Formal Advisory Opinions

 Adv. Op. No. 74-007 - Determination that members of a county board of elections are state officers, who are subject to R.C. 102.04(A) because they are appointed by the Secretary of State but are not county officers, who are subject to R.C. 102.04(C).

Overruled by  Adv. Op. No. 93-004, which explains that for purposes of R.C. 102.04, a member of a county board of elections can be deemed to be both a state and county officer due to his unique position.

 Adv. Op. No. 74-009 - Determination that a member of a municipal planning commission is not prohibited from receiving a distributive share of partnership profits for services rendered by a business partner in a matter before the commission.

Overruled by  Adv. Op. No. 89-016, which explains that the enactment of R.C. 102.03(E) in 1986 prohibits a public official from accepting a distributive share of fees paid by clients for services rendered by business partners on matters before his public agency.

 Adv. Op. No. 75-009 - Determination that a County Library District is a political subdivision.

Repealed by  Adv. Op. No. 76-014, which upholds the conclusion that a County Library District is a political subdivision but provides additional analysis.

 Adv. Op. No. 75-022 - Determination that a member of the Ohio Board of Regents is not a “public official or employee” as defined in R.C. 102.01(B) and not subject to R.C. 102.03.

Inapplicable due to a subsequent amendment to R.C. 102.01(B).

 Adv. Op. No. 75-023 - Determination that the Director of the Ohio Department of Agriculture can issue licenses to a corporation in which he and his immediate family have sold goods and services totaling less than $1000 in the year preceding the license application.

Inapplicable due to a subsequent amendment to R.C. 102.03(C).

 Adv. Op. No. 75-024 - Determination that a member of a city civil service commission is not a “public official or employee” as defined in R.C. 102.01(B) and not subject to R.C. 102.03.

Inapplicable due to a subsequent amendment to R.C. 102.01(B).

 Adv. Op. No. 75-025 - Determination that a member of the Ohio Student Loan Commission, who is a lawyer, is not prohibited by R.C. 102.04(A) from receiving a distributive share of partnership profits from services rendered by his partners in matters which are before state agencies, including his own.

Overruled by  Adv. Op. No. 89-016, which explains that the enactment of R.C. 102.03(E) in 1986 prohibits a public official from accepting a distributive share of fees paid by clients for services rendered by business partners on matters before his public agency.

 Adv. Op. No. 75-027 - Determination that a faculty member who is employed by the University of Cincinnati is not an employee of a state institution.

Inapplicable due to statutory change.

 Adv. Op. No. 75-029 - Determination that a school board member is not a “public official or employee” as defined in R.C. 102.01(B) and not subject to R.C. 102.03.

Inapplicable, in part, due to a subsequent amendment to R.C. 102.01(B). The holding of this opinion requiring State Board of Education members to file a financial disclosure statements is valid and codified in R.C. 102.02(A)(1). For further details, please visit the Financial Disclosure page.

 Adv. Op. No. 75-030 - Determination that a person may serve in compensated positions as a city councilman and a volunteer firefighter in the same city.

Overruled by  Adv. Op. No. 91-002, which explains that amendments to the Ethics Law prohibit an elected officer of a political subdivision from simultaneously holding compensated employment with the officer’s own political subdivision. See also  Adv. Op. No. 2001-01.

 Adv. Op. No. 75-032 - Determination that a city council member must file a financial disclosure statement for the entire calendar year after leaving office in the beginning of January.

Modified by  Adv. Op. No. 2018-01, which explains that any state elected officer, and certain staff members, who leave office in early January must file a financial disclosure statement on or before May 15th of that year. For further details please visit the Financial Disclosure page.

 Adv. Op. No. 75-035 - Determination that a member of a municipal civil service commission is prohibited by R.C. 102.04(B) from receiving compensation for services rendered by him personally in any matter which is before any agency of that municipal corporation, excluding the courts.

Inapplicable due to a subsequent amendment enacting R.C. 102.04(D), which provides an exception for matters before an agency of the municipal corporation other than the one upon which he serves.

 Adv. Op. No. 76-001 - Determination that R.C. 102.04 does not prohibit a member of a county public defender commission from practicing law before the courts in the county.

Cautioned by  Inf. Adv. Op. No. 2009-INF-1104 (Newman), stating that the Informal Advisory Opinion did not overrule  Adv. Op. No. 76-001, but noted that significant statutory changes had been enacted since it was issued.

 Adv. Op. No. 80-007 - Determination that property owners whose property will benefit from infrastructure improvements have a prohibited “interest” in a public contract for purposes of R.C. 2921.42.

Overruled by  Adv. Op. No. 92-013, which explains that the owner of the company that performs the work for the improvement has a definite and direct interest in a public contract, but that the interest of a property owner whose property benefits from the improvement is a thing of value for purposes of R.C. 102.03(D) and (E), but not definite and direct interest in a public contract for purposes of R.C. 2921.42.

 Adv. Op. No. 85-003 - Determination that a public official who is covered by health insurance that his spouse receives as an employee of his political subdivision has a prohibited interest in his spouse’s contract of employment with his political subdivision for purposes of R.C. 2921.42.

Overruled by  Adv. Op. No. 92-017, which explains that a board of education member whose spouse is employed by the district can be covered by health insurance that his spouse receives as a district employee pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement provided that the board member does not use his authority or influence to authorize the collective bargaining agreement.

 Adv. Op. No. 85-007 - Determination that a county treasurer is not prohibited from serving on the board of directors of a bank that is a depository for county funds in all circumstances.

Overruled by  Adv. Op. No. 2004-02, which explains that the enactment of R.C. 102.03 (D) and (E) would render the treasurer unable to perform statutorily mandated duties if the treasurer served on the board of directors of a bank that is a depository for county funds.

 Adv. Op. No. 86-004 - Determination that a member of a regional authority who is a partner in a private law firm is not prohibited from receiving a distributive share of partnership profits generated by the representation of a client by another member of the firm on a matter before the authority.

Overruled by  Adv. Op. No. 89-016, which explains that the enactment of R.C. 102.03(E) in 1986 prohibits a public official from accepting a distributive share of fees paid by clients for services rendered by business partners on matters before his public agency.

 Adv. Op. No. 86-011 - Determination that the exception in R.C. 102.03(I) did not allow an official or employee of a public agency to accept travel expenses or reimbursement from prohibited sources for any reason.

Overruled, in part, by Ohio Adm. Code 102-3-08 Appx. A., which permits an official or employee to accept travel expenses from certain otherwise prohibited sources when all the requirements of Ohio Adm. Code 102-3-08 are met.

 Adv. Op. No. 89-003 - Determination that a public official or employee who participated in certain solid or hazardous waste matters under R.C. Chapters 343. or 3734. is prohibited from representing an owner or operator of a Facility, as defined in R.C. 3734.01, before any public agency for twenty-four months after leaving government services on any matter.

Overruled, in part, by  Adv. Op. No. 91-003, which explains that the amendment to R.C. 102.03(A) prohibits the public official or employee from representing the Facility owner or operator on a matter that the public official or employee personally participated.

 Adv. Op. No. 92-003 - Determination that a city law director is prohibited from hiring his or her business associates as assistant law directors.

Overruled by  Inf. Adv. Op. No. 2003-INF-0508-2 (Stergios), which explains that the opinion’s conclusion is inapplicable, in part, due to subsequent statutory amendments to R.C. 2921.421, R.C. 309.06, and R.C. 733.621.

 Adv. Op. No. 93-001 - Determination that a stockholder occupies a “position of profit” in the corporation’s contracts for purposes of R.C. 2921.42(A)(3).

Overruled by  Adv. Op. No. 2009-05, which explains that when a public official who owns less than one percent of the stock in a publicly traded corporation and has no other financial or fiduciary connection to the corporation, his profit as a stockholder cannot be definitely and directly linked to the performance of any of the corporation’s individual contracts.

 Adv. Op. No. 95-005 - Determination that the exception in R.C. 102.03(I) did not allow an official or employee of a public agency to accept travel expenses or reimbursement from prohibited sources for any reason.

Overruled, in part, by Ohio Adm. Code 102-3-08 Appx. A., which permits an official or employee to accept travel expenses from certain otherwise prohibited sources when all the requirements of Ohio Adm. Code 102-3-08 are met.

 Adv. Op. No. 2003-01 - Determination that a community school governing board member was not subject to all aspects of the Ethics Law.

Overruled by  Adv. Op. No. 2010-01, which explains that the amendment of R.C. 3114.03(A)(11)(e) removed the previously applicable exception and required community school governing board members comply with the Ethics Law.