Serving Lucas, Ottawa, Sandusky and Wood Counties
The city of Oregon’s acting law director, Chynna Fifer, received an official response from the Ohio Attorney General’s Office on Feb. 18 in regard to her question about whether or not the recent ordinance for an extension for data center developer Will Turner of Capacity LLC passed.
“Under Ohio law, the Attorney General may provide legal advice and formal or informal opinions to certain public officials in connection with their official duties --- specifically: state officers, boards, or commissions; county prosecuting attorneys; law directors of home-rule townships; and, when required by resolution, the Ohio General Assembly. See R.C. 109.12 – 109.14. Because municipal law directors are not included on this list, we are unable to issue an advisory opinion on this matter.
While we cannot provide legal advice, we can confirm that the prior opinions referenced in your memorandum – OAG 1998-007 and 1999-004 – have not been overruled or modified by subsequent opinions. Additionally, the City of Oregon’s ordinances in Title 3, Chapter 111 (including Section 111.03 on quorum and voting) appear relevant. You may also consult the Ohio Municipal League for further assistance.”
In other words, the ordinance passed.
“The City of Oregon, acting under its statutory authority, follows Robert’s Rules of Order for its council proceedings,” Fifer said in a memorandum to the attorney general on Feb. 12. “According to Robert’s Rules of Order, Revised, specifically RONR 44:1, a majority is defined as the number of affirmative votes (AYEs) compared to the total votes cast, with abstentions not counted as votes.
“On the date of the vote for Ordinance No. 20 - 2026, six of seven council members were present. Five members were present and eligible to vote. Three members voted in favor of the ordinance, two members voted against it, and one member abstained due to a conflict of interest. Because an abstention is not considered a vote under Robert’s Rules of Order, only the votes for and against the ordinance are counted when determining the majority.
“Therefore, with three affirmative votes out of five total votes cast, the majority supported the ordinance. As a result, Ordinance No. 20 - 2026 passed in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order.”
When the ordinance was originally voted on, council believed that it needed four votes to pass. Fifer said that was because the state code said that there has to be a majority of those elected, not the majority of those present. However, the city’s charter states that it’s the majority of those present.
“By the city’s charter having the word ‘present,’ they don’t intend to follow the state code,” Fifer said. “So the charter would supersede the state code. But then further in the charter, it also says they can refer to the charter, state law, or ordinances and resolutions.
“The next step would be your ordinances and resolutions. And in their ordinances, it has a part about following Robert’s Rules, and it stated that Robert’s Rules shall prevail.”
