Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Opinion No. 81-139, (1981)

Court: Oklahoma Attorney General Reports Number:  Visitors: 7
Judges: JAN ERIC CARTWRIGHT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA
Filed: Jul. 16, 1981
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: OPINION — AG — ** OPEN MEETING — FAIRS — POPULATION ** (1) WHETHER COUNTIES WITH POPULATION OVER 150,000 ARE OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE 40H AND FAA GROUPS FACILITIES AT FAIRS IS A QUESTION THAT WOULD REQUIRE AN APPLICATION OF FACTS AND MAY NOT BE ANSWERED AS A MATTER OF LAW. (2) WHETHER 4-H AND FAA HORSE SHOWS ARE "AGRICULTURAL SHOWS OR EXPOSITION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF TITLE 2 STATUTES REGARDING FAIRS IS A QUESTION OF FACT AND MAY NOT BE ANSWERED AS A MATTER OF LAW. (3) COUNTIES, REGARDLESS OF THEIR
More

OPINION — AG — ** OPEN MEETING — FAIRS — POPULATION ** (1) WHETHER COUNTIES WITH POPULATION OVER 150,000 ARE OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE 40H AND FAA GROUPS FACILITIES AT FAIRS IS A QUESTION THAT WOULD REQUIRE AN APPLICATION OF FACTS AND MAY NOT BE ANSWERED AS A MATTER OF LAW. (2) WHETHER 4-H AND FAA HORSE SHOWS ARE "AGRICULTURAL SHOWS OR EXPOSITION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF TITLE 2 STATUTES REGARDING FAIRS IS A QUESTION OF FACT AND MAY NOT BE ANSWERED AS A MATTER OF LAW. (3) COUNTIES, REGARDLESS OF THEIR POPULATION, ARE NOT CURRENTLY AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT FAIRS OPERATED BY AGREEMENT WITH NON PROFIT CORPORATION. (4) THE OPEN MEETING ACT, 25 Ohio St. 301 [25-301] — 25 Ohio St. 314 [25-314] APPLIES TO MEETINGS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF A NON PROFIT CORPORATION, WHERE SUCH CORPORATION HAS CONTRACTED WITH A CITY FOR THE OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND IMPROVEMENTS OF A MUNICIPAL PARK AND THE CITY MAKES ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS TO THE CORPORATION AS AN OPERATING FEE, WHERE SUCH MEETINGS ARE HELD FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING BUSINESS CONCERNING SUCH MATTERS. (5) A CITY MAY NOT DELEGATE TO AN NON PROFIT CORPORATION BY CONTRACT OR OTHERWISE ITS POWER TO CONTRACT FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO A MUNICIPAL PARK, UNLESS THE CITY IS A CHARTER CITY AND HAS A CHARTER PROVISION PERMITTING SUCH DELEGATION TO ANOTHER PARTY; AND WHETHER SUCH A CHARTER PROVISION EXISTS IS A QUESTION OF FACT. (6) IN THE EVENT A CITY CHARTER PROVISION PERMITS THE DELEGATION TO A NON PROFIT CORPORATION OF A CITY'S AUTHORITY TO CONTRACT FOR IMPROVEMENTS, MUST NEVERTHELESS BE ADVERTISED, AWARDED AND EXECUTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING ACT OF 1974, 61 Ohio St. 101 [61-101] ET SEQ., PROVIDED THE ACT IS APPLICABLE TO THE CITY IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. WHETHER THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING ACT OF 1974, IS APPLICABLE TO A "HOME RULE" CITY IS A QUESTION OF FACT, DEPENDENT UPON A RESOLUTION OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE STATE LAW AND CHARTER PROVISIONS DEALING WITH AWARDING CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER SUCH CHARTER PROVISIONS CONCERN PURELY "MUNICIPAL" AFFAIRS OR AFFECT A WIDER STATE INTEREST. (MUNICIPALITY, OPEN MEETING, FREE FAIR, SHOWS, ORGANIZATIONS, PUBLIC TRUST AUTHORITY, STUDENT GROUPS) CITE: 2 Ohio St. 104 [2-104](L) 2 Ohio St. 104 [2-104](B), 2 Ohio St. 131.1 [2-131.1] — 2 Ohio St. 131.18 [2-131.18], 2 Ohio St. 31 [2-31], 2 Ohio St. 157.3 [2-157.3], 2 Ohio St. 131.8 [2-131.8], 2 Ohio St. 91 [2-91], ARTICLE V, SECTION 59, 2 Ohio St. 156 [2-156], 19 Ohio St. 1 [19-1], OPINION NO. 79-088, OPINION NO. 80-215 (MICHAEL AVANT-PYBAS) == SEE OPINION NO. 88-600 (1988) ==

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer