3 our door and you're asking for money. 3 Anyone from the audience? Mr. Domin.
4 CHIEF DOLBOW: If you don't want to 4 MR. DOMIN: Yes, talking about the grass
5 support it, don't support it. 5 cutting of si de s treets, I bel ieve we began this
6 MS. MURPHY: Just a remi nder for 6 as a trial basis about a year ago. This is the
7 everyone, mark your calendar for the clambake, 7 second year and I'd like to know how that's
8 because it's a great event. 8 going. I understand there are many residents
9 MAYOR LI CASTRO: The chi li cook off will 9 that do not reall y want their grasses to be cut.
10 be using the clam bark tent. What's the dates of 10 And it would be more useful to the
11 those, Ms. Bacci? 11 Vill age to free our employees for more important
12 MS. BACCI: September 12. 12 projects in the Village. And I guess it's not
13 MAYOR LICASTRO: That's the clambake. 13 fair, as Ms. Bacci says, to expense to our
14 MS. BACCI: And October 11. 14 taxpayers this type of thing. And no offense to
15 MAYOR LI CASTRO: It s upports the FOP, 15 Pat Meade.
16 which in turn supports our police department. 16 MS. MEADE: None taken.
17 MS. SMITH: What's the clam bake tent? 17 MAYOR LICASTRO: If you l ook at the end
18 What, you said what tent? 18 of this year, second year it's been in place and
19 MAYOR LICASTRO: Ms. Schwartz has a clam 19 s ee if, i ndeed, i t's something we want to
20 bark, which benefits the APL, the day prior. And 20 continue. Anyone else? Ms. Meade.
21 she's allowing the FOP to use her tent at Village 21 MS. MEADE: To cl arify to Larry's point,
22 park for the chi li cook off. 22 I just brought it to the table on behalf of
23 MS. SMITH: That's very nice of her. 23 numerous residents. It wasn't my personal issue,
24 MAYOR LI CASTRO: So September 12 and 24 per se, but the policy should be all or none, not
25 October 11. Thank you. Are you done? 25 s elected resi dents in fai rness .
47 48
1 First question, why would residents vote 1 budgeted in capital i mprovements instead of the
2 for the 4.5 tax renewal when the Village is 2 general fund for the 2016 budget?
3 flus hed with cas h? 3 MAYOR LICASTRO: There were s everal
4 MAYOR LI CASTRO: Flus hed with cas h is 4 members on Counci l that used the capi tal -- well,
5 your expression not ours. We have two operating 5 the project fund for that purpose. We made it as
6 levi es that support the general fund. Both are 6 a general fund expens e.
7 4.5 mills . They are the pill ar and basis of our 7 MS. MEADE: So it could s till move into
8 revenue s tream, because the property tax brings 8 capi tal i mprovements?
9 in a set amount of monies each year for a 9 MAYOR LICASTRO: It could. Again, we
10 four-year period — excuse me, five-year period. 10 make suggestions with the budget. It could be
11 Income tax, which bri ngs in actually 11 moved.
12 more money, is variable from year to year. So in 12 MS. MEADE: And then for the publ ic
13 order to budget properly, we have to be certain 13 records requests, any documents pertaining to the
14 of a certain amount of revenue on a year to year 14 garbage proposal or bid proces s, if I coul d
15 basi s and that would be property tax. 15 receive e-mails by August 30, 2015 at noon. And
16 Again, this is one of two operati ng 16 then if possi ble, for the Ivy hearing transcri pt,
17 levies. So my opinion, we need to keep it. And 17 the same thing, if I coul d receive that by CD on
18 by the way, since thi s is a renewal, we keep the 18 August 30 , 20 15, if the matter is , in fact,
19 12.5 percent rol lback, which means the state 19 closed. Thank you.
20 discounts you 12 . 5 percent on your property tax. 20 MAYOR LICASTRO: Anyone else? Mr.
21 If it were a new levy or repl acement levy, you 21 Masters.
22 lose the 12.5 percent. So to keep it in place I 22 MR. MASTERS: On the ordi nance and
23 think makes perfect sense. 23 poli cy for culling the herd and nuisance animals,
24 MS. MEADE: Why isn't the $225,000 24 as a resident and as a Plaintiff's trial lawyer
25 roughly Coit Road sound wall repl acement cost 25 and intri gued litigator, I' d be happy to help
Appx. 107
1 out, if I can, with verbiage on it relative to, 1 to give tutelage in their programming, et cetera,
2 one, no one getting injured; and two, that an 2 and we bought this from the county. I think he
3 ordinance protecting the Village as an entity if 3 then tends to incorporate what he's done for
4 we don't properly certify people, you don't get 4 other communities and enhance it and make it
5 the right classification they need to meet or we 5 better. It starts with the county.
6 just put a tree stand, that you could put a tree 6 MR. MURPHY: Thanks.
7 stand down on the ground unless we qualify that a 7 MAYOR LICASTRO: Anyone else? Mr.
8 tree stand is 10 feet above or higher, as hunters 8 Kesselem.
9 know. If there are things like that that I can 9 MR. KESSELEM: Question regarding
10 help on, I'd be willing to donate my time and 10 nuisance in that ordinance. Is there a number of
11 help . 11 deer or j ust consider the deer population in the
12 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you, sir. Mr. 12 Village, does ODNR say that it's got to be three
13 Murphy. 13 deer per 100 acres, so nuisance could be one
14 MR. MURPHY: Question on the website 14 animal in our Village.
15 guy, does he foresee his workload going out at 15 MAYOR LICASTRO: If he's eating your
16 the end of five months? 16 hostas, he might be a nuisance animal. We capped
17 MAYOR LICASTRO: I'm not certain on 17 it at no more than 12 deer per year. That's in
18 that. I think there's an ongoing cost, but most 18 the policy.
19 of it is front loaded. 19 MS. BACCI: 12 permits.
20 MR. MURPHY: Does he foresee doing this 20 MAYOR LICASTRO: I'm sorry, 12 permits.
21 from scratch sort of a rebuild or is he going to 21 MS. BACCI: So if someone wants to kill
22 use one of the available sort of template things 22 20 of them.
23 that he has from a previous city for the Village? 23 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you. Mr. Domin,
24 MAYOR LICASTRO: He's already met with 24 again.
25 the county to start with what they have given us 25 MR. DOMIN: Yes, just remind everybody
51 52
1 candidates night for the Bratenahl Community 1 MS. MURPHY: And I'll second.
2 Foundation is on September the 8th at 7:00 p.m. 2 MAYOR LICASTRO: Roll call on
3 in our Bratenahl Community Center. 3 adjournment, please.
4 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you. 4 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Bacci?
5 MS. BACCI: Just before we go, in 5 MS. BACCI: Aye.
6 response to your tree lawn comment, Mr. Domin, 6 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Beckenbach?
7 everyone in this Village pays property taxes. I 7 MS. BECKENBACH: Aye.
8 live in a subdivision, a homeowners association, 8 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Murphy?
9 so nobody has to do my tree lawn. You live in a 9 MS. MURPHY: Aye.
10 homeowners association, so the amount of tree 10 MR. BLAZEY: Mr. Puffenberger?
11 lawns that actually end up getting cut is really 11 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Aye.
12 nominal. And if we're going to do it for Lake 12 MR. BLAZEY: Ms. Smith?
13 Shore Boulevard, it's only fair to do it for 13 MS. SMITH: Aye.
14 every tax payer in the Village. 14 MR. BLAZEY: Mr. Williams?
15 MR. DOMIN: I think the other residents 15 MR. WILLIAMS: Aye.
16 don't feel the same way as you do. I talked with 16 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you everyone.
17 other residents. 17 (Meeting adjourned at 6:22 p.m.)
18 MS. BACCI: There might be a couple that 18 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
19 have been vocal over the years. 19
20 MR. DOMIN: I' ve talked to people, also, 20
21 they're expressing their — 21
22 MAYOR LICASTRO: It's not a given this 22
23 program. We'll review it. Is there a motion to 23
24 adjourn? 24
25 MS. BECKENBACH: I so move. 25
Appx. 108
CERTIFICATE
4 I, Nancy L. Molnar, do hereby certify that
5 as such Reporter I took down in Stenotypy all of
6 the proceedings had in the foregoing transcript;
7 that I have transcribed my said Stenotype notes
8 into typewritten form as appears in the foregoing
9 transcript; that said transcript is the compl ete
10 form of the proceedings had in said cause and
11 constitutes a true and correct transcript therein.
12
13
14
15
16 Nancy L. Molnar, Notary Publi c
17 within and for the State of Ohio
18
19 My commission expires June 22, 2018.
20
21
22
23
24
25
Molnar & Munguia Court Reporting (440) 377-5030 Draft
Appx. 109
bratenahl village 1 MAYOR LICASTRO: Please stand for the
Barbara byrd-bennett center 2 Pledge of Allegiance.
ii404 lake shore boulevard 3 (Pledge of Allegiance.)
bratenahl, ohio 44108 4 MAYOR LICASTRO: Call the rol l.
(216) 681-4266 5 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Bacci?
FAX (216) 681-3811 6 MS. BACCI: Present.
7 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Beckenbach?
VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING 8 MS. BECKENBACH: Here.
AND EXECUTIVE SESSION 9 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Murphy?
November 19, 2014 10 MS. MURPHY: Here.
5:00 P.M. 11 MS. BIRCH: Mr. Puffenberger?
12 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Here.
MAYOR JOHN LICASTRO 13 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Smith.
LAURA BACCI 14 MS. SMITH: Here.
MARY BECKENBACH 15 MS. BIRCH: Mr. Willi ams?
MARLA MURPHY 16 MR. WILLIAMS: Here.
JIM PUFFENBERGER 17 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you for your
ERIN SMITH 18 patience and indulgence. We have an employee
GEOFFREY B.C. WILLIAMS 19 disciplinary appeal heari ng at the end of this
DAVID J. MATTY, ESQ 20 meeting. That's why we're starting a half an
MARK MARONG, ESQ. 21 hour earlier than normal. And I ask my
NANCY L. MOLNAR, RPR, CLR 22 coll eagues on Council to be aware of that and
DRAFT 23 let's move through the agenda as quickly as we
24 can. Thank you.

MOLNAKlTMUNGk/IA
COURT REPORTING, LLC 25 We have the minutes from the October
3 4
1 Council meeting. Would someone like to move to 1 $2,021,000. And at this point, we're 9.6 percent
2 approve? 2 or $177,000 over last year's amount.
3 MS. BECKENBACH: I so move. 3 Cash on hand and in i nves tments at the
4 MS. MURPHY: And I second. 4 end of October was approximately $2,939,000.
5 MS. BACCI: I have a couple corrections. 5 That concludes my report.
6 MAYOR LICASTRO: Go ahead, please. 6 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you, Ms. Birch.
7 MS. BACCI: Page 29, line three, where 7 Agai n, thank you for your generos ity. Our income
8 it talks about flu shot, it should include flu 8 tax fees are run ahead of projections. This is
9 shot program, the word program. And then page 9 now the third year in a row. That bodes very
10 51, line 21, the word screeni ng s houl d be plural, 10 well for our community. Thank you.
11 screenings. Gravel you throw on the road. Thank 11 The Mayor's court report for October.
12 you . 12 The County Treasurer received $845; Village of
13 MAYOR LICASTRO: Is there a motion to 13 Bratenahl $39,298.50; Treasurer State of Ohio
14 approve as amended? 14 $ 8,6 30; the Village of Bratenahl court computer
15 MS. BECKENBACH: I make a motion. 15 fund $2,2 30; and as always, my favori te fund, the
16 MS. MURPHY: Second. 16 i ndi gent driver and alcohol treatment fund $30 9.
17 MAYOR LI CASTRO: Any further discussi on? 17 Any questions from Counci l on that?
18 All in favor of the motion? 18 MS. BACCI : Have you found anybody to
19 Ayes: 6 . Nays: 0. 19 assi st wi th that fund?
20 MAYOR LI CASTRO: Anyone oppos ed? Thank 20 MAYOR LICASTRO: No. We actually do
21 you. Ms. Birch. 21 about 15 to 1 8 OVIs a month, so plenty of
22 MS. BIRCH: This month we received 22 candidates. For the sake of brevity, I'm going
23 $287,786 from Central Collection Agency for their 23 to forego my Mayor's court report as well as
24 October income tax collections. So our income 24 correspondence and move right to committee
25 tax collections year to date equals approximately 25 reports. Finance. Mr. Williams?
Exhibit F
Appx. 110
1 MR. WILLIAMS: I was absent for the 1 i ssued 27; total contractor regis trations 11;
2 meeting Monday. 2 total certifi cates of compliance one. That's the
3 MS. BACCI: I'll report. In the absence 3 end of my report.
4 of our Chair, who had an unexpected work meeting, 4 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you.
5 I chaired Finance Committee on Monday, November 5 Legi slati ve?
6 17th at 8 a.m. I would s ay this is another 6 MS. MURPHY: The Legi slative Committee
7 reas on for supporting hol ding meetings in the 7 met twice since our l ast Council meeting. On
8 evenings. The following ordinances were acted on 8 October 2 8, we met and di scuss ed the rules of
9 and recommended for Council's approval. 9 order. We made additions and deletions to draft
10 Ordinance 3786, our basic monthly Pay 10 two of the rules of order. Also discussed that
11 Claims; ordinance 3788, our 2015 appropriations; 11 evening — and they were voted unanimously to
12 and Resolution 971, which will authorize and 12 s end to Council for this eveni ng, whi ch wi ll be
13 ratify a memorandum agreement with Dollar Bank. 13 on for first reading.
14 The Murphy's Pay Clai ms motion failed, but 14 Also, it was not asked to be added to
15 Council will take action on that tonight. 15 the rules of order, but it was recommended and I
16 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you. Any 16 think they're good recommendations that Counci l
17 questions? Thank you very much. 17 use a template that actually Mr. Puffenberger put
18 Public Improvement ? 18 t o ge t h er f or o ur m eet i ng m i nut e s. An d it is a
19 MS. BECKENBACH: Public Improvements did 19 handy little template of listi ng your acti ons and
20 not meet. I'm sorry, would you like me to give 20 what the agenda i s. And copies of the ordinances
21 the report for — 21 and agendas, maki ng it available for the publi c
22 MAYOR LI CASTRO: Please. 22 when attending all Council meetings.
23 MS. BECKENBACH: This is the report for 23 Then on November 3 we met. And the
24 the Building Department for the month of October. 24 discussion was regarding salary i ncrease and
25 Total number of inspections 3 0; total permits 25 s tipend for the Mayor and Council for 2016 . If
7 8
1 this did go — this was discussed and a motion 1 injured by a cyclist on the sidewalk last week.
2 was made to refer to Finance, the recommendation 2 And I wondered if the Chi ef or any of the poli ce
3 of increasing the position of the Village Mayor 3 offi cers have any idea how we can address this
4 from $18,000 to $32,000; and a recommendation to 4 issue. It's come up several times. I know other
5 pay the Village Council members a compensation 5 people have been knocked over. Is it something
6 stipend in the amount of $1,200 per year. 6 you want to address at Public Safety?
7 Now, to make it clear, this would go 7 MAYOR LICASTRO: We'll get back to you.
8 into effect on January 2016, which it would apply 8 MS. BACCI : Okay. As it relates to the
9 to the Mayor, who is elected in the November 9 flu shot program that we spoke about last month,
10 race, and to Council members that would be up 10 I di d a l ittl e research and there are drugstores
11 either for reelection or a new candidate. 11 who will come to our Community Center and
12 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you. Any 12 admi nister the fl u shot program so it woul d be a
13 questions? Thank you. 13 convenience to our elderly residents. So if Rec
14 Publi c Safety. 14 Commission wants to l ook into that, kind of a
15 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Public Safety did not 15 neighbor-to-neighbor issue, that would be
16 meet . 16 terrific.
17 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you. Community 17 Recently, the Service Department put up
18 Affa i r s. 18 s ome no parki ng s igns at the request of our
19 MS. BACCI: Community Affairs did not 19 coll eague, Ms . Smith, in front of her resi dence.
20 meet, but I have questions from residents. Happy 20 I would l ike to know -- I ' d li ke the police
21 Thanksgiving, everyone. And we are thankful that 21 department and the law department to look into
22 Mr. Kozinski is safe after some horri ble 22 why we are not enforcing the l aw that is on the
23 experiences that he's been having at his 23 books, section 35 1.03 A, number 1 7, that
24 business. 24 prohibits standing or parking on any porti on of
25 One of our residents was seri ousl y 25 the roadways of Lake Shore Boulevard and the
Appx. 111
1 Lakeland freeway. We're not so worried about 1 mention the passing of Dr. Ken Spano. Dr. Ken
2 that, but if there are exceptions to this 2 lived here for well over 30 years. He died after
3 ordinance, then maybe we need to amend it and put 3 a long illness a couple weeks ago. Ken cared
4 it on the books. If there's a permit that should 4 deeply about this community. And we are very sad
5 need to be required, maybe we need to look at 5 to see him go. Keep Chris in your prayers and
6 that . 6 thoughts, please.
7 And a good example is our landscapers 7 Master Plan.
8 working on different homes along the boulevard. 8 MS. SMITH: So we are having our next
9 You have to literally cross over the double 9 committee meeting December 4 at 5: 45 p. m. at the
10 yellow line and play chicken with the people that 10 Bratenahl Community Center. Allegro will be
11 are coming the opposite direction. I don't think 11 there as well. And we will be basically
12 that it's a good practice. It's a safety issue 12 narrowing down some of our options so we can pick
13 and it puts vehicular movement at an unnecessary 13 the top three next steps. So we're trying to
14 risk. Thank you very much. 14 nail that down. We'll probably have two
15 MAYOR LICASTRO: We do mandate that 15 committee meetings before we have another public
16 landscapers put out cones to make certain people 16 meeting to share that with another like public
17 are aware that pulling into driveways are going 17 all hands-on feedback meeting. So if you all
18 be problematic. 18 could join us, that would be great. Questions,
19 MS. MURPHY: Excuse me, what's the 19 just e-mail me or call me.
20 number? 20 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you, Ms. Smith.
21 MS. BACCI: It's the law. So either we 21 Any questions? Thank you.
22 follow the law or we don't follow it. If we 22 Recreation Committee, David.
23 don't follow it, we need to amend it. 23 MR. KOZINSKI: Rec met on November 5.
24 351, Marla, 03. 24 We're getting pictures ready for the website. We
25 MAYOR LICASTRO: So if I may also 25 established December 13 from 12 to 2 for brunch
11 12
1 with Santa. Club 55 holiday breakfast will be 1 MS. BECKENBACH: Planning Commission did
2 served in December, but as of the date of this 2 not meet. We'll have a combined meeting for
3 meeting, there's been no date set yet. We did 3 several months on December 10.
4 have eight families interested in the play group 4 MAYOR LICASTRO: So that foregoes the
5 idea that we had. Current update, I believe, 5 normal November meeting and normal December
6 we're up to 12 and that's going to be taking 6 meeting. We do have applications to consider.
7 place in a week. And to the best of my 7 Shade Tree Commission, Ms. Howley is not
8 knowledge, there's an agreement with John and 8 here. I know that we incorporated their budget
9 myself that Jim Scott will be taking over for the 9 into our appropriations after some interesting
10 rest of the hours for Jim Preto and that's that 10 give and take . Thank you.
11 for it. 11 MS. BACCI: They're going to meet on the
12 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you. Any 12 24th next week, I believe at 5:45 Shade Tree. Is
13 questions for David? 13 that correct, Pat? We'll meet at the Community
14 MS. SMITH: I wanted to tell the Rec 14 Center.
15 Committee kudos on the Halloween party. It was 15 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you. Moving to
16 really awesomely decorated. I'm pretty sure you 16 new business, Pay Claims, Ms. Murphy, would you
17 had a great turnout, but I thought it was really 17 like to start?
18 amazing detail that you put into the party for 18 MS. MURPHY: Sure. I'd like to
19 the kids. I think they appreciated it. Good 19 introduce ordinance 3786, Pay Claims, for a total
20 j ob. 20 amount of $345,444.34 for suspension.
21 MAYOR LICASTRO: And breakfast with 21 MS. BECKENBACH: Second.
22 Santa is? 22 MAYOR LICASTRO: Roll call on
23 MR. KOZINSKI: Noon to 2 on December 13. 23 suspension, please.
24 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you. Planning 24 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Bacci?
25 Commission, Ms. Beckenbach. 25 MS. BACCI: Aye.
Appx. 112
1 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Beckenbach? 1 MS. BIRCH: Mr. Puffenberger?
2 MS. BECKENBACH: Aye. 2 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Aye.
3 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Murphy? 3 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Smith?
4 MS. MURPHY: Aye. 4 MS. SMITH: Aye.
5 MS. BIRCH: Mr. Puffenberger? 5 MS. BIRCH: Mr. Willi ams?
6 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Aye. 6 MR. WILLIAMS: Aye.
7 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Smith? 7 MAYOR LICASTRO: Before we proceed, I
8 MS. SMITH: Aye. 8 was remis s. Does anyone from the audience want
9 MS. BIRCH: Mr. Williams? 9 to comment on items on the agenda, pl ease? Thank
10 MR. WILLIAMS: Aye. 10 you .
11 MS. MURPHY: And ordinance 3786 for 11 Moving to 378 7, Ms. Beckenbach.
12 pass age. 12 MS. BECKENBACH: I'd like to introduce
13 MS. BECKENBACH: Second. 13 ordinance 3787. It's a Pay Claims against
14 MAYOR LICASTRO: Discussion, this was 14 Bratenahl Vil lage directed from the funds and the
15 approved by Finance. There's some charges in 15 clerk is hereby authorized and directed to draw
16 here, like the Lake Shore Boulevard bond payment, 16 her warrants upon the Treasury for payment, to
17 that's why it's in the stratosphere. Nothing out 17 wit, of $1,662.32 for Murphy & Company.
18 of the ordinary here. Any other questions? 18 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Second.
19 Roll cal l on pass age, please. 19 MAYOR LICASTRO: Move for suspension.
20 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Bacci ? 20 Ms. BECKENBACH: I move for suspension.
21 MS. BACCI: Aye. 21 MAYOR LICASTRO: And second. Rol l cal l
22 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Beckenbach? 22 on suspension, please.
23 MS. BECKENBACH: Aye. 23 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Bacci ?
24 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Murphy? 24 MS. BACCI: Yes.
25 MS. MURPHY: Aye. 25 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Beckenbach?
15 16
1 MS. BECKENBACH: Aye. 1 MS. SMITH: Aye.
2 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Murphy? 2 MS. BIRCH: Mr. Willi ams?
3 MS. MURPHY: Aye. 3 MR. WILLIAMS: Aye.
4 MS. BIRCH: Mr. Puffenberger? 4 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you. Ms. Bacci,
5 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Aye. 5 3 788 , please.
6 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Smith? 6 MS. BACCI : Ordinance number 3788 , an
7 MS. SMITH: Aye. 7 ordi nance to make appropriations for the current
8 MS. BIRCH: Mr. Willi ams? 8 expenses and other expenditures of the Village of
9 MR. WILLIAMS: Aye. 9 Bratenahl during the fiscal year endi ng December
10 MS. BECKENBACH: I introduce ordi nance 10 3 1, 2015 and decl aring an emergency, for
11 number 3787 for passage. 11 s usp ensio n.
12 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Second. 12 MS. BECKENBACH: Second.
13 MAYOR LICASTRO: It's for the Master 13 MAYOR LICASTRO: Roll call on
14 Plan postcards. We'll be having at least two 14 s uspension, pleas e.
15 more town hall meetings. Further comments? Roll 15 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Bacci ?
16 call on passage, please. 16 MS. BACCI: Aye.
17 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Bacci ? 17 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Beckenbach?
18 MS. BACCI: No. 18 MS. BECKENBACH: Aye.
19 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Beckenbach? 19 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Murphy?
20 MS. BECKENBACH: Aye. 20 MS. MURPHY: Aye.
21 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Murphy? 21 MS. BIRCH: Mr. Puffenberger?
22 MS. MURPHY: I abstai n. 22 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Aye.
23 MS. BIRCH: Mr. Puffenberger? 23 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Smith?
24 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Aye. 24 MS. SMITH: Aye.
25 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Smith? 25 MS. BIRCH: Mr. Willi ams?
Appx. 113
1 MR. WILLIAMS: Aye. 1 on passage, pleas e.
2 MS. BACCI: Ordinance 3788 for passage. 2 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Bacci ?
3 MS. BECKENBACH: Second. 3 MS. BACCI: Aye.
4 MAYOR LICASTRO: First of all, I'd like 4 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Beckenbach?
5 to thank Ms. Birch, Ms. Cooks, Council, 5 MS. BECKENBACH: Aye.
6 department heads, Recreation, Shade Tree for 6 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Murphy?
7 accelerating the timetable on this. We don't 7 MS. MURPHY: Aye.
8 normally do this. Really, it doesn't have to be 8 MS. BIRCH: Mr. Puffenberger?
9 done until March. We don't often do it until 9 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Aye.
10 December or January. The fact that we're doing 10 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Smith?
11 it now really makes the bookkeepi ng a lot eas ier 11 MS. SMITH: Aye.
12 at Village Hall. 12 MS. BIRCH: Mr. Willi ams?
13 So thank you to all for accelerating 13 MR. WILLIAMS: Aye.
14 this and getting it done as early so the numbers 14 MAYOR LICASTRO: Mr. Will iams , 3789,
15 can be pl ugged in and we can continue busi nes s 15 please.
16 without i nterruptions . We put in temporary 16 MR. WILLI AMS: I' d li ke to introduce
17 appropriations and then final is a real burden, 17 ordi nance 378 9 for suspension, an ordinance
18 so thank you for your diligence. Any questions 18 repealing existing chapter 121 of the codified
19 on this? 19 ordinances of the Village of Bratenahl and
20 Sheil a, do you want to comment on thi s 20 adopting a new chapter 12 1 entitl ed Counci l and
21 at all? 21 its Rules of Order.
22 MS. BIRCH: No. 22 MS. BECKENBACH: Second.
23 MAYOR LI CASTRO: Enough s aid, right? 23 MAYOR LICASTRO: Roll cal l on
24 MS. BIRCH: I'm set. 24 s uspension, pleas e.
25 MAYOR LI CASTRO: Anyone else? Roll call 25 MS. MURPHY: Excuse me, I have a motion.
19 20
1 MAYOR LI CASTRO: Before we do the 1 amendments, I would prefer.
2 suspension? Thi s has been made and s econded, so 2 MAYOR LICASTRO: Mr. Will iams , you made
3 what woul d you l ike to do? 3 the motion. Do you want to conti nue with
4 MS. MURPHY: Well , my motion is that I 4 s uspension or do you want to put it on first
5 want to make a motion to amend the rules of order 5 reading?
6 that the -- 6 MR. WILLI AMS: It makes no di fference to
7 MAYOR LI CASTRO: I think we can do that 7 me if there are amendments that need to be made.
8 after suspension. 8 Is there a need to go through three readings?
9 MS. MURPHY: After suspension? Okay. 9 MAYOR LICASTRO: Well , I think there are
10 MAYOR LICASTRO: Let's do suspension 10 some amendments to be made.
11 firs t, then you can make your motion. 11 MR. MATTY: The amendments can be made
12 MS. BACCI: Did you say earlier, Marla, 12 after the vote for suspension and then could be
13 this is going on first reading? 13 ruled upon at each amendment, if that's what Ms.
14 MS. MURPHY: Yes. 14 Murphy reques ts, but the suspensi on is to suspend
15 MS. BACCI: So why are we suspending the 15 the three read.
16 rules if it's going on fi rst reading? 16 MR. WILLIAMS: Continue the suspension.
17 MAYOR LI CASTRO: Because the rules are 17 MAYOR LICASTRO: So motion to sus pend is
18 suspended. We don't have to, though. 18 moved and seconded. Roll call on sus pensi on,
19 MS. BACCI: Well, I'm just going with 19 please.
20 what the Chai r s aid. 20 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Bacci ?
21 MS. MURPHY: That was my understanding. 21 MS. BACCI : No, because there are
22 MAYOR LI CASTRO: It's been offered for 22 amendments and corrections to be made.
23 suspension. Should we continue with the roll or 23 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Beckenbach?
24 do you want to change how it' s presented? 24 MS. BECKENBACH: Aye.
25 MS. BACCI: I think if there are some 25 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Murphy?
Appx. 114
1 MS. MURPHY: Aye. 1 After much thought and some research, I
2 MS. BIRCH: Mr. Puffenberger? 2 feel that that was improper in the fact that the
3 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Aye. 3 Building Department is an administrative — is
4 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Smith? 4 administrative in their duties. They report to
5 MS. SMITH: What are the amendments? I 5 the Mayor just as the Service Department does.
6 mean, shouldn't we — 6 Its commissioner reports to Mayor Licastro. And
7 MAYOR LICASTRO: We could go back to 7 frankly, it's improper for even Council to be
8 those. 8 making reports of the Building Department in
9 MS. SMITH: We can? 9 Council meetings when it' s an administrative
10 MAYOR LICASTRO: Yeah, we will, 10 department.
11 absolutely. 11 And because of that, I feel that the
12 MS. SMITH: All right. Aye. 12 Building Department should not be reporting to
13 MS. BIRCH: Mr. Williams? 13 any Legislative authority. And many times we get
14 MR. WILLIAMS: Aye. 14 sidetracked in Council where we — I think
15 MAYOR LICASTRO: Before we introduce 15 because of our maybe passion for the community,
16 this for passage, would you mention your motion? 16 we have a tendency to administrate, but really
17 MS. MURPHY: My motion is this: On 17 we're legislators. And because of that, I think
18 October 27, the Legislative committee voted 18 it's important that we move this away from our
19 unanimously to refer the amended rules of order 19 Legislative authority and back into the hands as
20 to Council. Since then, and having done some 20 an administrative department under Mayor
21 research, I realize that I'd like to amend the 21 Licastro.
22 rules by — originally we had voted to amend the 22 It doesn't preclude any of us from ever
23 rule by placing the Building Department under the 23 making requests of the Building Department if we
24 purview of both the Public Safety department and 24 have issues with properties or neighbors call, we
25 the Public Improvements Committee. 25 surely have open lines of communication. It's a
23 24
1 great — our Building Department is excellent, 1 before we pass it or after we pass it?
2 but it should not be in the Legislative hands. 2 MAYOR LICASTRO: Well, it would be a
3 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you. So have you 3 moot point afterwards, so now is the time.
4 discussed with Mr. Matty where this change would 4 MS. BACCI: Okay. Well, if I may, I
5 take place? 5 find it very interesting that generally the
6 MS. MURPHY: We would just strike it 6 Council rules of order operate under Robert's
7 from the rules. Remove it from the present 7 Rules. And under Robert's Rules, page 394,
8 amendment of — removing it from the Public 8 section 45, there is an item on voting procedures
9 Safety and Public Improvements Committee, 9 and the right of abstention.
10 striking it completely from the rules of order. 10 And it states, although it is the duty
11 MAYOR LICASTRO: So is everyone clear 11 of every member to vote, he or she can abstain
12 what's being suggested in this amendment? 12 since he or she cannot be compelled to vote.
13 Would you like to, since you're kind of 13 So in Council's process, we are
14 on a roll here, we're going to have Mr. Williams 14 inconsistent and, to me, unfair. We pick and
15 do it, introduce it for passage with the 15 choose when it's convenient to employ Robert's
16 amendments. 16 Rules. And then when we find something that we
17 MR. WILLIAMS: I' d like to introduce 17 like better, we use that other option. In these
18 ordinance 3789 as amended. 18 rules as well, we address Council's behavior, but
19 MS. BECKENBACH: Second. 19 we do not address the behavior of the Chair, who
20 MAYOR LICASTRO: Time for questions. 20 is the Mayor.
21 MS. BACCI: We're still in the 21 Where are the rules for the Mayor who
22 discussion phase, aren't we? 22 serves as the Chair of the Legislative body?
23 MAYOR LICASTRO: We j ust entered the 23 We've omitted applying the same rules to the
24 discussion phase. 24 Chair. Again, we're inconsistent and unfair and
25 MS. BACCI: Okay. Well, do we discuss 25 residents have asked these questions during the
Appx. 115
1 Legislative meeting process, but no answers were 1 MS. MURPHY: Aye.
2 forthcoming. Thank you. 2 MS. BIRCH: Mr. Puffenberger?
3 MAYOR LICASTRO: Understand this has 3 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Aye.
4 been offered for passage with the amendments and, 4 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Smith?
5 again, this can be amended in the future if 5 MS. SMITH: Aye.
6 Council so desires. 6 MS. BIRCH: Mr. Willi ams?
7 Any further comments? 7 MR. WILLIAMS: Aye.
8 MS. BECKENBACH: We're only dealing with 8 MAYOR LICASTRO: None of thes e documents
9 the one amendment? 9 are etched in stone. Nothing in the governmental
10 MAYOR LI CASTRO: One amendment is to the 10 process is. We'll get an amended copy that shows
11 document as amended as di scus sed and we move 11 the amendment as offered.
12 forward with the rest intact. 12 Before we go to 9 71, Resoluti on, I thi nk
13 MS. BECKENBACH: So we're just going to 13 it's your turn, Erin, let's offer an explanation.
14 vote now on the amendment? 14 MS. BIRCH: This is a housekeeping
15 MAYOR LICASTRO: No, you're voting on 15 issue. During our last audit, the auditors asked
16 rules of order as amended. 16 for a copy of the depository agreement with
17 MS. BECKENBACH: Okay. 17 Doll ar Bank, who handles our checking and money
18 MAYOR LICASTRO: And let's do so. Roll 18 market account. Looked through the files and
19 call . 19 couldn't find one, so we got one. But then as I
20 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Bacci ? 20 researching some ordinances recently, I realized
21 MS. BACCI: They're incomplete, so I 21 we have to do this every five years.
22 vote no. 22 We fi rst started working with Dol lar
23 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Beckenbach? 23 Bank in 2 010. And they were kind enough to send
24 MS. BECKENBACH: Aye. 24 me all the documents so everything was complete
25 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Murphy? 25 at that time. But it's due up for next year, so
27 28
1 I thought as long as it was on my mind, quite 1 MR. WILLIAMS: Aye.
2 frankly, we coul d renew it now at the end of this 2 MS. SMITH: Resol ution number 971 for
3 year and it will be good for the next five years. 3 pass age.
4 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you. Ms. Smith, 4 MS. BECKENBACH: Second.
5 please. 5 MAYOR LICASTRO: Questions?
6 MS. SMITH: Introduci ng Resol ution 6 MS. BACCI : I ' d j ust like to thank
7 number 971 for s uspension, a resoluti on 7 Shei la for her attention to detai l. I thi nk
8 authorizi ng and ratifying the clerk's entering 8 she's doing a terrific job for our community.
9 into a memorandum of agreement wi th Dollar Bank 9 MAYOR LICASTRO: That's why she makes
10 for depos it of public funds and declaring an 10 the big bucks . Roll call on pass age, please.
11 emergency. 11 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Bacci ?
12 MS. BECKENBACH: Second. 12 MS. BACCI: Aye.
13 MAYOR LICASTRO: Roll call on 13 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Beckenbach?
14 suspension, please. 14 MS. BECKENBACH: Aye.
15 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Bacci ? 15 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Murphy?
16 MS. BACCI: Aye. 16 MS. MURPHY: Aye.
17 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Beckenbach? 17 MS. BIRCH: Mr. Puffenberger?
18 MS. BECKENBACH: Aye. 18 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Aye.
19 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Murphy? 19 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Smith?
20 MS. MURPHY: Aye. 20 MS. SMITH: Aye.
21 MS. BIRCH: Mr. Puffenberger? 21 MS. BIRCH: Mr. Willi ams?
22 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Aye. 22 MR. WILLIAMS: Aye.
23 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Smith? 23 MAYOR LICASTRO: Before we to go 972,
24 MS. SMITH: Aye. 24 this is our ongoi ng effort to demolis h derelict
25 MS. BIRCH: Mr. Willi ams? 25 properties. There is one on Foster and one on
Appx. 116
1 Lake Shore Drive that should be torn down in the 1 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Aye.
2 next couple weeks. This is the third. This is 2 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Smith?
3 on Garfield Lane. This would authorize us to 3 MS. SMITH: Aye.
4 proceed to demolish this property, which has been 4 MS. BIRCH: Mr. Willi ams?
5 deemed by the building inspector to be an unsafe 5 MR. WILLIAMS: Aye.
6 structure and, therefore, needs to be torn down. 6 MR. PUFFENBERGER: And Resolution number
7 Mr. Puffenberger, please. 7 9 72 for passage.
8 MR. PUFFENBERGER: I'd like to introduce 8 MS. BECKENBACH: Second.
9 Resolution number 972 for suspension. This is a 9 MAYOR LICASTRO: Keep in mind that there
10 resolution declaring certain structures at 50 10 was a property torn town on Burton Avenue. That
11 Garfield Lane a nuisance and authoriz ing the 11 was done through Mayor's court. The two
12 buil ding commiss ioner to execute a notice to 12 properties I mentioned and thi s, we're looking to
13 proceed with the Cuyahoga County Land 13 the Cuyahoga Land Bank to tear them down. They
14 Reutilization Corporation for its demoliti on and 14 i ncurred the expenses and put a l ien on the
15 decl aring an emergency. 15 property. So doi ng this does not cos t the
16 MS. BECKENBACH: Second. 16 Village any dollars. It really improves not only
17 MAYOR LI CASTRO: Roll cal l on 17 the views, but the property value as well. Ms.
18 suspension, please. 18 Murphy?
19 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Bacci? 19 MS. MURPHY: I have a question. Will we
20 MS. BACCI: Aye. 20 be able to take down or does the Land Bank take
21 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Beckenbach? 21 down that large dead totem pol e l ike tree on that
22 MS. BECKENBACH: Aye. 22 property, dead and dangerous?
23 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Murphy? 23 MR. JAMIESON: We can include that in.
24 MS. MURPHY: Aye. 24 MAYOR LICASTRO: So noted.
25 MS. BIRCH: Mr. Puffenberger? 25 MS. MURPHY: It's probabl y worse than
31 32
1 the actual property. 1 a separate building.
2 MS. BACCI: That's natural habitat. Is 2 MS. BACCI: Okay. Thank you.
3 that the brick garage-like structure? 3 MAYOR LICASTRO: Any comments or
4 MAYOR LI CASTRO: There are actual ly 4 discussion? There being none, roll call on
5 multiple. This is where the shed is, the much 5 pass age, please.
6 discussed shed that moved from Brightwood to this 6 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Bacci ?
7 property that was ill egal ly occupied and then 7 MS. BACCI: Aye.
8 abandoned. There are multiple structures on that 8 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Beckenbach?
9 property. What you s ee from the street is the 9 MS. BECKENBACH: Aye.
10 brick-like structure. 10 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Murphy?
11 MS. BACCI: And that will be demolished? 11 MS. MURPHY: Aye.
12 MAYOR LICASTRO: Yes. Mr. Marong, any 12 MS. BIRCH: Mr. Puffenberger?
13 comments ? 13 MR. PUFFENBERGER: Aye.
14 MR. MARONG: No. The single-family 14 MS. BIRCH: Ms. Smith?
15 home, the garage that's attached to it, that 15 MS. SMITH: Aye.
16 brick structure I thi nk you're referring to and 16 MS. BIRCH: Mr. Willi ams?
17 the acces sory is all part of Mr. Jami eson' s 17 MR. WILLIAMS: Aye.
18 demolition work. 18 MAYOR LICASTRO: Yes, Mr. Matty.
19 MS. BACCI: So the whole parcel will be 19 MR. MATTY: Mayor, if I may, I have two
20 clear? 20 i tems of new busi ness . First item for Council ,
21 MR. MARONG: There's also a parcel that 21 you will note that on ordinance number 378 9, we
22 sits on the s outh part. It's another buil ding. 22 provided Council with what I will cal l a worki ng
23 It doesn't really have its own address, but there 23 copy with del etions and with s ome annotati ons of
24 is two to three parcels. The garage is 24 where some of these s ecti ons came from.
25 technical ly attached, but it actually looks l ike 25 After your passage this eveni ng, Dianne
Appx. 117
1 Garrett of my office will provide all of you a 1 MR. MATTY: Yes.
2 clean copy and, Sheila, you also with the Mayor, 2 MAYOR LICASTRO: It's not required.
3 so that you will have a clean copy of what was 3 I t's been offered Mr. Matty.
4 passed this evening. 4 MS. MURPHY: Is that something that we
5 The s econd i tem I have for Counci l is 5 can amend or change?
6 depending upon what occurs for the rest of the 6 MAYOR LICASTRO: At any time.
7 year, I plan in your December meeting to come to 7 MS. MURPHY: That maybe we can bring up
8 you to request an increase in my cap of $61,200. 8 that up at Finance, because I thought that that
9 It's apparent to me that this year, because of 9 was requi red under the statute that they have a
10 our workload and because of what we face for the 10 cap.
11 last 45 days of year, that we will exceed that. 11 MR. MATTY: No. In fact, Marla, the
12 That will be your decision to make whether or not 12 only community that I represent that there is a
13 you wish to increase that cap or not. 13 cap is Bratenahl.
14 As you know, we only get paid for that 14 MS. MURPHY: Okay.
15 type of work when we do work. And it's all been 15 MAYOR LICASTRO: And we appropriated the
16 documented and it wil l be documented, but I 16 s ame amount for l egal in ' 15 what we did in '1 4.
17 wanted to alert you in advance so that on the 17 Agai n, the cap is offered at Mr. Matty' s
18 December meeting, you wil l know that that wil l be 18 discretion.
19 one item for you to consider. Thank you, Mayor. 19 MS. MURPHY: We may want to l ook at
20 MS. MURPHY: I have a question. 20 addressing that with the Master Plan and this
21 MAYOR LICASTRO: Yes. 21 example of this heari ng tonight.
22 MS. MURPHY: I have a lot of ques tions 22 MAYOR LICASTRO: Well , let's not give
23 tonight, I'm sorry. But is it a requirement to 23 him a raise until he asks for it. (Laughter.)
24 have a cap? Because it's $61,000 a year, is that 24 Right down the table, Ms. Beckenbach.
25 what it is? 25 MS. BECKENBACH: Will this cap move on
35 36
1 to the 20 15 year? 1 it reads all full-time and part-time employees
2 MR. MATTY: No, Mary, the cap ends at 2 working 25 hours or more per week are enti tled to
3 the end of December and then a new year starts. 3 participate in our healthcare benefit program.
4 MAYOR LI CASTRO: He's suggesting we 4 MR. MATTY: Mayor, if Council or you
5 raise it between now and year end. 5 i nstructs me to l ook into it, I will, but I'm not
6 MS. BECKENBACH: Just for this year. 6 here to answer questions from residents.
7 MAYOR LI CASTRO: And return to the cap 7 MAYOR LICASTRO: We'll get back to you.
8 as s tated next year unles s Counci l thinks 8 Anyone el se? Mr. Secura?
9 differently. Ms. Bacci. 9 MR. SECURA: Mr. Jami eson, on the Burton
10 MS. BACCI: Will the Council rules of 10 Avenue property, I'm not sure, but I don't know
11 order and, of course, our code of ethics and our 11 what was used to fill the basement and what are
12 code of conduct all be up on the webs ite maybe in 12 the requirements to fill the basements. Those
13 a prominent place for at least a while? 13 old homes have a lot of asbestos around the
14 MAYOR LICASTRO: We can do that. Once 14 pipes. And by looking at it by inspection and
15 we get the amended copy, we can post them. 15 watching them work, it looks like they just took
16 MS. BACCI: Thank you. 16 refuse and pushed it into the hol e.
17 MAYOR LICASTRO: All right. Let's take 17 MR. JAMIESON: They're responsibl e for
18 a couple of brief questions from the audience. 18 identifying asbestos and hazardous materials and
19 Mr. Kesselem? 19 separating them and getting rid of them. We go
20 MR. KESSELEM: My question is for Mr. 20 in there and make sure the uti lities are capped
21 Matty regarding our Legislative Committee. Mr. 21 off and that they're using clean fill to put back
22 Matty, is an elected paid official working 30 22 in the home.
23 hours a week entitled to heal thcare benefi ts per 23 MR. SECURA: What do you defi ne as clean
24 Chair Murphy's research? And I guess I'm asking 24 fill , sir?
25 this because on page 5 of our employee handbook, 25 MR. JAMIESON: Concrete, they break the
Appx. 118
1 concrete up that's in the basement and the walls 1 doing work for the Village.
2 on the basement floor so it doesn't hold water, 2 MAYOR LICASTRO: Actually, Ms. Murphy
3 and clean fill without debris and materials and 3 has been deemed to not be in conflict of
4 things that shouldn't be in there. 4 interest.
5 MR. SECURA: Was anybody there watching 5 MR. McDONALD: Okay. Why was there an
6 them? 6 objection this time and will it continue to be
7 MR. JAMIESON: Not the entire time, no. 7 that way, because by definition when it gets
8 MR. SECURA: Because my impression is 8 here, he's already done the work and his work
9 there's lathe and plaster and things in that hole 9 can't get taken back.
10 that I wouldn't call it clean. 10 MAYOR LICASTRO: The only one that seems
11 MR. JAMIESON: I wouldn't either. I 11 to object is Ms. Bacci and perhaps you can have a
12 mean, the time to let me know is when that's 12 conversation with her about that. I can't answer
13 occurring. 13 that ques tion.
14 MR. SECURA: Thank you. 14 Anyone else?
15 MAYOR LICASTRO: Anyone else? Mr. 15 MR. KESSELEM: Mayor, I wasn't finished.
16 McDonald. 16 MAYOR LICASTRO: Quickly, please.
17 MR. KESSELEM: I wasn't finished. 17 MR. KESSELEM: I remain disappointed on
18 MR. McDONALD: Just a point of 18 our censorship of what I consider free speech
19 clarification, help me understand on this Pay 19 during public meetings. It's contrary to
20 Claims for Mr. Murphy. As I understand it, this 20 Bratenahl's ordinances and I wish the politics
21 has come up before. As I understand it, Pay 21 would stop. The residents deserve better.
22 Claims are only offered after a service or a good 22 MAYOR LICASTRO: Thank you. Anyone
23 has been delivered to the Village. And as I 23 else? Ms. Meade.
24 understand that Mr. Murphy has been ruled to not 24 MS. MEADE: Per the August 28 police
25 be in conflict of interest with the Village in 25 pursuit, four officers were involved. Since you
39 40
1 did not reply to my e-mail on September 5, I'd 1 MAYOR LICASTRO: Continue, please.
2 like to know if any scheduled officer remained in 2 MS. MEADE: No comment. Regarding the
3 Bratenahl throughout the entire time of the event 3 hearing, if it's being run like a courtroom, will
4 or was the Village left unprotected? 4 the Council j ury require a unanimous vote or will
5 MAYOR LICASTRO: The Village is never 5 a majority vote constitute a decision?
6 left unprotected. There were officers on the 6 MAYOR LICASTRO: Let's just see how the
7 scene. 7 process plays forward, please.
8 MS. MEADE: Who was it? Who was 8 MS. MEADE: Since the 2012 Cleveland
9 working? 9 Police high-speed chase, has Bratenahl
10 MAYOR LICASTRO: I can't tell you off 10 implemented a mutual aid agreement with Cleveland
11 the top of my head. 11 or neighboring suburbs?
12 MS. MEADE: Then as a public records 12 MAYOR LICASTRO: We have mutual
13 request, if I could look at time sheets in the 13 agreements in place.
14 police log for August 28th and 29th, 2014. 14 MS. MEADE: With whom?
15 Then regarding the hearing, I was 15 MAYOR LICASTRO: With anyone who needs
16 wondering how was Council's counsel selected 16 them .
17 since there was no public discussion on the 17 MS. MEADE: So who is currently on the
18 matter? Did it go through a selection process or 18 books, written agreements?
19 was he recommended by someone? 19 MAYOR LICASTRO: I'm not sure if it's in
20 MAYOR LICASTRO: He was recommended. 20 writing of if it' s just understood.
21 MS. MEADE: By? 21 MS. MEADE: As a public records request,
22 MAYOR LICASTRO: By Mr. Matty. 22 I'd like to hear the audio requesting Bratenahl's
23 MS. MEADE: Is it true that Mr. Matty 23 assistance on the August 28th pursuit. Thank
24 resigned as Solon' s Law Director and Mr. Lobe 24 you .
25 replaced him? 25 MAYOR LICASTRO: Anyone else?
Appx. 119
1 Okay. We're not going to adjourn the 1 CERTIFICATE
2 meeting, because the hearing actually is part of 2
3 the meeting, but we're going to turn it over to 3
4 Counsel Tom Lobe. We might have to reconfigure 4 I, Nancy L. Mol nar, do hereby certi fy that
5 part of the room. This might be lengthy, we're 5 as s uch Reporter I took down in Stenotypy all of
6 not reall y certain, but it wi ll be a different 6 the proceedings had in the foregoing transcript;
7 format than what you see here. So if you can 7 that I have trans cribed my sai d Stenotype notes
8 give us a couple minutes to make this transition, 8 i nto typewritten form as appears in the foregoing
9 we will then proceed. 9 transcript; that said transcri pt is the complete
10 (Recess taken.) 10 form of the proceedings had in said cause and
11 ( Whereupon, the Council meeti ng porti on 11 constitutes a true and correct transcript therein.
12 adjourned at 5:37 p.m.) 12
13 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 13
14 14
15 15
16 16 Nancy L. Molnar, Notary Publi c
17 17 withi n and for the State of Ohio
18 18
19 19 My commission expires June 22, 2018.
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
Appx. 120
EXHIBIT
Electronically Filed 12/06/2017 08:46 / FILING OTHER THAN MOTION / CA 16 105281 / Confirmatio
f
pr. 1242757 / CLSXN
Appx. 121
Electronically Filed 12/06/2017 08:46 / FILING OTHER THAN MOTION / CA 16 105281 / Confirmation Nbr. 1242757 / CLSXN
Appx. 122
Appx. 123
Appx. 124
Appx. 125
Appx. 126
Appx. 127
Appx. 128
Appx. 129
Appx. 130
I
r
Appx. 131
Appx. 132
Appx. 133
Appx. 134
Appx. 135
Appx. 136
f
Appx. 137
Appx. 138
Electronically Filed >12/06/2017 08:46 / FILING OTHER THAN MOTION / CA 16 105281 / Confirmation Nbr. 1242757 / CLSXN
Appx. 139
Appx. 140
Appx. 141
1118
Electronically Filed 12/06/2017 08:46 / FILING OTHER THAN MOTION / CA 16 105281 / Confirmation
Appx. 142
A
Electronically Filed 12/06/2017 08:46 / FILING OTHER THAN MOTION / CA 16 105281 / Confirmation Nbr. 1 242757/ CLSXN
Appx. 143
Electronically Filed 12/06/2017 08:46 / FILING OTHER THAN MOTION / CA 16 105281 / Confirmation Nbr. 124JJI7 / CLSXN
Appx. 144
1121
Appx. 145
1122
Appx. 146
1123
Appx. 147
ftiaria.
Murphy
1124
Appx. 148
1125
Appx. 149
r
Appx. 150
1127
Appx. 151
r
1128
Appx. 152
jr
1129
Appx. 153
1130
Appx. 154
1131
r
Appx. 155
1132
Appx. 156
1133
Appx. 157
1134
Appx. 158
1135
Appx. 159
' 1136
Appx. 160
1137 *
Appx. 161
1138
Appx. 162
-Index of the Record
Ohio Supreme Court Rule V.

In the Court of Appeals
8"‘
Appellate District
Court of Appeals Case No: 105281
Ohio Supreme Court Case No: 2018-0440
Notice of Appeal filed: 12/20/2016
State of Ohio ex rel. More Bratenahl, et al.
(Appellant)
.vs.
Village of Bratenahl, Ohio, et al.
(Appellee)
‘/1. 12/20/2016 NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED FROM COMMON PLEAS CIVIL DIVISION COURT, CASE # CV-l6-
857888 WITI-I JOURNAL ENTRY, 9(A) PRAECIPE, DOCKETING STATEMENT
SHEET.
AND DOCKET
/ 2. 12/20/2016 CASE INITIATED: DOCKETING STATEMENT, PRAECIPE
J to 01/19/2017 ORIGINAL PAPERS FILED BY TRIAL COURT.
01/26/2017 APPELLANT'S BRIEF F ILED. APPELLANT'S MERIT BRIEF

V/.
5. 02/14/2017 Motion by appellee to extend time to file answer brief is granted to March 7, 2017. No further extension
absent exigent circumstances. Notice issued.
02/14/2017 MOTION FOR... MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

J 6.
11/21/2017 —UNKNOWN
J 7. 03/07/2017 APPELLEE'S BRIEF FILED.
J 8. 03/07/2017 APPELLEE‘S BRIEF FILED. CORRECTED ANSWER BRIEF OF APPELLEES
\//9. 03/12/2017 REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT FILED APPELLANTS REPLY BRIEF

#10. 03/21/2017 MOTION FOR... APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE FOR CURT HARTMAN TO WITHDRAW
AS
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
11/21/2017 — UNKNOWN
J 11. 03/23/2017 Motion by Appellant's counsel, Curt Hartman for leave to withdraw as counsel is
Christopher Finney of the F inney Law Finn continues to serve as counsel of
granted. Attorney
record for the appellant. Notice
issued.
J 12. 04/19/2017 Appellants’ reply brief is accepted for review, although it exceeds the 10-page
Loc.App.R. 16. Counsel is reminded that a brief not prepared in accordance with
limit established by
the formalities mandated
by the appellate rules and local appellate rules may be returned to counsel to be confonned
to the rules.
Failure to conform may result in dismissal. Notice issued.
\/13. 05/02/2017 MOTION FOR... MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF ORAL ARGUMENT

/ 11/21/2017 - UNKNOWN
7 14. 05/03/2017 Sua sponte the above-captioned case has been rescheduled
Main Courtroom. Notice issued.
to Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 1:30 pm. in the
Appx. 163
. 05/03/2017 Motion by appellees for continuance of oral argument set for June 14, 2017 is granted. Case to be
rescheduled at earliest feasible date. Notice issued.
. 11/09/2017 Affirmed.
Mary Eileen Kilbane, J ., Kathleen Ann Keough, A.J., and Tim Mccormack, J. concur. Notice issued.
11/15/2017 NOTICE OF... NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF CO-COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

‘
. 11/15/2017 MOTION BY Al STATE OF OHIO EX REL. PATRICIA MEADEMOTION BY BRIAN C SHRIVE

0088980... APPELLANT'S APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION
02/20/2018 - UNKNOWN
11/15/2017 MOTION FOR... MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
UNKNOWN
.
02/20/Z018 ~
. 11/17/2017 Motion by appellee for extension of time to file its brief in opposition to motion for reconsideration is
granted. Appel1ees' brief in opposition is due December 7, 2017. Notice issued.
. 12/06/2017 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION FILED BY APPELLEE(S) VILLAGE OF BRATENHAL, OHIO(El), MARY

BECHENBACH(E2), JAMES F. PUFFENBERGER(E3), ERIN E. SMITH(E4), GEOFFREY B.C.
WILLIAMS(E5), MARLA J. M'URPHY(E6) and JOHN M. LICASTRO(E7), SHANA SAMSON 0072871
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION
. 12/13/2017 REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT FILED APPELLANT‘S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HER
APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION
. 02/08/2018 Affirmed.
>Mary Eileen Kilbane, J ., Kathleen Ann Keough, P.J., and Tim McCormack, J., concur. Notice issued.
. 02/08/2018 Motion by appellant for reconsideration is granted. The journal entry and decision released November 9,
2017 (2017-Ohio-8484) is hereby vacated and substituted with the journal entry and opinion issued February
8, 2018. Notice issued.
04/03/2018 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE OHIO SUPREME COURT FILED BY APPELLANT PATRICIA
MEADE‘S ATTORNEY BRIAN C. SHRIVE (0088980). OSC CASE NUMBER 2018-0440.
.
. 06/11/2018 THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO CASE NUMBER 2018-0440

PURSUANT TO RULE 15.03 AND 15.06, OF THE RULES OF PRACTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF OHIO, YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO PREPARE AND FORWARD TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE
THE RECORD IN THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED CASE AS FOLLOWS:
THE RECORD SHALL CONSIST OF THE ORIGINAL PAPERS EXHIBITS TO THOSE PAPERS; THE
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS, ALONG WITH A COMPUTER DISKETTE OF
THE TRANSCRIPT, IF AVAILABLE; AND CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE JOURNAL ENTRY AND
THE DOCKET PREPARED BY THE CLERK OF COURT OR OTHER CUSTODIAN OF THE
ORIGINAL PAPERS.
THE RECORD SHALL INCLUDE, WHERE APPLICABLE, ALL THE ABOVE ITEMS FROM BOTH
THE COURT OF APPEALS AND TRIAL COURT CASES.
THE RECORD SHALL BE TRANSMITTED ALONG WITH AN INDEX THAT LISTS ALL ITEMS
INCLUDED IN THE RECORD. ALL EXHIBITS LISTED IN TI-Hi INDEX SHALL BE BRIEFLY
DESCRIBED, AND A COPY OF THE INDEX MUST BE SENT TO ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD IN
THE CASE.
Appx. 164
ONLY VIDEOTAPE EXHIBITS, AUDIOTAPE EXHIBITS, AND DOCUMENTS SUCH AS PAPERS,
MAPS OR PHOTOGRAPHS SHALL BE TRANSMITTED.
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS AHALL NOT BE TRANSMITIED AT THIS TIME:
ANY PHYSICAL EXHIBITS OTHER THAN THE ITEMS LISTED ABOVE (I.E., CLOTHING,
WEAPONS, ETC.) DOCUMENTS OF UNUSUAL SIZE, BULK, OR WEIGHT.
THOSE EXHIBITS OR DOCUMENTS THAT ARE NOT TRANSMITTED SHALL BE DESIGNATED IN
THE INDEX, AND THEIR CUSTODIAN MUST ALSO BE IDENTIFIED IN THE INDEX.
THE RECORD SHALL BE TRANSMITTED TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THE
DATE OF THIS ORDER.
IF THE CASE INVOLVES TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS OR ADOPTION OF A MINOR
CHILD, OR BOTH, PREPARATION AND TRANSMISSION OF THE RECORD SHALL BE
EXPEDITED AND GIVEN PRIORITY OVER PREPARATION AND TRANSMISSION OF THE
RECORD IN OTHER CASES.
\fl7. 06/11/2018 THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO CASE NUMBER 2018-0440.

UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL MEMORANDA FILED IN THIS CASE, THE
COURT ACCEPTS THE APPEAL. THE CLERK SHALL ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE
TRANSMITTAL OF TI-D3 RECORD FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CUYAHOGA COUNTY,
AND THE PARTIES SHALL BRIEF THIS CASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF
PRACTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
Appx. 165
'
Page:
STATE OF OHIO EX REL. MORE BRATENAHL, ET AL
1
Plaintiffs
Case Number: CV-16- 857888
VS
COA Case Number: CA—16- 105281
VILLAGE OF BRATENHAL, OHIO, ET AL PAGINATION OF RECORD RULE OF
Defendant APPELLATE PROCEDURE
01/25/2016 CASE FILED: COMPLAINT
if 01/26/2016 SUMS COMPLAINT(28155937) SENT BY FEDERAL
EXPRESS. TO: VILLAGE OF BRATENAHL, OHIO, 411
BRATENAHL ROAD BRATENAHL, OH 44108
01/26/2016 SUMS COMPLAINT(28155938) SENT BY FEDERAL
EXPRESS. TO: MARY BECHENBACH 8 HASKELL DRIVE
BRATENAHL, OH 44108
EXPRESS. TO: JAMES F. PUFFENBERGER 52 HASKELL
DRIVE BRATENAHL, OH 44108
EXPRESS. TO: ERIN E. SMITH 12333 LAKE SHORE BLVD.
BRATENAHL, OH 44108
EXPRESS. TO: GEOFFREY B.C. WILLIAMS 10305
BURTON AVENUE BRATENAHL, OH 44108
EXPRESS. TO: MARLA J. MURPHY 10011 FOSTER
AVENUE BRATENAHL, OH 44108
02/23/2016 GENERAL PLEADIN G FILED BY PLAINTIFF(S) STATE OF
OHIO EX RE. MORE BRATENAHL(P1) AND STATE IF
OHIO EX REL. PATRICIA MEADE(P2) ATTORNEY CURT
C HARTMAN 0064242 PRAECIPE **RULE 4.6
UNCLAIMED FED EX (COMMERCIAL CARRIER)
CANNOT GO ORDINARY MAIL. SENT OUT BY
9/
CERTIFIED MAIL.
02/24/2016 STIPULATION FOR LEAVE TO PLEAD FILED
10/ 03/11/2016 SUMS COMPLAINT(28574742) SENT BY CERTIFIED
MAIL. TO: MARY BECHENBACH 8 HASKELL DRIVE
BRATENAHL, OH 44108
11
/ 03/11/2016 SUMS COMPLAINT(28574743) SENT BY CERTIFIED
MAIL. TO: JAMES F. PUFFENBERGER 52 HASKELL
CMSR6l28
Appx. 166
Page: 2
Plaintiffs

VS
COA Case Number: CA-16- 105281
DRIVE BRATENAHL, OH 44108
SUMS COMPLAINT(28574744) SENT BY CERTIFIED
MAIL. TO: GEOFFREY B.C. WILLIAMS 10305 BURTON
AVENUE BRATENAHL, OH 44108
SUMS COMPLAINT(28574745) SENT BY CERTIFIED
MAIL. TO: MARLA J. MURPHY 10011 FOSTER AVENUE
BRATENAHL, OH 44108
14 03/21/2016 CASE MGMNT CONFERENCE SET FOR 05/ 10/2016 AT
‘/
10:00 AM. NOTICE ISSUED
ANSWER FILED BY DEFENDANT(S) VILLAGE OF

J
15 03/24/2016
BRATENAHL, OHIO,(D1), MARY BECHENBACH(D2),
JAMES F. PUFFENBERGER(D3), ERIN E. SMITH(D4),
GEOFFREY B.C. WILLIAMS(D5) and MARLA J.
MURPHY(D6) ATTORNEY SHANA SAMSON 0072871
ANSWER OF RESPONDENTS VILLAGE OF BRATENAHL
ET AL.
16 V 03/30/2016 CMC SET FOR 4/27/16 AT 10:15 A.M. PLAINTIFFS’
COUNSEL TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE. NOTICE ISSUED
17 '/04/21/2016 AMENDED COMPLAINT $75 FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT
18 \/ 04/27/2016 CMC HAD. PLAINTIFFS‘ COUNSELS PRESENT BY
TELEPHONE. DEFENSE COUNSELS PRESENT. PRETRIAL
SET FOR 7/26/16 AT 1:30 PM. WRITTEN DISCOVERY TO
BE COMPLETED BY 7/26/ 16. NOTICE ISSUED I
19 /05/04/2016 ANSWER FILED BY DEFENDANT(S) VILLAGE OF

GEOFFREY B.C. WILLIAMS(D5), MARLA J. MURPHY(D6)
and JOHN M. LICASTRO(D7) ATTORNEY SHANA
SAMSON 0072871 ANSWER OF RESPONDENTS To
AMENDED COMPLAINT
20 J 07/26/2016 PRETRIAL HAD. PLAINTIFF S DISMISS MORE
BRATENAHL PURSUANT TO RULE 41 WITHOUT
CMSR6128
Appx. 167
STATE OF OHIO EX REL. MORE BRATENAHL, ET AL Page: 3
Plaintiffs

VS
PREJUDICE. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SET FOR
8/15/16 AT 1:00 P.M. NOTICE ISSUED
21,/ 08/30/2016 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SET FOR 09/26/2016 AT

01:30 PM. NOTICE ISSUED
22
/ 09/ 12/201 6 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED RELATOR'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIDAVIT OF PATRICIA
-
MEADE ATTACHED 12/14/201 6 DENIED

-
23 09/12/2016 GENERAL PLEADING FILED BY P2 STATE IF OHIO EX

J REL. PATRICIA MEADE ATTORNEY CURT C HARTMAN
0064242 RELATORS; STATEMENT OF REASONS IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
24 J 09/15/2016 MOTION FILED FOR DEFENDANT(S) VILLAGE OF
and JOHN M. LICASTRO(D7) SHANA SAMSON 0072871
MOTION TO STAY BRIEFING ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT
09/22/2016— GRANTED
25/ 09/22/2016 DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY BRIEFING ON
SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED ON 9/15/16 IS GRANTED.
BRIEFING SCHEDULE TO BE SET AT THE CONCLUSION
OF THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE IF NECESSARY.
26
J 09/27/2016
NOTICE ISSUED
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE HELD. DEFENDANTS'
.
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT DUE 11/3/16. REPLY DUE ACCORDING TO
RULE. SUR REPLY DUE ACCORDING TO RULE.
DEFENDANTS' CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT DUE 1l/3/ 16. BRIEF IN OPPOSITION DUE
ACCORDING TO RULE. REPLY DUE ACCORDING TO
RULE. SUR REPLY DUE ACCORDING TO RULE. NOTICE
ISSUED
27 10/13/2016 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING OF ELECTRONIC FILES,
FILED. CURT C HARTMAN
,\,
C D
CMSR6l28
Appx. 168
STATE OF OHIO EX REL. MORE BRATENAHL, ET AL Page: 4
Plaintiffs
Case Number: CV—16- 857888

VS
Defendant
APPELLATE PROCEDURE
2
281/ 11/02/2016 BRIEF FILED BY DEFENDANT(S) VILLAGE OF

BRATENAHL, 0H10,(D1), MARY BECHENBACH(D2),
JAMES F. PUFFENBERGER(D3), ER1'N E. SMITH(D4),
GEOFFREY B.C. W1LLIAMS(D5), MARLA J. MURPHY(D6)
RESPONDENTS' BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO RELATOR'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CROSS-
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
11/02/2016 NOTICE FILED BY DEFENDANT(S) VILLAGE OF
and JOHN M. LICASTRO(D7) ATTORNEY SHANA
SAMSON 0072871 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING OF
ELECTRONIC FILES "_ C D
11/13/2016 REPLY BRIEF FILED BY P2 STATE IF OHIO EX REL.
PATRICIA MEADE CURT C HARTMAN 0064242
RELATORS; REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND IN
OPPOSITION TO CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
31\/ 1 1/22/2016 REPLY BRIEF FILED BY DEFENDANT(S) VILLAGE OF
JAMES F. PUFFENBERGERGDS), ERIN E. SMITH(D4),
REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
32 12/06/2016 MOTION FILED FOR P2 STATE IF OHIO EX REL.
RELATORS MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENTIARY
MATERIALS TENDERED WITH REPLY MEMORANDUM
12/14/2016 ~ MOOT
33 12/13/2016 REPLY BRIEF FILED BY DEFENDANT(S) VILLAGE OF
CMSR6128
Appx. 169
STATE OF OHIO EX REL‘ MORE BRATENAHL, ET AL Page: 5
Plaintiffs
Case Number: CV—16— 857888

VS
Defendant
APPELLATE PROCEDURE
and JOHN M. LICASTRO(D7) SHANA SAMSON
0072871
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
34/ 12/15/2016 PLAINTIFF STATE OF OHIO EX RELATOR PATRICIA
MEADE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED
ON 9/12/16 IS DENIED. DEFENDANTS' CROSS-MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED ON 1/2/16 IS 1
GRANTED. IN PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF INDICATES THAT SHE IS NOT
PURSUIN G COUNT IV OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT.
NO DISMISSAL HAS BEEN FILED AS TO COUNT IV AND
THE CLAIM REMAINS PENDING. PRETRIAL SET FOR
1/5/17 AT 10:00 A.M. NOTICE ISSUED
35 12/16/2016 MOTION FILED FOR P2 STATE IF OHIO EX REL.

PATRICIA MEADE CURT C HARTMAN 0064242 MOTION
TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO STRIKE COUNT IV THEREIN
12/19/2016
- GRANTED
33/ 12/20/2016 ------------------ -- NOTICE OF APPEAL —--—-----------—----
CA NO. CA-16—105281 NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED BY THE
PLTF. APPELLANT W/A 9(A) PRAECIPE AND
DOCKETING STATEMENT ON THE REGULAR
CALENDAR. COPIES MAILED.
33./ 12/20/2016 RELATOR'S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO
STRIKE COUNT IV THEREIN FILED ON 12/ 16/16 IS
GRANTED. COST TO PLTF FINAL OSJ NOTICE ISSUED
COURT COST ASSESSED TO THE PLAINTIFF(S).
33\/ 12/20/2016 NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED NOTICE OF APPEAL
39
7 01/10/2017 MOTION FILED FOR DEFENDANT(S) VILLAGE OF
/ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 01/ 17/2017 - UNKNOWN
40 01/18/2017 REPLY BRIEF FILED BY P2 STATE IF OHIO EX REL.
MEMORANDUM OF RELATOR AND RELATORS
CMSR6l28
Appx. 170
_
Page: 6
Plaintiffs

VS
VILLAGE OF BRATENHAL, OHIO, ET A PAGINATION OF RECORD RULE OF
Defendant ‘
APPELLATE PROCEDURE
COUNSEL IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
41 / 01/18/2017 MOTION FILED FOR P2 STATE IF OHIO BX REL‘
PATRICIA MEADE CURT C HARTMAN 0064242 MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
INSTANTER 01/19/2017 - UNKNOWN
CMSR6l2S
Appx. 171
ORC Ann. 1.11
Current with Legislation passed by the 132nd General Assembly and filed with the
Secretary of State through file 69 (HB 430).
Page’s Ohio Revised Code Annotated > Ohio Revised Code General Provisions (Chs. 1 — 9) > Chapter 1:
Definitions; Rules of Construction (§§ 1.01 — 1.64) > Construction (§§ 1.10 — 1.64)
§ 1.11 Liberal construction of remedial laws.
Remedial laws and all proceedings under them shall be liberally construed in order
to promote their object and assist the parties in obtaining justice. The rule of the
common law that statutes in derogation of the common law must be strictly
construed has no application to remedial laws; but this section does not require a
liberal construction of laws affecting personal liberty, relating to amercement, or of
a penal nature.
History
RS § 4948; S&C 940; 51 v 57, § 2; GC 10214; Bureau of Code Revision. Eff 10-1-53.
Page’s Ohio Revised Code Annotated

Copyright © 2018 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group. All rights
reserved.
End of Document
Appx. 172
ORC Ann. 121.22
Current with Legislation passed by the 132nd General Assembly and filed with the
Secretary of State through file 69 (HB 430).
Page’s Ohio Revised Code Annotated > Title 1: State Government (Chs. 101 — 193) > Chapter 121: State
Departments (§§ 121.01 — 121.991)
§ 121.22 Meetings of public bodies to be public; exceptions.
(A)This section shall be liberally construed to require public officials to take official
action and to conduct all deliberations upon official business only in open meetings
unless the subject matter is specifically excepted by law.
(B)As used in this section:
(1)“Public body” means any of the following:
(a)Any board, commission, committee, council, or similar decision-making
body of a state agency, institution, or authority, and any legislative authority
or board, commission, committee, council, agency, authority, or similar
decision-making body of any county, township, municipal corporation, school
district, or other political subdivision or local public institution;
(b)Any committee or subcommittee of a body described in division (B)(1)(a)
of this section;
(c)A court of jurisdiction of a sanitary district organized wholly for the
purpose of providing a water supply for domestic, municipal, and public use
when meeting for the purpose of the appointment, removal, or reappointment
of a member of the board of directors of such a district pursuant to section
6115.10 of the Revised Code, if applicable, or for any other matter related to
such a district other than litigation involving the district. As used in division
(B)(1)(c) of this section, “court of jurisdiction” has the same meaning as
“court” in section 6115.01 of the Revised Code.
(2)“Meeting” means any prearranged discussion of the public business of the
public body by a majority of its members.
(3)“Regulated individual” means either of the following:
(a)A student in a state or local public educational institution;
(b)A person who is, voluntarily or involuntarily, an inmate, patient, or
resident of a state or local institution because of criminal behavior, mental
Appx. 173
ORC Ann. 121.22
illness, an intellectual disability, disease, disability, age, or other condition

requiring custodial care.
(4)“Public office” has the same meaning as in section 149.011 of the Revised
Code.
(C)All meetings of any public body are declared to be public meetings open to the
public at all times. A member of a public body shall be present in person at a meeting
open to the public to be considered present or to vote at the meeting and for purposes of
determining whether a quorum is present at the meeting.
The minutes of a regular or special meeting of any public body shall be promptly
prepared, filed, and maintained and shall be open to public inspection. The minutes
need only reflect the general subject matter of discussions in executive sessions
authorized under division (G) or (J) of this section.
(D)This section does not apply to any of the following:
(1)A grand jury;
(2)An audit conference conducted by the auditor of state or independent certified
public accountants with officials of the public office that is the subject of the
audit;
(3)The adult parole authority when its hearings are conducted at a correctional
institution for the sole purpose of interviewing inmates to determine parole or
pardon;
(4)The organized crime investigations commission established under section
177.01 of the Revised Code;
(5)Meetings of a child fatality review board established under section 307.621 of
the Revised Code, meetings related to a review conducted pursuant to guidelines
established by the director of health under section 3701.70 of the Revised Code,
and meetings conducted pursuant to sections 5153.171 to 5153.173 of the
Revised Code;
(6)The state medical board when determining whether to suspend a certificate
without a prior hearing pursuant to division (G) of either section 4730.25 or
(7)The board of nursing when determining whether to suspend a license or
certificate without a prior hearing pursuant to division (B) of section 4723.281 of
the Revised Code;
(8)The state board of pharmacy when determining whether to suspend a license
without a prior hearing pursuant to division (D) of section 4729.16 of the
Revised Code;
Page 2 of 8
Appx. 174
ORC Ann. 121.22
(9)The state chiropractic board when determining whether to suspend a license

without a hearing pursuant to section 4734.37 of the Revised Code;
(10)The executive committee of the emergency response commission when
determining whether to issue an enforcement order or request that a civil action,
civil penalty action, or criminal action be brought to enforce Chapter 3750. of the
Revised Code;
(11)The board of directors of the nonprofit corporation formed under section
187.01 of the Revised Code or any committee thereof, and the board of directors
of any subsidiary of that corporation or a committee thereof;
(12)An audit conference conducted by the audit staff of the department of job
and family services with officials of the public office that is the subject of that
audit under section 5101.37 of the Revised Code;
(13)The occupational therapy section of the occupational therapy, physical
therapy, and athletic trainers board when determining whether to suspend a
license or limited permit without a hearing pursuant to division (D) of section
(14)The physical therapy section of the occupational therapy, physical therapy,
and athletic trainers board when determining whether to suspend a license
without a hearing pursuant to division (E) of section 4755.47 of the Revised
Code;
(15)The athletic trainers section of the occupational therapy, physical therapy,
and athletic trainers board when determining whether to suspend a license
without a hearing pursuant to division (D) of section 4755.64 of the Revised
Code.
(E)The controlling board, the tax credit authority, or the minority development
financing advisory board, when meeting to consider granting assistance pursuant to
Chapter 122. or 166. of the Revised Code, in order to protect the interest of the
applicant or the possible investment of public funds, by unanimous vote of all board or
authority members present, may close the meeting during consideration of the
following information confidentially received by the authority or board from the
applicant:
(1)Marketing plans;
(2)Specific business strategy;
(3)Production techniques and trade secrets;
(4)Financial projections;
Page 3 of 8
Appx. 175
ORC Ann. 121.22
(5)Personal financial statements of the applicant or members of the applicant’s

immediate family, including, but not limited to, tax records or other similar
information not open to public inspection.
The vote by the authority or board to accept or reject the application, as well as
all proceedings of the authority or board not subject to this division, shall be open
to the public and governed by this section.
(F)Every public body, by rule, shall establish a reasonable method whereby any person
may determine the time and place of all regularly scheduled meetings and the time,
place, and purpose of all special meetings. A public body shall not hold a special
meeting unless it gives at least twenty-four hours’ advance notice to the news media
that have requested notification, except in the event of an emergency requiring
immediate official action. In the event of an emergency, the member or members
calling the meeting shall notify the news media that have requested notification
immediately of the time, place, and purpose of the meeting.
The rule shall provide that any person, upon request and payment of a reasonable
fee, may obtain reasonable advance notification of all meetings at which any
specific type of public business is to be discussed. Provisions for advance
notification may include, but are not limited to, mailing the agenda of meetings to all
subscribers on a mailing list or mailing notices in self-addressed, stamped envelopes
provided by the person.
(G)Except as provided in divisions (G)(8) and (J) of this section, the members of a
public body may hold an executive session only after a majority of a quorum of the
public body determines, by a roll call vote, to hold an executive session and only at a
regular or special meeting for the sole purpose of the consideration of any of the
following matters:
(1)To consider the appointment, employment, dismissal, discipline, promotion,
demotion, or compensation of a public employee or official, or the investigation
of charges or complaints against a public employee, official, licensee, or
regulated individual, unless the public employee, official, licensee, or regulated
individual requests a public hearing. Except as otherwise provided by law, no
public body shall hold an executive session for the discipline of an elected
official for conduct related to the performance of the elected official’s official
duties or for the elected official’s removal from office. If a public body holds an
executive session pursuant to division (G)(1) of this section, the motion and vote
to hold that executive session shall state which one or more of the approved
purposes listed in division (G)(1) of this section are the purposes for which the
executive session is to be held, but need not include the name of any person to be
considered at the meeting.
Page 4 of 8
Appx. 176
ORC Ann. 121.22
(2)To consider the purchase of property for public purposes, the sale of property
at competitive bidding, or the sale or other disposition of unneeded, obsolete, or
unfit- for-use property in accordance with section 505.10 of the Revised Code, if
premature disclosure of information would give an unfair competitive or
bargaining advantage to a person whose personal, private interest is adverse to
the general public interest. No member of a public body shall use division (G)(2)
of this section as a subterfuge for providing covert information to prospective
buyers or sellers. A purchase or sale of public property is void if the seller or
buyer of the public property has received covert information from a member of a
public body that has not been disclosed to the general public in sufficient time for
other prospective buyers and sellers to prepare and submit offers.
If the minutes of the public body show that all meetings and deliberations of the
public body have been conducted in compliance with this section, any instrument
executed by the public body purporting to convey, lease, or otherwise dispose of
any right, title, or interest in any public property shall be conclusively presumed
to have been executed in compliance with this section insofar as title or other
interest of any bona fide purchasers, lessees, or transferees of the property is
concerned.
(3)Conferences with an attorney for the public body concerning disputes
involving the public body that are the subject of pending or imminent court
action;
(4)Preparing for, conducting, or reviewing negotiations or bargaining sessions
with public employees concerning their compensation or other terms and
conditions of their employment;
(5)Matters required to be kept confidential by federal law or regulations or state
statutes;
(6)Details relative to the security arrangements and emergency response
protocols for a public body or a public office, if disclosure of the matters
discussed could reasonably be expected to jeopardize the security of the public
body or public office;
(7)In the case of a county hospital operated pursuant to Chapter 339. of the
Revised Code, a joint township hospital operated pursuant to Chapter 513. of the
Revised Code, or a municipal hospital operated pursuant to Chapter 749. of the
Revised Code, to consider trade secrets, as defined in section 1333.61 of the
Revised Code;
(8)To consider confidential information related to the marketing plans, specific
business strategy, production techniques, trade secrets, or personal financial
statements of an applicant for economic development assistance, or to
Page 5 of 8
Appx. 177
ORC Ann. 121.22
negotiations with other political subdivisions respecting requests for economic

development assistance, provided that both of the following conditions apply:
(a)The information is directly related to a request for economic development
assistance that is to be provided or administered under any provision of
Chapter 715., 725., 1724., or 1728. or sections 701.07, 3735.67 to 3735.70,
5709.40 to 5709.43, 5709.61 to 5709.69, 5709.73 to 5709.75, or 5709.77 to
5709.81 of the Revised Code, or that involves public infrastructure
improvements or the extension of utility services that are directly related to an
economic development project.
(b)A unanimous quorum of the public body determines, by a roll call vote,
that the executive session is necessary to protect the interests of the applicant
or the possible investment or expenditure of public funds to be made in
connection with the economic development project.
If a public body holds an executive session to consider any of the matters
listed in divisions (G)(2) to (8) of this section, the motion and vote to hold
that executive session shall state which one or more of the approved matters
listed in those divisions are to be considered at the executive session.
A public body specified in division (B)(1)(c) of this section shall not hold an
executive session when meeting for the purposes specified in that division.
(H)A resolution, rule, or formal action of any kind is invalid unless adopted in an open
meeting of the public body. A resolution, rule, or formal action adopted in an open
meeting that results from deliberations in a meeting not open to the public is invalid
unless the deliberations were for a purpose specifically authorized in division (G) or (J)
of this section and conducted at an executive session held in compliance with this
section. A resolution, rule, or formal action adopted in an open meeting is invalid if the
public body that adopted the resolution, rule, or formal action violated division (F) of
this section.
(I)
(1)Any person may bring an action to enforce this section. An action under
division (I)(1) of this section shall be brought within two years after the date of
the alleged violation or threatened violation. Upon proof of a violation or
threatened violation of this section in an action brought by any person, the court
of common pleas shall issue an injunction to compel the members of the public
body to comply with its provisions.
(2)
(a)If the court of common pleas issues an injunction pursuant to division
(I)(1) of this section, the court shall order the public body that it enjoins to
Page 6 of 8
Appx. 178
ORC Ann. 121.22
pay a civil forfeiture of five hundred dollars to the party that sought the
injunction and shall award to that party all court costs and, subject to
reduction as described in division (I)(2) of this section, reasonable attorney’s
fees. The court, in its discretion, may reduce an award of attorney’s fees to the
party that sought the injunction or not award attorney’s fees to that party if the
court determines both of the following:
(i)That, based on the ordinary application of statutory law and case law as
it existed at the time of violation or threatened violation that was the basis
of the injunction, a well-informed public body reasonably would believe
that the public body was not violating or threatening to violate this section;
(ii)That a well-informed public body reasonably would believe that the
conduct or threatened conduct that was the basis of the injunction would
serve the public policy that underlies the authority that is asserted as
permitting that conduct or threatened conduct.
(b)If the court of common pleas does not issue an injunction pursuant to
division (I)(1) of this section and the court determines at that time that the
bringing of the action was frivolous conduct, as defined in division (A) of
section 2323.51 of the Revised Code, the court shall award to the public body
all court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, as determined by the court.
(3)Irreparable harm and prejudice to the party that sought the injunction shall be
conclusively and irrebuttably presumed upon proof of a violation or threatened
violation of this section.
(4)A member of a public body who knowingly violates an injunction issued
pursuant to division (I)(1) of this section may be removed from office by an
action brought in the court of common pleas for that purpose by the prosecuting
attorney or the attorney general.
(J)
(1)Pursuant to division (C) of section 5901.09 of the Revised Code, a veterans
service commission shall hold an executive session for one or more of the
following purposes unless an applicant requests a public hearing:
(a)Interviewing an applicant for financial assistance under sections 5901.01 to
(b)Discussing applications, statements, and other documents described in
division (B) of section 5901.09 of the Revised Code;
(c)Reviewing matters relating to an applicant’s request for financial assistance
under sections 5901.01 to 5901.15 of the Revised Code.
Page 7 of 8
Appx. 179
ORC Ann. 121.22
(2)A veterans service commission shall not exclude an applicant for, recipient of,
or former recipient of financial assistance under sections 5901.01 to 5901.15 of
the Revised Code, and shall not exclude representatives selected by the applicant,
recipient, or former recipient, from a meeting that the commission conducts as an
executive session that pertains to the applicant’s, recipient’s, or former
recipient’s application for financial assistance.
(3)A veterans service commission shall vote on the grant or denial of financial
assistance under sections 5901.01 to 5901.15 of the Revised Code only in an
open meeting of the commission. The minutes of the meeting shall indicate the
name, address, and occupation of the applicant, whether the assistance was
granted or denied, the amount of the assistance if assistance is granted, and the
votes for and against the granting of assistance.
History
125 v 534 (Eff 1-31-54); 126 v 303 (Eff 9-30-55); 129 v 582 (Eff 1-10-61); 136 v S 74
(Eff 11-28-75); 138 v H 440 (Eff 3-13-81); 140 v S 227 (Eff 7-14-83); 141 v H 201 (Eff 7-
1-85); 141 v S 279 (Eff 7-24-86); 141 v S 74 (Eff 9-3-86); 141 v H 769 (Eff 3-17-87); 142
v H 529 (Eff 6-14-88); 142 v S 150 (Eff 6-29-88); 142 v S 367 (Eff 12-14-88); 144 v S 326
(Eff 4-16-93); 145 v H 111 (Eff 2-9-94); 145 v S 238 (Eff 4-19-94); 145 v H 571 (Eff 10-
6-94); 146 v H 98 (Eff 11-9-95); 146 v H 670 (Eff 12-2-96); 147 v H 26 (Eff 5-6-98); 147
v H 606 (Eff 3-9-99); 148 v S 55 (Eff 10-26-99); 148 v H 448, § 1 (Eff 10-5-2000); 148 v
S 111 (Eff 12-24-2000); 148 v H 448, § 3 (Eff 12-24-2000); 148 v S 172, §§ 1, 3 (Eff 2-
12-2001); 148 v H 506 (Eff 4-10-2001); 149 v S 184. Eff 5-15-2002; 150 v S 222, § 1, eff.
4-27-05; 152 v H 194, § 1, eff. 2-12-08; 2011 HB 1, § 1, eff. Feb. 18, 2011; 2011 HB
153, § 101.01, eff. Sept. 29, 2011; 2012 SB 314, § 1, eff. Sept. 28, 2012; 2013 HB 59, §
101.01, eff. Sept. 29, 2013; 2015 HB 64, § 101.01, effective Sep 29, 2015; 2016 HB 413, §
1, effective Sep 28, 2016; 2016 HB 158, § 1, effective Oct 12, 2016.
Page’s Ohio Revised Code Annotated

Copyright © 2018 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group. All rights
reserved.
End of Document
Page 8 of 8
Appx. 180
Untitled document Page 1 of 1
121.05 PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE.

(a) At the first meeting in January of each year, the Council shall immediately proceed to elect
a president pro tempore from its own number, who shall serve until the first meeting in January
next after his/her election.
(b) When the Mayor is absent from the Village or is unable, for any cause, to perform his/her
duties, the president pro tempore shall be the acting Mayor, and shall have the same powers and
perform the same duties as the Mayor.
(Ord. 3789. Passed 11-19-14.)
http://whdrane.conwaygreene.com/psews/api/pse/print?nxt_host=whdrane.conwaygreene.c... 7/16/2018
Appx. 181
2011 Ohio AG LEXIS 38
Office of the Attorney General of the State of Ohio
2011 Ohio Op. Atty Gen. No. 38;
Reporter
2011 Ohio AG LEXIS 38 *; 2011 Ohio Op. Atty Gen. No. 38;;
Opinion No. 2011-038
October 18, 2011
Core Terms
public body, open meeting, secret ballot, member of the public, executive session, secret,
open to the public, formal action, deliberate, public official, decision-making, state board
of education, ballot, elect, right to know, dictionary, conceal, public meeting, assembly
Syllabus
[*1]
The State Board of Education may not vote in an open meeting by secret ballot. ( 1980
Op. Att'y Gen. No. 80-083 (syllabus, paragraph 4), overruled.)
Request By: Debe Terhar, President

Opinion By: MICHAEL DEWINE, Ohio Attorney General
Opinion
You have requested an opinion whether the State Board of Education (Board) may vote by
secret ballot during an open meeting of the Board. For the reasons discussed below, we
conclude that the Board may not vote in an open meeting by secret ballot.
Appx. 182
2011 Ohio AG LEXIS 38, *1
R.C. 121.22, Ohio's open meetings law, requires that "[a]ll meetings of any public body"
be "public meetings open to the public at all times." R.C. 121.22(C). 1 For purposes of the
open meetings law, "[p]ublic body" is defined to include "[a]ny board, commission,
committee, council, or similar decision-making body of a state agency, institution, or
authority." R.C. 121.22(B)(1)(a). As a board of a state agency, the Department of
Education, the Board comes within R.C. 121.22 [*2] 's definition of a public body and is
subject to the statute's requirements. 2 See R.C. 3301.13; State ex rel. Nation Bldg.
Technical Acad. v. Ohio Dep't of Educ., 123 Ohio St. 3d 35, 2009-Ohio-4084, 913 N.E.2d
977, at P17 n.1 (State Board of Education is an agency of the Department of Education).
The purpose of Ohio's open meetings law is to ensure openness and accountability in
government. As stated by an analysis prepared by the Legislative Service Commission,
R.C. 121.22 is intended to "afford to citizens the maximum opportunity … to observe and
participate in the conduct of the public business. " Ohio Legislative Service Comm'n,
Analysis, Am. Sub. S.B. 74 (1975) (as quoted in 1985 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 85-049, at 2-
176). See also Wyse v. Rupp, No. F-94-19, 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 4008, [*4] at **11-12
(Fulton County Sept. 15, 1995) ("[a] plain reading of R.C. 121.22 reveals the legislature's
intent to require that all public bodies generally conduct their meetings in the open so that
the public can have access to the business discussed or transacted therein"); Thomas v. Bd.
of Trs. of Liberty Twp., 5 Ohio App. 2d 265, 267, 215 N.E.2d 434 (Trumbull County
1966) (R.C. 121.22 "was originally enacted when the writer of this opinion was a member
of the Ohio General Assembly, and he is familiar with its background… The rationale for
this law is that the public has a right to know everything that happens at the meetings of
governmental bodies"). Ohio courts also have repeatedly affirmed that R.C. 121.22's
mandates are intended to ensure the accountability of public officials. See State ex rel.
Cincinnati Post v. City of Cincinnati, 76 Ohio St. 3d 540, 544, 668 N.E.2d 903 (1996) (the
"very purpose" of R.C. 121.22 is to prevent elected [*5] officials from "meeting secretly
to deliberate on public issues without accountability to the public" (emphasis added));
Cincinnati Enquirer v. Cincinnati Bd. of Educ., 192 Ohio App. 3d 566, 2011-Ohio-703,
949 N.E.2d 1032, at P9 (Hamilton County) (R.C. 121.22 "seeks to prevent public bodies
from engaging in secret deliberations with no accountability to the public"); State ex rel.
1 R.C. 121.22 permits a public body to hold an executive session from which members of the public may be excluded. R.C. 121.22(G); State
ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. City of Cincinnati, 76 Ohio St. 3d 540, 544, 668 N.E.2d 903 (1996); 1985 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 85-049, at 2-176 n.2.
An executive session may be held only after certain statutorily prescribed procedures are followed. R.C. 121.22(G); State ex rel. Cincinnati
Post v. City of Cincinnati, 76 Ohio St. 3d at 544. During an executive session, a public body may discuss only matters specifically
enumerated in R.C. 121.22(G) and only if those subjects are specified publicly before the members of the public body adjourn into
executive session. For example, a public body may hold an executive session to discuss certain personnel matters, the purchase of property,
pending or imminent litigation, or collective bargaining matters. R.C. 121.22(G).
2 R.C.3301.05 makes clear that the State Board of Education (Board) is subject to the open meetings law's requirements of R.C. 121.22. R.C.
3301.05 states that "[o]fficial actions of the state board [of education] … shall be transacted only at public meetings open to the public." R.C.
3301.041 also explicitly requires the Board to comply with R.C. 121.22(G).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Page 2 of 10
Appx. 183
Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hamilton County Comm'rs, No. C-010605, 2002- Ohio-2038, 2002
Ohio App. LEXIS 1977, at *2 (Hamilton County Apr. 26, 2002) (the purpose of R.C.
121.22 "is to assure accountability of elected officials by prohibiting their secret
deliberations on public issues" (emphasis added)).
To this end, R.C. 121.22(A) provides as follows:
This section shall be liberally construed to require public officials to take official action
and to conduct all deliberations upon official business only in open meetings unless
the subject matter is specifically excepted by law.
The law also declares [*6] that "formal action of any kind is invalid unless adopted in an
open meeting of the public body. " R.C. 121.22(H). 3 Voting by the members of a public
body is a formal action that must occur in a meeting open to the public. 4 See State ex rel.
Schuette v. Liberty Twp. Bd. of Trs., Delaware App. No. 03-CAH-11064, 2004- Ohio-
4431, 2004 Ohio App. LEXIS 4015, at P28 (Aug. 19, 2004); Mathews v. E. Local Sch.
Dist., No. 00CA647, 2001- Ohio-2372, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 1677, at **8-10 (Pike
County Jan. 4, 2001); Angerman v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, 70 Ohio App. 3d 346, 352,
591 N.E.2d 3 (Franklin County 1990); 2000 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 2000-010, at 2-55; 1980
Op. Att'y Gen. No. 80-083, at 2-329.
R.C. 121.22 makes limited references to a public body's method of voting. In particular,
R.C. 121.22(G) declares that a roll call vote is required when a public body adjourns into
executive session. R.C. 121.22(G). A roll call vote requires each member of the public
body to vote [*8] "yea" or "nay" as the member's name is called, and the vote of each
member is placed on the record. See Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 420 (11th ed.
2011). This type of vote "enables constituents to know how their representatives voted on
certain measures." Id.
R.C. 121.22 does not address explicitly the use of secret ballots by the members of a
public body, nor does any other provision of the Revised Code address the use of secret
ballots by the Board. Voting by secret ballot is a process of voting by slips of paper on
which the voter indicates his vote. Id. at 412; Black's Law Dictionary 143 (6th ed. 1990).
Voting by secret ballot is "used when secrecy of the members' votes is desired." Robert's
Rules of Order, Newly Revised, at 412. When a secret ballot is used, the vote "is cast in
3 As previously mentioned, the Board also is subject to the open meetings requirement of R.C. 3301.05, the language of which mirrors the
language of R.C. 121.22.
4 Although R.C. 121.22 permits the members of a public body to deliberate upon certain topics in an executive session closed to the public,
a public body is prohibited from adopting any resolutions or rules or taking any formal actions during executive sessions. See, e.g., Mathews
v. E. Local Sch. Dist., No. 00CA647, 2001- Ohio-2372, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 1677, at **8-10 (Pike County Jan. 4, 2001); State ex rel.
Kinsley v. Berea Bd. of Educ., 64 Ohio App. 3d 659, 664, 582 N.E.2d 653 (Cuyahoga County 1990); 1985 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 85-049, at 2-
176 n.2.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Page 3 of 10
Appx. 184
such a manner that the person expressing such choice cannot be identified with the choice
expressed." Black's Law Dictionary 143 (6th ed. 1990); see also Webster's Third New
International Dictionary 2052 (unabr. ed. 1993) (defining "secret" as something "kept
hidden" or "kept from the knowledge of others, concealed as [*9] part of one's private
knowledge").
No Ohio courts and only one Attorney General opinion have confronted the use of secret
ballot voting by a public body that is subject to the requirements of R.C. 121.22. See
1980 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 80-083 (syllabus, paragraph 4) ("R.C. 121.22 does not require a
roll call vote or prohibit voting at a meeting subject to that section by 'secret ballot' ").
You now ask us to advise the Board whether it may vote by secret ballot during a public
meeting of the Board.
The State Board of Education is charged with the "general supervision of the system of
public education in the state." R.C. 3301.07. The Board's general powers, duties, and
responsibilities are set forth in R.C. Chapter 3301. The Board is required to develop
statewide academic standards as well as standards prescribing the minimum standards for
elementary and secondary schools in the state, for the education of children with
disabilities, and for the effective organization, administration, and supervision of each
school. R.C. 3301.07 [*10] ; R.C. 3301.079. The Board also is required to adopt rules
governing a broad range of issues, including, for example, establishing a statewide
program to assess student achievement, licensing of school district treasurers and business
managers, and purchasing and leasing data processing services and equipment. R.C.
3301.074-.075; R.C. 3301.0710. The Board also is responsible for appointing the
Superintendent of Public Instruction. R.C. 3301.08. With the exception of those topics set
forth in R.C. 121.22(G), which may be discussed in executive session, the Board must
deliberate and take action on these matters in meetings open to the public. See R.C.
121.22(A); R.C. 121.22(H). Formal action of the Board is invalid unless the action is
taken during an open meeting. R.C. 121.22(H).
The "open meetings" mandate of R.C. 121.22 requires [*11] more than simply granting
members of the public physical access to a meeting of a public body. The clear intent and
purpose of R.C. 121.22 are to ensure openness and accountability in government, and the
statute must be read and applied consistent with these goals. State ex rel. Cincinnati Post
v. City of Cincinnati, 76 Ohio St. 3d at 543 (when construing a statute, our "paramount
concern" is to give effect to the intent and purpose of the General Assembly). R.C. 121.22
itself instructs us to liberally construe its mandates in favor of openness. R.C. 121.22(A).
See also State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Econ. Opportunity Planning Ass'n of Greater
Toledo, 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 631, 640, 582 N.E.2d 59 (C.P. Lucas County 1990) (the open
meetings law "is to be given a broad interpretation to ensure that the official business of
the state is conducted openly").
Page 4 of 10
Appx. 185
In Manogg v. Stickle, No. 97 CA 104, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 1961, at **6-7 (Licking
County Apr. 8, [*12] 1998), the court found that a meeting was not "open" for purposes
of R.C. 121.22. In that case, members of the public body, a board of township trustees,
whispered among themselves so that "the majority of the discussion among the trustees
[was] inaudible." Id. at *6. Further, the township trustees passed documents among
themselves during the meeting. The trustees' actions "intentionally prevented the audience
from hearing or knowing what business was being conducted at the meeting." Id. Although
nothing in the statute explicitly prohibits public officials from whispering or passing
documents among themselves, the court nevertheless held that the township trustees'
actions violated the "open meetings" requirement of R.C. 121.22.
Similarly, a meeting is not "open" to the public where members of a public body vote by
way of secret ballot. "Voting by ballot is rarely, if ever, used in legislative bodies,
because the members vote in a representative capacity and their constituents are entitled to
know how their representatives vote." Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure § 536
(rev. ed. 2000) [*13] (emphasis added). Voting by secret ballot prevents the public from
knowing how each of the members of a public body votes on a particular matter. See
Black's Law Dictionary 143 (6th ed. 1990). Voting by secret ballot produces the same
result as where public officials whisper or pass documents among themselves. Members of
the public are prevented from knowing a critical part of a public body's decision-making
process. Voting by secret ballot is inimical to R.C. 121.22's goals of enabling the public
to know the actions of its appointed and elected representatives.
That an "open meeting" requires more than granting physical access to the meeting is
further supported by the common understanding of the word "open." Left undefined by
statute, "open" must be "read in context and construed according to the rules of grammar
and common usage." R.C. 1.42. "Open" has several definitions, all of which indicate that a
meeting so qualified must be free from concealment in all its aspects. According to Black's
Law Dictionary 1117 (7th ed. 1999), "open" means "[v]isible; exposed to public view; not
clandestine." Similarly, [*14] Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1579 (unabr.
ed. 1993), defines "open" as "completely free from concealment." These definitions
support the conclusion that all aspects of an "open meeting, " including final actions such
as voting, must be "exposed to public view. " Voting by secret ballot is the antithesis of
the definition of "open."
With the exception of executive sessions, meetings of a public body must be open in all
respects in order for the public to hold the public body accountable for its actions. If the
votes of the individual members of a public body are denied public scrutiny, the public is
unable to properly evaluate the decision-making of the public body and hold its members
responsible for their decisions. In addressing whether a public body is permitted to adopt
rules for the conduct of its meetings, 1988 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 88-087 noted at 2-418 that
Page 5 of 10
Appx. 186
R.C. 121.22 was meant to partially codify the public's "right to know" what business takes
place in government proceedings. As explained in that opinion:
In the context of local governmental legislative proceedings the right to know [*15] is
deeply-rooted: "Our American democracy is partly founded on the premise that the
public has a right, yea even a duty, to oversee the decision-making procedures of those
who have been chosen to govern. A public, not given the right of government
oversight, is an uninformed public. With such action, the very integrity of the
governing process is threatened." State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Barnes,
38 Ohio St. 3d 165, 169 (1988) (Douglas, J., concurring).
1988 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 88-087, at 2-419 (emphasis added).
The twin civic duties of overseeing governmental decision-making and holding public
officials accountable for their decisions require that the governed possess and enforce a
right to know not only why decisions are made (open deliberations) , but also the right to
know the position and final vote of each individual official. "The statute that exists to shed
light on deliberations of public bodies cannot be interpreted in a manner which would
result in the public being left in the dark." State ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. City of
Cincinnati, 76 Ohio St. 3d at 544. [*16] Voting by secret ballot thwarts openness and
denies the public the ability to hold members of a public body accountable for their
decisions, thereby impeding the manifest intent and purpose of R.C. 121.22.
Ohio courts and our opinions also have rejected attempts of public bodies to evade the
salutary purposes of the open meetings law. In State ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. City of
Cincinnati, a city council held back-to-back meetings and purposefully scheduled the
meetings so that no gathering of the city council would have a majority of council
members present in order to avoid the requirements of the open meetings law. 76 Ohio St.
3d at 541. The Ohio Supreme Court held that "the statute prevents such maneuvering in
order to avoid its clear intent." Id. at 543. The court further stated that "[t]o find that
Cincinnati's game of 'legislative musical chairs' is allowable under the [open meetings law]
would be to ignore the legislative intent of the statute, disregard its evident purpose, and
allow an absurd result." Id. at 544. [*17] See also Manogg v. Stickle, 1998 Ohio App.
LEXIS 1961, at *6 (whispering and passing notes "circumvented the intent of R.C.
121.22"); State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Econ. Opportunity Planning Ass'n of Greater
Toledo, 61 Ohio Misc. 2d at 640 (a "governmental decision-making body cannot assign its
decisions to a nominally private body in order to shield those decisions from public
scrutiny" ); 2009 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 2009-034, at 2-233 n.3 ("[m]embers of a public body
must not attempt to circumvent the intent of the open meetings law by conducting a
conference call and claiming it does not meet the definition of a 'meeting' of the public
body because a majority of the members are not 'present in person'"); 1992 Op. Att'y Gen.
No. 92-077, at 2-325 ("[t]o conclude otherwise would allow a public body to circumvent
Page 6 of 10
Appx. 187
the requirements of R.C. 121.22 merely by assigning to an advisory body those portions of
its deliberations of the public business which [*18] it seeks to shield from public
scrutiny; such a result would be clearly contrary to the legislative intent expressed in R.C.
121.22(A)").
Construing R.C. 121.22 as permitting a public body to vote by secret ballot also produces
an unreasonable and absurd consequence. R.C. 1.47(C) (in enacting a statute, it is
presumed that "[a] just and reasonable result is intended"); Canton v. Imperial Bowling
Lanes, Inc., 16 Ohio St. 2d 47, 242 N.E.2d 566 (1968) (syllabus, paragraph 4) ("[t]he
General Assembly will not be presumed to have intended to enact a law producing
unreasonable or absurd consequences"); State ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. City of Cincinnati,
76 Ohio St. 3d at 543-44. R.C. 121.22(H) requires a public body to adopt a resolution or
rule or take formal action "in an open meeting of the public body. " While R.C. 121.22
permits a public body's members to deliberate in executive session, the law
prohibits [*19] them from voting while in executive session. R.C. 121.22(G)-(H). A
public body may vote only during a meeting open to the public, and a public body in
executive session must return to an open meeting before voting. Id. A secret ballot vote
during an open meeting is no different from a vote taken during an executive session. In
either case, the public is denied the opportunity to know and evaluate the decision-making
of the public body and to hold its members accountable for their decisions. It is patently
unreasonable to explicitly prohibit a public body from voting during a closed executive
session only to permit the public body to vote by secret ballot once it reconvenes in an
open meeting.
Finally, where R.C. 121.22 authorizes exceptions to the open deliberations requirement,
the law expressly enumerates those exceptions and the procedures that the public body
must follow in order to lawfully adjourn to an executive session from which the public
may be excluded. R.C. 121.22(G). No similar exceptions permit a public body to take
formal actions secretly. Had the [*20] General Assembly intended to permit a public
body to take formal actions in a manner that excluded the public, it could have done so
with similarly explicit language. See Lake Shore Elec. Ry. Co. v. P.U.C.O., 115 Ohio St.
311, 319, 154 N.E. 239 (1926) (had the legislature intended a particular meaning, "it would
not have been difficult to find language which would express that purpose," having used
that language in other connections); State ex rel. Enos v. Stone, 92 Ohio St. 63, 69, 110
N.E. 627 (1915) (if the General Assembly intended a particular result, it could have
employed language used elsewhere that plainly and clearly compelled that result).
Accordingly, we conclude that the "open meetings" requirement of R.C. 121.22 is not
satisfied when members of a public body, in this instance, the State Board of Education,
vote by secret ballot. To conclude otherwise would permit the Board to disregard the
Page 7 of 10
Appx. 188
primary purpose of the open meetings law by concealing the decision-making of its
members from the public.
Other states with open meetings laws that employ [*21] language nearly identical to that
in R.C. 121.22 have reached the same conclusion. These statutes explicitly require that
public bodies conduct business in open meetings and that formal actions of those public
bodies occur in an open meeting. As in the case of R.C. 121.22, the open meetings laws of
those states are silent with respect to the members of a public body voting by secret
ballot.
As early as 1933, the Illinois Attorney General addressed the use of secret ballots by a
public body and concluded that a vote by secret ballot violated the law and public policy.
1933 Ill. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 246, p. 334. The law in question required a "board of
supervisors" to "sit with open doors" and declared that "all persons may attend their
meetings." Id. The Illinois Attorney General reasoned: "[o]f what avail is an open door to
the public if the proceedings are secret. … It is no advantage to the citizen to see a member
write a name secretly on a ballot unless he is privileged to read what is thereon written."
Id. at 335. Forty-two years later, the Illinois Attorney General again addressed the issue
of [*22] secret ballots and reached the same conclusion:
The public has a right to know how their public officials and representatives vote on
issues, not only so they may try to persuade them to change their position or
congratulate them on actions they have taken, but also that they may have the necessary
information to decide whether they want to retain that person in public office.
1975 Ill. Op. Att'y Gen. No. S-917, p. 3574, at 3576, 1975 Ill. AG LEXIS 37, at *8.
An Illinois appellate court affirmed the conclusions of these two opinions when the court
addressed whether a county board was permitted, under Illinois' open meetings law, to vote
by secret written ballot in the election of the county board's chairman. WSDR, Inc. v.
Ogle County, 427 N.E.2d 603 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981). The intent of the Illinois open meetings
law is to require that "the actions of public bodies be taken openly." 5 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann.
120/1 (2011). The law requires that "[a]ll meetings of public bodies shall be open to the
public." 5 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 120/2(a) (2011). [*23] The court held that a secret ballot
for the election violated the state law. "A secret ballot … is the antithesis of an open
meeting even though the vote was conducted in the presence of the public." WSDR, Inc.
v. Ogle County, 427 N.E.2d at 604. The court further explained that the votes of public
officials "can be highly indicative to their voters and the public of the quality of their
public service." Id. at 605. Although the public officials sought to avoid antagonism
between the board members by keeping their votes private, the court rejected this as a valid
reason to vote by secret ballot because "[t]he voters who elected these board members
are no longer in a position to judge the competency of their representatives." Id.
Page 8 of 10
Appx. 189
The Texas Attorney General echoed the same reasoning and concluded that voting by
secret ballot violated the Texas open meetings act. Texas law requires that "[a] final
action, decision, or vote … may only be made in an open meeting. " Tex. Gov't Code Ann.
§ 551.102 (2011). The Texas Attorney General concluded that "[t]he secret ballot, …
when [*24] it is used to conceal a public official's vote, … violates the fundamental tenet
of an elected or appointed official's ultimate accountability to the electorate. We believe it
is the antithesis of the requirements of the Texas Open Meetings Act." Tex. Att'y Gen. Op.
No. H-1163, p. 4707 (1978) (citations omitted).
Florida's open meetings law states that "[a]ll meetings … at which official acts are to be
taken are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times, and no resolution,
rule, or formal action shall be considered binding except as taken or made at such
meeting." Fla. Stat. § 286.011(1) (2011). The Florida Attorney General concluded that a
vote by secret ballot violates this mandate "since the public and the news media are denied
the right to know who voted for whom, and the meeting cannot therefore be regarded as
'open to the public at all times.'" Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 1971-32, 1971 Fla. AG LEXIS 292, at
**3-4.
Michigan law provides that "[a]ll decisions of a public body shall be made at a meeting
open to the public." Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.263(2) [*25] (2011). The Michigan Attorney
General found that a vote by secret ballot violated the requirement that meetings be open.
"Since the statute requires that a vote be taken at a public meeting, the Legislature clearly
intended this vote be open to the public as well." 1977-78 Op. Att'y Gen. Mich. 338, 1978
Mich. AG LEXIS 164, at *2. A Michigan court subsequently reached the same conclusion.
Esperance v. Chesterfield Twp., 280 N.W.2d 559 (Mich. App. Ct. 1979). In holding that
Michigan's open meetings law prohibits a public body from voting by secret ballot, the
court stated as follows: "[i]t can hardly be contended that a vote by secret ballot at an open
meeting is any more open than a vote at a closed meeting. In either case the public official
has shielded his stand from public scrutiny and accountability. " Id. at 563.
R.C. 121.22 is intended to ensure openness and accountability in government. To permit
the Board to vote by secret ballot is inimical to these purposes and would enable the
Board to conceal the decision-making of its members from [*26] the public. Rather, a
public body must conduct its business in a way that permits the public to know what
business is conducted at the meeting, which includes knowledge about the votes cast by
individual members of the public body.
We recognize that in 1980 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 80-083 (syllabus, paragraph 4), the
Attorney General advised that R.C. 121.22 "does not … prohibit voting at a meeting
subject to that section by 'secret ballot. '" The opinion rejected the proposition that R.C.
121.22's "liberal construction" mandate should apply to the method of voting used by the
members of a public body. The opinion stated that doing so would add a requirement "not
Page 9 of 10
Appx. 190
imposed by the specific language of [R.C. 121.22]." 1980 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 80-083, at 2-
330. The opinion reasoned that insofar as R.C. 121.22(H) states that formal action of a
public body is invalid "unless adopted in an open meeting of the public body, " only the
meeting itself need be open. [*27] Id. ("[a]s long as the public body's meeting is open to
the public, and complies in all other respects with R.C. 121.22, I am constrained by the
plain language of the statute to conclude that it does not … prohibit voting by 'secret
ballot' " (footnote omitted)). 1980 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 80-083 appears to have determined
that voting by secret ballot is compatible with the plain language of the statute.
Since the issuance of the 1980 opinion, however, Ohio courts, including the Ohio Supreme
Court, repeatedly have endorsed a liberal reading of the open meetings law's requirements
in the interest of ensuring that the purpose of the law is upheld and preventing public
bodies from evading that purpose. See, e.g., State ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. City of
Cincinnati, 76 Ohio St. 3d at 544; Manogg v. Stickle, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 1961, at
**6-7; Thomas v. Bd. of Trs. of Liberty Twp., 5 Ohio App. 2d at 267; State ex rel. Toledo
Blade Co. v. Econ. Opportunity Planning Ass'n of Greater Toledo, 61 Ohio Misc. 2d at
640; [*28] see also 2009 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 2009-034; 1992 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 92-078.
The current state of that jurisprudence persuades us that R.C. 121.22's "liberal
construction" mandate should be applied to the method of voting used by the members of
a public body in taking formal action at an open meeting. Voting by secret ballot is at
variance with the purpose of the open meetings law and only denies the people their right
to view and evaluate the workings of their government. Accordingly, a public body that is
subject to the requirements of the Ohio open meetings law may not vote in an open
meeting by secret ballot. We overrule syllabus, paragraph 4 of 1980 Op. Att'y Gen. No.
80-083.
In conclusion, it is my opinion, and you are hereby advised that the State Board of
Education may not vote in an open meeting by secret ballot. ( 1980 Op. Att'y Gen. No.
80-083 [*29] (syllabus, paragraph 4), overruled.)
Load Date: 2014-07-16
End of Document
Page 10 of 10
Appx. 191

Meade v. Bratenahl Ohio Supreme Court Merits Brief

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Meade v. Bratenahl Ohio Supreme Court Merits Brief

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed July 31, 2018 - Case No.

STATE OF OHIO ex rel. PATRICIA MEADE,

Village of Bratenahl, et al.,

APPELLANT’S MERITS BRIEF

Counsel for Appellant : Counsel for Amici: Counsel for Appellees:

Brian C. Shrive (0088980) Monica Dias (0073617) David J. Matty (012335)

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................... i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................... iii

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................... 1

Members of a public body violate or threaten

1. Standard of Review de novo ...................................................................5

2. Duty of the Courts to liberally construe the statute ................................5

3. The selection of a president pro tempore is

4. Voting by secret ballot violates or threatens

5. Meade and the public at large have been prevented

6. Voting by secret ballot constructively

7. Violations of the Open Meetings Act cannot be

8. The Open Meetings Act contains no exceptions for

9. The case is not moot................................................................................20

APPENDIX AND SUPPLEMENT TO THE BRIEF Appx Page

Notice of Appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court

Opinion and Judgment Entry of the Cuyahoga County Court of

Judgment Entry of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

4 Answer to First Amended Complaint ............................................................

5 Amended Complaint ......................................................................................

Original Ballot Slips, Exhibit A to Appellees’ Brief

Appended Ballot Slips, Exhibit B to Appellees’ Brief

8 Case History, Court of Appeals, Case No. CA-16-105281 ...........................

9 Case History, Common Pleas Court, Case No. CV-16-857888.....................

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS; STATUTES;

10 R.C. 1.11 ........................................................................................................

11 R.C. 121.22 ....................................................................................................

12 Bratenahl Codified Ordinances 121.05 ..........................................................

13 2011 Ohio Atty.Gen.Ops. No. 2011-038 .......................................................

Case Authority: Page:

Angerman v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio,

Baker v. Wayne Cty.,

Bohlen v. Anadarko E&P Onshore, L.L.C.,

Doran v. Northmont Bd. of Edn.,

Doran v. Northmont Bd. of Edn.,

Doran v. Northmont Bd. of Educ.,

Foulk v. City of Upper Arlington,

Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. v. Chillicothe City

Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co.,

Kish v. City of Akron,

M.H. v. Cuyahoga Falls,

Mathews v. E. Local Sch. Dist.,

McVey v. Carthage Twp. Trustees,

Mollette v. Portsmouth City Council,

Press Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (1986),

Slingluff v. Weaver (1902),

Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC (1911),

State ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. Cincinnati,

State ex rel. Gaylor, Inc. v. Goodenow,

State ex rel. Long v. Council of Cardington,

State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co.,

State, ex rel. The Repository, v. Unger (1986),

State ex rel. Schuette v. Liberty Twp. Bd. of Trs.

State ex rel. Young v. Bd. of Ed.,

Swafford v. Norwood Bd. of Edn.,

Temple v. Wean United, Inc.,

Wheeling Corp. v. Columbus,

R.C. 121.22 ............................................................................................................

R.C. 121.22(C) ......................................................................................................