Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procedural Litigations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Solicitor says lawsuit over executive-session procedure has merit; council ratifies prior appointment and past measures
Summary
Mount Orab’s solicitor told council he reviewed a lawsuit alleging the village failed to follow Ohio open-meeting rules in a prior executive session and urged the council to reconsider an earlier appointment; the council ratified that appointment and reenacted earlier ordinances and resolutions to clear the record.
Chris Moore, the village solicitor, told the council during the meeting that he had reviewed the complaint in Christopher Hicks v. Mount Orab (case no. 20260089) filed in Brown County Court of Common Pleas and concluded the complaint has merit. Moore said the suit alleges the council failed to announce the reason for an executive session and did not take roll-call votes when entering and leaving that session. "Those are, in my opinion, violations of the law, and the complaint itself has merit," Moore said.
Moore said the village has de facto authority for actions taken while an appointee was performing duties, but that "we want to do things right." He asked the council to formally reconsider and either ratify or take other action concerning the February 3 appointment of Carl Vineyard. A council member moved to ratify Vineyard’s appointment; after a second and roll-call voting the council announced the motion carried and the mayor administered the oath of office.
Moore also recited a list of measures passed since Feb. 3 that the village will consider ratifying to ensure the record is clear. He named Ordinance 1339 (a moratorium on data centers), Ordinance 1340 (a moratorium on small modular reactors), Ordinance 1344 (2026 appropriations), Ordinance 1345 (adopting utility system capacity fees), Ordinance 1346 (hiring a village solicitor), Resolution 872 (transfer to the fire safer grant fund) and Resolution 873 (necessity of a fire levy renewal). Council moved, seconded and voted to ratify and re-enact prior ordinances, resolutions and oral motions from Feb. 3, 2026 to the present and declared the matter an emergency for the purpose of clearing the record.
The solicitor framed the steps as corrective rather than punitive: "I think it's important to acknowledge mistakes and move on," he said. Council members who supported ratification said the actions were intended to remove any later procedural question about whether the moratoriums and other measures had been properly in place.
What happens next: The council’s ratification is intended to remedy the procedural gaps Moore identified; the Hicks lawsuit remains a pending civil matter in Brown County Court of Common Pleas, and Moore said the village will attempt to resolve the case with the plaintiff.
