In the case of State ex rel. Harm Reduction Ohio v. OneOhio Recovery Found., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1547, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the foundation was subject to Ohio’s Public Records Act despite being a private nonprofit organization because the foundation was the functional equivalent of a public office.
In this case, the requester argued that the foundation (1) received state and local government funds; (2) received all its funds from the government; (3) the state government appointed the makeup of the foundation’s board; and (4) the foundation was created by state and local governments. In response, the foundation argued that (1) the function the foundation served was new, therefore it was not a uniquely or historically governmental function; (2) the funds came from private settlements; (3) local and state governments were not involved with the day-to-day operations of the foundation; and (4) although the foundation was created by government entities, it was not created as an “alter ego” of the government. The Ohio Supreme Court agreed with the requester.
In support of its decision in favor of the requester, the Ohio Supreme Court explained that the funds were received by governmental entities and that disbursement of public money is a historically governmental function. The Ohio Supreme Court further explained that the disbursement of funds cannot occur without the board’s approval, which means that the day-to-day operations are subject to government participation.
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.