In the case of Look Ahead Am. v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2023-Ohio-2494, an appellate court held that the board properly went into executive session when the board had to discuss whether to recommend a purchase to another public body and the board only discussed matters related to the motions to enter into executive session.
In this case, the plaintiffs argued that (1) the board could not enter into executive sessions to discuss the purchase of property by a different public body and (2) the board improperly discussed matters during the executive sessions not related to the motions to enter executive session. In response, the board argued that (1) the board had to make a recommendation to the different public body for that public body to even make the purchase and (2) the board only discussed matters that were related to the motions to enter executive session and the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence that other matters were discussed. The appellate court agreed with the board.
In support of its decision in favor of the board, the appellate court explained that just because another public body is the contracting authority does not negate the board’s right to enter into executive session when the board’s action was required for the purchase. The appellate court further explained that the board did not have to prove nothing else was discussed in the executive sessions and the plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence that improper matters were discussed.
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.