In the case of Ames v. Geauga Cty. Invest. Advisory Commt., 2023-Ohio-2252, an appellate court held that a committee comprised of two county commissioners and a county treasurer was a subordinate of the board of commissioners, so the board of commissioners was able to create a public meeting schedule for the committee, pursuant to R.C. 121.22.
In this case, the relator argued that the committee was an entity unto itself and needed to make its own rules about how to provide public notice pursuant to R.C. 121.22. In response, the committee argued that the committee was a subordinate of the board, so the board had the authority to create the R.C. 121.22 rules for the committee. The appellate court agreed with the committee.
In support of its decision in favor of the committee, the appellate court explained that most members in the committee were county commissioners themselves. The appellate court further explained that the Attorney General addressed the “dual role” that county commissioners play when on committees as both committee members and members of the board of county commissioners.
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.