By Brian Massie, A Watchman on the Wall

We were sent the following letter in an email for the patriots in Lorain County. There is great information on Ohio’s Open Meetings Act. We thank Aaron Christopher Knapp for his diligence and reporting.

To the Members of Lorain City Council:

This correspondence is provided as formal notice regarding ongoing concerns about compliance with Ohio’s Open Meetings Act, codified at R.C. 121.22, and to bring to your attention a recent appellate decision that directly addresses conduct similar to practices that have occurred in Lorain.

On February 9, 2026, the Third District Court of Appeals issued its decision in One Energy Enterprises, Inc. v. Allen Township Board of Trustees, 2026-Ohio-405. That opinion reaffirms and clarifies several core requirements of Ohio’s Open Meetings Act that apply equally to municipal legislative bodies, including city councils.

The statute provides that all meetings of a public body must be open to the public at all times, and defines a meeting as any prearranged discussion of public business by a majority of the members of that body. R.C. 121.22(C) and (B)(2). The statute further requires that it be liberally construed to ensure that deliberations on public business occur in public, not in private settings.

The appellate court in that case affirmed that violations occur not only when formal votes are taken outside a meeting, but also when deliberations or discussions among a majority of members take place outside a properly noticed public session. The court specifically held that a public body violates the Open Meetings Act when its members privately discuss public matters, reach consensus, or develop positions outside of an open meeting and then present those positions as the official stance of the body.

The court further held that discussions occurring after a meeting has adjourned may still constitute a meeting under the statute if a majority of members are present and public business is discussed. The absence of a vote or formal action does not cure the violation. The deliberative process itself must be public.

Additionally, the court recognized that communications such as phone calls, text messages, or other nonpublic exchanges among a majority of members can form the basis of an Open Meetings Act violation when they involve discussion or coordination of public business.

Importantly, the court reaffirmed that once a violation of R.C. 121.22 is established, the trial court is required to issue an injunction compelling the public body to comply with the statute. This remedy is mandatory. The court does not have discretion to ignore proven violations.

This authority is directly relevant to practices that have been observed in connection with Lorain City Council proceedings, including but not limited to:

Deliberations or coordination occurring outside of public meetings
Discussions among multiple members following adjournment of meetings
Pre-meeting alignment or agreement on positions presented publicly as unified action
Use of informal communications to shape or finalize decisions prior to public sessions

To be clear, the Open Meetings Act does not prohibit communication. It prohibits a majority of a public body from engaging in deliberation on public business outside of an open meeting. The distinction is critical, and it is the deliberative process that triggers the statute’s requirements.

The appellate decision confirms that the following principles govern:

A public body cannot privately decide or coordinate a position and then present that position in a public meeting without prior public deliberation
A gathering does not need to be formal to qualify as a “meeting” under the statute
Discussion itself, not just voting, is regulated by the Act
After-meeting conversations involving a majority are subject to the same requirements as formal sessions
The statute must be interpreted broadly in favor of transparency

Given the above, this correspondence serves as notice that continued conduct of public business outside of properly noticed public meetings may constitute ongoing violations of R.C. 121.22 and may subject the City and its members to legal action, including requests for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and invalidation of actions taken in violation of the statute.

The purpose of this letter is not adversarial. It is to ensure that all members of Council are aware of the current state of Ohio law and the obligations it imposes. Compliance is not discretionary. It is a statutory requirement that protects the public’s right to observe and participate in the conduct of government business.

Accordingly, Council is requested to review its current practices, including post-meeting discussions, informal communications, and pre-meeting coordination, and to ensure that all deliberations on public business occur in open, properly noticed meetings in accordance with R.C. 121.22.

If Council believes that its current practices are compliant, it would be appropriate to identify the legal basis for that position in light of the recent appellate authority referenced above.

This notice is provided to ensure transparency, accountability, and adherence to Ohio law going forward.

Respectfully,

Aaron Christopher Knapp
Investigative Journalist
Knapp Unplugged Media LLC

ADVERTISEMENTS

Categories: Community Activism, Contributors, Uncategorized

Tags: FT