To enact sections 305.44, 505.96, 731.142, and 733.241 of the Revised Code to prohibit certain local elected officials from entering into nondisclosure agreements.
Summary
HB 695 would prohibit certain local elected officials in Ohio from entering into nondisclosure agreements that restrict them from disclosing, discussing, describing, or commenting on matters related to their official duties. The bill applies to members of county boards of commissioners, township trustees, village legislative authorities, and village mayors. It defines such prohibited agreements broadly as any contract clause that bars these officials from speaking about government business tied to their office.
The bill also makes any covered nondisclosure agreement entered into in violation of the act void and unenforceable. In addition, a violating official would be subject to a civil fine of up to $1,000, and the attorney general would be authorized to bring an action to collect that fine. The new provisions would apply to agreements entered into, amended, extended, or renewed on or after the effective date.
Impact
HB 695 would add four new sections to the Revised Code—sections 305.44, 505.96, 731.142, and 733.241—creating a statewide restriction on confidentiality agreements for specified local elected officials. It would affect county, township, and village governments by limiting their ability to use nondisclosure clauses in contracts involving elected officials, and it would give the attorney general enforcement authority over violations. The bill would also invalidate any prohibited agreement covered by the new law, changing the enforceability of existing and future contracts for the affected offices.
Sentiment
Because the bill was only introduced and no committee testimony or votes are available, there is no recorded public debate in the provided materials. The bill’s structure suggests a reform-oriented approach aimed at transparency and open government, and its caption indicates a clear policy goal of preventing secrecy agreements for local officials. With no voting history or transcript record, the overall sentiment can only be described as formally neutral at this stage, with the bill presented as a transparency measure.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is whether local governments should be barred from using nondisclosure agreements for elected officials at all, even in limited circumstances. Supporters would likely view the bill as protecting public access to information and preventing secrecy around official business, while opponents might argue it could limit flexibility in personnel, settlement, or administrative arrangements involving local offices. Another possible issue is the civil penalty and attorney general enforcement mechanism, which could be seen as necessary accountability by supporters but as an intrusion into local governance by critics.
To amend sections 3517.12, 3517.13, and 3517.155 of the Revised Code to modify the Campaign Finance Law regarding foreign nationals and statewide initiatives and referenda and to declare an emergency.
To amend sections 3505.01 and 3505.10 of the Revised Code to modify the deadline for a political party to certify its nominees for President and Vice-President to the Secretary of State.
To amend sections 3517.12, 3517.13, and 3517.155 of the Revised Code to modify the Campaign Finance Law regarding foreign nationals and statewide initiatives and referenda and to declare an emergency.
To delay the deadline for a major political party to certify its presidential and vice presidential candidates to the Secretary of State for the 2024 general election.
Provides that nondisclosure agreements involving victims of child sexual abuse are against public policy and unenforceable. (gov sig) (EN NO IMPACT See Note)