Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Relator :
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE
v. : RELIEF PURSUANT TO R.C. 121.22
Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 681, 683 (6th Cir.2002)
Now comes Mark Miller, on relation to the State of Ohio (“Relator”) and for his
1. This is an action brought to compel compliance with Ohio’s Open Meetings Act and the
2. This action results from the conduct of a cabal of five rogue members of the Cincinnati City
Council, whereby this cabal has conducted illegal meetings of a majority of the members of
the Cincinnati City Council, attempting to decide matters of great public import behind
closed doors and in secret communications, and subverting the public’s right to know and
4. Respondent CITY OF CINCINNATI is a body politic and corporate formed and existing
5. The Cincinnati City Council is the legislative body for the CITY OF CINCINNATI.
6. The Cincinnati City Council is a public body as defined in Section 121.22(B)(1) of the Ohio
Revised Code.
County, and is one of nine members of the City Council of the City of Cincinnati.
2
10. Respondent CHRISTOPHER SEELBACH is a resident of Hamilton County, and is one of
11. Respondent TAMAYA DENNARD is a resident of Hamilton County, and is one of nine
12. Respondent GREG LANDSMAN is a resident of Hamilton County, and is one of nine
16. Venue is proper in this Court because the actions or occurrences contained in this Complaint
BACKGROUND FACTS
17. R.C. 121.22(C) unequivocally declares “[a]ll meetings of any public body are declared to be
public meetings open to the public at all times” and further declares that “[t]he minutes of a
regular or special meeting of any public body shall be promptly prepared, filed, and
18. R.C. 121.22(A) requires that the Sunshine Law “shall be liberally construed to require public
officials to take official action and to conduct all deliberations upon official business only in
3
19. Article II § 5 of the Cincinnati City Charter unequivocally declares “[t]he proceedings of
council shall be public,” and that “[t]he council shall keep a journal of its proceedings which
20. The purposes of the Ohio Open Meetings Act include: (i) ensuring openness and
accountability in government; (ii) affording citizens the maximum opportunity to observe the
conducting of public business by public bodies; and (iii) affording the accountability of
public officials.
21. Pursuant to R.C. § 121.22, “meetings” includes in person meetings of a majority of the
members of a public body, round robin meetings of a majority of the members of a public
body, as well as emails between a majority of the members of a public body, text messages
majority of the members of a public body, or any other form of communication. See, White v.
King, 147 Ohio St.3d 74, 2016-Ohio-2770, 60 N.E.3d 1234, ¶¶ 15-16; See also, State ex rel.
Cincinnati Post v. City of Cincinnati, 76 Ohio St.3d 540, 544, 1996-Ohio-372, 668 N.E.2d
903.
22. “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,
23. R.C. § 121.22(F) requires in pertinent part that “[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
action. In the event of an emergency, the member or members calling the meeting shall
4
notify the news media that have requested notification immediately of the time, place, and
24. R.C. § 121.22(H) declares invalid any resolution, rule, or formal action of any kind invalid if
COUNCILMEMBER RESPONDENTS conduct illegal, secret meetings via email and text.
25. On or about March 16, 2018, the COUNCILMEMBER RESPONDENTS issued a press
release (the “First Press Release”). A copy of the First Press Release is attached hereto as
Exhibit 1.
26. On or about March 18, 2018, the COUNCILMEMBER RESPONDENTS issued a second
press release (the “Second Press Release”). A copy of the Second Press Release is attached
hereto as Exhibit 2.
27. Both the First Press Release and the Second Press release were distributed in the name of all
28. Both the First Press Release and the Second Press Release deal with matters of the public
business of the Cincinnati City Council, specifically, the question of whether, and how, to
fire, or otherwise terminate the employment of, the Cincinnati City Manager.
29. On information and belief, the First Press Release and Second Press Release resulted from
meetings (both in person and via various other forms of communication, including without
5
30. On information and belief, the First Press Release and Second Press Release resulted from
RESPONDENTS).
31. Secret meetings such as those set forth herein are anathema to the spirit and intent of Ohio’s
32. Upon information and belief, the COUNCILMEMBER RESPONDENTS conducted the
meetings and proceedings that resulted in the First Press Release and Second Press Release,
with the purpose and intent of circumventing the letter and spirit of the Open Meetings Act
33. The First Press Release includes the following declaration: “We have watched this
unfortunate saga unfold in recent days, and feel strongly that it is now on us – the Council
34. The Second Press Release is styled as a “[s]tatement from the majority of Cincinnati City
Council in light of yesterday’s news,” and includes the declaration: “[o]ur position has not
changed. We do not supprt [sic] an increased buyout or believe that’s responsible to the
taxpayers.”
proceedings, via electronic, and other, communications, including text and email exchanges
between and amongst a majority of the members of the Cincinnati City Council.
36. On March 16, 2018 at approximately 11:53 a.m. Respondent ALEXANDER PAUL
GEORGE SITTENFELD sent an email with the subject line “Draft letter for Council
draft Email”). A copy of the Initial Draft Email is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
6
37. The Initial Draft Email makes clear that the COUNCILMEMBER RESPONDENTS (i.e. a
majority of the members of the Cincinnati City Council) have conducted prearranged
deliberations and discussions of the public business (i.e. meetings), and that the First Press
38. In the introduction, the Initial Draft Email reads in pertinent part:
39. On information and belief, after receiving the Initial Draft Email, the COUNCILMEMBER
and text message; resulting in revisions and edits to the initial draft of the First Press Release,
40. On March 16, 2018 Respondent CHRIS SEELBACH sent an email with the subject line
41. The Revisions Email makes clear that the COUNCILMEMBER RESPONDENTS (i.e. a
majority of the members of the Cincinnati City Council) were deliberating and discussing,
and coming to a final decision on, the First Press Release via text messages.
43. The version of the press release contained in the Revisions Email differs from the version of
the press release contained in the Initial Email, and the final version of the First Press
Release.
7
44. On information and belief, the Second Press Release was the result of similar serial meetings
COUNT ONE
Violation of R.C. 121.22 Secret Meetings
45. Relator restates and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully stated here.
46. The Cincinnati City Council constitutes a “public body” as defined in the Open Meetings
47. The Cincinnati City Council, and its individual members, i.e. the COUNCILMEMBER
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.
48. The Ohio Open Meetings Acts 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).
49. The Open Meetings act also mandates that “[a]ll meetings of any public body” be “public
50. The Charter of the City of Cincinnati does not permit any exceptions to the requirement of
openness of all proceedings of the Cincinnati City Council. Thus, with respect to the
Cincinnati City Council, there are no matters excepted by law from the requirements of the
51. In fact, the First District Court of Appeals has declared it “feckless” and “pernicious” to
argue that the Cincinnati City Charter permits non-public meetings of the majority of the
members of the Cincinnati City Council, so long as no vote is held. (“Accepting this
argument would allow the council to always meet behind closed doors, decide what to pass,
8
then come out and vote. Not only is this argument feckless, it is pernicious.” State ex rel.
Gannett Satellite Info. Network v. Cincinnati City Council, 137 Ohio App. 3d 589 *, 739
N.E.2d 387, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 1520, 28 Media L. Rep. 2462 (Ohio Ct. App., Hamilton
52. The Ohio Supreme Court has declared “[t]he distinction between serial in-person
communications and serial electronic communications via e-mail for purposes of R.C. 121.22
in a public forum, and thus, we conclude that in this instance, a prearranged discussion of the
public business of a public body by a majority of its members through a series of private e-
mail communications is subject to R.C. 121.22.” White v. King, 147 Ohio St.3d 74, 2016-
53. Likewise, the distinction between serial in-person communications and serial
54. On March 16, 2018 the COUNCILMEMBER RESPONDENTS (i.e. a majority of the
majority of the members of the Cincinnati City Council, via text and email exchanges,
56. Such meetings were not open to the public, in violation of R.C. § 121.22.
57. Further, upon information and belief, the COUNCILMEMBER RESPONDENTS held
additional secret meetings after the release of the First Press Release; and the Second Press
RESPONDENTS.
9
58. Thus the COUNCILMEMBER RESPONDENTS have violated or threatened to violate
R.C. §121.22 by conducting secret meetings; by excluding the public from such meetings;
WHEREFORE, Relator on behalf of the State of Ohio, hereby prays and requests
jointly and severally, have violated or threaten to violate the Ohio Open Meetings Act by
b. Issue a declaratory judgment that each individual email, text message, or other
Press Release and Second Press Release constitutes a distinct violation of the Open Meetings
Act;
their successors in office, from conducting any secret meetings, or by otherwise committing
d. Declare invalid any and all resolution, rule, or formal action of any kind that resulted
e. Award Relator a civil forfeiture of five hundred dollars for each distinct violation, as
well as an award of all court costs and reasonable attorney fees; and
Respectfully submitted,
10
4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225
Cincinnati, OH 45245
brian@finneylawfirm.com
chris@finneylawfirm.com
(513) 943-6656
(513) 943-6669 (fax)
PRAECIPE TO CLERK
11
Dear Mayor ~ City Manager Black, Members ofthe Public, and Members of the Media:
We have watched this unfortunate saga unfold in recent days, and feel strongly that it is now on us - the Council
Majority - to bring order and a fair process to this situation.
To be clear, anyonelwho wishes to bring forward concerns or report misconduct must feel safe and comfortable
doing so. We actively want your voice to be heard.
We also believe strongly in due process. No one's name or reputation should be tarnished without there being
clear evidence (beyond just "he said, she said") as well as a fair opportunity for that individual to respond.
We share the serious concern of organizations like the Urban League, Community Action Agency, NAACP, the
Black Agenda, NAN, the Black United Front and others that present behavior is rolling back the clock on race
relations in Cincinnati; we will not abet the intentional denigration of another black leader in our community.
We also do not support forcing the taxpayers to payout of their own pockets for what is currently a broken
relationship. We believe there are much better immediate next steps.
First, this situation clearly must be de-politicized and taken out of the hands of those most directly in the fog of
war: Therefore, we are calling for the appointment of an outside Special Counsel (appointed by a majority of
City Council), to collect and investigate the concerns raised by the Mayor, any and all counter-~ from the
City Manager, and testimony from city employees or any other directly involved stakeholders. This Special
Counsel will then write a report to be submitted to City Council for our review.
At the same time, we are calling for a ceasefire between the Mayor and City Manager, during which they both
agree to say nothing more on the subject and to focus on the City's work. During this ceasefire, Council will
bring in a pro bono mediator to privately help the Mayor and Manager navigate their relationship and return to
getting things done for the citizens of Cincinnati. Lastly, during this ceasefire, we call for no personnel changes.
Council will control this process as it unfolds, and ifthe need and desire for what the Mayor has called a "public
trial" remains, then Council will control the time, date, and location of such a special meeting. Because of the
significant interest from concerned members of the community, such a specially-called meeting would occur in
the evening, be held out in the community, and be posted with at least two weeks notice to the public.
We look forward to cool heads prevailing, these issues being properly addressed, and everyone getting back to
work for the city we love.
Sincerely,
Tama~a Dennard
P.G. !iitt~l)telQ.
Greg Landsman Exhibit 1
Wendell Young
Chris Seelbach
Statement from the majority of Cincinnati City Council in light of
yesterday's news:
IIO ur position has not changed. We do not suppprt an increased buyout
or believe that's responsible to the taxpayers.
We reiterate our call for a ceasefire, and we remain committed to the
thoughtful, fair, transparent next steps we have previously laid out. Let's
collect the needed facts quickly and calmly.
We believe in a collaborative process, and look forward to working
through this with all stakeholders.1I
- Tamaya Dennard
-P.G. Sittenfeld
-Greg Landsman
-Wendell Young
-Chris Seelbach
Exhibit 2
6WUREHO-HQQLIHU
W͘'͘^ŝƚƚĞŶĨĞůĚ
!"#
$%&'
(%')
*
+ ,% (-$ &- *
)
. /
ůůͲͲĞůŽǁŝƐĂŶĂŐŐƌĞŐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƉĞŽƉůĞΖƐƚŚŽƵŐŚƚƐĂŶĚƐƵŐŐĞƐƚŝŽŶƐ͕ƉƵƚŝŶƚŽƚŚĞĨŽƌŵĂƚŽĨĂůĞƚƚĞƌ͘tĞĐĂŶĚŝƐĐƵƐƐŽŶƚŚĞ
ĐĂůůĂƚϭ͗ϯϬƉŵƚŽĚĂLJ͘/ĨĞǀĞƌLJŽŶĞƌĞĂĐŚĞƐĂĐŽŵĨŽƌƚůĞǀĞůǁŝƚŚŝƚ͕ƚŚĞŶ/ďĞůŝĞǀĞϭͿǁĞƐŚŽƵůĚƌĞůĞĂƐĞŝƚƚŚŝƐĂĨƚĞƌŶŽŽŶ
;ƌĂƚŚĞƌƚŚĂŶĂůůŽǁĨŽƌĂǀĂĐƵƵŵƚŽĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞͿĂŶĚϮͿŝƚƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĞŵĂŝůĞĚŽƵƚƚŽƚŚĞŵĞĚŝĂĨƌŽŵŽŶĞŽĨŽƵƌĂŝĚĞƐͲĂŶLJŽŶĞ
ǁĂŶƚƚŽǀŽůƵŶƚĞĞƌĨŽƌƚŚĂƚ͍
Dear Mayor Cranley, Members of the Public, and Members of the Media:
We have watched this unfortunate saga unfold in recent days, and feel strongly that it is now on us - the
Council Majority - to bring order and a fair process to this situation.
To be clear, anyone who wishes to bring forward concerns or report misconduct must feel safe and
comfortable doing so. We actively want your voice to be heard.
We also believe strongly in due process. No one’s name or reputation should be tarnished without there being
clear evidence (beyond just “he said, she said”) as well as a fair opportunity for that individual to respond.
First, this situation clearly must be de-politicized and taken out of the hands of those most directly in the fog of
war: Therefore, we are calling for the appointment of an outside Special Counsel (appointed by a majority of
City Council), to collect and investigate the concerns raised by the Mayor, any and all counter-factuals from the
City Manager, and testimony from city employees or any other directly involved stakeholders involved. This
Special Counsel will then write a report to be submitted to City Council for our review.
At the same time, we are calling for a ceasefire between the Mayor and City Manager, during which they both
agree to say nothing more on the subject and to focus on the City’s work. During this ceasefire, Council will
bring in a pro bono mediator to help the Mayor and Manager navigate their relationship and return to getting
things done for the citizens of Cincinnati. Lastly, during this ceasefire, we call for no personnel changes.
We look forward to cool heads prevailing, these issues being properly addressed, and everyone getting back to
work for the city we love.
Sincerely,
Tamaya Dennard
P.G. Sittenfeld
Exhibit 3
Greg Landsman
Wendell Young
Chris Seelbach
6WUREHO-HQQLIHU
.
0
;
0
%
+
01
&ƌŽŵ͗
4
ĂƚĞ͗5$*&/#$"/1/<1$6%589:
dŽ͗=%
= 4
Đ͗ 4&:9
& !
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ZĞ͗Zs/^>ddZ
%
,5$*&/#$"&/1/$%5&%
401