AFTAB PUREVAL HAMILTON COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS COMMON PLEAS DIVISION ELECTRONICALLY FILED April 9, 2018 09:25 AM AFTAB PUREVAL Clerk of Courts Hamilton County, Ohio CONFIRMATION 723987 STATE EX REL MARK W A 1801834 MILLER vs. ALEXANDER PAUL GEORGE SITTENFELD FILING TYPE: INITIAL FILING (IN COUNTY) WITH NO JURY DEMAND PAGES FILED: 18 E-FILED 04/09/2018 09:25 AM / CONFIRMATION 723987 / A 1801834 / COMMON PLEAS DIVISION / FITHE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE EX REL. MARK W. MILLER : CASENO 3630 Zumstein Avenue Cincinnati, Ohio 45208 : JUDGE Relator : COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE vw : RELIEF PURSUANT TO R.C. 121.22 ALEXANDER PAUL GEORGE : SITTENFELD 801 Plum Street, Suite 354 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 and WENDELL YOUNG 801 Plum Street, Suite 352 : Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 and CHRISTOPHER SEELBACH 801 Plum Street, Suite 350 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 and TAMAYA DENNARD 801 Plum Street, Suite 348 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 and GREG LANDSMAN 801 Plum Street, Suite 346B Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 And CITY OF CINCINNATI 801 Plum Street, Room 214 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Respondents. : E-FILED 04/09/2018 09:25 AM / CONFIRMATION 723987 / A 1801834 / COMMON PLEAS DIVISION / FIDemocracies die behind closed doors... When government begins closing doors, it selectively controls information rightfully belonging to the people. Selective information is misinformation 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 complaint states as follows 1. This is an action brought to compel compliance with Ohio’s Open Meetings Act and the Charter of the City of Cincinnati 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 understand the actions of its public officials. 3. Relator MARK MILLER is a person and resident of Hamilton County, Ohio. 4, Respondent CITY OF CINCINNATI is a body politic and corporate formed and existing pursuant to Chapter 7 of the Ohio Revised Code. 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 7. The Cincinnati City Council is comprised of nine members. 8. Respondent ALEXANDER PAUL GEORGE SITTENFELD is a resident of Hamilton County, and is one of nine members of the C Council of the City of Cincinn 9. Respondent WENDELL YOUNG is a resident of Hamilton County, and is one of nine members of the City Council of the City of Cincinnati E-FILED 04/09/2018 09:25 AM / CONFIRMATION 723987 / A 1801834 / COMMON PLEAS DIVISION / FI10. Respondent CHRISTOPHER SEELBACH is a resident of Hamilton County, and is one of nine members of the City Council of the City of Cincinnati 11. Respondent TAMAYA DENNARD is a resident of Hamilton County, and is one of nine members of the City Council of the City of Cincinnati 12, Respondent GREG LANDSMAN is a resident of Hamilton County, and is one of nine members of the City Council of the City of Cincinnati 13. Respondents SITTENFELD, YOUNG, SEELBACH, DENNARD, and LANDSMAN are referred to herein collectively as the “COUNCILMEMBER RESPONDENTS” 14. Collectively, the COUNCILMEMBER RESPONDENTS constitute a majority of the members of the Cincinnati City Council. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 15, Jurisdiction is proper in this Court under R.C. § 121.2: 16, Venue is proper in this Court because the actions or occurrences contained in this Complaint occurred in Hamilton County, Ohio. BACKGROUND FACTS 17. RC. 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 “[tJhe minutes of a regular or special meeting of any public body shall be promptly prepared, filed, and maintained and shall be open to public inspection.” 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 open meetings unless the subject matter is specifically excepted by law.” E-FILED 04/09/2018 09:25 AM / CONFIRMATION 723987 / A 1801834 / COMMON PLEAS DIVISION / FI19, Article I § 5 of the Cincinnati City Charter unequivocally declares “[tJhe proceedings of council shall be public,” and that “[tJhe council shall keep a journal of its proceedings which shall be a public record.” 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 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 between a majority of the members of a public body, as well as video conferencing of a ion, See, White v. majority of the members of a public body, or any other form of communi King, 147 Ohio St.3d 74, 2016-Ohio-2770, 60 N.E.3d 1234, ff 15-16; See also, State ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. City of Cincinnati, 76 Ohio St.34 540, $44, 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, telephonically, by video conference, or electronically by e-mail, text, tweet, or other form of communication.” White, at § 15. 23, RC. § 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 requested notification, except in the event of an emergency requiring immediate official action, In the event of an emergency, the member or members calling the meeting shall E-FILED 04/09/2018 09:25 AM / CONFIRMATION 723987 / A 1801834 / COMMON PLEAS DIVISION / FInotify the news media that have requested notification immediately of the time, place, and purpose of the meeting,” 24. RC. § 121.22(H) declares invalid any resolution, rule, or formal action of any kin it was the result of meetings conducted in violation of RC. § 121.22 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 of the COUNCILMEMBER RESPONDENTS (i.c. a majority of the members of the Cincinnati City Council) 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 limitation, emails and text messages) of the COUNCILMEMBER RESPONDENTS (i. a majority of the members of the Cincinnati City Council). E-FILED 04/09/2018 09:25 AM / CONFIRMATION 723987 / A 1801834 / COMMON PLEAS DIVISION / FI30, On information and belief, the First Press Release and Second Press Release resulted from proceedings of a quorum of the Cincinnati City Council (i.e. the COUNCILMEMBER RESPONDENTS). 31. Secret meetings such as those set forth herein are anathema to the spirit and intent of Ohio’s Sunshine law and Cincinnati’s Charter. 32. Upon information and belief, the COUNCILMEMBER RESPONDENTS conducted the meetings and proceedings that resulted in the First Press Release and Second Press Releas with the purpose and intent of circumventing the letter and spirit of the Open Meetings Act and the Cincinnati City Charter 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 Majority — to bring order and a fair process to this situation.” 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.” 35. The COUNCILMEMBER RESPONDENTS conducted secret, illegal meetings and/or 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 am. Respondent ALEXANDER PAUL. GEORGE SITTENFELD sent an email with the subject line “Draft letter for Council Majority to release” sent to the other COUNCILMEMBER RESPONDENTS (the “Initial draft Email”), A copy of the Initial Draft Email is attached hereto as Exhibit 3 E-FILED 04/09/2018 09:25 AM / CONFIRMATION 723987 / A 1801834 / COMMON PLEAS DIVISION / FI