Court: Yost must pick winner in fight for control of mosque
The office of COLUMBUS —
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost must pick a winner
— and a loser in deciding
— which of two feuding factions will control a North Side mosque, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
The justices handed down the 5-2 ruling in setting aside its December finding instructing the attorney general to dissolve the nonprofit corporation operating the Omar Ibn El-Khattab Mosque and seek court appointment of a trustee to oversee creation of a new entity to operate the mosque.
An appeal by one of the competing factions led the court to reverse its 4-3 prior ruling. The court’s agreement to reconsider its decision came after two newly elected justices — Democrats Michael P. Donnelly and Melody J. Stewart — joined the court in January.
In its new ruling, the court said Yost’s office must take legal action to oust one of the dueling boards of directors in selecting which will operate the mosque and control $432,000 in renovation and expansion funds held in limbo since 2011.
“I find myself startled,” Yost wrote in a tweet after the ruling was issued. His office oversees Ohio charitable and nonprofit organizations.
The groups fighting over the mosque disagree what caused the fight, including the original board continuing to assert control without further board elections after 2009, the other side’s opposition to the expansion of the mosque and disagreement whether the Imam’s salary was excessive.
The law and the ruling are complex, but center on whether “corporate formalities” were properly followed and prompted the dispute over the mosque and its money.
The court concluded since the failure to follow the “formalities” did not cause the schism, the attorney general is not allowed to dissolve the nonprofit organization.
“Despite the attorney general’s understandable reluctance to take sides in the dispute, by seeking this remedy of dissolution he is effectively taking sides,” the majority wrote. If one the factions “is illegitimate, we would be rewarding its improper actions,” it ruled.
Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor and Justices Judith L. French, Patrick F. Fischer, Donnelly and Stewart formed the majority in the revised ruling. Justices Patrick DeWine and Sharon L. Kennedy dissented, saying the case should not have been reconsidered.
In his dissenting opinion, DeWine wrote, “Had the corporation adhered to the requisite formalities, there would have been a mechanism in place for addressing concerns, leadership would have been clearly established and there would have been no question about who had control of the funds.”