In the case of Barga v. St. Paris Village Council, 2023-Ohio-1067, an appellate court held that the public hearing where the village council decided to terminate the police chief was a quasi-judicial proceeding not bound by the Open Meetings Act (“OMA”).
In this case, the police chief argued that the village council violated R.C. 121.22(G) by deliberating in executive session, after the presentation of evidence and arguments during an open meeting, to consider the termination of the police chief. In response, the village council argued that the public hearing the police chief requested under R.C. 737.171 was a quasi-judicial proceeding rather than an open meeting. The appellate court agreed with the village council.
In support of its decision in favor of the village council, the appellate court explained that:
[The police chief] was statutorily entitled to a hearing as provided by R.C. 737.171. Further, [the police chief] requested a public hearing. A public hearing was conducted during which [the police chief] was represented by counsel. [The police chief] was permitted to present evidence, examine witnesses, and present argument. Council deliberated and exercised its judgment to determine whether to dismiss the charges or uphold the charges and dismiss [the police chief]. Council’s decisions was appealable, and [the police chief] exercised [the police chief’s] right to appeal. Thus, the record supports a finding that the hearing was a quasi-judicial proceeding and that Council was not bound by the Open Meetings Act to conduct its deliberations in public.
2023-Ohio-1067 at ¶ 10.
NOTE: The appellate court also ruled that the trial court used the wrong standard of review and remanded the case back to the trial court to use the correct standard of review. As a result, the appellate court considered multiple other issues moot or resolved.
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.