[Cite as State ex rel. Hartkemeyer v. Fairfield Twp., 2012-Ohio-5842.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

BUTLER COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO ex rel. SHANNON : 

HARTKEMEYER, 

 : CASE NO. CA2012-04-080 

 Relator, 

 : D E C I S I O N

 12/10/2012 

 - vs - : 

 

 : 

FAIRFIELD TOWNSHIP, BUTLER 

COUNTY, et al., : 

 Respondents. : 

ORIGINAL ACTION IN MANDAMUS 

Finney, Stagnaro, Saba & Patterson, Christopher P. Finney, Bradley M. Gibson, 2623 Erie 

Avenue, P.O. Box 8802, Cincinnati, Ohio 45208 and Curt C. Hartman, 3749 Fox Point Court, 

Amelia, Ohio 45102, for relator 

Surdyk, Dowd & Turner Co., L.P.A., Kevin A. Lantz, One Prestige Place, Suite 700, 

Miamisburg, Ohio 45342 and Jack F. Grove, 1251 Nilles Road, Suite 10, Fairfield, Ohio 

45014-2911, for respondents, Fairfield Twp., Nancy Bock, Fiscal Officer, and Michael Rahall, 

Administrator 

 Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} The current cause is before this court pursuant to a complaint for a writ of 

mandamus brought by relator, Shannon Hartkemeyer, to compel respondents, Fairfield 

Township and its record keepers, to comply with their legal duties and obligations pursuant to 
Butler CA2012-04-080

 - 2 - 

the Ohio Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43. 

{¶ 2} Relator, a resident of Fairfield Township, is the creator of a web-based blog 

known as the Fairfield Township Flare. Relator's purpose in creating the blog was to "shine a 

light on local government – specifically that of Fairfield Township." To that end, relator posts 

articles, documents, and videos on her blog that pertain to Fairfield Township and its Board 

of Trustees. The posted documents, recordings, and videos are among those relator obtains 

from the township by way of public records requests. 

{¶ 3} On July 27, 2011, relator made a public records request via certified mail, 

requesting the following public records: (1) audio recordings of all meetings of the Fairfield 

Township Board of Trustees from May 1 through July 27, 2011, (2) meeting minutes from all 

meetings of the Fairfield Township Board of Trustees from May 1 through July 27, 2011, and 

(3) meeting agendas from all meetings of the Fairfield Township Board of Trustees from May 

1 through July 27, 2011. Relator requested the records be made available to her via 

electronic methods, and further agreed to pay copying costs. 

{¶ 4} Relator's July 27 request was received by the township on July 28, 2011, as 

evidenced by the signature of the chairman of the township's Board of Trustees on the 

registered mail delivery confirmation form.1

 On July 29, 2011, Skylor Miller, the Assistant 

Township Administrator, sent relator an email that also confirmed the township's receipt of 

the request. The email stated, "I have received your public records request, dated July 27, 

2011, and will make the items available to you as soon as possible." 

{¶ 5} At the time that relator made her July 27, 2011 request, she had three other 

pending public records requests that she made in May and June 2011, as well as several 

 

1. The record indicates that the parties refer to the July request as either the July 27 request (the day the 

request was written and sent) as well as the July 28 request (the day the request was received by the township). 

This court will refer to the request as the July 27 request, unless quoting the record directly. 
Butler CA2012-04-080

 - 3 - 

completed requests. One such completed request was specific to comprehensive planning 

documents, which relator requested and the township provided in 2010. The outstanding 

requests as of July 2011 included (1) the meeting minutes of the Board of Trustees from 

January 1, 2006 through November 30, 2010, (2) audio recordings of the Board of Trustees 

meetings from January 1, 2006 through November 30, 2010, as well as (3) township records 

and documents related to a subcommittee that was formed in relation to funding and building 

a new firehouse. 

{¶ 6} As of September 26, 2011, relator had not received the records from her July 

27 request, or complete records from her previous requests from May and June 2011. 

Relator emailed the township and requested an anticipated completion date for the materials. 

Michael Rahall, the Township Administrator, replied on October 7, 2011, and apologized for 

the delay, explaining that he had been out of town due to a funeral. Rahall also stated, "I 

hope to have all of your information available next week...I will email you upon completion, 

thank you." In response to Rahall's email, relator responded with an email on October 10, 

2011 in which she specifically asked Rahall, "will the records I requested on or about July 

28th be available as well?" Rahall responded on October 11, 2011 with an email in which he 

stated, "yes, that should be ready as well." 

{¶ 7} On October 17, 2011, Miller emailed relator and stated that the items relator 

had requested regarding comprehensive planning were available for pickup, and that the total 

cost for copying the requested documents was $31.65, which included "minutes from trustee 

meetings you previously requested." Relator then emailed Miller and stated that she had 

already received documents regarding the comprehensive plan, and asked for information as 

to what documents the township actually had available. The record does not contain any 

response from the township. The next day, October 25, 2011, relator emailed Miller once 

more and asked Miller whether the recordings and minutes were available per her July 27 
Butler CA2012-04-080

 - 4 - 

request. However, the record does not contain any response to relator's second email. 

{¶ 8} In or around the last week of October 2011, relator visited the township offices 

to review the records Miller had indicated were available. There, relator was given hard 

copies of the meeting minutes from May and June 2011, but not the minutes from July 2011, 

the audio recordings, or the agendas. On November 14, 2011, relator emailed Miller and 

referenced that per her July 27, 2011 public records request, she requested the materials in 

electronic form, and that she wanted the documents forwarded to her via email or on a disc. 

Relator also asked, "can you please provide an anticipated delivery date for the audio 

recordings as specified in the July 28, 2011 records request." Having no response from the 

township, relator emailed Rahall and Miller once more and asked for an update on her July 

27, 2011 request. On the same day, Miller responded that the township was not required to 

provide digital copies of public records when hard copies had been provided. 

{¶ 9} On December 27, 2011, relator sent an email in order to clarify her previous 

requests, indicating that the request for the comprehensive plan documents was made in July 

2010, and that the request had been filled in 2010. Relator then made reference to her July 

27, 2011 records request, and stated that that request was specific to meeting agendas, 

minutes and recordings for trustee meetings from May 1, 2011 through July 27, 2011. 

Relator acknowledged that meeting minutes from May and June 2011 had been provided in 

hard copy, but reminded the township that her other requests had not been fulfilled according 

to her request. The next day, Rahall responded, "we are in receipt of your clarification....We 

will contact you when completed." 

{¶ 10} On April 12, 2012, relator filed her complaint for a writ of mandamus in this 

court, alleging that the township and its record keepers failed to comply with their legal duties 

to produce public records. Relator attached her July 27 request, verification of the township's 

receipt of her request by certified mail, as well as the emails referenced above to her 
Butler CA2012-04-080

 - 5 - 

complaint for mandamus. The township answered, and denied that it had failed to provide 

the public records. On July 20, 2012, the township provided the audio recordings, the July 

2011 meeting minutes, as well as the agendas, therefore filling relator's public records 

request. 

{¶ 11} In August 2012, the parties submitted to this court an agreed statement of facts, 

which stated: 

1. Relator, Shannon Hartkemeyer, is a resident of Fairfield 

Township, Butler County, Ohio. 

2. Respondent, Fairfield Township, Butler County, Ohio, is a 

political subdivision of the state of Ohio, and is a "public office" 

as defined by the Ohio Public Records Act. 

3. Respondent, Nancy Bock, is the Fiscal Officer of Fairfield 

Township, Butler County, Ohio and, as such, is a "public official" 

as defined by the Ohio Public Records Act. 

4. Respondent, Michael Rahall, is the Administrator of Fairfield 

Township, Butler County, Ohio and, as such, is a "public official" 

as defined by the Ohio Public Records Act. 

5. On July 27, 2011, Relator tendered a public records request 

to Respondents Scharnhorst and Bock, seeking public records of 

Fairfield Township. 

6. A copy of this request (the "Public Records Request Letter") is 

attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

7. A copy of the Public Records Request Letter was tendered by 

certified mail return receipt requested on July 27, 2011. 

8. A copy of the return receipt signature for the Public Records 

Request Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit B and indicates the 

Public Records Request Letter was received on July 28, 2011. 

9. The parties stipulate to the authenticity of the e-mails 

attached to the Complaint and have attached the same hereto as 

Exhibits C, D, E, F, G, H, and I. 

10. On or about December 15, 2011, the instant Relator served 

discovery requests upon the instant Respondents in the case of 
Butler CA2012-04-080

 - 6 - 

State ex rel. Hartkemeyer v. Fairfield Twp., Butler Cty., Ohio, 

Butler CP.NO.CV2011 06 2046. 

11. On or about February 29, 2012, the instant Respondents 

served responses to Relator's discovery requests in the case of 

Hartkemeyer v. Fairfield Twp., Butler Cty., Ohio, Butler 

CP.NO.CV2011 06 2046 referenced in paragraph 10 of this 

Statement of Facts. A true and accurate copy of the relevant 

portion of Respondents' discovery responses served in the case 

of Hartkemeyer v. Fairfield Twp., Butler Cty., Ohio, Butler 

CP.NO.CV2011 06 2046 is attached hereto as Exhibit J. 

12. Relator initiated this lawsuit by filing a Complaint with the 

Court on April 12, 2012. 

13. On or about July 20, 2012, Respondents provided the audio 

recordings, July 2011 meeting minutes and the agendas 

requested in the Public Records Request Letter to Relator's 

counsel. 

After filing the agreed facts, relator filed an affidavit. The record also contains the affidavits 

of Michael Rahall and Skylor Miller. After reviewing the submitted evidence, we turn to the 

merits of relator's mandamus claim. 

{¶ 12} "[I]n general, providing the requested records to the relator in a public-records 

mandamus case renders the mandamus claim moot." State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. 

Seneca Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 120 Ohio St.3d 372, 2008-Ohio-6253, ¶ 43. However, the 

production of requested documents does not, according to the Public Records Act, moot a 

claim for statutory damages, court costs, and attorney fees. State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer 

v. Heath, 121 Ohio St.3d 165, 2009-Ohio-590, ¶ 18. 

{¶ 13} Although the record is clear that the township fulfilled relator's July 27, 2011 

request as of July 20, 2012, we must determine whether relator is entitled to statutory 

damages, costs, and attorney fees. The township neither denies that the relator's request 

was specific to public records, nor asserts that relator was not entitled to the records. 

Instead, the township argues that it should not be liable for statutory damages or attorney 
Butler CA2012-04-080

 - 7 - 

fees because it (1) provided "all existing responsive records" prior to relator's mandamus suit, 

(2) offered the records to relator in February 2012 as part of discovery related to a different 

case, (3) provided the records in July 2012, and (4) provided the records within a reasonable 

time considering the "attendant facts and circumstances." 

{¶ 14} According to R.C. 149.43(B)(1), 

Upon request and subject to division (B)(8) of this section, all 

public records responsive to the request shall be promptly 

prepared and made available for inspection to any person at all 

reasonable times during regular business hours. Subject to 

division (B)(8) of this section, upon request, a public office or 

person responsible for public records shall make copies of the 

requested public record available at cost and within a reasonable 

period of time. 

{¶ 15} R.C. 149.43(C)(1) sets forth the proposition that an aggrieved party may pursue 

a mandamus action and be entitled to statutory damages upon a public entity's failure to 

provide public records in accordance with the statute. 

If a person allegedly is aggrieved by the failure of a public office 

or the person responsible for public records to promptly prepare 

a public record and to make it available to the person for 

inspection in accordance with division (B) of this section or by 

any other failure of a public office or the person responsible for 

public records to comply with an obligation in accordance with 

division (B) of this section, the person allegedly aggrieved may 

commence a mandamus action to obtain a judgment that orders 

the public office or the person responsible for the public record to 

comply with division (B) of this section, that awards court costs 

and reasonable attorney's fees to the person that instituted the 

mandamus action, and, if applicable, that includes an order fixing 

statutory damages under division (C)(1) of this section. 

* * * 

If a requestor transmits a written request by hand delivery or 

certified mail to inspect or receive copies of any public record in 

a manner that fairly describes the public record or class of public 

records to the public office or person responsible for the 

requested public records, except as otherwise provided in this 

section, the requestor shall be entitled to recover the amount of 

statutory damages set forth in this division if a court determines 

that the public office or the person responsible for public records 
Butler CA2012-04-080

 - 8 - 

failed to comply with an obligation in accordance with division (B) 

of this section. 

The amount of statutory damages shall be fixed at one hundred 

dollars for each business day during which the public office or 

person responsible for the requested public records failed to 

comply with an obligation in accordance with division (B) of this 

section, beginning with the day on which the requester files a 

mandamus action to recover statutory damages, up to a 

maximum of one thousand dollars. The award of statutory 

damages shall not be construed as a penalty, but as 

compensation for injury arising from lost use of the requested 

information. The existence of this injury shall be conclusively 

presumed. The award of statutory damages shall be in addition 

to all other remedies authorized by this section. 

{¶ 16} After reviewing the record, we find that relator is entitled to statutory damages 

and court costs. It is undisputed that relator made her request in writing for three specific 

groups of public records: meeting minutes, audio recordings, and agendas for trustee 

meetings, between a very specific date range of May 1 through July 27, 2011. The request 

was delivered via certified mail and acknowledged by the township. The record indicates that 

the township failed to provide the minutes from July, the audio recordings, and the agendas 

that were requested by relator. Relator filed her mandamus action on April 12, 2012. The 

records were not provided to her until July 2012, three months after the filing of her 

mandamus claim. The statute caps the maximum award of damages to ten days at $100 per 

day. Therefore, relator is entitled to $1,000 in statutory damages. 

{¶ 17} We disagree with each of the township's arguments that relator is not entitled to 

damages and fees. First, the township argues that it provided "all existing responsive 

records" prior to relator's mandamus suit by making the records available to relator when she 

visited the township in October 2011. In support of this argument, the township submits the 

affidavits of Michael Rahall and Skylor Miller, who claim that the township made the 

documents requested on July 27, 2011 available to relator in October 2011. However, the 

record does not indicate that the documents were actually provided to relator in October 2011 
Butler CA2012-04-080

 - 9 - 

or were actually available to her on that date. 

{¶ 18} According to an email from Miller, the township made hard copies of the 

meeting minutes from May and June (but not July) and told relator that these hard copies 

were available along with what turned out to be duplicate documents from a request that had 

already been fulfilled. The record indicates that relator paid for the hard copies of the 

minutes only, and then immediately thereafter made inquiries into when the other documents 

she requested by way of her July 27 request would be made available. Instead of stating that 

the documents had already been made available, the township thanked relator for her 

clarification and stated that it would contact relator when the still outstanding documents were 

made available. The record contains several subsequent attempts by relator to be provided 

the still outstanding documents, and at no time did the township assert that such request had 

already been fulfilled. 

{¶ 19} Second, the township argues that it offered the records to relator in February 

2012 as part of discovery related to a different case. Relator filed a separate suit regarding a 

different public records request, and discovery was conducted in early 2012. Rahall averred 

that the township offered the documents regarding the unrelated suit, some of which 

overlapped with documents requested by way of relator's July 27 request. Rahall averred 

that "neither the Relator nor anyone on her behalf scheduled a date and time to come to the 

Township offices and inspect and/or copy records responsive to the Relator's July 27, 2011 

request in response to discovery answers provided by the Township" in the unrelated case. 

Even if the township made the documents available as part of the discovery process in the 

unrelated case, we find two problems with the township's argument that doing so alleviated 

its duty under the Public Records Act. 

{¶ 20} First, we do not believe that providing discovery as part of the litigation process 

in an unrelated civil suit is the same as fulfilling one's duty pursuant to the Public Records Act 
Butler CA2012-04-080

 - 10 - 

to respond to a properly-made request by promptly preparing and making available for 

inspection the requested documents. By virtue of the fact that the documents were part of 

discovery, they were being used as part of the litigation process regarding a case that is not 

before this court, nor were the documents being offered to fulfill the July 27, 2011 request. 

Moreover, and according to a copy of the discovery request, the township merely offered to 

make available for inspection and copying the meeting minutes and audio recordings; the 

agendas were not mentioned in the discovery request. Therefore, even if some of the 

discovery may have corresponded to relator's July 27 request, the request was not 

completely filled. 

{¶ 21} Secondly, we cannot say that fulfilling the request in February 2012 would have 

abided by the statutory mandate that the request be filled within a reasonable time. Further 

complicating the township's suggestion that it did not provide records because it had already 

provided the records, or had permitted an opportunity to obtain copies of the records is the 

glaring absence of any communication from the township stating these reasons to relator 

when she continued to ask for production. 

{¶ 22} The township next argues that it provided the records in July 2012, a year after 

the initial request. However, as previously discussed, the fact that the township provided the 

records in July 2012, after relator filed her mandamus action, does not foreclose the 

possibility of imposing statutory damages and fees. 

{¶ 23} Lastly, the township argues that it provided the records within a reasonable time 

when considering the "attendant facts and circumstances." These facts and circumstances 

include that relator makes public records requests often; relator had outstanding requests at 

the time of the July 27 request that made communication regarding different requests 

confusing; and the township staff is unable to keep up with the demand for public records. 

{¶ 24} In his affidavit, Miller avers that relator has made 16 out of the approximately 45 
Butler CA2012-04-080

 - 11 - 

public records requests that have been made to the township in the past two to three years. 

Miller further states that the township staff has not grown in relation to the overall growth of 

the township itself, and that as much as 60-90 percent of the administrative staff was 

required to work on complying with public records requests. However, and as stated by the 

Ohio Supreme Court, 

[n]o pleading of too much expense, or too much time involved, or 

too much interference with normal duties, can be used by the 

respondent to evade the public's right to inspect and obtain a 

copy of public records within a reasonable time. The respondent 

is under a statutory duty to organize his office and employ his 

staff in such a way that his office will be able to make these 

records available for inspection and to provide copies when 

requested within a reasonable time. 

State ex rel. Fox v. Cuyahoga Cty. Hosp. Sys., 39 Ohio St.3d 108, 111 (1988). 

{¶ 25} We find that even when taking into account relator's multiple records requests 

and the township's limited staff, the township did not respond to relator's request in a 

reasonable time frame. According to R.C. 149.43(B)(2), "to facilitate broader access to 

public records, a public office or the person responsible for public records shall organize and 

maintain public records in a manner that they can be made available for inspection or 

copying in accordance with division (B) of this section." The statute specifically directs 

holders of public records to maintain their records so as to make the records available to a 

requestor within a reasonable period of time. 

{¶ 26} The statute does not offer exceptions to public offices that are understaffed or 

otherwise unable to comply with the statutory mandates because of the way the entity 

chooses to use its resources. While such circumstances may be considered to a limited 

degree when determining the reasonableness of a public office's response, the statute itself 

gives little latitude to circumventing the affirmative responsibilities placed upon those that 

maintain public records. 
Butler CA2012-04-080

 - 12 - 

{¶ 27} Regarding the confusing nature of the request, we agree that there were certain 

challenges present, given the fact that some of relator's requests were still outstanding at the 

time she made her July 27 request. However, and despite any facial confusion, the July 27 

request was very specific and listed three distinct requests from three distinct time frames. 

Moreover, R.C. 149.43(B)(2) places the burden on the township to inform the requester if the 

request is "ambiguous or overly broad." The township never informed relator that it did not 

understand the July 27 request or that it found the request ambiguous or overly broad. 

Emails sent after the request between relator and the township made specific reference to 

the July 27 request on several occasions, and the natural flow of the emails demonstrates 

that any confusion created by ambiguous email subject headings or the existence of 

multiple/outstanding requests were eliminated by relator's specific reference to her July 27 

request and to her clarification emails regarding the three categories of documents she was 

requested that remained unfilled. 

{¶ 28} The township also argues that an attendant fact and circumstance leading to 

the length of time necessary to fill the request centered on the fact that the meeting minutes 

from July were not available because they were only in draft form and not finalized yet. 

However, the meeting minutes were only one part of the three-part July 27 request. The 

township also had the ability to deny relator's request because the minutes were not finalized, 

but was under a statutory duty to "provide the requester with an opportunity to revise the 

request by informing the requester of the manner in which records are maintained by the 

public office and accessed in the ordinary course of the public office's or person's duties." 

R.C. 149.43(B)(2). If the township did not have final July minutes to produce, it could have 

informed relator of that fact, denied the request, and permitted the relator to resubmit her 

request after the drafts had been finalized or to revise her request to ask for the draft minutes 

as already prepared. 
Butler CA2012-04-080

 - 13 - 

{¶ 29} After reviewing the record, we cannot say that any of the township's arguments 

alleviate the responsibility it bears for its failure to comply with the relator's public records 

request. As previously discussed, relator is entitled to $1,000 in statutory damages. We also 

find that relator has met the threshold determination for attorney fees regarding public 

benefit. 

{¶ 30} The Supreme Court of Ohio has established that the award of attorney fees is 

dependent upon an aggrieved party demonstrating that the release of the requested public 

records provides a public benefit that is greater than the benefit to the requester. State ex 

rel. Dawson v. Bloom-Carroll Local School Dist., 131 Ohio St.3d 10, 2011-Ohio-6009, ¶ 34; 

State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Akron, 104 Ohio St.3d 399, 2004-Ohio-6557. 

{¶ 31} Several courts have denied attorney fees to relators where the relator was 

unable to demonstrate a public benefit conferred by having sought the disclosure of public 

records. For example, the Eighth District Court of Appeals recently denied a relator's request 

for damages and fees because the relator's only claim of public benefit was ensuring that the 

Ohio Public Records Act be enforced against the respondents. State ex rel. Difranco v. 

South Euclid, 8th Dist. No. 97713, 2012-Ohio-4339. Similarly, the Ohio Supreme Court 

denied a relator's request for attorney fees where the relator requested the public records 

that were beneficial "mostly to her for purposes of a potential civil action." State ex rel. 

Morgan v. New Lexington, 112 Ohio St.3d 33, 2006-Ohio-6365, ¶ 58. (Emphasis in original.) 

{¶ 32} Here, however, we find that there is sufficient public benefit. The record is clear 

that relator uses the public documents she requests to inform interested members of the 

public as to the goings-on of Fairfield Township. Relator requests the public records and 

then makes these records available those who may not otherwise have the time or 

wherewithal to retrieve the public documents on their own. Relator's blog has received 

thousands of visitors, and the record indicates that the public does benefit from relator 
Butler CA2012-04-080

 - 14 - 

gathering the public records and disseminating them on her blog by allowing interested 

citizens to have immediate access to public records, audio recordings, and other gathered 

materials. 

{¶ 33} We are, of course, aware of the fact that in so gathering and disseminating the 

records, relator may espouse her own personal opinions and sentiments regarding the 

township and its administration. However, the fact remains that relator makes the documents 

and recordings available to interested citizens regardless of whether they too agree with any 

expressed opinions. Presumably, relator does not limit access to her blog to only those that 

share her opinion regarding the township, but rather, the website is open to any interested 

citizen who wants to learn more about the township and its administration. Members of the 

public may rely on relator's blog to access documents like those posted by relator. This is not 

the case where relator is merely trying to ensure that the township complies with the Public 

Records Act, or where relator is requesting the public records to assist her in a personal 

lawsuit moving forward. Instead, the release of the requested public records appears to 

provide a public benefit that is greater than the benefit to the relator. 

{¶ 34} Having found that relator has successfully met the threshold determination of 

public benefit, the parties must now submit evidence regarding reasonable attorney fees as 

set forth in the statute. We will appoint a magistrate to hear the evidence and determine the 

issue of attorney fees according to the mandates within R.C. 149.43. 

{¶ 35} Given the production of documents as of July 2012, the petition for the writ of 

mandamus is hereby rendered moot. However, judgment is granted to relator in the amount 

of $1,000 for statutory damages permitted pursuant to R.C. 149.43 (C)(1), and court costs 

associated with the prosecution of this petition as set forth in the statute and App.R. 24. We 

venture no opinion at this time if attorney fees should be awarded, and the award of attorney 

fees, if any, will be determined by the magistrate appointed under separate entry. 
Butler CA2012-04-080

 - 15 - 

S. POWELL, P.J., RINGLAND and PIPER, JJ., concur.