While Court Filings Show Doubts, Franklin County will Evaluate Claim
Courtroom Activity Signals Next Stage of Sunshine Law Civil Case
A civil complaint filed last year by the daughter of Hilliard City Councilman Les Carrier against the city of Hilliard and five other members of City Council, alleging a violation of the Ohio Sunshine Law, continues after Franklin County Common Pleas Court Judge Mark Serrott on May 9 denied the city’s request to dismiss the civil complaint.
However, the judgment entry indicates that the realtor in the case, Molly Carrier, has some work to do.
In this instance, Carrier is known as the realtor rather than a plaintiff because she filed a civil complaint on behalf of a party (as opposed for herself) who she alleges was aggrieved, in this case the public whom the Ohio Sunshine Law protects.
The Ohio Sunshine Law, with only a handful of specific, enumerated exceptions such as the discussion of real estate transactions and the hiring or firing of personnel, requires that elected officials meet and discuss the city’s business in public.
Carrier’s civil complaint alleges the Hilliard City Council did not do so last year when emails were sent among certain council members discussing the language to be used in a public statement of support for City Manager Michelle Crandall.
A majority of City Council sought to make the public statement of support in May 2023 after dissent within City Council concerning Crandall’s decision in February 2023 to fire finance director David Delande.
In May 2023, Carrier publicly questioned who had seen drafts of the language among other council members prior to City Council acting to issue the statement of support on May 8.
Molly Carrier filed the civil complaint on May 19, 2023.
She included exhibits of emails among five council members that included discussions of a “statement of support” for Hilliard City Manager Michelle Crandall.
Those five members- Tina Cottone, Peggy Hale, Andy Teater, Cynthia Vermillion, and former councilman Pete Marsh- are named individually in the civil complaint alongside the City of Hilliard.
A May 6 email from Marsh to Teater and Hale makes suggestions to change several words in a statement of support that Marsh wrote had been previously written by Cottone and Vermillion.
A May 8 email from Marsh to Teater, Hale, Cottone and Vermillion, as well as the council clerk, said the statement “looks great” and indicated that he would forward it to Carrier and Tarazi.
City Council met later the same day and voted on the “statement of support” for Crandall, which passed 5-2 with Carrier and Tarazi, then a member of council, dissenting.
The civil case allows only a fine of $500 if the court finds in favor of the relator but fines could be levied for each individual violation if multiple instances are found, according to Carrier.
The court, thus far, summarizes its position:
In the judgment entry, issue May 9, 2024, Serrott wrote, “The Court doubts that Relator’s complaint survives summary judgment. This case is in effect, much ado about nothing,” but goes on to say that after consideration of the applicable legal standards concerning the four counts, that the Court will “overrule the motion” by the defendant to dismiss.
A Court cannot grant a motion to dismiss unless “it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts to support the claim,” and continues “the Court has serious reservations that the email allegations were pre-arranged and that there was a deliberate majority of council, but in the abundance of caution, accepts as true the Relator’s conclusory allegations.”
“The Court is certainly skeptical of my position, arguably even prejudicial, however, they denied the (City’s) motion (to dismiss), so we will move forward with discovery,” Carrier said.
The complaint includes four counts, one relating to communications concerning Crandall and three others relating to other subject matters.
A likely next step is the request of a summary judgment by the city, Carrier said.
David Ball, director of community relations for Hilliard, said there can be no comment on pending litigation involving the city.
I think the court is entirely right when they say this appears to be "much ado about nothing". It's barely more than requested proofreading.
It's back-biting and attempted political revenge by the Carriers. Par for the course.
At least Tarazi is Grove City's problem now.
Fascinating story. Thanks for telling it!