State ex rel. Mohr v. Colerain Twp.

Citations

• 2022 Ohio 1109

Syllabus

OPEN MEETINGS ACT – PUBLIC BODY – EVIDENCE – AUTHENTICATION – HEARSAY – PUBLIC MEETINGS: A land-use planning committee created by a township's board of trustees was a public body within the meaning of the Ohio Open Meetings Act even though it had no formal decision-making power because it was a subcommittee to which the trustees referred business and because it made recommendations and advised other public bodies, which necessitated making decisions. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering a draft land-use plan because it was adequately authenticated by a planner working for the township planning department who testified that he created the graphics and took the photographs, as well as attending the committee's meetings and helping to guide the conversation. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that a draft land-use plan and other documents were not hearsay because Evid.R. 801(D)(2) provides that a statement made by a party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of his or her agency or employment is not hearsay. The trial court did not err in finding that a quorum of a majority of the members of the land-use committee existed where the evidence showed that the land-use plan contained a photograph of seven of the committee members, which consisted of seven voting members and two nonvoting members, discussing ideas at a meeting, where an employee of the township planning department testified that the committee discussed issues and reached a consensus, and where the draft land-use plan discussed the nature of the committee's interactions. The trial court did not err in finding that the land-use committee met by email where an employee of the township planning department sent emails to all the committee members and the committee members discussed issues related to the township's land use.