internal management rule in Ohio

2004“It is the effect of the [document], not how the [agency] chooses to characterize it, that is important.” Ohio Nurses Assn., Inc. v. Ohio State Bd. of Nursing Edn. & Nurse Registration (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 73, 76 , 540 N.E.2d 1354 . {¶ 27} The pivotal issue in determining the effect of a document is whether it enlarges the scope of the rule or statute from which it derives rather than simply interprets it.

1990A rule is defined as: "*** [A]ny rule, regulation, or standard, having a general and uniform operation, adopted, promulgated, and enforced by any *571 agency under the authority of the laws governing such agency, and includes any appendix to a rule. 'Rule' does not include any internal management rule of an agency unless the internal management rule affects private rights." In support of its position that the disciplinary guidelines are a rule within the meaning of Chapter 119, appellant cites Ohio Nurse's Association, Inc. v. State Board of Nurse Education and Nurse Registration (1989), 44 Oh

2001By contrast, the Supreme Court in Hattie , supra , found that the Adult Parole Authority's `use of internal guidelines does not alter the decisions discretionary nature.

2000By contrast, the Supreme Court in Hattie , supra, found that the Adult Parole Authority's `use of internal guidelines does not alter the decision's discretionary nature.

2021If the protocol does not fit into either one of those categories or if it is an “order respecting the duties of employees,” id., then it is not a “rule” and is therefore not subject to the statute’s rule-filing requirements. {¶ 25} The inmates contend that DRC should have filed the execution protocol with the secretary of state and LSC’s director because the protocol is a “rule * * * having a general and uniform operation” in accordance with R.C. 111.15(A)(1) or, alternatively, because it is an internal-management rule as defined by R.C. 111.15(A)(3).

2021If the protocol does not fit into either one of those categories or if it is an “order respecting the duties of employees,” id., then it is not a “rule” and is therefore not subject to the statute’s rule-filing requirements. {¶ 25} The inmates contend that DRC should have filed the execution protocol with the secretary of state and LSC’s director because the protocol is a “rule * * * having a general and uniform operation” in accordance with R.C. 111.15(A)(1) or, alternatively, because it is an internal-management rule as defined by R.C. 111.15(A)(3).

2021They do not occur on a regular or frequent basis, nor are they routine. 2020-Ohio-506 , 146 N.E.3d 605 , at ¶ 19. {¶ 43} The inmates argue that the court of appeals was wrong to hold that an internal-management rule must govern operations that occur daily.2 According to the inmates, the “only requirement is that the Agency intend[s] to apply the standard uniformly in those circumstances where the standard applies at all.” {¶ 44} However, this argument incorrectly conflates rules “having a general and uniform operation” with internal-management rules.

2021They do not occur on a regular or frequent basis, nor are they routine. 2020-Ohio-506 , 146 N.E.3d 605 , at ¶ 19. {¶ 43} The inmates argue that the court of appeals was wrong to hold that an internal-management rule must govern operations that occur daily.2 According to the inmates, the “only requirement is that the Agency intend[s] to apply the standard uniformly in those circumstances where the standard applies at all.” {¶ 44} However, this argument incorrectly conflates rules “having a general and uniform operation” with internal-management rules.

2021Thus, whether a directive is to be applied uniformly is irrelevant to whether it is an internal-management rule; to qualify as an internal-management rule, the directive must satisfy the definition contained in R.C. 111.15(A)(3). {¶ 45} The inmates cite Assn. of MRDD Bds., 61 Ohio Misc.2d 836 , 585 N.E.2d 597 , and B&T Express, 145 Ohio App.3d 656 , 763 N.E.2d 1241 , in support of their argument that the protocol is an internal-management rule.

2021Thus, whether a directive is to be applied uniformly is irrelevant to whether it is an internal-management rule; to qualify as an internal-management rule, the directive must satisfy the definition contained in R.C. 111.15(A)(3). {¶ 45} The inmates cite Assn. of MRDD Bds., 61 Ohio Misc.2d 836 , 585 N.E.2d 597 , and B&T Express, 145 Ohio App.3d 656 , 763 N.E.2d 1241 , in support of their argument that the protocol is an internal-management rule.

2008Corr. (1992), 84 Ohio App.3d 11 , 616 N.E.2d 251 , and Coleman v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1996), 115 Ohio App.3d 212 , 685 N.E.2d 241 .

2008Corr. (1992), 84 Ohio App.3d 11 , 616 N.E.2d 251 , and Coleman v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1996), 115 Ohio App.3d 212 , 685 N.E.2d 241 .

2008Corr. (1992), 84 Ohio App.3d 11 , 616 N.E.2d 251 , and Coleman v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1996), 115 Ohio App.3d 212 , 685 N.E.2d 241 .

2008Corr. (1992), 84 Ohio App.3d 11 , 616 N.E.2d 251 , and Coleman v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1996), 115 Ohio App.3d 212 , 685 N.E.2d 241 .

2007Ctr. v. Fishman (2001), 167 N.J. 123 , 137 .

2006A rule "does not include any internal management rule of an agency unless the internal management rule affects private rights and does not include any guideline adopted pursuant to section 3301.0714 of the Revised Code." Id.

2004It does not, however, include “any internal management rule of an agency unless the internal management rule affects private rights.” Id. {¶ 26} Over the years, we have reiterated that what an agency labels a document is not conclusive.