to motion to enforce settlement agreement … to motion to enforce settlement agreement john w....

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

STATE OF OHIO EX REL.,JOHN Q. PUBLIC,

Relator, CASE NO. 05-1789

V.

ETNA TOWNSHIP BOARD OFTRUSTEES, et al.,

Respondents.

MEMORANDUM CONTRA OF RELATOR JOHN Q. PUBLICTO MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

John W. Zeiger (0010707)Marion H. Little, Jr. (0042679)Kris Banvard (0076216)ZEIGER, TIGGES & LITTLE, LLP3500 Huntington Center41 South High StreetColumbus, Ohio [email protected](614) 365-9900(614) 365-7900 fax

Attorneys for RelatorJohn Q. Public

Douglas J. Suter (0040288)Mark R. Weaver (0065769)ISAAC, BRANT, LEDMAN & TEETOR LLP250 East Broad Street, Suite 900Columbus, Ohio [email protected](614) 221-2121(614) 365-9516 fax

Attorneys for RespondentsEtna Township Trustees and Paul George

^ 77MAR 0 5 2001

MARCIA J. MENGEL, CLERKSUPREME COURT OF OHIO




V.


Respondents.

MEMORANDUM CONTRA OF RELATOR JOHN Q. PUBLICTO MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

It is true that a settlement was reached in this matter. It is equally true that Relator has

fully complied. What the instant Motion is about is Respondents' efforts, after the fact, to

rewrite the parties' negotiated settlement agreement.' Indeed, it appears that Respondents failed

to negotiate a settlement agreement that was sufficient for the auditing requirements of the

Governmental Risk Sharing Pool. While that is perhaps an unfortunate error on the part of

Respondents' counsel, it is not an issue or concern of Relator, nor for this Court.

Let's start with the basics. After the parties had reached a resolution of this public

records dispute, Relator's counsel sent a March 21, 2006, letter to counsel for the Respondents to

memorialize the specific terms of the settlement (the "Settlement Agreement"). [See Exh. A

I We further add that Respondents' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is procedurally invalid. First,this action has been dismissed pursuant to the settlement, and, thus, no jurisdiction exists. Second, the settlement ofthis action was extrajudicial, and when an extrajudicial settlement is reached, the resolution of any dispute arisingfrom the settlement agreement must be made by way of a new complaint or a supplemental pleading. See, e.g.,Bolen v. Young, 8 Ohio App. 3d 36, 38 (10th Dist. 1982) (extrajudicial settlement may be enforced only by filing anindependent action sounding in breach of contract or through a supplemental proceeding filed under Civil Rule15(E), setting out the alleged agreement and breach). Accord: Boster v. C & M Services, Inc., 93 Ohio App. 3d 523(10'" Dist., 1994) (citing Bolen v. Young); Irwin and Flickineer v. Broce L. Christy Co., LPA, 61 Ohio App. 3d 131(10a' Dist., 1989) (citing with approval Bolen v. Youne syllabus). Since Respondents had never filed a"complaint"in the first instance, their sole recourse is by a separate action.

2

(Little Affd ¶¶ 3-4.] A copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit B to this memorandum, as well

as to Respondents' motion. The text states in its entirety:

We are writing to confirm the settlement of the above-referencedcase. In exchange for our client's dismissal with prejudice of theabove-referenced litigation, your client will: (1) issue a check inthe amount of $10,000 made payable to the Zeiger, Tigges & LittleIOLTA Account; and (2) issue a resolution in the form attachedhereto. Upon our receipt of the executed resolution and thepayment of fees, we will file a notice of dismissal with theSupreme Court.

Thank you for your assistance in resolving this matter.

Thus, there were three elenients to the Settlement Agreement: (1) the Respondents would

issue a check in the amount of $10,000 made payable to the Zeiger, Tigges & Little IOLTA

Account; (2) the Respondents would issue a resolution in the form attached to the March 21,

2006, correspondence; and (3) upon receipt of the executed resolution and payment of fees, a

notice of dismissal would be filed with the Supreme Court. There were no other elements, no

other terms to this Settlement Agreement, and Respondents' counsel never objected to these

terms. [Little Aff'd ¶¶ 4, 6.]

These elements of the Settlement Agreement were ultimately performed, but only after

much delay by Respondents and several reminders from Relator. Four weeks after the

Settlement Agreement was mernorialized by letter, Respondents had taken no action to issue a

check or pass a resolution, and so a reminder letter was sent on April 18, 2006. [Exh. C] When

no response was received to this communication, an e-mail reminder was sent on May 1, 2006,

[Exh. D] to which Respondents' counsel sent an e-mail stating he was "trying right now to get it

moving." [Exh. D.] When nothing happened, another e-mail reminder was sent on May 12.

[Exh. D.] Despite this additional communication, not once did Respondents state or otherwise

imply that the terms of the Settlement Agreement were being changed.

3

Of course, because of Respondents' delay, implementation of the Settlement Agreement

was actually performed in reverse order. Rather than Respondents first issuing a check and

delivering a resolution, Relator was forced, because of the Court's scheduling order, to file the

Notice of Dismissal. Relator did so on May 18, 2006, but made clear by correspondence

transmitting a copy of the Notice, of Dismissal that that the dismissal was subject to Respondents

satisfying the other two elements of the Settlement Agreement:

I am enclosing a Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudicethat I have filed in the above-referenced case. Given the courtimposed deadline, I thought it was important to file the notice. Ihave done so based upon. the reliance that payment of theattorneys' fees is forthcoming, as is the executed resolution.Please send the check and, further, the executed resolution as soonas possible.

[Exh. E.]

A day after the Notice of Dismissal was filed, on May 19, 2006, Respondents issued and

delivered a check made payable to Zeiger, Tigges & Little IOLTA Account, thus satisfying one

of two remaining elements of the Settlement Agreement. [Little Aff d¶ 9; Exh. F

(correspondence).] Finally, on June 6, 2006, some eighteen days after the filing of the Notice of

Dismissal, Respondents issued a resolution in the requisite form, thus satisfying the third and

final element of the Settlement Agreement. [Little Aff d¶ 13; Exh. G.]

So, what is the issue raised by the instant motion? After settlement was reached - indeed

after the full performance by Relator - Respondents asked that a written release be executed.

[Little Affd ¶ 9; Exh. F (letter and release form).] But as they begrudgingly admit in their

Motion, this was never once set forth in the correspondence memorializing the Settlement

Agreement. [Little Aff d¶¶ 5, 10.] And any suggestion by Respondents' counsel that such an

4

element was part of the settlement is an unfortunate falsehood designed to cover up counsel's

own error in negotiations and, as evidenced by this Motion, perpetrate a fraud upon this Court.

It is thus true that Relator rejected the tendered general release. Thereafter, Respondents

were advised, as a courtesy only, that perhaps a more limited release would be considered. But

let's be clear. No commitment was made, and it was never suggested that counsel would execute

the release. [Id. ¶¶ 10-12.] The reality is that releases proposed by Respondents, both the

general release and the purportedly limited release, were unacceptable. And irrespective of the

number of times attorneys for Respondents called in an effort to cure their failures in negotiating

the release in the first instance, Relator was never obligated to execute a release. Indeed, with

the Settlement Agreement having been fully performed, the release would not, in any event, be

enforceable since no consideration existed for it.

Respondents' Motion, which is predicated solely upon counsel's errors and

misrepresentations, should be summarily rejected. Indeed, the controlling document belies

Respondents' contention.2

2 Compounding the inappropriateness of the instant Motion, Respondents also seek attorney fees. Theywould have done well to have first reviewed the applicable case law. Setting aside that there is not, in the firstinstance, any settlement to enforce, no fees could be awarded under any circumstances. Moreover, it is well settledthat Ohio follows the "American Rule" to prohibit a prevailing party from recovering attorney fees as part of thecosts of its litigation, with narrow exceptions not present here. See Sorin v. Bd. of Educ. of Warrensville HeightsSchool Dist., 46 Ohio St. 2d 177, 179 (1976). There are only two exceptions to this rule: (1) if fees are expresslyauthorized by statute, and (2), if punitive damages are awarded against a losing party. See id. at 179-80. Neitherexception is met here.

There is no contractual basis for an award of fees, either. Settlement agreements, of course, are contracts,"and attorney fees are allowable as damages in breach-of-contract cases where the parties have bargained for thisresult and the breaching party's wrongful conduct has led to the legal fees being incurred." R.C.H. Co. v. ClassicCar Auto Body & Frame, 2004 WL 2914923, at *2 (Cuyahoga Cty. App., Dec. 16, 2004). In that case, the courtreversed an award of attorrtey fees to the prevailing party in an action to enforce a settlement agreement on groundsthat no exception to the American Rule was met, and also that there was no contractual basis for an award of fees.

5

For the reasons stated above, the Motion s uld be denied.

Jo W ,'e 000707)Marion H. Little, Jr. (0042679)Kris Banvard (0076216)ZEIGER, TIGGES & LITTLE, LLP3500 Huntington Center41 South High StreetColumbus, Ohio 43215(614) 365-9900(614) 365-7900 faxAttorneys for RelatorJohn Q. Public

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon

Douglas J. Suter, and Marlc R. Weaver, Isaac, Brant eaj& Teetor LLP, 250 East Broad

Street, Suite 900, Columbus, Ohio 43215 42, orney fo I*spondents, via regular United

States mail, postage prepaid, this 5`h da

652-003:175203v2

6




V.


Respondents.

AFFIDAVIT OF MARION H. LITTLE, JR.

STATE OF OHIO:SS

COUNTY OF FRANKLIN :

Marion H. Little, Jr., first being duly sworn according to law, deposes and states that he

has personal knowledge of matters set forth herein except as specifically noted otherwise, and

further states as follows:

1. I am a partner with the Law Firm of Zeiger, Tigges & Little, LLP. I am one of the

attorneys representing the Relator in the above-captioned action.

2. In that capacity, I negotiated a settlement of the above-captioned action with

Isaac, Brant, Ledman & Teetor, LLP ("Isaac Brant"), attorneys for the Respondents.

3. Exhibit B attached to the Relator's Memorandum Contra to Respondents' Motion

to Enforce Settlement Agreement (the "Memo.Contra") is a true and accurate copy of a March

21, 2006, letter (the "March 21 Letter") from myself to Mark R. Weaver ("Attorney Weaver") of

Isaac Brant memorializing all terms of the settlement agreement of this public-record dispute.

AA

4. As reflected in the March 21 Letter, there were three elements to the settlement:

(1) the Respondents would issue a check in the amount of $10,000 to cover Relator's attorneys'

fees, made payable to the IOLTA account of Zeiger, Tigges & Little, LLP; (2) the Respondents

would issue a resolution in the form attached to the March 21, 2006, letter; and (3) upon receipt

of the executed resolution and payment of fees, Relator would file a notice of dismissal with the

Supreme Court. There were no other terms to the settlement other than those set forth in the

March 21 Letter.

5. Specifically, during settlement negotiations, counsel for Respondents never

requested that Relator execute a release of claims, nor was there even any mention of a release.

6. I never received any communication suggesting that the terms set forth in the

March 21 Letter were unacceptable.

7. Numerous opportunities existed. Having received no response from Isaac Brant

as to whether Respondents had taken steps to satisfy their obligations under the settlement, I sent

a reminder letter to Attorney Weaver dated April 18, 2006, a true and accurate copy of which is

contained in Exhibit C to the Memo Contra. This was followed up by additional e-mails from

my office on May I and May 12, 2006, true and accurate copies of which are contained in

Exhibit D to the Memo Contra. Each of these communications were consistent with terms

recited in the March 21 Letter.

8. In order to satisfy the Court's scheduling deadline, I arranged for the filing of a

Notice of Dismissal on May 18, 2006, even though Respondents had yet to perfomi their part of

the bargain.. A true and accurate copy of the Notice is contained in Exhibit E to the Memo

Contra, and a copy of the Notice was sent to Attorney Weaver as an enclosure to the letter also

contained in Exhibit E and dated May 18. As the letter states, Relator filed the Notice of

2

Dismissal in order to meet the Court's deadline and did so in reliance on the representation by

Respondents' counsel that the Respondents would satisfy their obligations under the settlement.

- 9. After Relator fully performed terms of the settlement agreement by filing the

Notice of Dismissal, Attorney Douglas Suter of Isaac Brant sent a letter to me dated May 19,

2006, a true and accurate copy of which is contained at Exhibit F to the memo Contra. Enclosed

with the letter was a settlement check and a release form. [Exh. F.] The letter asked that the

enclosed release be executed and returned.

10. As noted above, there had been no discussion of a release during the settlement

negotiations, let alone any agreement that Relator or Relator's counsel would sign a release.

This letter enclosing a blank release was the first time the subject was brought up.

11. The proposed release was unacceptable. It was not part of the terms of the

settlement. Further, the terms were unacceptable.

12. In a subsequent telephone conversation, Attorney Weaver for the first time orally

raised the subject of a release. Notwithstanding the fact that the execution of a release was never

a term of the settlement, I stated that I was willing to review and consider any proposal.

However, it was never suggested that the proffered release [Exh. F] would be executed, and no

release was ever agreed upon. Indeed, the terms of the second draft were equally unacceptable.

I would add I never suggested that I personally had the authority or the desire to sign any release

personally.

13. Respondents finally carried out their remaining obligation under the settlement on

June 6, 2006, with the adoption of the resolution. A true and accurate copy of the signed

resolution as faxed to my office is attached to the Memo Contra as Exhibit G.

14. It is true that Relator has refused to

obvious: It was never part of the settlement in the

Further Affiant sayeth naught.

Sworn to and subscribed in my presence thi /day of March, 2007.

Notary Public

652-003:175277

OF

1 Notary Public, State of Ohiot s o My commission explres 08I24I2009

TERRI L. iHOMPSON

4

ZEIGER, TIGGES & LITTLE LLY

TELEPHONE: (614) 365-9900

FACSIMILE: ( 614) 3657900

Via Email and Facsimile

Mark R. Weaver, Esq.Isaac, Brant, Ledman & Teetor LLP250 East Broad Street, Suite 900Columbus, OH 43215-3742

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

3500 HUNTINGTON CENTER WRITER'SDIRECT NUMBER:

41 SOUTH HIGH STREET (614) 365-411J

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

March 21, 2006

Re: State of Ohio ex rel., John Q. Public v. Etna Township Board ofTrustees, Case No, 05-1789, Supreme Court of Ohio

Dear Mark:

We are writing to confirm the settlement of the above-referenced case. In exchange forour client's dismissal with prejudice of the above-referenced litigation, your client will: (1) issuea check in the amount of $10,000 made payable to the Zeiger, Tigges & Little IOLTA Account;and (2) issue a resolution in the form attached hereto. Upon our receipt of the executedresolution and the payment of fees, we will file a notice of dismissal with the Suprenie Court.

Thank you for your assistance in resolv

Enclosures

M H L: tl t: 652-003:168494

RESOLUTION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT

Wherefore, the Etna Township Board of Trustees values the opportunity for all citizens to tal<epart in and observe their local government in action; and

Wlaerefore, the Etna Township Board of Trustees supports and is committed to enforcing therequirements of the Ohio Constitution and Ohio law, including the Ohio Public Records Act andthe Ohio Open Meetings Act, that require local government officials to make public records andpublic meetings accessible to all citizens; and

Wherefore, the Etna Township Board of Trustees believes that local government is moreresponsive to citizens when it endorses and enforces the legal obligation to allow citizens to learnmore about how local goverrunent works; therefore.

Be It Resolved, that the Etna Township Building is, during all regular business hours, open to allcitizens and that all of the public records in the building are available for prompt inspectionduring regular business hours and Etna Township shall make copies of public records available,upon request, within a reasonable period of time; and

Be it further Resohled, that Etna Township shaIl not impose any requirement that a member ofthe public identify his or her identity as a precondition to inspecting and/or obtaining copies ofpublic records, or attending a public meeting. Members of the public shall be permitted toanonymously exercise their right under the Ohio Public Records Act and the Ohio OpenMeetings Act.

APPROVED: Date:

652-003:166802v.3

TELEPHONE: ( 614) 365-9900

FACSIMILE: (614) 365-7900

ZEIGER, TIGGES & LITTLE LLp

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

3500 HUNTINGTON CENTER

41 SOUTH HIGH STREET

COLUMBUS,OHIO 43215

April 18, 2006

Via Email and Facsimile


WRITER'S DIRECT NIIMBER:

Re: State of Ohio ex rel.. John O. Public v. Etna Township Board ofTrustees, Case No. 05-1789, Supreme Court of Ohio

Dear Mark:

As of today, we have not received a check for the ent of our attorney's fees or, forthat matter, an executed Resolution. We need to receiv he e items immediately or we will benotifying the Court that we would like it to move forw rd a exp¢ditiously as possible.

Thank you for your immediate attent,

MHL:tlt:652-003:169081

EXHIBIT

C

Terri Thompson

From: Terri ThompsonSent: Friday, May 12, 2006 2:08 PMTo: '[email protected]'Subject: RE: From Marion Little re: John Q. Public v. Etna Township

Mr. Weaver, I am just checking back regarding the paymment of attorney's fees. Pleaseprovide us with an update. Thank you.

-----Original Message-----

From: Mark Weaver [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 3:27 PMTo: Terri Thompson

Subject: Re: From Marion Little re: John Q. Public v. Etna Township

Don't know why you haven't received it but am trying right noar to get it moving. Will beback with you shortly.

Thanks--

MARK

Mark R. Weaver, Esq.Isaac, Brant, Ledman & Teetor250 East Broad StreetColumbus, Ohio 43215(614) 462-8371www.IsaacBrant.com.This Message Sent From My Blackberry

.-----Original Message-----From: "Terri Thompson" <[email protected]>Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 11:24:30To:<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>Subject: From Marion Little re: John Q. Public v. Etna Township

Mr. Weaver, can you please let me know when we can expect to receive the check for thepayment of our attorney's fees as well as the executed resolution. Thank you.

Terri ThompsonZeiger, Tigges & Little LLP41 S. High Street, Suite 3500Columbus, Ohio 43215(614) 324-5065 [Direct](614) 365-9900 [Main](614) 365-7900 [Fax][email protected]

1

ZEIGER, TIGGES & LITTLE LLP

TELEPHONE: ( 614) 385-9900

FACSIMILE: (614) 365-7900

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

3500 HUNTINGTON CENTER

41 SOUTH HIGH STREET

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

May 18, 2006

WRITER'S DIRECT NUMBER'.

(614) 365-4113

Via E.:.aa


Re: State of Ohio ex rel., John 0. Public v. Etna Township Board ofTrustees, Case No. 05-1789, Supreme Court of Ohio

Dear Mark:

I am enclosing a Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice that I have filed in the above-referenced case. Given the court imposed deadline, I thought it was important to file the notice.I have done so based upon the reliance that payment of the attorneys' fees is forthcoming, as isthe executed resolution. Please send the check and, fµrther, the executed resolution as soon aspossible.

Thank you for your assistance in resolv' / j

Enclosures

M1-1L: t l t:6 52-003:169715




V.


Respondents.

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Jolin W. Zeiger (0010707)Marion H. Little, Jr. (0042679)Kris Banvard (0076216)ZEIGER, TIGGES & LITTLE, LLP3 5 00 Huntington Center41 South High StreetColumbus, Ohio [email protected](614) 365-9900(614) 365-7900 fax

Attorneys for RelatorJohn Q. Public



Relator,

V.


Respondents.

CASE NO. 05-1789

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Pursuant to Rule 41 of the Ohio Rules of Ci i P ocedure, and the settlement of the

parties, Relator hereby voluntarily dismisse§,tiis c n^ithout prejudice.

bmitted,

Jo4 ^V. Ze1VO \} (0010707)Mar^qin H. Little, Jr. (0042679)Kris Banvard (0076216)ZEIGER, TIGGES & LITTLE, LLP3500 Huntington Center41 South High StreetColumbus, Ohio 432 ] 5(614) 365-9900(614) 365-7900 faxAttorneys for RelatorJolui Q. Public

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon

Douglas J. Suter, and Mark R. Weaver, Isaac, Bruit, Ledman & Teetor LLP, 250 East Broad

Street, Suite 900, Columbus, OhioO435-3742, tto ys for Respondents, via regular United

States mail, postage prepaid, this

651-003:169683

3

ISAAC, BRANT, LEDMAN & TEETOR LLPATTORNEYS AT LAW

SCYLD D. ANDERSONDONALD L. ANSPAUGHDOUGLAS C. BOATRIGHTCHARLES E. BRANTDANIELLE M. CARTERMARIBETH DEAVERSBRANDI L. DORGANDANIEL T. DOWNEYJ. ERIC HOLLOWAYFREDERICK M. ISAACDAVID G. JENNINGS

JERRYL.KALTENBACHRANDY S. KUREKSTEVEN GLAFORGEMARK LANDESJAMES H. LEDMANPAUL A. MACKENZIETIMOTHY E. MILLERDENNIS R. NEWMANMICHAEL V. PASSELLAJOANNE S. PETERSJESSICA K. PHILEMOND

VIA HAND DELIVERY

Marion H. Little, Jr., Esq.ZEIGER, TIGGES & LITTLE, LLP3500 Huntington Center41 South High StreetColumbus, OH 43215

PATRICK M. PICKETT MARK R. WEAVER 250 EAST BROAD STREETBRENT M. RALSTON OrCOunael SUITE 900JAMES M. ROPER COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215-3742JEFFERY J. SNIDERMANSTEVE M. SOLTIS TELEPHONE 614 • 22] • 2121JEFFREY A. STANKlJNAS FACSIMILE 614 • 365 • 9516DOUGLAS J. SUTER W W W.ISAACBRANT.COMJ. STEPHEN TEETORMARK H. TROUTMANJOHN E. VINCENT

May 19, 2006

Re: State of Ohio Ex Rel., John Q. Public v. Etna Township, et al.

Dear Marion:

SOL MORTON ISAAC (1911-1995)DAVID H MEADE (1957-1994)

.- Enclosed please find the settlement check in the amount of $10,000 along with theRelease. ^Please have the Release executed and forwarded back to me. Also, please send us acopy of the Dismissal Entry filed with the Ohio Supreme Court.

Respectfully submitted,

DJS/kkEnclosures

cc: Etna Township

EXHIBIT

F:'.odmalSrPwise\iblt_dnm.ibltyo.ibadocumem library:294586.I I

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE

This Settlement Agreement and General Release ("Agreement") is entered into thisday of , 2006, by and between John Q. Public c/o John W. Zeiger and MarionLittle, Jr. ("Relator") and Etna Township Board of Trustees and Paul George ("Respondents").

Witnesseth

WHEREAS, John Q. Public has filed a Writ of Mandamus in the Ohio Supreme Court,State of Ohio Ex Rel. John Q. Public v. Etna Township Board of Trustees and Paul George, CaseNo.: 05-1789:

WHEREAS, Respondents have provided John Q. Public through his attorneys with therequested public records;

WHEREAS, Respondents have approved a Resolution requiring compliance with OhioPublic Records Act and Ohio's Open Meetings Act;

WHEREAS, Relator and Respondents desire to compromise, settle and resolve theirdispute regarding these matters;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, covenants and agreements, setforth herein, it is agreed as follows:

1. Respondents will cause one check in the amount of Ten Thousand Dollars($10,000.00) made payable to the Zeiger, Tigges & Little IOLTA account.

2. John Q. Public and Relator's attorneys shall take all steps necessary to execute avoluntary dismissal with prejudice of the mandamus action pending in the OhioSupreme Court, Case No.: 05-1789.

3. John Q. Public agrees to bear his own attorney's fees and costs, including but notlimited to any fees available pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 149.43 andOhio Common Law.

4. In consideration of paragraphs 1-3 above, and other good and valuableconsideration, the adequacy of which is hereby expressly acknowledged, Jolm Q.Public and his attorneys hereby expressly release, acquit, and forever dischargePaul George and Etna Township, Ohio (including its elected and appointedofficials in their individual and official capacities), all other agents, servantsand/or employees of Etna Township, whether the identities are known orunknown to John Q. Public, individually and in their official capacity, the OhioTownship Association Risk Management Authority ("OTARMA"), AmericanRisk Pooling Consultants, Inc. and Crawford and Company, together with theircurrent and former employees, volunteers, employers, principals, agents, insurers,attorneys, officers, directors, predecessors, subsidiaries, affiliates, successors, and

284355

assigns (hereafter collectively known as "Etna Township"), of and from any andall liability, claims, demands, charges, complaints, controversies, actions, causesof action, and suits at law or in equity, of any kind or nature whatsoever, knownor unknown, asserted or unasserted, suspected or unsuspected, including withoutlimitation any claim which were or could have been raised by John Q. Public in acourt of law or any other forum, and any claim under any local, state or federalstatute, and any claim under any other statutory, administrative, constitutional,contractual tort, common law or other legal or equitable theory whatsoever, whichJohn Q. Public at any time heretofore had or claimed to have had or which JohnQ. Public may have or claim to have regarding any matter as of the date of thisAgreement.

Date John Q. Public

Date Marion H. Little, Jr., Esq.

284355

RESOLUTION; 06-06-06-056

IN THE MATTER OF OPEN GOVERNMENT

Whereas:

Wherefore, the Etna Township Board ofTrustees values the opportunity for all citizens to take part in andobserve their local government in action; and

A'herefore, the Etna Township Board of Trustees supports and is committed to enforcing the requirementsof the Ohio Constitution and Ohio law, including the Ohio Public Records Aot and the Ohio OpenMeetings Act, that require local government of2lcials to make public records and public meetingsaccessible to all citizens; and

Wherefore, the Etna Township Board of Trustees believes that local government is more responsive tocitizens when It endorses and enforces the legai obligation to allow citizens to leam more about how localgovernment works; therefbre,

BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Ttltstees, Etna Township, State of Ohio;

Be It Resolved, that the Etna Township Building is, during 411 regular business hours, open to all cititensand that all of the pubiic records In the building are available for immediate inspection during regularbusiness hours and Etna Township shall make copies oi'public reoords available, upon request, asexpeditiously as reasonably possible; and

Be iffurther Resolved, that Etna Township shall not impose any requirement that a member of the publioidentify his or her identity as a precondition to inspecting and/or obtaining oopies of public records, orattonding a public meeting. Members of the public shall be permitted to anonymously exercisa their rightunder the Oh lo Public Records Act and the Ohio Open Meetings Aet:

Motion by Gary Burkholder Seconded by Paul George

That tbe resolution be adopted was carried by the fbllowing vote:

ICuanoYEASt Gary Burkholder * Paul Georae * Richardr tNAYS:

FILE

Adopted on June 6 2006

B&bara Digel-Be4F Otr

EXHIBIT

zooizoo In ' G

to motion to enforce settlement agreement … to motion to enforce settlement agreement john w....

Documents