In the case of State ex rel. Smith v. Gowdy, 2021-Ohio-1730, the Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals held that parliamentary rules are intended to assist in the orderly conduct of business, and the failure to follow such rules will not invalidate otherwise lawful actions.
In this case, the individual argued for reinstatement as East Cleveland Council President because Gowdy made an unrecognized motion to reorganize the council in violation of East Cleveland Codified Ordinances Chapter 113 Rule 5.
The Court held that Chapter 113 Rule 23 of the East Cleveland Codified Ordinances allows the council to reorganize positions at anytime based upon a quorum vote of council members, and that Chapter 113 Rule 5 was merely a parliamentary that will not invalidate otherwise lawful actions.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
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.