"Free to Speak Act" introduced in Ohio General Assembly

House Bill 211 would require all public bodies to be open for public comment

It’s not very often that this publication dives into state legislation. However, House Bill 211, which was recently introduced, has some far-reaching, and positive implications for our communities throughout Ohio. The legislation supports a long-stated goal of this publication, which is to enhance opportunities for our residents to speak directly to their elected and appointed officials in public meetings.

House Bill 211, titled the “Free to Speak Act”, was recently introduced in the Ohio House of Representatives by Jennifer Gross along with several co-sponsors. The primary objective of this bill is to amend potions of Ohio’s Open Meetings Laws (Primarily Section 121.22 of the Ohio Revised Code) to mandate that public bodies allow members of the public to comment or testify on matters of public concern during their meetings.

This particular act has ramifications for the way this community is governed, most notably through the City’s Planning Commission. The City’s Planning Commission, comprised of the Mayor, the City’s Service and Safety Director, a member of the City’s Board of Park Commissioners and four other residents, meets twice a month to discuss historic preservation to downtown properties and land use concerns.

This body has come under particular scrutiny, because due to the public nature of their businesses, this board does not have a consistent procedure for allowing public comment at their meetings. The commission could act to have a Public Comment period added to each of their agenda, but they have failed to do so.

The "Free to Speak Act" emphasizes transparency and public engagement in governmental processes. The bill's key provision is the requirement for public bodies to permit public comments or testimony on issues of public concern at their meetings. This mandate aims to foster a more open and participatory governance model where citizens can express their views and contribute to the decision-making process.

The bill proposes significant amendments to Section 121.22 of the Revised Code. This section is to be liberally construed to ensure that public officials conduct all deliberations on official business in open meetings unless specifically exempted by law. This broad interpretation underscores the bill's intent to maximize transparency and public oversight of governmental activities.

A "public body," as defined by the bill, includes any board, commission, committee, council, or similar decision-making body of a state agency, institution, or authority, as well as any legislative authority or board, commission, committee, council, agency, authority, or similar decision-making body of any county, township, municipal corporation, school district, or other political subdivision or local public institution. Pretty much, any public body in the state must have an opportunity to allow the public to speak when it meets. This definition is comprehensive, covering a wide range of governmental entities at various levels, thus ensuring that the requirement for public comments applies broadly across the state.

The bill defines a "meeting" as any prearranged discussion of public business by a majority of the members of a public body. This definition aims to capture any significant deliberation on public matters, ensuring that such discussions are conducted openly. The bill also outlines several exemptions where the open meeting requirement does not apply. These exemptions include grand juries, audit conferences conducted by the auditor of state or independent certified public accountants, the adult parole authority when conducting hearings at correctional institutions, and various review boards and commissions dealing with sensitive or confidential matters.

One of the most critical aspects of the bill is the new mandate requiring public bodies to allow members of the public to comment or testify about matters of public concern before the public body at public meetings. This provision is intended to enhance public participation and ensure that citizens have a voice in governmental affairs. To implement this mandate, public bodies are required to establish reasonable methods by which the public can comment or testify, including the potential imposition of time limits to manage the duration and orderliness of public input.

The bill also sets forth several operational provisions for public bodies. It requires each public body to establish a method to inform the public about the time and place of all regularly scheduled meetings and the time, place, and purpose of all special meetings. This notification requirement is designed to ensure that the public is well-informed about opportunities to participate in or observe governmental deliberations. Public bodies are prohibited from holding special meetings without giving at least twenty-four hours' advance notice to the news media that have requested notification, except in cases of emergency requiring immediate official action.

Another significant provision pertains to executive sessions, which are closed to the public. The bill specifies the circumstances under which public bodies may hold executive sessions, such as discussing personnel matters, property transactions, legal disputes, and security arrangements. The bill requires a roll call vote by a majority of a quorum of the public body to enter into an executive session, ensuring that such sessions are not conducted arbitrarily or without proper authorization.

The bill includes provisions for legal recourse and enforcement to ensure compliance with its requirements. Any person may bring an action to enforce this section within two years of the alleged violation. If a court finds a violation, it can issue an injunction compelling the public body to comply with the law. Furthermore, the court may impose a civil forfeiture of $500 and award court costs and reasonable attorney's fees to the party seeking the injunction. These enforcement provisions add a layer of accountability, ensuring that public bodies adhere to the requirements of the bill.

The potential impact of House Bill 211 is significant. By mandating public comment periods, the bill aims to increase transparency and public involvement in governmental decision-making processes. This could lead to greater accountability and responsiveness from public bodies, as officials would need to consider and address public concerns. However, the bill also poses challenges for public bodies, which will need to establish procedures for accommodating public comments and ensure that meetings are effectively communicated to the public.

However, the benefits outweigh the challenges. Most citizens, regardless of where they live, are frustrated with the tone and pace of government, even on the local level. Giving residents guaranteed opportunities to speak to their elected or appointed representatives during public meetings can do nothing but improve citizen participation, which, in turn, can improve trust and communication.

Governments at all levels should take notice. Residents deserve to heard to be heard. Especially with our Planning Commission here in the City of Troy. Given the introduction of this piece of legislation, so late in this General Assembly, the odds of it being actually passed and adopted may not be strong. However, this gives an opportunity to our own community to take the lead and ensure that public comments are welcome at every board and commission that our government operates.

Thanks for reading today’s Civic Capacity Newsletter! Did you know, for less than $1 per week, you can support this effort to bring local news and information directly to you and your neighbors? If you have not considered being a paid subscriber to this effort, please do so.

Also, feel free to share this information with your friends and neighbors. Through informing and educating our community’s stakeholders, we are creating a stronger community.