In the case of State ex rel. Masiella v. Brimfield Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 2017-Ohio-2934, an Ohio appellate court, in rejecting an Open Meetings Act claim, clarified that, in order to demonstrate an Open Meetings Act violation, “it is not sufficient for a plaintiff to demonstrate that a meeting occurred, but rather [a plaintiff] must also demonstrate that a public action resulted from a deliberation in the meeting that was not open to the public.”
Here, the only evidence of an Open Meetings Act violation that the plaintiffs could produce was a vague allegation “that Zoning Commission members were seen exiting a closed-door meeting.” Masiella at ¶ 53. The Ohio appellate court found that, based on these limited allegations, plaintiffs “have no direct evidence to support an Open Meetings Act violation” since the plaintiffs “had no evidence that [this] alleged meeting was prearranged, that [a] zoning issue was discussed [by the commission members during this closed-door meeting], or that [any] zoning amendment resulted from a closed-door session.” Masiella at ¶ 53.
This case demonstrates that there is nothing nefarious about public officials engaging in impromptu collegial discussions – as appears to be the situation in this case. However, the results in this case could have been much different if the discussions veered toward public business. As a result, public officials are cautioned to err on the side of conducting all discussions at properly noticed meetings only.
To read this case, please click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and Patrick Vrobel
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.