Bank One Deal Smells

An Exception: Closed Meetings or Sessions

The general rule is that all meetings of public bodies must be open to the public. If a public body wants to hold a closed or "executive" session, it must identify a specific statutory exemption. Under the Ohio Open Meetings Act, a public body may hold a closed session when it is dealing with one of seven subject-area exemptions found in Ohio Rev. Code § 121.22(G). The seven exemptions are for meetings dealing with the following topics:

• the appointment, employment, dismissal, discipline, promotion, demotion, or compensation of a public employee or official, or the investigation of charges or complaints against a public employee, official, licensee, or regulated individual, unless the public employee, official, licensee, or regulated individual requests a public hearing (this exemption does not apply to the discipline of an elected official for conduct related to the performance of his or her duties);
• the purchase or sale of real estate for public purposes;
• pending or imminent litigation;
• negotiations or bargaining sessions with public employees concerning their compensation or other terms and conditions of their employment;
• matters required to be kept confidential by federal law or regulations or state statutes;
• details relative to the security arrangements and emergency response protocols for a public body or a public office;
• matters involving trade secrets (but only in connection with local hospitals).

The exemptions make it permissible for a public body to close a portion of a meeting; they do not require it to do so. To close a session, a public body must identify the exemption justifying closure on the record during an open meeting, and a majority of members present must vote to hold a closed session. No formal action may be taken during a closed session.

A handful of public bodies may close their meetings to the public when dealing with additional topics, listed in Ohio Rev. Code § 121.22(E). To do so, however, the members must unanimously vote to close the meeting. See page 14 of the Attorney General's guide for details.

For more information on the exceptions to the open-meetings requirements, see the 2012 Sunshine Laws Manual and the Open Government Guide: Ohio.

What Are Your Remedies If You Are Denied Access?

If you believe that a public body has violated your rights, you can sue in state court. Under Ohio law, any person may file a lawsuit for violation of the Open Meetings Act in the court of common pleas for the county where the meeting in question took place. If you succeed in a lawsuit, you can obtain a court order requiring that a meeting or meetings be made open to the public in the future, that a public body satisfy its notice obligations, or that a public body provide access to minutes improperly withheld. In addition, if you go to court and win, the court must force the public body to pay you a $500 civil penalty, and it may order the public body to pay your attorneys' fees. However, if you go to court and lose, a court might order you to pay the winning public body's attorneys' fees, if it determines that your legal claim was frivolous. This would not happen unless your legal claim were utterly and obviously without any merit. If you want to file a lawsuit for violation of the Open Meetings Act, you must file your lawsuit within two years of the violation in question.

In the event that you are denied access to a meeting or class of meetings, you probably want to pursue an informal resolution before filing a lawsuit, which ordinarily is a costly and slow solution. You should contact the public body in question and inform it that you believe your rights have been violated and that you are willing to bring a legal action. You should submit your complaint in writing whenever possible. If the public body continues to deny your request for access, you should consider filing a lawsuit. There may be public interest organizations that would be willing to take on your case for free or for a reduced rate. Please see the Finding Legal Help section for details on finding legal representation.

Blue7
Downtown Middletown Inc was not involved in this transaction.
Mr Robinette and Mr Coon are the investors that placed the highest bids on the
Bank One property.
We all need to ask the question why wasn’t this TOT transaction stopped during
the executive session? Why on earth was this mess every allowed to go before
City Council when they knew the rule of law had not been followed?
Where was Mr. Landen when the sell of this property was discussed during executive
session?