In the case of State ex rel. Kovoor v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2023-Ohio-2256, an appellate court held that the board did not violate the Open Meetings Act when a majority of the board sought advice and an opinion from relevant legal counsel.
In this case, the candidate argued that the board seeking legal advice constituted an official action of the board because a majority of board members were involved in the decision to reach out to general counsel. In response, the board argued that asking for advice and an opinion constituted fact-finding, which was permissible in a private session of the public body as the members did not discuss or deliberate the information they were given. The appellate court agreed with the board.
In support of its decision in favor of the board, the appellate court explained that information gathering does not change into official action simply because a majority of the board is present. The appellate court further explained that the candidate provided no proof that during the information gathering session the board discussed the legal opinion or came to a decision regarding the candidate’s appointment.
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.