Lawsuit launched against Fulton County Area Plan Commission and Data Center Ordinance Review Committee

A Fulton County resident has launched a lawsuit against the Fulton County Area Plan Commission and Data Center Ordinance Review Committee by a resident who claims the group did not comply with Indiana's Open Door Law. 

According to court documents, a complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the committee was filed by Richard O'Neill in Fulton Superior Court Tuesday, April 14. 

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Greg Heller filed an order of recusal, stating he previously represented the Fulton County Area Planning Commission and has a personal relationship with O'Neill. The order was issued April 22, with both parties given seven days to agree on a special judge to be appointed to hear the matter. 

The suit alleges the committee had violated the Indiana Open Door Law by holding meetings that were not publicly noticed and did not allow public attendance. O’Neill is also seeking preliminary injunctive relief.

This past March, county commissioners voted 2-1 to approve a one-year data center moratorium, as talk of a possible data center in Akron picked up. After that vote, the data center review committee was formed to review regulations and look at how other communities handle data centers.

But some residents said they’re concerned the public can’t attend or even listen in on those meetings and questioned transparency issues.

Indiana's Open Door Law states that "Government agencies must hold official meetings of a majority of their governing body, such as council or board meetings, publicly. As a citizen, you have the right to attend and record these meetings."

The committee, however, said it doesn’t have to follow that law because it’s not considered a governing body.

The nine-member committee was tasked with researching, evaluating and recommending potential amendments to the APC’s data center ordinance. The goal for the board was to protect public safety, infrastructure capacity, fiscal responsibility, environmental stewardship and community compatibility, while remaining legally defensible and administratively enforceable. The resolution also states committee meetings would not be open to the public, but that they would meet as frequently as necessary to fulfill its duties.

The suit states the respondents’ actions “have caused and will continue to cause substantial, immediate and irreparable injury and loss for which the petitioner has no adequate remedy at law.”

Count I of O'Neill's complaint asserts the APC and the Data Center Ordinance Review Committee are both governing bodies as defined by state statute and fall under the Indiana Open Door Law. It further states the APC is subject to the requirements of the law and, unless an exception applies, all meetings, including those of committees, must be open to allow members of the public to observe and record.

It further states the review committee was appointed to advise the APC on the data center ordinance and was formed for a specific purpose and that APC authorized and tasked the committee to take official action during its meetings. The suit alleges the committee met April 8 without public notice and closed the meeting to the public, with a second meeting being held that same day with members that were “secretly sent out a separate door from normal entry and exit.” 

O’Neill is asking the court in Count I to enter judgment and determine the APC’s resolution declaring the committee not being a governing body is void, and find the committee is a governing body and public agency subject to the Open Door Law. He is also asking the court to require the committee to comply with the law, provide public notice of meetings and conduct meetings openly.

Count II seeks a preliminary injunction to prevent the committee from continuing to meet in private until the court rules on the complaint.