Ames v. Portage Cty.: Succession Plan Talk Allowed in Closed Session

Brian M. Ames filed a complaint against the Portage County Board of Commissioners alleging violations of Ohio’s Open Meetings Act (Sunshine Law). He claimed that an April 9, 2020 meeting improperly included discussions in executive session that exceeded the stated purpose and that the board failed to keep accurate minutes.

During the April 9 meeting, the board voted to enter executive session to consider the employment of a public employee. Present at the session were the three commissioners, human resources director Janet Kovick, an attorney, and the water resources department director. Testimony at trial showed that the session involved discussion of a succession plan developed by human resources. Under that plan, the Deputy Director of Water Resources would be promoted to Interim Director. The session also included evaluations of the Deputy Director’s performance, including her leadership during the pandemic. Afterward, the board recorded a journal entry that it had agreed to stay the succession plan for the duration of the public health emergency.

Ames alleged that the commissioners exceeded the statutory allowance for an executive session by discussing matters beyond employment, such as the succession plan and the pandemic’s impact on the department. He also alleged the minutes were insufficient.

Trial court ruling

The Portage County Court of Common Pleas found that the discussions were within the scope of the statute. It held that employment, performance, and promotion matters concerning the Deputy Director were properly addressed in executive session. The court determined that discussing the pandemic’s effect on the employee’s duties and the succession plan as it related to her potential promotion were incidental to employment considerations. The court ruled that the board did not violate Ohio’s Open Meetings Act.

Appeal before the Eleventh District Court of Appeals

Ames appealed, arguing that the statutory term “employment” did not encompass the discussions held. He contended that succession planning and performance evaluations fell under distinct statutory categories such as promotion, discipline, or dismissal, not employment. He maintained that the commissioners’ reliance on “employment” as the sole basis for the executive session rendered the discussion improper.

The appellate court reviewed the matter de novo. It found that the statute authorizes executive sessions to consider employment, appointment, promotion, and related personnel actions. The court reasoned that “employment” could fairly describe the subject of the session, which was whether to offer the Interim Director position to the Deputy Director. It further found that discussions of her performance and the pandemic’s effect on her duties were incidental to the employment decision. The court rejected Ames’ contention that the session improperly covered separate statutory categories. It noted that courts disapprove of citing multiple statutory grounds simply to encompass all employment-related discussions.

Final outcome

The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, affirmed the trial court’s decision, upholding the Board of Commissioners’ use of executive session to discuss the Deputy Director’s prospective promotion and related matters.

Help with succession planning disputes

If your organization is facing legal challenges involving succession planning, governance procedures, or compliance with open meeting requirements, Whitcomb, Selinsky PC handles cases involving succession policies, regulatory obligations, and organizational governance. Reach out to schedule a consultation and learn how our team can assist with your case.