Ohio Court Rules Board Meeting Sign-In Process Is Legal


In Paridon v. Trumbull County Children’s Services Board, the Ohio Court of Appeals upheld the Trumbull County Children’s Services Board (Board) practice of requiring individuals to sign-in before attending the Board’s meetings. The complaint alleged that the Board’s sign-in policy and procedure violated the Ohio Sunshine Law, which is similar to the Illinois Open Meetings Act. The appellants’ further argued that they have an “absolute, unfettered right to attend public meetings” and therefore the Board is not entitled to impose any conditions on their right to be admitted to those meetings.

At trial, the Executive Director of the Board testified that the Board maintains a written policy, which prohibits members of the public from entering the building unless they sign-in and state the nature of their visit. The policy applies to all individuals visiting the Board’s facilities whether the person visits during business hours or in the evening to attend the Board’s meetings. Lastly, the Executive Director testified that the purpose of the policy is to protect the children who reside at the Board’s facility and to protect the confidential records maintained by the Board.

In upholding the practice, the Court reasoned that public bodies “may place limitations on the time, place and manner of access to its meetings, as long as the restrictions are content-neutral and narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest.” According to the Court, the protection of the children in the Board’s custody is a significant governmental interest and the sign-in requirement is content-neutral and narrowly tailored. The Court noted that everyone seeking to enter the facility is required to sign-in and that this requirement is not significantly intrusive because the Board does not verify the signature or investigate the citizen. Further, the Court concluded that the sign-in policy does not deny the public access to the Board’s meetings and therefore the request for an injunction was properly denied. 

More Information

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Franczek Radelet P.C. | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.