Middletown Ohio


Find us on
 Google+ and Facebook


 

Home | Yearly News Archive | Advertisers | Blog | Contact Us
Monday, April 29, 2024
FORUM CITY SCHOOLS COMMUNITY
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Bank One Deal Smells
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Bank One Deal Smells

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
409 View Drop Down
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Mar 27 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 1014
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 409 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Apr 07 2014 at 6:06pm
From MJ:

EXCLUSIVE: City received 2 higher offers for building

By Rick McCrabb

Staff Writer
MIDDLETOWN —
The city received two higher offers — one for $67,500 more — for a building it owns than the price City Council is considering accepting, the Journal-News has learned.

At last week’s council meeting, members were told Toast of the Town Events LLC, offered $135,000 for the Bank One building, 2 S. Main St., and artist and owner Chris Walden planned to convert the building into an art gallery and event center. They heard a presentation from Doug Adkins, director of community revitalization, and will vote on the emergency legislation at their next meeting, April 15.

Adkins told council the offer was unsolicited and said it made “good sense” because it generated revenue, fit the downtown business plan and got the city out of the landlord business.

Council member Dora Bronston questioned Adkins why the city decided to sell the building now when it had received offers before. Adkins told council the city hadn’t received any offers, only inquiries about the city-owned property.

Bronston again asked Adkins if the city had only received inquires, but no offers.

“That is correct,” he told Bronston.

But the Journal-News learned Monday that Mike Robinette, a Middletown developer and the city’s former economic development manager, made two offers to purchase the Bank One building. The first offer, dated March 24, 2014, was for $185,000 and it was signed by Steve Coon, one of Robinette’s business partners. The second offer, with the same date, was for $202,500, $67,500 more than the city is considering accepting. That one was signed by Robinette.

When questioned about it Monday, Adkins told the Journal-News the city was “already in negotiations” with Walden when Robinette’s offers were received, and the city typically only actively negotiates with one party at a time.

He said he expects council to approve the deal on the table, reject the deal, or give staff direction to complete some other action regarding this property.

“Some people were unhappy when the city purchased these buildings,” Adkins said. “Some people complained that the city shouldn’t be landlords or own property. Now that we are considering getting out of owning and leasing the buildings and are doing so at a small profit, some people are upset that we didn’t make enough profit. There are always going to be critics of any action taken.”

On Monday, when asked why she was persistent at the last council meeting, Bronston said she had received several phone calls from “concerned citizens” about the potential sale of the Bank One building. Bronston refused to answer additional questions, saying some of the discussions with City Council and city officials occurred in executive session.

Robinette told the Journal-News his first offer was rejected by city leaders, so his company increased its offer by $17,500, or just under 9 percent. When he had asked about the building and if the city was interested in selling it, he was told the building was not on the market, he said. Robinette received an e-mail from Gilleland that said the city appreciated his offer and what his company had done to stimulate the downtown economy, he said.

So, he said, his company “dropped the matter,” but after he learned the property was for sale, he submitted proposals.

He said his company had hoped to renovate the former bank building and convert it for commercial use and possibly highlight Middletown’s rich history in the steel, paper and banking business.

He said the city has “a certain amount of liberty” who buys buildings, but he wished bids would have been accepted, following the procedures outlined in Section 200.09 of the Codified Ordinance of the city of Middletown that states any city-owned property valued at more than $5,000 must be advertised in the newspaper or general circulation in the city, and the city should receive bids for at least 15 calendar days.

“The city should get the highest and best price they can get,” Robinette said. “There should have been a public competitive process so they could test the market.”

The building is valued at $137,980, according to the Butler County Auditor’s Office.

The city paid $275,000 in December 2010 to the Perry Thatcher estate for several downtown properties: CG&E Building, First National building, Masonic Temple and the Bank One building, Adkins said. He said the city received $202,000 from Higher Education Partners for the purchase of the former CG&E Building that is being used by Cincinnati State Middletown. If the Bank One building is sold, the city would make $62,000 off its investment.

City Council has donated the First National building to Cincinnati State Middletown and the Masonic Temple building to the Art Central Foundation.
Every morning is the dawn of a new error...
Back to Top
over the hill View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Oct 19 2012
Location: middletown
Status: Offline
Points: 952
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote over the hill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Apr 07 2014 at 6:45pm
Well there's Dougie caught in another lie and to think there are people that actually want to see him as city manager. Haven't we had enough lies and half truths from this man. Sounds like council is determined to go with the Walden proposal. I think we need to make phone calls to council members,that's tax payer money they are losing.That sure makes good sense to turn down a higher bid.That's the business sense we have running our city, no wonder the city is going broke.
Back to Top
Vivian Moon View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council


Joined: May 16 2008
Location: Middletown, Ohi
Status: Offline
Points: 4187
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vivian Moon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Apr 07 2014 at 7:54pm

So, he said, his company “dropped the matter,” but after he learned the property was for sale, he submitted proposals.

He said his company had hoped to renovate the former bank building and convert it for commercial use and possibly highlight Middletown’s rich history in the steel, paper and banking business.

Hmmm..when Mr Oglesby talked with Steve Coon last fall about restoring the Bank One Building he told Mr Coon that he was considering using the building as an Industrial Museum.

He said the city has “a certain amount of liberty” who buys buildings, but he wished bids would have been accepted, following the procedures outlined in Section 200.09 of the Codified Ordinance of the city of Middletown that states any city-owned property valued at more than $5,000 must be advertised in the newspaper or general circulation in the city, and the city should receive bids for at least 15 calendar days.


“The city should get the highest and best price they can get,” Robinette said. “There should have been a public competitive process so they could test the market.”
I agree.

The building is valued at $137,980, according to the Butler County Auditor’s Office.
When Mr. Thatcher owned this property it had a value of $225,000. Did the Auditor’s Office know that this was now income property? Did they know that this property was just recently declared historic and historic funding would be available?…I think not.

This is nothing more than an inside deal.


Back to Top
bumper View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Feb 01 2010
Location: over here
Status: Offline
Points: 307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bumper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Apr 07 2014 at 8:13pm
yep sure sounds like he just got caught with his pants down! everyone involved should not have a job in the morning!!this kind of crooked lying crap this city staff is involved in should not be tolerated!! time to fire them all!! I guess there's a chance it won't happen if you have a crooked lying council...
Back to Top
acclaro View Drop Down
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jul 01 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 1878
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote acclaro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Apr 07 2014 at 8:39pm
The SEC hammers folks for insider trading.

I liked Doug Adkins when he was prosecutor. But to have multiple offers considered for Weatherwax and extend the response time flies in the face of negotiating with one party at a time. It is also ethical to convey to another party a negotiation is in progress. Why the hurry to unload a building to an LLC established within a month?

I see as much of a conflict with Robinette associated with his insider information as well. What's the reference to the city ordinance; teeing up legal action?

Is it true Vivian, the city had lease agreements making $300,000. +?

I think Mr. Adkins committed a fatal sin; you never lie in a public hearing.    


'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.' - Winston Churchill
Back to Top
Iron Man View Drop Down
MUSA Resident
MUSA Resident
Avatar

Joined: Sep 25 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 112
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Iron Man Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Apr 07 2014 at 9:29pm
Exclusive photo from inside executive session:



















Back to Top
Vivian Moon View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council


Joined: May 16 2008
Location: Middletown, Ohi
Status: Offline
Points: 4187
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vivian Moon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Apr 08 2014 at 7:40am
Acclaro

The old lease agreement between City Hall and Miami Univ Research was $4,833.33 per month as per the Downtown Funds account.
However at this moment I can’t seem to find my notes for the new lease, the upgrades and the amount. I will need to post it later today.

Mr. Robinette sits on the board of Downtown Middletown Inc. and therefore has inside knowledge of any buildings going to be sold in the downtown area.

This is not the first time Mr. Adkins has stood before council members and told his little white lies.



Back to Top
acclaro View Drop Down
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jul 01 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 1878
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote acclaro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Apr 08 2014 at 8:01am
If the situation is understood correctly, the city is selling a building for 135,000. that has a cash-flow for 5 years of  about $300,000, Right? Who would not want a deal like this if this correct.

Appears Robinette identified the ordinance violated, as well as Ohio law associated with public notification using public funds.  Maybe something is missing, but this is pretty blatant.

Can't square Weatherwax sell with extension of time to respond with keeping any sell under the radar.

Why? 
'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.' - Winston Churchill
Back to Top
Middletown29 View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen


Joined: Mar 30 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 474
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Middletown29 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Apr 08 2014 at 8:09am
220.09  SALE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY.
   (a)   The following procedure is hereby established for the sale of City-owned real property:
      (1)   The City Manager, or his or her designee, shall estimate the value of any City-owned real property, which is proposed to be sold, or for which an offer has been made, as being less than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) or five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) or more.
      (2)   Any City-owned property, which is estimated to be worth less than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), may be sold without advertisement, upon the consent of City Council.  By approving such sale by either motion or as part of a consent agenda, City Council is authorizing the City Manager to sell the property, confirming that the property is not needed for a Municipal purpose, and confirming the property is valued at less than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00).
      (3)   Any City-owned real property which is estimated to be worth five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) or more shall be sold in accordance with the procedure set forth in this division (a)(3).
         A.   If the City determines that real property should be sold, the City Manager, or his or her designee, shall cause the real property to be appraised.  If the appraised value of the real property is less than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), the real property may be sold in accordance with division (a)(2) of this section.  If the appraised value of the real property equals or exceeds five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), the City Manager, or his or her designee, shall cause the sale of the property to be advertised one time in a newspaper of general circulation in the City.  The real property shall be sold in an “as is” condition unless otherwise indicated by the advertisement.  The City shall receive bids on the real property for a minimum of 15 calendar days from the date of the advertisement.
            1.   Upon the opening of the bids, each bid shall be evaluated to determine whether,  (1) it is the highest bid, (2) it equals or exceeds the appraised value of the real estate, and (3) it conforms to the advertisement, and more specifically, contains no contingencies not specified in the advertisement.  If a bid is the highest bid, equals or exceeds the appraised value of the property, and is free of contingencies not specified in the advertisement, the bid may be accepted, upon the consent of City Council.  By approving such sale by motion or as part of a consent agenda, City Council is authorizing the City Manager to sell the property, confirming that the property is not needed for a Municipal purpose, and confirming the bid as the highest and best bid.
            2.   If no bid is found to be the highest, above the appraised value of the property and contains no contingencies not specified in the advertisement, all of the bids shall be submitted to City Council for their review.  City Council may reject all bids, or it may approve, by legislative action, the sale of the real property to the bid it determines, in its sole discretion, to be the “highest and/or best” bid.
         B.   If an offer is made to the City to purchase a parcel of City-owned real property, which has not been advertised for sale in accordance with division (a)(3)A. of this section, the City Manager, or his or her designee, shall cause the real property to be appraised.  If the appraisal value is less than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), the real property may be sold in accordance with division (a)(2) of this section.  In all other cases, the offer shall be compared to the appraised value of the real property.
         C.   If the offer is more than 10% below the appraised value, the offer may be rejected by the City Manager or his or her designee.
         D.   If the offer equals or exceeds the appraised value, or is less than 10% below the appraised value; or if the City Manager determines, in his or her sole discretion, that an offer not meeting these criteria should be considered, the real property will be advertised one time in a newspaper of general circulation in the City.  Offers to purchase the real property will be received by the City for a minimum of 15 days from the date of the advertisement.
            1.   If, after advertisement, the City receives no other offers for the real property, and the original offer is equal to or greater than the appraised value of the property, the offer may be accepted and real property sold upon the consent of City Council.  By approving such sale, either by motion or as part of a consent agenda, City Council is authorizing the City Manager to sell the real property, confirming that the real property is not needed for a Municipal purpose, and confirming that the offer is the highest and best offer.  If the offer is below the appraised value of the real property, it shall be submitted to City Council, which may reject the offer, or it may, by legislative action, approve the sale.
            2.   If additional offers are received upon advertisement, the offers (including the original offer) shall be evaluated and acted upon in accordance with the procedures set forth in division (a)(3)A. of this section.
   (b)   The City Council hereby determines that the procedure to be followed in the sale of City-owned real property shall be as set forth in division (a) of this section, and that the provisions of Ohio R.C. Chapter 721 are hereby waived and shall not be applicable.
(Ord. 2002-87, passed 7-16-2002)
Back to Top
swohio75 View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen


Joined: Jun 13 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 820
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote swohio75 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Apr 08 2014 at 8:34am
Originally posted by acclaro acclaro wrote:

If the situation is understood correctly, the city is selling a building for 135,000. that has a cash-flow for 5 years of  about $300,000, Right? Who would not want a deal like this if this correct.

Is this figure net minus expenses or gross revenue from rent?
Back to Top
acclaro View Drop Down
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jul 01 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 1878
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote acclaro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Apr 08 2014 at 8:40am
My understanding is this is gross revenue amortized over 5 years. However, it is from a 3rd party source. It should make nonetheless, if accurate, a net positive income stream monthly after acquisition. 
'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.' - Winston Churchill
Back to Top
Vivian Moon View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council


Joined: May 16 2008
Location: Middletown, Ohi
Status: Offline
Points: 4187
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vivian Moon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Apr 08 2014 at 10:57am

The other city owned properties were advertised for sale on the city web site and multi-listings. Why wasn’t the Bank One property handled the same way?

With two attorneys sitting on city council why didn’t they speak up about the sale of Bank One? 

Back to Top
Vivian Moon View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council


Joined: May 16 2008
Location: Middletown, Ohi
Status: Offline
Points: 4187
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vivian Moon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Apr 08 2014 at 4:26pm

September 26, 2013

Staff wishes to appropriate an additional $46,000 out of Downtown Fund 481 to make the required lease repairs. Repairs will be made as follows:

 Roof repair………………. $ 3,200

 Carpet Replacement…….. $18,000

 HVAC repairs…………… $22,000

 Parking Lot………………. $ 2,000

 Misc Interior……………….. $ 800

 Total………………………$46,000

 MUM rent was raised by $50,000 spread over the five year period to recoup the costs of repairs. As rent is paid by MUM, it will be returned to the Downtown Fund to be appropriated for other activities. 

So will this $46,000 debt of tax payer money be paid back by the new owner over the next five years or is this another gift from City Hall and part of the $135,000 deal? Yep..this deal just keeps getting sweeter and sweeter.

 


 

 

Back to Top
Vivian Moon View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council


Joined: May 16 2008
Location: Middletown, Ohi
Status: Offline
Points: 4187
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vivian Moon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Apr 08 2014 at 5:30pm

Then we also find another lease agreement between the City of Middletown and the Middletown Historical Society in the amount of $100.00 per month for storage room in the basement of Bank One.
Yes sir....this deal just keeps getting better and better

Back to Top
Vivian Moon View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council


Joined: May 16 2008
Location: Middletown, Ohi
Status: Offline
Points: 4187
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vivian Moon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Apr 08 2014 at 5:36pm
Lease between the City of Middletown and MUM

ARTICLE II

    The annual rent for the Leased Premises shall be sixty eight thousand and four dollars ($68,004) payable in monthly installments of five thousand, six hundred and sixty-seven dollars ($5,667.00) per month, and shall be payable on the first day of each month. Monthly installments are payable in advance on or before the first day of each calendar month of the Term.
Back to Top
acclaro View Drop Down
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jul 01 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 1878
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote acclaro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Apr 08 2014 at 6:11pm
In theory:

Toast buys building at 135,000.

MUM DEAL YIELDS 340,020.

Net Gain for buyer- hurdle rate on capital outlay, less than 24 months.

+ benefit of space for Toast and incidental business of events.

All in on this deal.
'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.' - Winston Churchill
Back to Top
blue7 View Drop Down
MUSA Immigrant
MUSA Immigrant


Joined: Jun 14 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 33
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote blue7 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Apr 08 2014 at 6:40pm
Will TOT allow MUM to stay, whereas Robinette wouldn't? Either way it is stupid to risk that kind of exposure, even with good intentions.
Is MUM just using the space for the Applied Research dept?

And aren't they all in the same circles? What made Robinette turn on his group? Or am I off on that assumption? Or am I reading this all wrong?
Back to Top
acclaro View Drop Down
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jul 01 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 1878
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote acclaro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Apr 08 2014 at 6:57pm
b7; I don't think Robinette & Co. would not keep a gift horse called MUM cash-flowing nearly 3x cost.

 
'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.' - Winston Churchill
Back to Top
blue7 View Drop Down
MUSA Immigrant
MUSA Immigrant


Joined: Jun 14 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 33
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote blue7 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Apr 08 2014 at 7:49pm
I just looked up DMI's board. I didn't realize MUM was represented there. The whole thing is odd, because if emails were exchanged then of course there would be a paper trail. Did they think DMI would just let it go? I realize I'm asking silly questions but I can't wrap my head around it. 
Back to Top
Vivian Moon View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council


Joined: May 16 2008
Location: Middletown, Ohi
Status: Offline
Points: 4187
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Vivian Moon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Apr 08 2014 at 8:55pm
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?

Back to Top
Mike_Presta View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council
Avatar

Joined: Apr 20 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3483
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mike_Presta Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Apr 08 2014 at 10:14pm
One of the problems is that Middletown's City Council has constantly mis-used the "executive session" provision of the Ohio sunshine law.

They use executive sessions for ANY discussions of real estate. However, executive sessions are only allowable:

"if premature disclosure of information would give an unfair competitive or bargaining advantage to a person whose personal, private interest is adverse to the general public interest"

Middletown's council often uses executive sessions primarily TO GIVE an unfair advantage to one party over other bidders (as in this case)!!!                  
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
Back to Top
acclaro View Drop Down
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jul 01 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 1878
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote acclaro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Apr 08 2014 at 11:05pm
Point well taken.

They also abuse the emergency sessions. Of course, it is obvious when ordinances are so freely violated, ergo election signs, bidding process, these practices are rising to the surface for all to see.

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.

 


'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.' - Winston Churchill
Back to Top
Mike_Presta View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council
Avatar

Joined: Apr 20 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3483
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mike_Presta Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Apr 09 2014 at 3:58am

ORC 1.22(G)(2) To consider the purchase of property for public purposes, or for the sale of property at competitive bidding, if premature disclosure of information would give an unfair competitive or bargaining advantage to a person whose personal, private interest is adverse to the general public interest. No member of a public body shall use division (G)(2) of this section as a subterfuge for providing covert information to prospective buyers or sellers. A purchase or sale of public property is void if the seller or buyer of the public property has received covert information from a member of a public body that has not been disclosed to the general public in sufficient time for other prospective buyers and sellers to prepare and submit offers.

“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
Back to Top
Vivian Moon View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council


Joined: May 16 2008
Location: Middletown, Ohi
Status: Offline
Points: 4187
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vivian Moon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Apr 09 2014 at 9:28am
Thanks you both for the above information.
  
Back to Top
Perplexed View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen


Joined: Apr 22 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 315
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Perplexed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Apr 09 2014 at 9:55am
MEMORIES.................At a prior City Council meeting Dougie Atkins proclaimed to the members, "Give me the power and I'll make things happen. He certainly has!!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.
Copyright ©2024 MiddletownUSA.com    Privacy Statement  |   Terms of Use  |   Site by Xponex Media  |   Advertising Information