Case Title: State ex rel. Union Cty. Veterans Serv. Comm. v. Parrott

Citation: 2006-Ohio-92

Docket Number: 20051162

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-01-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Union Cty. Veterans Serv. Comm. v. Parrott, 108 Ohio St.3d 302, 2006-
Ohio-92.] 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. UNION COUNTY VETERANS SERVICE COMMISSION ET AL. v. 
PARROTT, JUDGE, ET AL. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Union Cty. Veterans Serv. Comm. v. Parrott,  
108 Ohio St.3d 302, 2006-Ohio-92.] 
County veterans service commissions — R.C. 5901.02 — Mandamus issued to 
compel judge to appoint member of commission. 
(No. 2005-1162 ─ Submitted November 8, 2005 ─ Decided January 12, 2006.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an original action for a writ of mandamus to compel 
common pleas court judges to comply with their statutory duty to appoint a 
member of a county veterans service commission. 
{¶ 2} Relator Union County Veterans Service Commission is composed 
of five honorably discharged or honorably separated veterans who are residents of 
Union County and are appointed to five-year terms by a judge of the Union 
County Court of Common Pleas.  Relator Max Amrine is the president of the 
commission, and relator Clarence Durban was a member of the commission 
serving as an American Legion representative, whose term expired on December 
31, 2004. 
{¶ 3} In September 2004, Amrine notified respondent Judge Richard 
Parrott of the Union County Court of Common Pleas that the judge needed to 
appoint someone to serve as the American Legion representative on the 
commission upon the expiration of Durban’s term on December 31, 2004.  On 
November 1, 2004, the commission submitted to Judge Parrott a list of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
recommended candidates for appointment to fill the imminent American Legion 
vacancy. 
{¶ 4} Judge Parrott did not appoint any qualified candidate to serve as 
American Legion representative on the commission upon the expiration of 
Durban’s term.  Judge Parrott, in letters dated December 18, 2003, May 4, 2004, 
and July 27, 2004, asserted that his refusal was based upon a disciplinary advisory 
opinion. 
{¶ 5} On December 31, 2004, Durban’s term expired, creating a vacancy 
in the commission.  In 2005, the commission requested that respondent Judge 
Charlotte Eufinger of the Union County Court of Common Pleas, Probate and 
Juvenile Division, make the appointment, but like Judge Parrott, she refused. 
{¶ 6} On June 29, 2005, relators, the commission, Amrine, and Durban, 
filed this action for a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Parrott or Judge 
Eufinger to appoint a representative to the commission.  On July 20, 2005, 
respondents answered.  On July 26, this case was referred to mediation.  On 
October 20, the case was returned to the regular docket. 
{¶ 7} This cause is now before us for our determination under 
S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5) whether dismissal, an alternative writ, or a peremptory writ is 
appropriate.  “[I]f the pertinent facts are uncontroverted and it appears beyond 
doubt that [the relator] is entitled to the requested writ, we will issue a peremptory 
writ of mandamus.”  State ex rel. Highlander v. Rudduck, 103 Ohio St.3d 370, 
2004-Ohio-4952, 816 N.E.2d 213, ¶ 8. 
{¶ 8} Relators claim entitlement to a writ of mandamus to compel the 
common pleas court judges to appoint a member to the commission.  In order to 
be entitled to the requested writ, relators must establish a clear legal right to 
compel the common pleas court judges to make the appointment, a corresponding 
clear legal duty on the part of the judges to appoint a member, and the lack of an 
January Term, 2006 
3 
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.  State ex rel. Duncan v. Mentor 
City Council, 105 Ohio St.3d 372, 2005-Ohio-2163, 826 N.E.2d 832, ¶ 10. 
{¶ 9} “In mandamus proceedings, the creation of the legal duty that a 
relator seeks to enforce is the distinct function of the legislative branch of 
government, and courts are not authorized to create the legal duty enforceable in 
mandamus.”  State ex rel. Lecklider v. School Emp. Retirement Sys., 104 Ohio 
St.3d 271, 2004-Ohio-6586, 819 N.E.2d 289, ¶ 23.  For appointment of county 
veterans service commission members, the General Assembly enacted R.C. 
5901.02, which provides the following procedure: 
{¶ 10} “In each county there shall be a commission known as ‘the 
veterans service commission.’  Except as provided in section 5901.021 of the 
Revised Code, the commission shall be composed of five residents of the county 
appointed to five-year terms by a judge of the court of common pleas. * * * 
{¶ 11} “Each member of the commission appointed under this section 
shall be an honorably discharged or honorably separated veteran. * * * Such 
appointments shall be made from lists of recommended persons, in the manner 
specified in the following paragraph.  One person shall be a representative 
recommended by the American Legion; one person shall be a representative 
recommended by the Veterans of Foreign Wars; one person shall be a 
representative recommended by the Disabled American Veterans; one person 
shall be a representative recommended by the AMVETS; and one person shall be 
a representative recommended by the Military Order of the Purple Heart of the 
U.S.A., the Vietnam Veterans of American, or the Korean War Veterans 
Association.  * * * 
{¶ 12} “On or before the fifteenth day of October of each year, the 
appointing judge shall notify each post or chapter of each organization within the 
county from which the member may or must be appointed that it may submit a list 
containing three recommendations of persons who are eligible for appointment.  If 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
the judge does not receive any recommendations within sixty days after providing 
the required notification, the judge may appoint any qualified veteran to represent 
the veteran community.  The judge shall make the appointment on or before the 
fifteenth day of January each year.  Any vacancy in a membership appointed 
under this section shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointments. 
{¶ 13} “Beginning in the year 2000, appointment of members of the 
commission under this section shall be made as follows: 
{¶ 14} “(A)  Appointments for members to represent the American Legion 
shall be made for terms to commence in years ending in zero and five.”  
(Emphasis added.) 
{¶ 15} We have recognized that “R.C. Chapter 5901 provides for a 
comprehensive plan of services and benefits to needy veterans of the armed 
forces.  Pursuant to this chapter, veterans service commissions in each county 
throughout the state are charged with ensuring that these mandates are met.”  
Lynch v. Gallia Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 251, 253, 680 N.E.2d 
1222.  R.C. 5901.02 imposes a duty upon common pleas judges to appoint the 
members of county veterans service commissions, including a member 
recommended by the American Legion.  More specifically, under R.C. 5901.02, 
the Union County Court of Common Pleas judges have a duty to appoint a 
commission member to represent the American Legion for a five-year term 
commencing in 2005, and relators have a right to compel the judges to abide by 
R.C. 5901.02. 
{¶ 16} The judges assert in their answer that making the appointment 
could violate Canons 4(C)(2), 2(A), and 2(B) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  In 
letters that he acknowledged in his answer, Judge Parrott relied on Advisory 
Opinion 2003-9 issued by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline on December 5, 2003, which interpreted those canons.  In that opinion, 
the board concluded, “Under Canon 4(C)(2), Canon 2(B) and Canon 2(A) of the 
January Term, 2006 
5 
Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, common pleas court judges should not serve on 
judicial corrections boards for community-based correctional facilities and 
programs.”  Id. at syllabus. 
{¶ 17} For the following reasons, however, the board’s opinion does not 
justify the common pleas judges’ refusal to comply with their manifest legal duty 
under R.C. 5901.02.  First, as Judge Parrott acknowledged in a response to a letter 
from a board staff attorney, the board informed him that there is a distinction 
between a judge’s serving on a board ─ the issue in Advisory Opinion 2003-9 ─ 
and a judge’s appointing individuals to a board ─ the issue here.  Second, the 
board’s advisory opinion is informal and nonbinding.  Gov.Bar R. V(2)(C).  
Third, the board stayed its opinion and issued a December 19, 2003 press release 
noting that common pleas court judges serving on judicial corrections boards for 
community-based correctional facilities and programs “may continue to serve on 
such boards at this time.” 
{¶ 18} Notably, the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct at issue in 
Advisory Opinion 2003-9 are inapplicable here because the judges are not being 
appointed, are not serving on the commission, and are not engaging in various 
prohibited activities.  See Canon 4(C)(2) (“A judge shall not accept appointment 
to a governmental committee or commission or other governmental position that 
is concerned with issues of fact or policy on matters other than the improvement 
of the law, the legal system or the administration of justice”), Canon 2(B) (“A 
judge may serve as an officer, director, trustee, or non-legal advisor of an 
organization or governmental agency devoted to the improvement of the law, the 
legal system, or the administration of justice or of an educational, religious, 
charitable, fraternal, or civic organization not conducted for profit, subject to the 
following limitations and other requirements of this Code”), and Canon 2(A) (“A 
judge may engage in activities to improve the law, the legal system, and the 
administration of justice, provided those activities do not cast doubt on the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge, demean the judicial office, or 
interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties”). 
{¶ 19} Based on the foregoing, relators have established their entitlement 
to the writ.  R.C. 5901.02 confers a legal right to the appointment of a 
commission member to represent the American Legion and a corresponding legal 
duty on the part of a common pleas court judge to make the appointment.  
Relators lack any adequate alternate remedy in the ordinary course of law to 
compel a judge’s action.  Therefore, because the pertinent facts are 
uncontroverted and, from these facts, it is beyond doubt that relators are entitled 
to the requested writ, we grant a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel Judge 
Parrott to appoint a qualified person as a commission member representing the 
American Legion.  This decision renders moot relators’ alternate mandamus claim 
against Judge Eufinger. 
Writ granted. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
David Yost, Special Prosecuting Attorney for Union County, and William 
J. Owen, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for relators. 
 
Wiles, Boyle, Burkholder & Bringardner Co., L.P.A., Michael L. Close, 
and Lauren S. Brill, for respondents. 
______________________