Public records requests fuel furor in North Canton

From The Canton Repository A link to a document on the city’s website that listed the three individuals who made the largest number of public-records requests from the city has been removed after one of them complained.

One of those named — Jamie McCleaster, a council candidate — said he felt the posting was a political attack to cast him in a negative light during his campaign for an at-large seat. On July 24, he complained to Mayor David Held, who asked Law Director Tim Fox to consider taking the list down.

Fox, who denied seeking to affect the election, quickly removed from his page the link to the list and links to court documents related to an unsuccessful 2013 lawsuit by former Councilman Chuck Osborne, a candidate for the Ward 3 council seat.

Continue Reading>>

Hocking County commissioners clarify reason for executive session

From The Logan Daily Just over two weeks after the Hocking County Commissioners were accused of breaking the Sunshine Law, they provided an official statement as to the reason they entered into a July 9 executive session.

“It was my fault because I said ‘matters required to be kept confidential,’ and that’s all I said,” commissioner Larry Dicken explained Tuesday morning. “What it should be is ‘matters required to be kept confidential as regulations and state statute require. And that’s it.“’

When asked, Dicken confirmed that that statement was sufficient to satisfy the Sunshine Law.

Attorney Randal Lambert, whose services the commissioners rely on for litigation purposes, was present for other purposes that were discussed in an executive session earlier in the meeting and weighed in on the subject.

“Just for clarification, I think what you were doing was taking matters that need to be kept confidential as the reason, and it just needs to be ‘state regulations’ or be ‘pending litigation’ or something like that, so just kind of defining what that matter is in general,” said Lambert.

Under “Matters Required to be Kept Confidential,” the Sunshine Law states that “A public body may adjourn into executive session to discuss matters that federal law or regulations or state statutes require the public body to keep confidential. The common law attorney-client privilege does not qualify under this enumerated exception to allow general legal advice in executive session, because the public body is not required to assert the privilege.”

According to Dan Tierney, spokesperson for the office of the Ohio Attorney General, while there are certain categories where specific reasoning must be listed, such as ‘hiring or firing’ in reference to personnel matters, that same requirement does not apply for matters to be kept confidential. They do not have to list the specific state statutes that are the base of their reasoning for entering into executive session.

“I do not see anything in the yellow book [Sunshine Law Manual] that requires that. I think it’s probably silent on the issue, it does not require it and it does not prohibit it,” said Tierney. “I can’t comment for certain on this particular case, but the yellow book does not advise that there is a specific requirement that requires the statute to be said.”

When asked why it took so long to get an explanation regarding the executive session, Dicken stated that there was a delay because he was on vacation, and then he wanted to consult with Hocking County Prosecutor Laina Fetherolf to get clarification prior to making a statement.

“Government moves slow,” said Dicken.

Enquirer, media file lawsuit seeking UC video

From The Cincinnati Enquirer The Enquirer filed a lawsuit on Friday against Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters seeking the release of video footage that could play a critical role in getting to what really happened when a University of Cincinnati police officer fatally shot an unarmed man last weekend.

The Associated Press and four local television stations joined The Enquirer in the lawsuit, which calls for the public release of footage purported to show Officer Ray Tensing shooting and killing 43-year-old Samuel Dubose during a traffic stop on Sunday night.

Filed by Enquirer attorney Jack Greiner, the lawsuit says Deters' decision to withhold the video is in violation of state open records laws. Deters is refusing to release the video footage, because he says it would compromise his investigation and "taint" the grand jury process.

"I deeply respect Joe Deters and his office, but The Enquirer sharply disagrees with the prosecutor’s stance," said Rick Green, president and publisher of Enquirer Media. "We feel quite strongly this video should be released without further delay. Ohio law indicates the public has a clear and legal right to immediately inspect this video. Many questions have been raised about what happened that evening, and answers only can come from its release. It’s regrettable we have no other action to take but to petition the court for its immediate release.”

Deters said he expects to complete his investigation Wednesday and present findings to a grand jury by July 31. The video footage "will be released at some point – just not right now," Deters said Thursday.

Two key records released Thursday by UC appear to have critical inconsistencies. The police incident report says Tensing was being "dragged" by Dubose's vehicle and "had to fire his weapon.” Tensing also injured his left arm and was transported to a nearby hospital, according to the report.

However, in the recording of Tensing's call to an emergency dispatcher, the officer mentioned nothing about being dragged and said he was not injured.

Tensing said he was almost run over by Dubose's car, according to both the incident report and dispatch call recording. Dubose was shot in the head.

Continue Reading>>

ONA gears up for debate on access to body camera records

By Dennis Hetzel, ONA Executive Director

Should footage from police body cameras be a public record? That’s a question as fresh as today’s news in Cincinnati.

Last Sunday night, University of Cincinnati police officer Ray Tensing stopped a motorist off campus after following him for about a half-mile, the Cincinnati Enquirer reported. The rationale for Tensing’s stop? The driver, Samuel Dubose, didn’t have a front license plate, which is required in Ohio.

There is no debate that the situation escalated. Tensing, who is white, asked Dubose, who is black, for his driver’s license. Dubose, instead of handing the officer his license, reportedly gave the officer a bottle of alcohol instead. He was unarmed. The men reportedly struggled at the car door and Tensing fired once, hitting and killing Dubose, who drove another block before the car stopped.

Several days later, police released an incident report and tapes of police dispatch audio that have apparent inconsistencies regarding Tensing’s claim that he had to shoot because Dubose tried to get away and dragged the officer following the traffic stop.

There is body camera video of the incident but Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters won’t release it – at least for now. Deters promised to release the footage later, but said release now would damage the ongoing investigation and can be withheld under existing state law. Jack Greiner, attorney for The Enquirer, thinks otherwise, and The Enquirer is contemplating a suit.

It’s a complicated and delicate matter with strong feelings on all sides.  I urge you to read Friday’s Enquirer story for more depth and context. I have three reactions.

First, I think Greiner is right and the body camera footage is presumptively an open record under Ohio law, as it should be.

Secondly, if Deters believes there are portions of the footage that fall into the exceptions under the law, they should redact or edit the video to excise those portions and release the rest without an unreasonable delay, explaining up front that it is edited.

Third, this incident crystallizes the debate over access to body camera footage. Every newspaper I know covers law enforcement. Every newsroom should be paying attention to this issue.

As I told a reporter from WCPO in Cincinnati today, this isn’t about playing “gotcha” with the police. I truly believe that footage will show officers doing their jobs properly 98 percent of the time. It is, however, very much about accountability, transparency and the obligation of journalists to make use of the best-available source material for their coverage.

Now, let’s fast forward to Columbus, where Rep. Kevin Boyce, D-Columbus, is working on a bill to regulate body cameras in Ohio, including how much or how little will be exempted under Ohio’s public records laws.

We’re at the table. The ONA is participating in meetings to help Boyce craft this legislation, which I expect to see later this summer or fall. We have prepared a nine-page discussion paper on the issue, which I urge you to read and share comments. More importantly, you can use this as a starting point for stories, editorials and discussions with local legislators.

Here is the summary of our position.

It’s in the public interest to narrowly craft any new exemptions to the public records law to govern the use of body cameras. Existing exemptions related to police records already cover most situations of concern. Let’s preserve the critical principle that initial activity recorded by law enforcement personnel is presumptively open. Let’s achieve consensus to deal with the remaining policy and practical issues raised by body cameras. An important path to achieving this involves uniform standards on archiving and when cameras must be activated by officers.

We aren’t and shouldn’t be absolutist. There certainly are going to be situations with body cameras that create significant issues of privacy or will involve everything from confidential informants to investigative keys. We are offering concrete, helpful suggestions on the best ways to manage the issues these cameras create without doing severe damage to the ability of Ohio journalists to cover the news in their communities and hold public officials accountable.

This issue isn’t going away – in Ohio and across the country. That’s why our paper has this title: “Police Body Cameras – An FOI Battled Headed to Ohio.” Actually, it’s already here.

Cincinnati Enquirer editorial: Release police fatal shooting video now.

Editorial from The Cincinnati Enquirer The Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office should immediately release all video of the fatal shooting of Samuel Dubose by University of Cincinnati police officer Ray Tensing.

Officials have disclosed that there is video of the Sunday night incident in Mount Auburn, which started as a traffic stop over a missing front license plate on the car Dubose was driving. Yet it hasn't been released. That’s unacceptable and unusual. Cincinnati police, with whom UC police work closely, usually release video of police-involved shootings within 24 hours, but not in this case.

On Wednesday, UC President Santa Ono said the university had been prepared to release the video, but was held back by the prosecutor’s office. The Cincinnati Police Department performed the initial investigation of the case. But City Manager Harry Black said the prosecutor’s office ordered video of the incident held back pending completion of the investigation. Ohio’s open records law doesn’t allow for such a reason. The prosecutor’s office on Wednesday emailed an Enquirer reporter to say it wouldn’t release the video because doing so could jeopardize the investigation. Again, no such justification exists in Ohio’s open records law. Saying something does not make it so.

No more stalling. Release all video of the shooting.

It’s important for members of the community to remain calm about the matter while the investigation unfolds. There’s a lot going right in the aftermath of this tragic incident. CPD was the appropriate agency to investigate the shooting based not only on jurisdiction but due to its experience with such matters. UC police and CPD quickly spoke publicly about what they felt they could say, and UC Police Chief Jason Goodrich spoke directly to Dubose’s family and concerned community members at a Tuesday rally on campus. Prosecutor Joe Deters has promised a rapid investigation of the shooting death, with results by the end of next week. At Wednesday’s press conference with Mayor John Cranley, UC’s Ono showed leadership in saying the university wants to participate in the collaborative agreement formed in the wake of the unrest in 2001 after the fatal shooting of African-American Timothy Thomas by a white police officer. Cranley said CPD will work with UC police on best practices regarding the use of force. Again, all good things based on past success.

But Dubose’s family members and the community at large are correct when they insist they have a right to more information about what happened to Dubose, and soon. Such transparency starts, but won’t end, with the video footage of an encounter that resulted in an unarmed man killed by a police officer’s bullet.

It’s unusual in Cincinnati for a police officer to shoot and kill a citizen. This is a serious, special case. Officials must be as transparent as possible, as required by state law.

Vindicator editorial: State, federal legislators should smack down suits that threaten free speech

Editorial from The Vindicator

For just as long as Ameri- cans have enjoyed the free and unfettered exercise of free speech as guaranteed in the First Amendment of our Constitution, there have been those who have tried vigilantly to quash that fundamental right in order to protect a narrow special interest.

In recent decades, the U.S. court system has been vigilant in working to reduce that “chilling effect” on the free flow and exchange of ideas that threaten millions of activists, artists, journalists and everyday Americans.

One such recent and important victory for free expression came earlier this month from a case emanating from nearby Chagrin Falls. On July 8, a divided Ohio Supreme Court refused to accept Ohio coal-mining magnate Bob Murray’s appeal of a lower court ruling dismissing a defamation lawsuit he filed against a small weekly newspaper, the Chagrin Valley Times, in suburban Cleveland. That decision should stand as a foundation for broader protections against frivolous but costly lawsuits that gag free speech in our state and nation.

OHIO LANDMARK RULING

In the Chagrin case, the state’s high court voted 4-3 to allow an appellate court ruling against Murray stand. Murray contested a ruling from the 8th District Court of Appeals that he was not defamed by the Chagrin Valley Times when it published a story, column and editorial cartoon that the leader of Ohio’s largest coal-mining company found unflattering, disparaging and false.

The court found that Murray is a public figure and had not demonstrated actual malice – a knowing and reckless disregard of the truth – required of a public figure to prevail. Nonetheless, the lawsuit itself endured as a partial victory for Murray in that it effectively constricted free expression about him, his leadership and his detractors for years. For example, the small newspaper removed from its website all mention of Murray. The intensely high cost in time, money and resources left the small newspaper virtually no other recourse.

As such, the lawsuit stands as a classic case of SLAPP – Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Armed with this impressive court victory, the Ohio Newspaper Association is now taking the lead to enact anti-SLAPP statutes to the Ohio Revised Code.

Anti-SLAPP laws provide targets of such lawsuits with protections that reduce the ability of the plaintiff to harass and impose punishing costs on those being sued. Curiously, Ohio – whose courts have been much more supportive of free-speech rights than has been its Legislature – is one of 22 states in the Union without any anti-SLAPP protections.

That’s why it is incumbent upon some public-spirited state legislator – perhaps one from the Mahoning Valley delegation – to take up the challenge issued by the 8th District Court of Appeals. In its ruling against Murray last winter, it took the highly unusual stand of urging such legislative action.

To wit, the majority wrote: “This case illustrates the need for Ohio to join the majority of states in this country that have enacted statutes that provide for quick relief from suits aimed at chilling protected speech. ... Given Ohio’s particularly strong desire to protect individual speech, as embodied in its Constitution, Ohio should adopt an anti-SLAPP statute to discourage punitive litigation designed to chill constitutionally protected speech.”

In addition to action on the state level, advocates of free speech also should encourage their lawmakers in Congress to rally around the Speak Free Act, introduced in the U.S. House in May by a bipartisan mix of First Amendment defenders. The bill would fill current gaps in state laws by providing a uniform defense against SLAPP suits nationwide.

Those cynics of the mass media in this nation should be advised that such SLAPP protections also would benefit a wide swath of individuals and groups who have been muzzled over the years by such baseless litigation. Among them are writers of letters to the editor, circulators of petitions, property owners who post politically charged signs in their yards, citizen watchdogs who dare to speak openly at public meetings and countless others.

As such, smacking down such insidious SLAPP suits should become a top priority of lawmakers in Columbus and Washington alike this fall.

Avon Lake Planning Commission requests ability to deliberate, vote privately on waivers

From The North Ridgeville Press

Following its summer recess, City Council will decide whether to pass an ordinance that would allow the Avon Lake Planning Commission to enter into a private session to deliberate, and even vote, on whether to grant a waiver.

Law Director Abe Lieberman said state laws do not consider the deliberations of a quasi-judicial body to be a public meeting. While the meeting itself is public, he specified, the deliberations could be done privately, including a vote, which would be then made public with a record of who voted which way. Courts have ruled that when a body fulfills its quasi-judicial function, the deliberations, much like an appeals court or a supreme court, the body’s members may deliberate and vote in private. On the local level, he likened it to a board of zoning appeals or a county court of revision.

The request to council stems from the same planning commission and subsequent court case that spurred council’s lengthy subpoena ordinance debate. A planning commission applicant asked for a waiver to abstain from having to connect underground utilities along his property on a new street by having his house face the existing street, Lieberman said. This would have meant the person building a house next to this house would have had to pay for the installation of underground utilities for his or her own house along with the utilities needed to connect all the way to the existing street.

The planning commission denied the waiver, and the applicant appealed to the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, which reversed the commission’s decision. Though the public deliberations of the planning commission were not formally entered into evidence, Lieberman said, the applicant argued the deliberations constituted as evidence on his behalf.

Continue Reading>>

UD releases records on basketball player crimes

From The Dayton Daily News

The University of Dayton for the first time Wednesday released dozens of police reports detailing recent criminal investigations of prominent Flyer basketball players.

This newspaper requested the police reports in May after the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that police records at private universities are public record. Prior to that, UD claimed its records were exempt from Ohio’s public records laws. The I-Team requested records on these cases because of their high profile.

Continue Reading (Requires Login)>>

Hipaa’s use as code of silence often misinterprets the law

From The NY Times

How do people use, misuse or abuse Hipaa, the federal regulations protecting patients’ confidential health information? Let us count the ways:

■ Last month, in a continuing care retirement community in Ithaca, N.Y., Helen Wyvill, 72, noticed that a friend hadn’t shown up for their regular swim. She wasn’t in her apartment, either.

Had she gone to a hospital? Could friends visit or call? Was anyone taking care of the dog?

Questions to the staff brought a familiar nonresponse: Nobody could provide any information because of Hipaa.

“The administration says they have to abide by the law, blah, blah,” Ms. Wyvill said. “They won’t even tell you if somebody has died.”

■ Years ago, Patricia Gross, then 56, and a close friend had taken refuge in a cafe at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, where Ms. Gross’s husband was dying of cancer. She was lamenting his inadequately treated pain and her own distress when a woman seated at a nearby table walked over.

“She told me how very improper it was to be discussing the details of a patient’s treatment in public and that it was a Hipaa violation,” Ms. Gross recalled.

■ In 2012, Ericka Gray repeatedly phoned the emergency room at York Hospital in York, Pa., where her 85-year-old mother had gone after days of back pain, to alert the staff to her medical history. “They refused to take the information, citing Hipaa,” said Ms. Gray, who was in Chicago on a business trip.

“I’m not trying to get any information. I’m trying to give you information,” Ms. Gray told them, adding that because her mother’s memory was impaired, she couldn’t supply the crucial facts, like medication allergies.

By the time Ms. Gray found a nurse willing to listen, hours later, her mother had already been prescribed a drug she was allergic to. Fortunately, the staff hadn’t administered it yet.

Each scenario, attorneys say, involves a misinterpretation of the privacy rules created under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. “It’s become an all-purpose excuse for things people don’t want to talk about,” said Carol Levine, director of the United Hospital Fund’s Families and Health Care Project, which has published a Hipaa guide for family caregivers.

Continue Reading>>

Canton Repository editorial: Protect free speech by protecting public, press

Editorial from The Canton Repository Our view: Lawmakers should pass SPEAK FREE Act

It’s time lawmakers protect the public and the press from frivolous, scare-tactic lawsuits that are only intended to intimidate.

Ohio is one of 22 states that has yet to enact anti-SLAPP laws. SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. The intent of SLAPP suits isn’t necessarily to win, but rather to burden the defendant with legal fees and publicly humiliate them through time-consuming legal proceedings. They’re essentially an attack on First Amendment rights, which is why many states have laws safeguarding critical public discourse.

Free speech advocates point to two lawsuits in Ohio that they say may not have proceeded if anti-SLAPP laws were in place here.

The first involved a South Carolina woman who left a negative review on eBay after buying a product from Ohio-based Med Express in 2013. The product was sent to the woman, but it required her to pay additional postage of $1.44. Unhappy, the woman left a harmless comment on eBay’s seller feedback page. The company, according to reports, apologized immediately and offered to reimburse the woman.

It also asked her to remove her comment because it had impacted its merchant rating on the site. When she didn’t, the company sued to force her and eBay to remove the remarks. It later withdrew the suit.

In another case, Murray vs. Chagrin Valley Publishing Co, the three-panel 8th District Court of Appeals upheld a trial court ruling dismissing a libel and false-light claim brought by the energy company against the newspaper for its news coverage and commentary of a 2012 protest outside company offices. The company claimed the coverage was based on lies.

In rendering its decision, the three-judge panel said the case “illustrates the need for Ohio to join the majority of states in this country that have enacted statutes that provide for quick relief from suits aimed at chilling protected free speech. These suits, referred to as strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) can be devastating to individual defendants or small news organizations and act to chill criticism and debate.”

The company cited the appellate court’s “unwarranted step” of calling for anti-SLAPP laws in its appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, which this week declined to take up the case.

So what do anti-SLAPP laws do? They make it easier for the targets of these lawsuits to have such claims dismissed and, if successful in doing so, be reimbursed for court costs and attorney fees.

According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, such statutes put the burden on plaintiffs to demonstrate their claims have merit and stand a reasonable chance of success.

In May, a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced federal anti-SLAPP legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives. The SPEAK FREE Act would apply to speech on matters of public concern and in connection with official proceedings. We urge Ohio’s Congressional delegation to support the SPEAK FREE Act to protect the most fundamental right of our democracy.

Federal agencies announce limited trial of "release for one, release to all" FOIA policy

From The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press With little public fanfare, seven federal agencies have announced a controversial trial program of publishing documents responsive to most Freedom of Information Act requests online.

Under the program, known as a “Release-to-One is Release-to-All” policy, any member of the public will presumably have access to the result of almost any FOIA request.

Few other details were released in a brief announcement posted on several agency websites. It remains to be seen whether there will be a delay between sending responsive documents to the requester and posting them for the general public, or whether requesters will simply be sent a link to a public website that already hosts the documents.

Agencies participating in the six-month pilot include the Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and certain components of the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the National Archives and Records Administration.

In order to mitigate privacy concerns, the announcement states that “participating agencies will not post online responses to requests in which individuals seek access to information about themselves.”

The Office of Information Policy at the Department of Justice is soliciting feedback from the public during the pilot program to determine the feasibility of implementing such a policy across the federal government. The announcement says that the results of the trial program will be made available to the public.

Despite promises of increased transparency at the beginning of President Obama’s administration, FOIA denials, delays, and excessive redactions have continued to plague reporters and the public. According to data released by the Department of Justice, there were over 159,000 FOIA requests backlogged in FY 2014, compared with around 75,000 in FY 2009.

FOIA reform legislation is currently under consideration in both the House and the Senate. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee recently held hearings on problems faced by requesters and opportunities for reform.

The Sunshine in Government Initiative, a media coalition of which the Reporters Committee is a member, recently unveiled an effort called “Fix FOIA by 50” to support legislative reform. The 50th anniversary of the passage of the Freedom of Information Act will occur on July 4, 2016

Opinion: Post public police documents online, in Cleveland and elsewhere

Cleveland Plain Dealer from the Community column by Michael A. Dover Although there are many reforms needed, publicly posting [police] policies and procedures can build trust, enhance knowledge, and stimulate public and police involvement, as we work for more fundamental reforms. The first step to changing policies and procedures should be to simply post them on a website, along with the other recommended documents, and to assign someone to post all new or revised public documents within a specific period of time after approval. The second step should be state legislation, county legislation, and municipal ordinances requiring this.

Read the Column>>

Sherrod Brown bill would force charters to follow sunshine laws

From The Akron Beacon Journal A U.S. Senator has introduced a bill to curb “fraud, abuse, waste, mismanagement and misconduct” in charter schools, especially those in his home state of Ohio where lawmakers have stalled on similar reforms.

U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat and former public school teacher, introduced this week the “Charter School Accountability Act of 2015”. The bill doesn’t increase or decrease the $253.1 million in federal dollars spent last year to expand high-quality charter schools or help new ones open.

But should the bill pass and states accept the federal dollars next year, there would be stipulations requiring added transparency and accountability.

“Most charter school operators are aiming to meet the needs of their students, but I want to make sure all Ohio’s children receive a high-quality education,” Brown said. “By strengthening charter school accountability and transparency, and increasing community involvement, we can prevent fraud that has unfortunately cropped up at some for-profit institutions.”

For example, www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1708/">the bill would require charter schools in participating states to work with nearby school districts and communities to explain how neighborhoods would benefit before the charter schools can open.

In Ohio, more than 121,000 students and more than $1 billion in state and federal dollar go to charter schools. As a group, they perform below national standards while accounting for the majority of misspent tax dollars.

Continue Reading>>

Ohio House ducks voting on rules to shore up state's ridiculed charter schools

From The Plain Dealer The Ohio House will head off on summer break without voting on the new accountability and financial reporting rules for Ohio's $1 billion charter school industry that have been in the works for months.

House leaders skipped a vote on the package late last week and have left it off the schedule for Tuesday, the last session before leaving for recess.

Brittany Warner, spokesperson for House Speaker Cliff Rosenberger, confirmed today that there will be no vote before break.

Republican leaders say the delay is to clear up some issues with the just-revised bill. Others call it an attempt to buy time to water down the bill to please charter school operators who donate to Republican candidates.

Hanging over the entire debate: Ohio's network of charter schools has some very strong schools that excel in helping students. But the state's charter system as a whole struggles so much in other ways that it's the subject of national ridicule.

Continue Reading>>

New law closes concealed carry permit records

From The Sandusky Register

A new state law will make concealed carry permit records in Ohio completely secret.

The new law ends the remaining provision in state law that had allowed journalists to inspect the records kept by county sheriffs of local residents who hold permits to carry handguns concealed on their persons.

The original version of the law had made the records private, but allowed journalists to access the lists.

A more recent version of the law banned journalists from making copies of the lists, but allowed them to look at the records.

The 2015-2017 budget bill that Gov. John Kasich signed last week removes that provision, too, making the records completely private.

Dennis Hetzel, executive director of the Ohio Newspaper Association, said the law will make it harder for journalists to serve a watchdog role and make sure officials are administering the concealed carry program properly.

"It's not a good day for transparency," Hetzel said.

Hetzel said his organization had sent a letter to Gov. Kasich, asking the governor to veto that portion of the budget bill. The governor issued 44 vetoes last week of various provisions in the budget, but left the concealed carry record provision untouched.

Continue Reading>>

Publisher says it's time to abolish Ohio's public records laws

From The Highland County Press It’s time that the state of Ohio does away with its archaic public records laws and its so-called Sunshine Laws.

In fact, it is past time.

Let’s face it: You – as voters and taxpayers – do not need to know what your elected office holders are up to. It’s none of your business. Really. Just trust them. They know best.

And with solid Republican majorities across the board – as in the Ohio House, the Ohio Senate, the Ohio governor’s office, the state attorney general’s office, the state auditor’s office, the state treasurer’s office, the secretary of state’s office, and the all-knowing Ohio Supreme Court – why waste this golden opportunity?

The House and Senate ought to co-author a bill to put an end to all of the state’s public records laws. Pronto and forthwith. Get the party on board. Grand and Old as it may – or may not – be.

In fact, the GOP can accomplish this grand scheme without a single Democrat vote. Their gerrymandered majority is that tight.

For more than 20 years, I have written those obligatory newspaper editorials and columns in support of the public’s right to their own information. I’ve written the Sunshine Week columns every March, even though in Ohio the sun doesn’t shine until May or June. (Some places, of course, it never shines.) I have championed the public’s right to their public records for a long, long time. But I was wrong. Public records are none of your business. Period.

Yes, yes, yes. You paid for them. And you paid people to make them available under Ohio law. But, really. Who are we, as members of the taxpaying public, to seek your records? The nerve.

The availability of public records is, of course, a relatively simple concept. Records are kept and maintained by public officials in order that members of the public may have access to said records. The concept is simple; until someone complicates it for no good reason.

Most of the time – if we have honest and competent public officials – our public records are not too difficult to access. (Not that we should ever want to access them. See “the nerve” above.)

It used to work this way: Need to know how much the mayor or the police chief make? Call the city auditor and ask. Curious about the county commissioners’ salary? Ask the county auditor. Want to know how much a public school superintendent or principal earns? Call the district treasurer. Want a listing of public office holders? Call the elections board.

These are simple requests and there’s absolutely no reason to withhold or delay the information.

Continue Reading

State owes jailhouse lawyer $1,000 over record denial

From The Columbus Dispatch His background of drug-manufacturing and violence aside, James Carr Sr. might have made for a decent lawyer.

The jailhouse lawyer hit the law books after prison officials illegally denied his requests for a copy of a single memorandum, winning $1,000 in damages from the Ohio Supreme Court on Thursday.

Carr’s well-researched legal briefs, complete with propositions of law and citations of prior court rulings, helped prompt the justices to award him victory in the public-records case by a 6-1 vote.

Carr’s court fight began in 2012 when he asked an official at the London Correctional Institution, west of Columbus, for a copy of a chaplain’s memo about acceptable religious materials mailed by outside ministries.

Carr’s three requests for the memorandum — despite identifying its topic, author and approximate time frame — were repeatedly denied by a prison official as “ambiguous, overbroad and unduly burdensome.”

He then appealed to the 12th District Court of Appeals, where the memo finally surfaced in legal filings, and the judges upheld the denial of Carr’s records requests as proper.

The Ohio Supreme Court, in its unsigned opinion, said Carr’s requests for the memo were not improper, the arguments of the state aside that he had not “fairly described” what he was seeking.

“No reasonable public employee responsible for public records could have thought that a request for a single document was overbroad or burdensome,” the opinion said.

A records request that seeks all emails and correspondence between an individual and a government agency over a two-month period is not overly broad, the court found.

The justices also reinforced prior rulings that “perfection” — such as identifying the date a memo is written — is not required in identifying records sought in requests. Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger cast the dissenting vote in the case.

The ruling provides some guidance to public officials amid a growing trend of rejecting records requests as “overly broad” in the wake of rulings in recent years.

In addition to the maximum $1,000 in damages he will receive, the justices also instructed the appellate court to determine how much in costs Carr is entitled to recover for pursuing his lawsuit.

Carr, 41, is scheduled to be released from prison in 2018 after being sentenced to 13 years in prison for felonious assault and drug crimes in Clermont County, east of Cincinnati.

rludlow@dispatch.com

@RandyLudlow

Editorial from The Enquirer: Keep last shred of gun permit accountability

Editorial from The Cincinnati Enquirer If you’re an Ohio concealed carry permit holder, your permit records are already confidential – protected like they are national secrets. They’re even safe from journalists, who are allowed to view the permits but not copy them or take any notes.

But under a recent amendment proposed for the Senate version of Ohio House Bill 64, journalists wouldn’t even be allowed to review the permits. Some Ohio lawmakers want to remove this last shred of accountability for sheriff departments, which hold the records, by shielding them entirely from view. That’s a mistake.

With access to gun permit records, journalists around the country have helped keep you, your friends and neighbors safe by revealing permit mistakes and oversights. The New York Times found in 2011 that 5,000 North Carolina permit-holders had been arrested in the last five years for felonies and misdemeanors, excluding traffic crimes. The South Florida Sun Sentinel found in 2007 that Florida had issued 1,400 concealed carry permits to felons who had pleaded guilty or no contest to their crimes. Hundreds more permit-holders kept their license to carry despite outstanding warrants, domestic violence injunctions and misdemeanor convictions for reckless behavior with firearms. Such mistakes may not be the norm, but we have a right – a need, even – to know when they occur.

The lesson is clear: It’s important to hold government officials accountable for the permit-granting and -review process, and journalists provide an important check on the system on behalf of the public. Journalists in Ohio can’t do the type of wide-scale stories mentioned above because Ohio’s law is so restrictive. It would be far better if lawmakers were looking to loosen the law protecting permits, not totally block access.

Journalists take seriously their unique watchdog role: to strengthen public safety by finding loopholes and errors in the review process for permits. These are goals everyone should support. Lawmakers should reject the amendment that blocks journalists’ access to concealed carry permits. No access means no accountability.

Akron Beacon Journal editorial: Why concealed carry permits must remain public records

Editorial from the Akron Beacon Journal Yet another misguided effort is underway at the Statehouse to dismantle even limited access to records about who has a permit to carry a concealed handgun. This time, language to close those records completely was slipped into the massive state budget bill now moving through the Ohio Senate.

There, Joe Uecker, a Miami Township Republican, argues that journalists no longer should be allowed to view concealed carry permits on file at county sheriffs’ offices. The public already is barred. Uecker asserts that printing the names of permit holders would put them at risk of burglaries and thefts.

Such concerns are vastly overblown. As a practical matter, what access journalists have hardly lends itself to reporting the names of all permit holders, as has happened elsewhere. In Ohio, journalists are barred from taking notes or making copies.

What must be given more weight are the real risks of denying all access to concealed carry permits, as opposed to speculation that something might happen to permit holders if information were released.

Blocking access completely would end oversight of how county sheriffs are meeting their responsibilities to perform background checks on permit applicants and take fingerprints. Investigative journalism in other states has uncovered incidences of illegally granted permits.

Along with House Bill 48, which would allow individuals to carry a concealed weapon into day care centers, private aircraft and government buildings, the last-minute language jammed into the budget bill builds on a dangerous view of Second Amendment rights as trumping almost all concerns for public safety.

Delaware Gazette editorial: CCW provision has no place in budget bill

Editorial from the Delaware Gazette: Your right to an open and transparent government in Ohio will take another hit if a provision added to the Ohio Senate’s budget bill Tuesday is allowed to survive.

The provision would lock up the names of Ohioans who possess permits for carrying concealed weapons and prevent journalists from seeing the records held by county sheriff’s offices, unless they obtain court orders.

Newspapers and other news organizations will continue to do the job that readers, viewers and listeners expect of them — serving as a watchdog over government offices. If the new provision is allowed to stand, taxpayers will be forced to bear the costs of obtaining court orders, and possible litigation, over these records.

A little history: When Ohio lawmakers first passed a concealed-carry law in 2005, newspaper reporters and other journalists had full access to the names of permit holders — a valuable tool for reporting on the law’s utilization, trends and identifying criminal offenders with permits. Proponents of the law were happy just to get it on the books — flawed in their eyes — and then set about changing it slightly each year.

Since then, the law has incrementally been altered to loosen restrictions and to make the names of permit holders less available.

The latest version of the law allows journalists to view conceal-carry records but ridiculously forbids them from taking any notes or requesting copies.

Tuesday’s provision — introduced by Sen. Joe Uecker, a Republican from southwest Ohio — shuts the door completely and blocks access to the records for journalists and thus the public.

Lawmakers in Ohio continue to be in the pocket of the powerful gun lobby and — despite the many problems our state has, most notably the financing of public schools — always have time to tinker with the conceal-carry law, to make it more to the gun lobby’s liking.

The Ohio Newspaper Association and other newspapers around the state, including The Gazette, believe this provision should be stripped out of the budget bill. In fact, state lawmakers should be going in the opposite direction — and reversing the restrictions they have placed on journalists viewing the names of permit holders.