Title: State ex rel. Bell v. Brooks

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Bell v. Brooks, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4897.] 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2011-OHIO-4897 
THE STATE EX REL. BELL, APPELLANT, v. BROOKS, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Bell v. Brooks, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4897.] 
R.C. 149.43 and 149.431 — Writs of mandamus sought to compel a joint self-
insurance pool to provide its records pursuant to Ohio Public Records Act 
— Court of appeals judgment denying writs affirmed in part and reversed 
in part. 
(No. 2010-1836 — Submitted August 8, 2011 — Decided September 28, 2011.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, 
Nos. 09AP-861, 09AP-944, and 09AP-1055, 2010-Ohio-4266. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment denying the requests of appellant, 
Greg A. Bell, for writs of mandamus to compel appellee, David W. Brooks, the 
managing director of property and casualty insurance for County Risk Sharing 
Authority, Inc. (“CORSA”), a joint self-insurance pool whose members include 
the majority of Ohio’s counties, to provide certain CORSA records pursuant to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
R.C. 149.43 and 149.431.  We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals insofar 
as it denied the writ for the records on grounds that CORSA is not the functional 
equivalent of a public office for purposes of R.C. 149.43.  But we reverse the 
judgment of the court of appeals to the extent that the court failed to consider 
Bell’s claims in which CORSA’s status as a private, nonprofit corporation was 
not dispositive and remand that portion of the cause to the court of appeals for 
further proceedings on those claims. 
I. Facts 
A. CORSA 
{¶ 2} In the mid-1980s, the General Assembly authorized counties to use 
risk-sharing pools like CORSA.  See R.C. 2744.081.  The County Commissioners 
Association of Ohio, rather than a governmental entity, created CORSA as a 
private, nonprofit corporation organized under R.C. 1702.01, et seq.  In 1987, 
CORSA began operating as joint self-insurance pool. 
{¶ 3} As of April 2009, CORSA’s members included 62 Ohio counties 
and 19 county facilities.  CORSA operates like an insurance company by 
providing coverage and risk-management services to its members, except that it 
pools its clients’ resources rather than charging premiums.  CORSA receives the 
vast majority of its income from member contributions. 
{¶ 4} Neither the state nor any other government entity controls CORSA’s 
day-to-day business operations.  Instead, CORSA is operated by an independent 
board of directors elected by its members.  The board is composed of nine 
members, commissioners from nine different counties. http://www.corsa.org/ 
BoardofDirectors/tabid/60/Default.aspx. 
 
The 
Internal 
Revenue 
Service 
recognizes that CORSA is a government instrumentality, and thus it is exempt 
from federal taxation. 
B. Records Requests 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
{¶ 5} By letter dated September 2, 2009, Bell requested that CORSA 
provide him with copies of certain records pursuant to R.C. 149.43 and 149.431, 
including the following financial records: 
{¶ 6} “All financial records relating to contract(s) between CORSA and 
Madison County, Ohio, including but not limited to:  all invoices sent to Madison 
County; all records showing allocation of Madison County payments into CORSA 
financial accounts and sub-accounts; CORSA’s chart of accounts; all records 
showing disbursements from CORSA financial accounts as payments to third-
parties in performance of the contract(s) with Madison County.” 
{¶ 7} In his response on behalf of CORSA, Brooks provided some of the 
requested records, but for the requested financial records, other than the Madison 
County invoices, CORSA refused to provide copies, asserting that they were not 
public records.  Brooks further informed Bell that CORSA was a private 
corporation and not a public office subject to R.C. 149.43. 
{¶ 8} By letter dated September 15, 2009, Bell requested that Brooks 
provide copies of “[a]ll minutes of every meeting of the CORSA board of 
trustees, for the period from January 1, 1999 up to and including the most recently 
convened meeting” pursuant to R.C. 149.43 and 149.431.  CORSA denied Bell’s 
request. 
{¶ 9} By letter dated September 28, 2009, Bell requested that Brooks 
provide copies of “[a]ll compensation records for CORSA executive and 
administrative staff during the period from January 1, 1999 up to and including 
the records indicating the present compensation amounts” pursuant to R.C. 149.43 
and 149.431.  CORSA rejected the request. 
C. Mandamus Cases 
{¶ 10} Bell filed complaints in the court of appeals for writs of mandamus 
to compel Brooks to provide copies of the requested CORSA records in 
accordance with R.C. 149.43 and 149.431.  Brooks submitted answers in the three 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
mandamus cases, and he moved to consolidate the cases for purposes of evidence, 
briefing, and decision. 
{¶ 11} Following a conference before a court of appeals magistrate, on 
January 20, 2010, the magistrate granted Brooks’s motion and consolidated the 
mandamus cases and ordered the parties to file evidence and briefs on only the 
issue whether CORSA is a public office for purposes of the Public Records Act.  
The parties then filed evidence and briefs relating to that specific issue. 
{¶ 12} The magistrate issued a decision recommending that the court of 
appeals deny the writs of mandamus because Bell had failed to establish by clear 
and convincing evidence that CORSA is the functional equivalent of a public 
office so as to be subject to the Public Records Act.  Bell filed objections to the 
magistrate’s decision.  In his objections, Bell argued that the magistrate had 
erroneously narrowed the issue to whether he had established that CORSA was 
the functional equivalent of a public office, even though his mandamus claims 
were broader.  Bell further claimed that he had established that CORSA was the 
functional equivalent of a public office.  Brooks submitted a response to the 
objections in which he asserted that Bell’s objections should be stricken because 
the document was signed by Bell on behalf of the attorney in violation of Civ.R. 
11 and that Bell had waived his broader mandamus claims because he had agreed 
that his claims could be resolved on the narrow issue of whether CORSA was the 
functional equivalent of a public office. 
{¶ 13} In September 2010, the court of appeals entered a judgment 
overruling Bell’s objections to the magistrate’s decision, adopting the decision, 
and denying the requested writs of mandamus. 
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
{¶ 14} This cause is now before the court for our consideration of Bell’s 
appeal as of right from the court of appeals’ judgment.1   
II. Legal Analysis 
A. Mandamus:  Functional Equivalent of a Public Office 
{¶ 15} For Bell’s public-records mandamus claims, “[m]andamus is the 
appropriate remedy to compel compliance with R.C. 149.43, Ohio’s Public 
Records Act.”  State ex rel. Physicians Commt. for Responsible Medicine v. Ohio 
State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 108 Ohio St.3d 288, 2006-Ohio-903, 843 N.E.2d 174, 
¶ 6. 
{¶ 16} The court of appeals held that Bell’s claims lacked merit because 
CORSA is a private entity.  For purposes of the Public Records Act, an office is 
subject to the act if it is a “state agency, public institution, political subdivision, or 
other organized body, office, agency, institution, or entity established by the laws 
of this state for the exercise of any function of government.”  R.C. 149.011(A). 
{¶ 17} In arguing that the court of appeals erred in determining that 
CORSA was not a public office subject to R.C. 149.43, Bell relies in part on our 
test in State ex rel. Fostoria Daily Review Co. v. Fostoria Hosp. Assn. (1988), 40 
Ohio St.3d 10, 12, 531 N.E.2d 313 (a hospital is a public office subject to R.C. 
149.43 if it is a public hospital, renders a public service to residents, and is 
supported by public taxation).  But in 2006, we modified the test for determining 
a private entity’s status as a public institution under R.C. 149.011(A).  State ex 
rel. Am. Civ. Liberties Union of Ohio, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 128 
Ohio St.3d 256, 2011-Ohio-625, 943 N.E.2d 553, ¶ 47 (before 2006, “we used 
different tests to determine whether a private entity was a public office subject to 
the Public Records Act”). 
                                          
 
1 This case was initially referred to mediation in November 2010, 127 Ohio St.3d 1439, 2010-
Ohio-5806, 937 N.E.2d 569, but was returned to the regular docket in March 2011, 128 Ohio St.3d 
1438, 2011-Ohio-1527, 944 N.E.2d 239, and briefing proceeded from that point. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 18} In State ex rel. Oriana House, Inc. v. Montgomery, 110 Ohio St.3d 
456, 2006-Ohio-4854, 854 N.E.2d 193, at the syllabus, we set forth the applicable 
test for determining when a private entity is a public office subject to the Public 
Records Act: 
{¶ 19} “1. Private entities are not subject to the Public Records Act absent 
a showing by clear and convincing evidence that the private entity is the 
functional equivalent of a public office. 
{¶ 20} “2. In determining whether a private entity is a public institution 
under R.C. 149.011(A) and thus a public office for purposes of the Public Records 
Act, R.C. 149.43, a court shall apply the functional-equivalency test.  Under this 
test, the court must analyze all pertinent factors, including (1) whether the entity 
performs a governmental function, (2) the level of government funding, (3) the 
extent of government involvement or regulation, and (4) whether the entity was 
created by the government or to avoid the requirements of the Public Records 
Act.” 
{¶ 21} We will now apply the functional-equivalency test to CORSA. 
1. Governmental Function 
{¶ 22} Unlike operating prisons, which is the function performed by the 
private entity at issue in Oriana House, 110 Ohio St.3d 456, 2006-Ohio-4854, 854 
N.E.2d 193, at ¶ 28, providing insurance to counties, which is the function being 
performed by CORSA, has not been established to be a historically governmental 
function.  As the court of appeals concluded, “[i]nsurance has traditionally been 
provided by private entities * * *.”  State ex rel. Bell v. Brooks, Franklin App. 
Nos. 09AP-861, 09AP-944, and 09AP-1055, 2010-Ohio-4266, at ¶ 8.  Therefore, 
CORSA is not performing a historically governmental function. 
2. Level of Governmental Funding 
{¶ 23} From the audit report of CORSA submitted by Bell into evidence, 
over 88 percent of its income for the fiscal year ending April 30, 2008, consisted 
January Term, 2011 
7 
 
of member contributions.  And member contributions accounted for an even 
higher percentage of CORSA’s income for the fiscal year ending April 30, 2009, 
because CORSA had a negative value for its net investment income.  This level of 
government funding is significant.  See Oriana House at ¶ 32 (entity’s receipt of 
88 percent of its total revenues from public sources found to be a significant level 
of government funding); State ex rel. Repository v. Nova Behavioral Health, Inc., 
112 Ohio St.3d 338, 2006-Ohio-6713, 859 N.E.2d 936, ¶ 32-33 (entity’s receipt 
of nearly 92 percent of mental-health-services revenue from public sources 
deemed to be a significant level of government funding). 
3. Extent of Government Involvement or Regulation 
{¶ 24} 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. 
4. Creation of Entity 
{¶ 25} Like the entities in Oriana House and Repository, 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.  Oriana House at ¶ 34; Repository at ¶ 
37. 
5. Weighing of Factors 
{¶ 26} 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.  Three 
factors of the functional-equivalency test support Brooks’s position that CORSA 
is not the functional equivalent of a public office and one factor supports Bell’s 
position that it is. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
{¶ 27} For the sole factor favoring Bell’s claim—the level of government 
funding—we have emphasized that the “fact that a private entity receives 
government funds does not convert the entity into a public office for purposes of 
the Public Records Act.”  Oriana House at ¶ 29; Repository at ¶ 38.  “The Public 
Records Act was not designed to allow public scrutiny of ‘all entities that receive 
funds that at one time were controlled by the government.’ ”  Repository at ¶ 38, 
quoting Oriana House at ¶ 36. 
{¶ 28} Nor does the mere fact that R.C. 2744.081(C) specifies that joint 
self-insurance pools perform a “public purpose” by “enabling the members of the 
joint self-insurance pool to obtain insurance or to provide for a formalized, jointly 
administered self-insurance fund for its members” require a contrary result.  See 
Oriana House (holding that nonprofit corporation performing the historically 
governmental function of operating a prison was not the functional equivalent of a 
public office so as to be subject to R.C. 149.43); Repository (holding that a 
nonprofit corporation performing the uniquely governmental function of 
providing mental-health care for the uninsured and compensating for the 
inadequacy of benefits in commercial health-insurance plans was not the 
functional equivalent of a public office for purposes of R.C. 149.43). 
{¶ 29} Bell’s requests for writs of mandamus were for three different 
categories of CORSA records:  (1) financial records relating to contracts between 
CORSA and Madison County, (2) minutes of CORSA’s board meetings, and (3) 
compensation records for CORSA’s executives and administrative staff.  Bell 
concedes that the court of appeals’ resolution of the issue whether CORSA is the 
functional equivalent of a public office resolved his claim for CORSA’s board-
meeting minutes.  Therefore, we affirm the denial of the writ of mandamus for 
those records. 
B. CORSA’s Financial and Compensation Records 
January Term, 2011 
9 
 
{¶ 30} For the remaining requested records, however, the court of appeals 
erred in holding that its determination that CORSA is not the functional 
equivalent of a public office for purposes of R.C. 149.43 also disposed of Bell’s 
mandamus claims for CORSA’s financial and compensation records. 
{¶ 31} The Revised Code requires the disclosure of certain financial and 
compensation records of nonprofit corporations and associations with 
government-service contracts under specified circumstances, even if they are not 
public offices for purposes of R.C. 149.43: 
{¶ 32} “(A) Any governmental entity or agency and any nonprofit 
corporation or association, except a corporation organized pursuant to Chapter 
1719. of the Revised Code prior to January 1, 1980 or organized pursuant to 
Chapter 3941. of the Revised Code, that enters into a contract or other agreement 
with the federal government, a unit of state government, or a political subdivision 
or taxing unit of this state for the provision of services shall keep accurate and 
complete financial records of any moneys expended in relation to the 
performance of the services pursuant to such contract or agreement according to 
generally accepted accounting principles. Such contract or agreement and such 
financial 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, except that: 
{¶ 33} “(1) Any information directly or indirectly identifying a present or 
former individual patient or client or his diagnosis, prognosis, or medical 
treatment, treatment for a mental or emotional disorder, treatment for mental 
retardation or a developmental disability, treatment for drug abuse or alcoholism, 
or counseling for personal or social problems is not a public record; 
{¶ 34} “(2) If disclosure of the contract or agreement or financial records 
is requested at a time when confidential professional services are being provided 
to a patient or client whose confidentiality might be violated if disclosure were 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
made at that time, disclosure may be deferred if reasonable times are established 
when the contract or agreement or financial records will be disclosed. 
{¶ 35} “(3) Any nonprofit corporation or association that receives both 
public and private funds in fulfillment of any such contract or other agreement is 
not required to keep as public records the financial records of any private funds 
expended in relation to the performance of services pursuant to the contract or 
agreement. 
{¶ 36} “(B) Any nonprofit corporation or association that receives more 
than fifty per cent of its gross receipts excluding moneys received pursuant to 
Title XVIII of the “Social Security Act,” 49 Stat. 620 (1935), 42 U.S.C. 301, as 
amended, in a calendar year in fulfillment of a contract or other agreement for 
services with a governmental entity shall maintain information setting forth the 
compensation of any individual serving the nonprofit corporation or association 
in an executive or administrative capacity. Such information shall be deemed to 
be public records as defined in division (A)(1) of section 149.43 of the Revised 
Code and is subject to the requirements of division (B) of that section. 
{¶ 37} “Nothing in this section shall be construed to otherwise limit the 
provisions of section 149.43 of the Revised Code.”  (Emphasis added.)  R.C. 
149.431. 
{¶ 38} 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. 
{¶ 39} In this regard, Brooks contends on appeal—and claimed in his 
response to Bell’s objections—that Bell had waived his R.C. 149.431 claims by 
purportedly agreeing to the magistrate’s restriction of the dispositive issue to the 
January Term, 2011 
11 
 
functional-equivalency question.  But there is no indication that the court of 
appeals denied Bell’s objections on the grounds cited by Brooks.  Nor is there 
evidence in the record to support Brooks’s assertion that Bell waived these 
claims.  See State v. Pasqualone, 121 Ohio St.3d 186, 2009-Ohio-315, 903 
N.E.2d 270, ¶ 13 (“Waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a 
known right”).  There is no evidence that Bell agreed that the functional-
equivalency issue resolved all his claims.  And the purported technical violation 
of Civ.R. 11 raised by Brooks in the proceedings below (Bell’s signing the 
objections on behalf of his attorney) was not done to defeat the purpose of the 
rule, but instead was done under exigent circumstances.  Nor does Brooks raise 
this alleged violation of the rule on appeal. 
{¶ 40} Therefore, the court of appeals erred in denying Bell’s mandamus 
claims for release of CORSA’s financial and compensation records. 
III. Conclusion 
{¶ 41} Because the court of appeals did not err in holding that Bell did not 
establish that CORSA is the functional equivalent of a public office for purposes 
of R.C. 149.43 and that holding is dispositive of Bell’s claim for CORSA’s board-
meeting minutes, we affirm the portion of the judgment of the court of appeals 
denying the writ of mandamus relating to those records.  But because the court of 
appeals erred in denying the writs of mandamus regarding Bell’s records requests 
for CORSA’s financial and compensation records, we 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. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
 
 
Phillip Wayne Cramer, for appellant. 
 
Isaac, Brant, Ledman & Teetor, L.L.P., Mark Landes, and Mark H. 
Troutman, for appellee. 
______________________