Ohio Supreme Court...
Court Rules Counties’ Self-Insurance Pool Is Not ‘Public Office,’ But Remands Financial Records Request 
October 1, 2011 

(Sept. 28, 2011) The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today that County Risk Sharing Authority Inc. (CORSA), a non-profit association through which a majority of Ohio’s counties self-insure themselves, is not “the functional equivalent of a public office,” and is therefore not required to comply with a citizen’s demand for copies of its board meeting minutes under the state public records act. 

The Court also held, however, that the 10th District Court of Appeals erred when it relied on CORSA’s non-governmental status to deny the same citizen’s request for copies of CORSA financial documents and employee compensation records, because the latter documents may be subject to disclosure under separate provisions of the public records act that apply to non-profit organizations that enter into service contracts with  government agencies. 

In a 7-0 per curiam opinion, the Court partially affirmed and partially reversed a decision of the 10th  District, and remanded  the case to that court for further consideration of the relator’s entitlement to some of the records he requested. 

The case involves a lawsuit filed against CORSA’s managing director, David Brooks, by Greg A. Bell after Bell unsuccessfully pursued requests under the state public records act seeking copies of three different categories of documents maintained by CORSA. Brooks provided some of the requested documents, but refused to comply with Bell’s requests for copies of the minutes of CORSA’s board meetings, compensation records for all of the organization’s executive and administrative staff, and certain other financial records. As the basis for his refusal, Brooks indicated that CORSA was neither an agency of government nor a private organization performing a governmental function, and therefore was not subject to the disclosure requirements of the public records act. 

Bell’s complaint asked the 10th District Court of Appeals to issue writs of mandamus compelling Brooks and CORSA to provide the requested documents. Following a conference before a magistrate, the magistrate ordered the parties to submit evidence and briefs addressing the sole issue of whether CORSA is or is not a public office for purposes of the public records act. The magistrate issued a decision recommending that the writs be denied because Bell had failed to establish that CORSA is “the functional equivalent of a public office,” and therefore CORSA was not subject to the requirements of the public records act. Bell filed objections to the magistrate’s decision, but the court of appeals overruled his objections, adopted the magistrate’s recommendation, and denied the writs. 

Bell exercised his right to appeal the 10th District’s ruling to the Supreme Court. 

In today’s unanimous decision, the Court affirmed the 10th District’s ruling that, although CORSA receives approximately 88 percent of its funding from public sources, namely from payments made by member counties, it does not meet the other criteria established by prior court decisions for a private organization to be the functional equivalent of a public office. 

The Court wrote: “(P)roviding insurance to counties, which is the function being performed by CORSA, has not been established to be a historically governmental function. ... There is no evidence that any government entity controls the day-to-day operations of CORSA.  The evidence establishes that CORSA is a private corporation operated by an independent board of directors composed of nine individual county commissioners and is not controlled by any county board of commissioners. ... CORSA was created as a private, nonprofit corporation, was not established by a government entity, and was not formed as an alter ego of a governmental agency to avoid the requirements of the Public Records Act. ... The court of appeals did not err in concluding that Bell had failed to establish by the requisite clear and convincing evidence that CORSA is the functional equivalent of a public office subject to the Public Records Act.” 

Noting that Bell requested writs addressing three different categories of CORSA records, however, the Court held that the 10th District’s finding that CORSA is not the equivalent of a public office under R.C. 149.43 disposes of only one of those three categories, i.e., Bell’s request for minutes of CORSA’s board meetings. 

Quoting from a separate section of the public records act, R.C. 149.431, the Court cited statutory language that requires non-profit corporations and associations that enter into government-service contracts to keep “accurate and complete financial records of any moneys expended in relation to the performance of services pursuant to such contract.” The court also pointed to another provision of R.C. 149.431 that requires nonprofits who obtain government contracts to “maintain information setting forth the compensation of any individual serving the nonprofit corporation or association in an executive or administrative capacity.” The Court noted that in imposing these record-keeping requirements, R.C. 149.431 specifies that such records “shall be deemed to be public records as defined in division (A)(1) of section 149.43 of the Revised Code and are subject to the requirements of division (B) of that section,” subject to certain exceptions. 

The Court concluded: “The court of appeals magistrate improperly restricted the submission of evidence and briefs to the functional-equivalency issue and neglected to consider Bell’s claims for the release of CORSA’s financial and compensation records under R.C. 149.43 and 149.431.  Bell timely raised this ground in his objections to the magistrate’s decision, but the court of appeals summarily denied Bell’s objections without any discussion of R.C. 149.431. ... Therefore, the court of appeals erred in denying Bell’s mandamus claims for release of CORSA’s financial and compensation records. ... (W)e reverse the portion of the judgment of the court of appeals denying the writs relating to those records and remand the cause to the court of appeals for further proceedings, including the submission of evidence and briefs on those remaining claims.” 

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions. In the Full Text search box, enter the eight-digit case number at the top of this summary and click “Submit.” 

2010-1836.  State ex rel. Bell v. Brooks, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4897.

Franklin App. Nos. 09AP-861, 09AP-944, and 09AP-1055, 2010-Ohio-4266.

Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.

Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-Ohio-4897.pdf 

For more information, click here