Quantcast

Ohio court rules against closed sessions in police chief firing

LEGAL NEWSLINE

Sunday, December 22, 2024

Ohio court rules against closed sessions in police chief firing

State Supreme Court
Webp g0p4ocxp8j4976yhb6ps8pbanicp

Justice Patrick F. Fischer | Ohio Supreme Court Website

A recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Ohio has found that a village council in Champaign County violated state law when it went into a closed-door session to deliberate on the termination of St. Paris Police Chief Erica Barga. The decision, which was divided among the justices, highlights the requirements of the Ohio Open Meetings Act and how it applies to public employee hearings.

The court determined that Barga was entitled to have her termination process conducted in an open public meeting as she had requested a public hearing. Justice R. Patrick DeWine, writing for the majority, explained that "if the public employee makes such a request, that means the entire process, including deliberations, must be open." This ruling overturned a previous decision by the Second District Court of Appeals which had sided with the village.

Barga's employment was terminated after Mayor Brenda Cook filed charges against her for insubordination and neglect of duty. Although Barga denied any wrongdoing and accused Cook of harassment, the village council held several hearings before deciding on her removal in an executive session.

The Supreme Court's opinion emphasized that while certain matters can be discussed privately under R.C. 121.22(G)(1), this exception does not apply when an employee requests a public hearing. The court concluded that Barga’s right to an open hearing was violated when the council entered into executive session to deliberate her fate.

Justice Michael P. Donnelly concurred with caution about potential impacts on public body deliberations, stating some discussions are best kept private for candidness. However, Justices Melody Stewart and Jennifer Brunner dissented from this view. They argued separately that Barga received what constituted a public hearing under existing laws and contended there was no requirement for deliberations to be made publicly.

This case underscores ongoing debates over transparency in governmental proceedings versus privacy in sensitive employment matters.

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News