2020 008 ORDINANCE - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

six feet away from other people) whenever possible and to continue to wash hands, utilize hand sanitizer and practice proper respiratory etiquette (coughing into Elbow, etc.)." To summarize, ODH with ultimate authority over issues of isolation and quarantine is currently forbidding mass gatherings and advising social distancing at all others. At the press conference both Dr. Acton and Governor DeWine took their advice one step further. In the interest of stopping the spread of this highly communicable disease, both urged Ohioans to stay home and avoid unnecessary contact with one another. Thus, we are now presented with a situation in which a public body might not be able to comply with both the terms of the Order and the Open Meetings Act. Stopping the business of government is not an option, and we must now reconcile the two. To do so, it is necessary to consider the applicability of the OMA's "in person" requirement in the context of Dr. Acton's Order and the rapidly developing information about the spread of COVID- 19. As we must always do when faced with the application of two different—and in this situation, somewhat competing—statutes, we must give effect to both. That is, we must give effect to the OMA's "in person" requirement, while also recognizing and complying with Dr. Acton's `ultimate authority" over matters of isolation to stop the spread of a highly infectious disease. That task is possible here. In this limited circumstance, where the Governor has declared a state of emergency and the Director of the Ohio Department of Health is limiting gatherings so as to prevent the spread of COVID-19, but the business of government must continue, it is reasonable to read the OMA's "in person" requirement as permitting a member of a public body to appear at a public meeting via teleconference. This interpretation gives effect to both R.C. 121.22 and R.C. 3701.13. It is also consistent with the United States Centers for Disease Control's recent guidance, issued in response to the national COVID-19 epidemic, to use videoconferencing for meetings when possible. See, h 1'Jvsrv�►w.cdc�vJcotoamdittR19 ttcso��►s�nloadgt�►orkniacx-sdhoQlhc�� gui dance. f. Of course, if a member of a public body chooses to appear via teleconference or telephone, it is imperative that all other requirements of the OMA be fulfilled. A quorum must still be present, whether in person, on the phone, or in some combination thereof. In the event that a member appearing telephonically is cut off, the public body should cease all discussions and deliberations until the member can be reconnected. Further, even in this time of a public health crisis, public access to the business of Ohio's public bodies is still vital. It is also still required by the OMA. Although the OMA does not specifically dictate how a meeting is made "open" to the public, in the interest of complying with both Dr. Acton's Order and the OMA a meeting could be made "open" to the public by live -streaming it through the internet or on television. If a public body gives the public access to a meeting electronically and the members of the body appear telephonically, the body must still ensure that r L: 75