Chronicle-Telegram editorial: Ohio's county sheriffs would hand out concealed-carry permits in secret if the state Senate has its way

Editorial from The Chronicle-Telegram A kitchen-sink addition to the Senate's version of the state budget bill, disclosed Tuesday, would strip journalists of the limited access they have to records about permits to carry concealed handguns.

Budget bills are notorious catchalls, addressing many issues that have nothing to do with budgets and might not withstand scrutiny if they had to be debated separately. They tend to sail unimpeded into law if they're tucked into a bill that the General Assembly must pass by June 30 to keep the state operating.

A lot of bad laws get made this way, and a complete prohibition against access to concealed-carry records would be another one.

As it is, the public has no access to the records except through journalists, whose access is absurdly limited. Journalists can see the records but can't copy them or take notes about them. The provision in the budget bill would eliminate even that access.

If it became law, every concealed-carry handgun license would be handled outside the scrutiny of anyone but the applicant or permit holder and the sheriff charged with issuing, renewing, suspending or revoking the permit. Ohioans would be expected to trust their county sheriffs to make the right decision every time.

Trust ought to be earned, not expected, especially when government officials are involved. Like ordinary citizens, they make mistakes. Unlike ordinary citizens, they have special powers, in this case to decide who gets and keeps permits to carry concealed handguns. Sheriffs ought to be subject to scrutiny so the public can assess their performance.

Yes, most sheriffs are responsible and diligent. So are most permit seekers and holders. But after The New York Times reviewed permits issued in North Carolina, a state where permit holders' identities are public, it reported in December 2011 that more than 2,400 permit holders (roughly 1 percent of the total) had been convicted of felonies or misdemeanors, excluding traffic offenses, over a five-year period. At least 10 had been convicted of murder or manslaughter.

Under the Second Amendment, Americans have the right to keep and bear arms, but public access to records concerning concealed-carry permits is no infringement on that right. In fact, it is serves the important purpose of ensuring that government is neither infringing on the right nor administering it carelessly.

The Senate should drop the provision from its version of the budget bill. If it fails to do so, a conference committee charged with reconciling the House and Senate versions of the bill should drop the provision.

Secrecy won't make Ohio a safer state.

Vindicator editorial: Plan to expunge records of marijuana lawbreakers should go up in smoke

Editorial from the Vindicator

Even if we were inclined to support the legalization of marijuana in Ohio – we aren’t – a companion initiative that would result in the expungement of criminal records stemming from marijuana convictions is a definite deal-breaker for us. We have long opposed the cleansing of court records because we strongly believe there must be consequences to breaking the law.

In the May Democratic primary for mayor of Struthers, The Vindicator chose not to make an endorsement because both the candidates, Danny Thomas Jr. and Ronald A. Carcelli, had their criminal histories wiped clean.

Thomas, who won the Democratic nomination for mayor by a handful of votes, was convicted in 1987 by a federal judge of illegal use of a communication facility [a telephone] to distribute cocaine. His record was sealed in 1998 by a common pleas judge. Thomas then received a presidential pardon from Bill Clinton, a Democrat who enjoyed strong support in the Mahoning Valley when he ran for election and re-election.

The Democratic nominee, a former councilman, is active in party politics and has worked in local, state and national races.

Carcelli, a member of the Struthers Board of Education, was convicted of a misdemeanor count of having an unlawful interest in a public contract. He was ordered to pay $5,000 restitution to the city and a $1,000 fine. Carcelli was indicted on felony charges of theft in office, bribery and theft related to his job with the city of Struthers. The city’s street foreman received a six-month suspended jail sentence, in addition to having to pay the restitution and fine.

Carcelli’s record was sealed in 2012 by a Mahoning County judge.

The thought of either one of those individuals serving as the mayor of Struthers makes us cringe — as does the wholesale expungement of marijuana-related criminal records.

LEGISLATION IN WORKS

ResponsibleOhio, which has launched a statewide petition drive to place an issue on the November general election ballot to amend the state constitution to make marijuana legal, also is crafting a sentence reform/expungement statute that the Republican controlled General Assembly will be asked to pass.

“This would provide Ohioans who were convicted of marijuana charges the ability to have a clean slate so that they can care for themselves and their families,” ResponsibleOhio says.

The group’s goal is to have the statute presented to the General Assembly after the constitutional amendment is approved by the voters.

It would require sentencing review and provide for expunging marijuana charges and sentences.

The lawmakers can either pass the statute – it would be accompanied by petitions containing 92,000 valid signatures – in its entirety, pass a half or partial measure or pass nothing.

If either of the last two options is chosen by the General Assembly, ResponsibleOhio would by able to go directly to the people by placing the issue on the ballot. An additional 92,000 valid signatures on petitions would be required.

PROPONENTS’ VIEW

The proponents of expungement contend that in Ohio there isn’t an equal application of the anti-marijuana laws.

“In nearly every media market in the state, there is a city which is applying tougher rules to simple marijuana possession than the state at large does,” they say.

That may well be, but the individuals who have been charged and convicted with possession have broken the law, plain and simple. In a city such as Youngstown, which has been held hostage by drug gangbangers, tough law enforcement is absolutely necessary. There’s nothing secret about the law. If you get caught with marijuana, you will be charged.

To expunge such records would be to reward individuals who believe it’s their right to pick and choose the laws they will obey.

That’s not how a country of laws is designed to work.

As for the legalization of marijuana, the fact that 10 investment groups would control the statewide production of the drug should give voters pause. This monopoly would be memorialized in the state constitution.

ResponsibleOhio is making an all-out push for the legalization of marijuana, but the voters of Ohio should think long and hard before saying yes. There are just too many unknowns. - See more at: http://www.vindy.com/news/2015/jun/07/plan-to-expunge-records-of-marijuana-law/#sthash.TZaFu7Fs.dpuf

Ohio Senate wants gun permits secret

From The Cincinnati Enquirer Lawmakers want to eliminate the last remaining public access to view records on Ohio's more than 400,000 concealed handgun owners.

A change, proposed by Sen. Joe Uecker, R-Miami Township, would prohibit journalists from reading the names of people who obtain permits to carry concealed guns. The proposal is part of the senate's budget plan, which was formally released Tuesday.

The change would eliminate the already extremely limited access to those records, Ohio Newspaper Association Executive Director Dennis Hetzel said.

"Once government creates records, they should be presumptively open unless there's a good reason for them to be secret," Hetzel said.

Reporters can read the records now only after submitting a signed, written request to a sheriff's office to review the name, county of residence and date of birth on permits. They can only look at the records and not take notes or request a list.

A member of the public cannot even look at the names without a court order.

Uecker has pushed for limited access to gun permit names, saying journalists can obtain an order from a judge to view records. Printing the names of people with concealed handgun permits puts them at risk of burglaries or theft, he added.

"Anytime that happens, that puts people at risk," Uecker said.

Gun advocates say journalists have abused access to concealed handgun licenses by publicizing lists of their names and putting gun owners in danger. A New York newspaper published a map of concealed carry permit holders and their addresses after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012.

"There's no public good that comes out of the media accessing that list. So it should be closed," said Jim Irvine, president of the Buckeye Firearm Association.

Sheriff's offices are responsible for making sure people with gun permits are following the law, not reporters, he added.

But Hetzel said Ohio's law is already so restrictive that journalists wouldn't be able to publish a list if they wanted to.

"As a practical matter, the Ohio law is so limited that the things that have caused controversy would be all but impossible to do in Ohio," Hetzel said.

Another change in the two-year budget would allow members of the military to carry concealed handgun licenses while on active leave. They would have to carry valid military identification and a certificate of training as well as be at least 18 years old.

Ohioans can serve in the military at 18 years old but cannot obtain a concealed gun permit until they are 21 years old, Irvine said.

"They carry guns overseas, then come home on military leave, and we are disarming them. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever," Irvine said.

Dispatch editorial: Charter-school operators should account for their use of tax dollars

Editorial from The Columbus Dispatch Charter schools use tax dollars to provide public education, thus their spending should be transparent to the public. That’s true whether they’re doing a good job or a lousy one.

This principle has been ignored for the dozen years or so of Ohio’s charter-school history. Weak laws imposed few quality controls or guardrails against financial abuse and conflicts of interest. But the General Assembly at last is on the verge of significant reform of charter-school law, and members who support it should not allow it to be hijacked by the same old self-interested players.

Each of three separate charter-school-reform proposals in the Statehouse calls for sponsors — those who authorize and oversee charter schools — and school-operating companies to disclose at least a modicum of detail about how they spend the tax dollars turned over to them.

Sponsors are entitled to keep up to 3 percent of a charter school’s state grant. Ethically, that money should be spent only on things related to overseeing and helping the sponsor’s schools, but current state law doesn’t restrict its use and doesn’t even require sponsors to report how they spend it. Some have been criticized for using charter-school money for purposes unrelated to their schools.

Proposed legislation would restrict the use of sponsors’ fees and require disclosure. Both requirements are long overdue, but Peggy Young, president of the Ohio Association of Charter School Authorizers, argued before lawmakers Wednesday that the reporting requirement shouldn’t apply to higher-rated sponsors.

Young also argued in testimony before a Senate subcommittee that sponsors shouldn’t have to restrict their use of tax dollars to school-related spending, declaring, “It’s not how a sponsor spends its funds, but the outcomes they get.”

But if a school is performing at a high level, it should be happy to show how it is achieving such results. And more fundamentally, any program funded by taxpayers must be open to scrutiny by taxpayers. The concept behind charter schools is to free them from the educational mandates that restrict conventional public schools so that charters can employ innovative approaches to teaching. But this concept does not include shielding charter-school operators from financial accountability.

That’s why charter-reform legislation should require companies paid to operate charter schools to disclose how they spend the tax dollars they’re given. To date, some large companies have been paid millions of tax dollars and made no accounting to the public or, in some cases, even to the charter-school boards that hired them.

Three proposals for reform are in the works: Gov. John Kasich’s budget and separate bills in the House and Senate. The House passed House Bill 2 earlier; it and Senate Bill 148 likely will be merged after discussion in the Senate.

S.B. 148 is the stronger of the two bills, requiring both operators and sponsors to spell out their spending. The Senate bill also would prohibit “sponsor-hopping,” closing a loophole that many badly run schools have used to evade Ohio’s tough school-closure rule.

Lawmakers should end the era of charter-school mediocrity in Ohio by keeping the strongest elements among the three proposals and allowing real school choice to blossom.

The Blade files to keep sexting case open to public

From The Blade A Fulton County Juvenile Court judge today denied a request from two attorneys who sought to close court proceedings involving two juveniles who are charged in a sexting case.

The Blade earlier today had filed an opposition to the attorneys’ motion.

Two attorneys, each representing a different 17-year-old defendant, both students at Archbold High School, filed separately in May to close the hearings, stating that an open trial would harm the juveniles' reputations.

The teens are charged with disseminating matter harmful to juveniles; one of the youths is also charged with voyeurism, a misdemeanor.

In The Blade's filing, attorney Fritz Byers stated that at least one of the defendant's attorneys did not provide particular arguments to compel private hearings other than to say, generally, that the boy will be harmed if the information is public.

“This argument, of course, is nothing more than the basic contention that the Supreme Court of Ohio has consistently rejected: juvenile proceedings should be closed because publicizing those proceedings will harm the parties.”

The hearing was heard by Judge Michael Bumb; The Blade was represented by Scott Ciolek.

Read more at http://www.toledoblade.com/Courts/2015/06/03/The-Blade-files-to-keep-sexing-case-open-to-public.html#J2FzlEe7pt5Vwbxi.99

Otterbein decision opens police records across Ohio campuses

By Dennis Hetzel, OCOG President

Memo to Ohio newsrooms: If you have a private college in your area that uses commissioned officers as its police force, start covering them. Put them on your rounds for reporters’ regular stops and calls. You now have the same access to records as you would any other police department.

That’s the result of an Ohio Supreme Court decision last week in favor of some persistent and courageous Otterbein University students, led by former student journalist Anna Schiffbauer, who fought efforts by the campus police to keep records secret.

This was a messy case in one respect because it involved records created by entities that aren’t public bodies.

But the broader issue couldn’t be clearer: Deciding in favor of Otterbein meant the Court would sanction secret arrests, detentions and investigations by officers empowered by government. I can’t think of a more fundamental, basic civil liberty than that.

These officers and the Otterbein University police department have their law enforcement authority granted by the state. These were sworn and commissioned officers, not private security or “rent-a-cops.” The university police also had specific authority to enforce laws off campus in the neighboring Columbus suburb of Westerville. Sworn officers have the authority to arrest and detain anywhere, whether they’re police officers for cities, public universities and, now, private universities.

While we applauded the ruling, I also said we were very disappointed that the court’s vote was 4-3 instead of unanimous.

The reasoning of the minority on the court troubles me greatly. Some of it is simply incorrect. Justice Terrence O’Donnell, writing for the minority, blithely dismissed the concern because “these records are otherwise readily available from a public office that maintains public records, i.e. the Westerville Mayor’s Court.”

What if the department decides not to bring charges? Arrest logs and incident reports – all clearly open records under Ohio law – do not go to the mayor’s court. More serious charges may go to other jurisdictions. Whether some of these records eventually become open in mayor’s court misses the broader point completely.

O’Donnell seemed – at least to me -- to find a way to decide in favor of secrecy. This is the trend we have seen in many Ohio Supreme Court decisions. What’s encouraging is that this is the third good decision in a row from the Court on transparency, so maybe there is a majority now that is embracing the strong presumption built into the law that public records (and meetings) should be open, and the burden is on the government to demonstrate why access should be denied.

Until now, private schools had an advantage over public universities by their ability to keep a lid on any reporting of campus crime. You can’t help but wonder if concern about bad publicity didn’t trump the public’s right to know that might be taught in their political science classes. There was strong opposition by private colleges and private hospitals that also employ sworn officers to bills introduced last year to require such police forces to follow the open records laws. While some of the concerns were understandable, I didn’t hear any issues that couldn’t be resolved while still keeping records open when these departments are exercising their police powers.  

There is less need now for legislation, although the decision only covers private colleges and doesn’t apply to other entities employing sworn officers, so that’s a dispute for another day that probably is more complicated.

Some credit where credit is due: The Ohio Coalition for Open Government, which is an offshoot of our Ohio Newspapers Foundation, donated $1,500 to help defray legal costs in the case. The Society of Professional Journalists’ Legal Defense Fund contributed $5,000. Attorney Jack Greiner in Cincinnati did outstanding legal work representing the students. OCOG counsel Dave Marburger helped the students frame their initial records request to improve the odds of a courtroom victory. Attorney General Mike DeWine’s office contributed an outstanding “friend-of-the-court” brief supporting the students’ position.

Related links:

• Reporters Committee for Freedom of the press article on the Ohio case and a similar battle continuing in Indiana between ESPN and Notre Dame University.
• Columbus Dispatch coverage with links to earlier stories.
• Ohio Supreme Court case page with links to the decision and all other filings in the case.

U.S. top court throws out man's conviction for Facebook threats

From Reuters The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday threw out the conviction of a Pennsylvania man who made threatening Facebook statements toward his estranged wife and others in a ruling that makes it tougher to prosecute people for using menacing language on social media.

The court ruled 8-1 in favor of Anthony Elonis in a case that explored the boundaries of free speech online.

The justices decided Elonis could not be convicted merely on the basis that a reasonable person might consider his comments threatening. The court instead said prosecution would be allowed under the federal law that he was accused of breaking only if Elonis himself intended his words as threats.

Elonis wrote the Facebook posts in 2010, when he was 27, after his wife left him. Written in the form of rap lyrics, he fantasized about killing her, knifing a female FBI agent and shooting schoolchildren. After a court granted his wife a protective order against him, Elonis posted: "Is it thick enough to stop a bullet?"

Continue Reading>>

As Ohio mandates more disclosure from private college police, ESPN appeals for Indiana to do the same

From The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press While the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in a 4-3 decision last week that private colleges’ police forces must make their records available to the public upon request, ESPN is appealing an Indiana court's ruling that the sports cable channel was not entitled to obtain police records from the University of Notre Dame.

St. Joseph Superior Court Judge Steven Hostetler wrote that a state Public Access Counselor was incorrect in determining that ESPN was entitled to records from Notre Dame’s police department.

“ESPN’s position assumes that the Indiana Legislature has the constitutional authority to require a private person or entity that is not funded to produce its records under [the Access to Public Records Act],” Hostetler wrote. “Such a requirement would certainly give rise to grave concerns about the right to privacy and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”

A federal court in Indiana had previously considered the issue of whether private college police officers' actions constituted “state action” under Indiana law in Torres v. University of Notre Dame du Lac in 2012. That case involved alleged violation by Notre Dame campus police officers of a protester’s First Amendment rights. The judge concluded that because the state of Indiana gave Notre Dame the police power, Notre Dame assumed the responsibilities to which other police departments are held.

“The broad grant of power to police officers for private universities leaves little to differentiate them from any other police officer in the state of Indiana,” the judge held in the 2012 case.

ESPN spokeswoman Keri Potts said she could not comment on the ongoing litigation

Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, said the Indiana ruling made little sense. Continue Reading>>

Enquirer: Judge's decision to seal public records is unconstitutional

From The Cincinnati Enquirer A Warren County judge's decision to seal public records connected to a Mason woman's mysterious death was unconstitutional, The Enquirer says in a lawsuit.

In filings sent Tuesday to the 12th District Court of Appeals, The Enquirer says Common Pleas Judge Donald Oda improperly denied the public's right to see investigatory records related to the March 30 death of Susan Sparks. Oda did not conduct a hearing about the matter and never explained his reasons for sealing the records, the lawsuit says.

The Enquirer is asking the appeals court to force Oda to unseal the records.

The records include search warrants and investigators' reasons for seeking those warrants. Court documents are presumed to be open to the public, the lawsuit says.

State laws that govern the courts, according to the lawsuit, allow a judge to deny access to case documents only if the judge "finds by clear and convincing evidence the presumption of public access is outweighed by a higher interest."

The lawsuit also says Oda did not show that the decision to seal the records was "the least restrictive means for" protecting the investigation. Oda, the lawsuit says, could have redacted some information or sealed only parts of the records.

Continue Reading>>

Rocky River Police Department puts reports online

From The Plain Dealer

You can now access Rocky River Police Department reports online anytime.

Incident and traffic reports are now posted on the city's website within 24 hours, cutting down the previous several-day wait time to get copies of reports at the police department.

"It's all public records, so it just makes sense," police Chief Kelly Stillman said. "As far as efficiency goes, most people have home computers and instead of traipsing down to the police department to get a report, they can just get it with the click of a mouse."

The city paid a one-time $1,200 fee for the Records Online software. There is no maintenance charge, the chief said.

The department announced the reports were online Monday. Reports dating back to April 1 are posted, and records clerks are still working to get more reports online.

"Our goal is to go back as far as we can and get reports updated," Stillman said.

To access police reports, go to www.rrcity.com/police-division and click the links for incident and traffic accident reports at the bottom of the page.

Newspaper sues for trooper's dash-cam video

From The Columbus Dispatch In a case involving the State Highway Patrol, The Cincinnati Enquirer is asking the Ohio Supreme Court to declare that police dash-cam videos are public records.

The newspaper claims that the Ohio Department of Public Safety and Director John Born illegally failed to release video captured by a trooper’s dash camera during a Jan. 22 pursuit of a fleeing suspect on I-71 in Warren and Hamilton counties.

The patrol claimed that a prosecutor asked that the video be withheld and then denied its release on grounds it was exempt as a confidential law enforcement investigation record, the Enquirer states in its lawsuit filed yesterday.

The patrol failed to prove that the dash-cam video squarely meets the standards that allow investigatory records to be withheld as specific law-enforcement work product, says the lawsuit filed by Enqurier lawyer John C. Greiner.

The Enquirer argues that dash-cam videos differ little from 911 calls, in that they are automatically recorded in advance of any criminal investigation, and should be immediately released.

A patrol spokesman said that the video was properly withheld as part of a criminal investigation and that it promptly released the incident report and audio of radio traffic as requested by the newspaper. The patrol does release videos once criminal cases conclude, said Lt. Craig Cvetan.

In another Cincinnati area case involving the patrol last year, an Ohio appeals court ruled for the first time that police dash-cam videos are not public records.

The 12 District appellate judges denied a man’s request for video of a drunken-driving arrest, finding that the videos are confidential law-enforcement investigatory records exempt from release. The ruling was not appealed.

Private college police forces must release records, Supreme Court rules

From The Columbus Dispatch

Police departments at private colleges and universities are required to release their records to the public, a divided Ohio Supreme Court ruled today in a case involving Otterbein University.

By a 4-3 vote, the court majority found that since private college police forces are a creation of state law and perform an historically government function, they are required to comply with Ohio public records law.

The ruling came in a case filed by a former Otterbein University student journalist after she was unable to obtain police records from the Westerville school, which maintained it was not required to comply because it was a non-public entity.

In an unsigned opinion, the majority said that Otterbein police “exercises a public function of government, namely the basic police power of enforcing laws and maintaining the peace ...

“Its officers therefore have the power to search and confiscate property, to detain, search and arrest persons and to carry deadly weapons” as an agency that exists only because it is authorized by state law, the opinion said.

Private campus police forces are therefore a public office for purposes of the public records act and must release incident and arrest reports and other records that also must be released by public police agencies, the court said.

Otterbein spokeswoman Jenny Hill said the school's police force now will turn over records requested by student journalists. "We believe the split decision clearly establishes a new precedent related to private university police departments throughout Ohio," she said.

Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor and Justices Paul E. Pfefier, Judith Ann Lanzinger and Judith L. French formed the court majority in the ruling.

Justices Terrence O’Donnell, Sharon L. Kennedy and William M. O’Neill dissented.

In his dissenting opinion, O’Donnell accused his colleagues or rewriting the law in arguing private universities – not the state – create their police forces and they are not public offices.

The court did not address whether the ruling applies to similar private police forces operated by hospitals and others.

Continue Reading>>

Here’s how bad public records laws are in Massachusetts: They make me want to move back to Ohio

By Allison Manning, Boston.com Want to know why your kid’s principal was fired? Too bad.

Or who’s sitting in jail right now? None of your business.

What about the names of people charged with domestic violence? Nope.

When it comes to public records laws in Massachusetts, there’s a lot you don’t know.

It doesn’t have to be that way.

I spent the last five years as a police reporter in Columbus, Ohio, before moving back home to Boston a few months ago. What I’ve rediscovered about my home state: Our public records laws are abysmal, especially compared to those elsewhere.

There are 19 pages of exemptions alone in the 60-page guide to Massachusetts public records. How does this supposedly progressive state have such backwards open government laws?

Massachusetts has a “culture of secrecy,” said Pamela Wilmot, executive director of the open-government organization Common Cause Massachusetts. She’s not sure exactly why it exists — maybe the state’s long history makes it more resistant to change.

“It’s unconscionable and unfortunate and can’t be allowed to continue,” she said.

This week, the Boston Globe fought back. The newspaper sued several law enforcement agencies, including the Massachusetts State Police and Boston Police Department, for refusing to hand over mug shot and police incident reports invovling officer arrests. It’s the organization’s fifth public records-related lawsuit since the beginning of last year.

Boston police have already given in on one point. On Wednesday, Commissioner William Evans said the department will begin releasing the names of any officers arrested from now on.

The Globe’s latest suit says that the agencies are wrongly hiding behind the Criminal Offender Record Information Act — known as CORI — when denying public records requests for mug shots and incident reports of officers arrested for drunk driving. They claimed that the records were exempt under CORI.

Meanwhile, the agencies have posted on their blogs and Facebook pages the names of civilians charged with operating under the influence.

The suit also challenges the Department of Corrections’s refusal to release the chronological booking log, even though the agency farms out the list of inmates to a for-profit company that provides a searchable database of inmates.

In Ohio, not only are records public, they’re easy (or at least easier) to get.

In my old job covering crime and breaking news, I could quickly get police incident reports, 911 calls and mug shots, usually for free or 5 cents a page.

State prison inmates are easily searchable. Some counties post a list of jail inmates online, too.

Most Ohio court records are readily available online — and free. Meanwhile, copies at Suffolk Superior Court in Boston cost the public $1 a page, and they can’t be scanned or emailed. And even once the state’s long-awaited $75 million online court system is finally complete, the public won’t have access.

Public officials in Ohio can’t charge for the time it takes to gather records. In Massachusetts, the quoted cost for records often includes an hourly rate for an employee to complete the request. Agencies are allowed to charge a “reasonable” fee, but that can run into the thousands of dollars, preventing the public documents from being released at all.

Bridgewater State University officials recently billed the Brockton Enterprise $60,000 to provide emails sent during a six-week period between university officials discussing a child rape case at a campus daycare center.

Also unavailable in Massachusetts: personnel files, evaluations, resumes, disciplinary records, and promotion, demotion or termination information that could give parents and residents a sense of who’s working in their community.

Even a public school board meeting — broadcast live on cable access television — isn’t a public record here.

In Ohio, all of those records are available.

Sure, it’s not always sunny in Ohio. Organizations play the delay game. While Massachusetts has a 10-day limit, Ohio agencies only need to respond in a “reasonable” time frame.

Additionally, more organizations have started claiming that requests are “overly broad,” especially when it comes to emails.

And some agencies have to be reminded about what records are public. I remember standing outside a judge’s office in a rural Ohio courthouse with my newspaper’s lawyer on the phone, arguing with the judge that he couldn’t withhold the name of a juvenile just because the kid was charged with murder. (That’s another difference from Massachusetts: In Ohio, juvenile cases are open to the public, and files are accessible with a judge’s permission).

There's some hope for us here in Massachusetts. Two state legislators filed a bill that would increase access to public records, though open government advocates say it doesn’t go far enough.

The bill would limit fees for filing public records requests, require government agencies to appoint a specific person to handle the requests, provide electronic versions of public records when possible, and require the agencies to cover attorney fees when a petitioner challenges a denied request in court.

That last part is important. Today that protection isn’t in effect. Even if the Globe wins all of its lawsuits, the newspaper will still lose: Massachusetts is one of just four states that doesn’t pay attorneys’ fees to those who win public records lawsuits.

Toledo Blade editorial: Hiding public records

Public officials routinely skirt freedom of information laws by claiming that requests for public records are “overly broad.” The Ohio Department of Health used that excuse to try to deflect a request from NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio to gain access to records of department communications with Ohio Right to Life, the state’s most powerful anti-abortion lobby.

The request wasn’t broad at all: It sought records of calls from two phone numbers associated with Right to Life and emails exchanged with the group. NARAL sued the department this year; department officials have agreed — grudgingly — to turn over the records.

The Health Department, and Gov. John Kasich’s administration in general, promote the agenda of anti-abortion groups such as Right to Life. Records of the department’s communications reveal that Right to Life regularly corresponds with department officials about state regulation of clinics that perform abortions.

The Health Department has shut down nearly half of Ohio’s abortion clinics since 2013, when the governor signed a medically unnecessary law that requires abortion providers to secure transfer agreements with local hospitals. Right to Life played an active role in promoting the law’s passage. The Health Department is working to shut down Capital Care Network, Toledo’s only remaining abortion clinic.

Health professionals tend to oppose medically unsupported restrictions on reproductive rights. Last year, Mr. Kasich appointed a health director who does not hold a medical degree or have any expertise in public health — ostensibly a requirement for the job under Ohio law.

But medical truth doesn’t seem to have much salience for state policy makers. The Health Department grants funding to so-called pregnancy crisis centers — anti-abortion groups that dole out medically inaccurate information to pregnant women, such as unfounded claims that link abortion to breast cancer.

Dispensing false information in the guise of medical expertise should be illegal. In Ohio, though, the state sponsors such activities.

In response to NARAL’s records requests, Health Department officials and Ohio Right to Life insist that the group does not get special treatment from the department. Yet the department’s compliance with an anti-choice agenda, and its refusal to cooperate with reasonable public records requests, don’t inspire confidence in its independence.

Of all the problems this episode reveals about the state of Ohio politics, public records law should be the easiest to fix. Abortion controversies aren’t going away, but lawmakers at least must be willing to address loopholes in state law that allow officials to dodge any request they find inconvenient by deeming it too broad.

If NARAL did not have the resources to sue the Health Department — as many citizens don’t — the records it sought would never have seen the light of day. That’s clearly out of step with the intent of Ohio public records law, and ought to be swiftly rectified.

Editorial: Ohio government officials continue to stymie oversight with bogus claim

Editorial from The Columbus Dispatch

It’s good that the Ohio Department of Health finally honored a public records request from an abortion-rights group after months of stalling. But it should not have taken a lawsuit and a pressure campaign from NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio Foundation to shake loose the information.

Though NARAL has withdrawn its lawsuit against the department after receiving records of calls between the health department and anti-abortion group Ohio Right to Life, the latest development highlights anew the need to rein in public officials who deny records requests on the grounds that they are “overly broad.”

In the NARAL case, the organization was looking for evidence of undue influence on the part of Ohio Right to Life and other anti-abortion groups with the Ohio Department of Health, after new state restrictions led to the closing of some abortion clinics. Leaders of Ohio Right to Life didn’t deny that they were in regular contact with the department. Michael Gonidakis, president of the organization, himself said that the health department should turn over the records requested by NARAL, since he had and his staff had nothing to hide.

In addition to being on the wrong side of public-records law in the state, the health department’s refusal to turn over records led to more waste of public resources. It expended time and manpower in responding to NARAL’s suit, and in dealing with hundreds of duplicate requests that were made after the group put a link on its website encouraging supporters to make the same request. At least NARAL had the resources to press for the records through the legal system. Many individuals and smaller media outlets simply can’t afford that sort of fight.

Open-records watchdogs have noted in recent years that “overly broad” in itself has become an overly broad pretense under which public agencies look to deny requests for what should be public documents. This has been enabled by several Ohio Supreme Court decisions that have deemed requests overly broad and allowed custodians of public records to use the term as an excuse.

David Marburger, a Cleveland lawyer who specializes in government-access law, said in an interview with The Dispatch last year that the Ohio Supreme Court “created its own sort of law in governing what makes a records request appropriate” with these “overly broad” rulings. “It has created this sense of entitlement ... that (government officials) don’t have to provide anything to you if they think they can claim with a straight face that court precedents allow them to say the request is too broad,” he said.

The main problem with allowing officials to term requests “too broad” is that it effectively shuts down the ability of the public and the press to act as watchdogs and root out possible wrongdoing. This was the original intent of Ohio’s Public Records Act, which was considered a model for other states when it was passed more than 50 years ago. Since then it has been chipped away by legislative carve-outs and judicial decisions.

Requiring detailed and narrow requests “thwarts the Public Record Act’s fundamental purpose: nothing in the Act requires a requester to know a record actually exists before requiring it,” argued Cleveland lawyer Subodh Chandra in arguing on NARAL’s behalf in it lawsuit. “Indeed, the existence of a record may be the very thing the requester is attempting to discover through the request.”

Enquirer sues SORTA over streetcar information

From The Cincinnati Enquirer The Enquirer filed a Wednesday lawsuit asking the Ohio Supreme Court to force the Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority to provide the public with access to documents regarding the operation of Cincinnati's streetcar.

The suit accuses SORTA, a transportation entity in charge of deciding which company will operate the controversial streetcar project, of violating Ohio's Open Records laws by refusing to provide Enquirer reporter Jason Williams with the documents when asked in a March 30 letter.

The Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA) is following its established Procurement Policies and Procedures Manual which it believes to be in compliance with state and federal law regarding Requests for Proposals.

SORTA sought guidance from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) regarding its process, and, in a March 23 letter, the FTA confirmed that SORTA should follow its established procedures," a Wednesday SORTA release noted.

SORTA hadn't seen the suit and wouldn't comment further.

Williams filed his request asking to review documents submitted by companies responding to a SORTA request to bid on the estimated $4 million per year contract to maintain and operate the 3.6-mile, $148 million streetcar. Bidding is done in an attempt to encourage competition to control costs.

Continue Reading>>

Editorial: Republicans question Yost's role in sunshine disputes

From The Canton Repository State Auditor Dave Yost launched a program last month that helps resolve public records disputes so citizens and government agencies don’t wind up in lengthy and costly court battles.

Fellow Republicans in the Ohio House tried to dissolve Yost’s “Sunshine Audit” program through an amendment in the $71.5 billion two-year state budget. They question whether Yost, as auditor, has the authority to oversee such a program. Though they pulled this misguided amendment from the budget bill after a groundswell of criticism, they indicated they may revisit the question in coming months.

There’s no need to. Yost’s program helps rectify a major problem with Ohio’s Sunshine Laws — a problem created a few years ago when state lawmakers placed unnecessary caps on the amount of damages and attorneys fees agencies would pay out for violating the law. Those changes in the law may discourage people with valid complaints from pursuing legal action against government agencies or public employees all while incentivizing those agencies to violate Ohio’s Sunshine Laws.

Lawmakers should — but won’t — restore the financial sanctions that were once the teeth of these laws. Regardless, Ohioans and government agencies still need a free program to resolve these disputes and head off prolonged litigation. As auditor, Yost clearly has the right to step in.

The Ohio Attorney General’s Office already offers a mediation program for citizens with complaints against local governments. Yost’s program applies to state agencies. His office will also step in if mediation involving local agencies fails or one party refuses to participate. After reviewing the complaint, giving each side a chance to respond and determining that a violation has occurred, the auditor’s office issues a non-compliance finding. The decisions aren’t binding, but they are an honest attempt to resolve issues outside of a courtroom.

What’s the harm in that?

As he did in calling for a financial audit of JobsOhio in 2013, Yost again appears to be standing up for Ohioans and open government. Instead of questioning Yost’s authority, state lawmakers should be supporting his efforts.

What to say when the police tell you to stop filming them

From The Atlantic First of all, they shouldn’t ask.

“As a basic principle, we can’t tell you to stop recording,” says Delroy Burton, chairman of D.C.’s metropolitan police union and a 21-year veteran on the force. “If you’re standing across the street videotaping, and I’m in a public place, carrying out my public functions, [then] I’m subject to recording, and there’s nothing legally the police officer can do to stop you from recording.”

“What you don’t have a right to do is interfere,” he says. “Record from a distance, stay out of the scene, and the officer doesn’t have the right to come over and take your camera, confiscate it.”

Officers do have a right to tell you to stop interfering with their work, Burton told me, but they still aren’t allowed to destroy film.

Yet still some officers do. Last week, an amateur video appeared to show a U.S. Marshal confiscating and destroying a woman’s camera as she filmed him.

“Photography is a form of power, and people are loath to give up power, including police officers. It’s a power struggle where the citizen is protected by the law but, because it is a power struggle, sometimes that’s not enough,” says Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Continue Reading>>

State health department turns over records to abortion rights group

From The Columbus Dispatch The Ohio Department of Health has turned over public records it previously refused to release to an abortion-rights group regarding health officials’ contact with Ohio Right to Life.

NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio Foundation moved last week to dismiss a lawsuit it had filed against the health department for illegally withholding records, leading the Ohio Supreme Court to dismiss the case today.

Court-ordered mediation between NARAL and state health officials led to the release of the records, NARAL lawyer Subodh Chandra wrote in his motion to dismiss the case.

The health department previously rejected the organization's request for records of calls to telephone numbers associated with Ohio Right to Life and its leaders’ emails to the health officials, saying the request was “overly broad.”

Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL-Ohio, said previously that the group sought the records in a bid to determine if Ohio Right to Life wielded undue influence at the health department.

Continue Reading>>

Tips on shooting newsworthy video and protecting your rights

From Kentucky.com It seems almost everyone has a smartphone. That's why we're seeing more videos of police shootings, natural disasters, violent demonstrations, accidents, acts of heroism and other unusual events.

But some smartphone users may not be prepared for the moment when they need to record such an occurrence. The video has to be shot well to show clearly what happened. In addition, the video may have monetary value if the right steps are taken to protect it.

Things to keep in mind:

■ Get an "establishing" or wide shot first that shows the entire scene. Unless something is happening quickly, do not begin with a tight shot of people or the event. Get at least a 10-second shot from enough distance to show all the key elements.

■ Hold the camera steady. This is hard to do with a smartphone, especially if you have to move to keep up with the action. Buy a hand grip that is made for smartphone video. They are inexpensive and small enough to fit in a pocket.

■ Practice with the grip. When it comes time to record the event, you may not be able to get close and will need to zoom in. As the shot gets tighter, the slightest camera movement can ruin the video. The grip will help you hold the camera steady while zooming or panning. Always shoot horizontally.

■ Protect yourself. Try not to let those involved know you are recording them. If someone committing a crime sees you doing so, you could be in danger. Also, police have confiscated cameras and arrested those shooting video even when the person was on public property and out of the way. And don't ever go onto private property.

If the video has financial value, you need to take steps to preserve it:

Continue Reading>>