Ohio won't share Superintendent Ross' "voluminous" e-mail, despite saying he "doesn't use it very often"

From The Plain Dealer State Superintendent Richard Ross and his staff have refused for the second time to provide records that would support his claims that he had no role in his department's charter school data-rigging controversy.

The Ohio Department of Education has instead maintained its seemingly-contradictory stance in denying The Plain Dealer's request for Ross' emails from the last two years.

While the department claims that Ross "doesn't use e-mail very often," it won't provide the e-mails because the request is "overly broad" and the e-mails are too "voluminous."

"We have determined that your request is still ambiguous and overly broad," ODE lawyer Immy Singh wrote. "Please see Ohio Revised Code section 149.43(B)(2).  As a result, your request lack(s) the specificity the office needs to identify and locate responsive records."

The latest denial came Dec. 4, just one day after The Plain Dealer's Dec. 3 report about the department's  weeks-long delays in responding to the request.

Along with denying public access to Ross' e-mails, the department is also refusing to say how many e-mails Ross sent in that period, which The Plain Dealer requested to verify claims that he does not e-mail regularly.

The denial also comes as Ross is less than a month away from retiring, effective Dec. 31.

The Plain Dealer first asked for Ross' emails Sept. 14, shortly after finding that there was not a single piece of correspondence from Ross – either e-mail, text message or note - in about 100,000 pages of documents provided by the department about key ratings of charter school oversight agencies, known as "sponsors" or "authorizers."

Continue Reading>>

Court rules in two South Euclid cases involving public records

From Court News Ohio The Ohio Supreme Court today ordered the city of South Euclid to provide Emilie DiFranco with any public records not yet given to her since she first asked for them in September 2013. In addition, the Court awarded DiFranco statutory damages of $600 plus costs because the city took an unreasonable amount of time to produce many of the records.

The Court also ruled in a separate case in which DiFranco alleged the city had acted frivolously in responding to another public-records request. The Court rejected that claim.

September 2013 Records Request In her public-records request two years ago, DiFranco asked for several items – financial records related to various city-owned properties, “Certificate of Records Disposal forms,” accounts of legal expenses for 2004 through 2013, and overtime records during eight months in 2013. She made the request by certified mail on Sept. 4, 2013, and the city received it the next day.

On Oct. 24 and Nov. 1, the city sent some of the disposal forms and property financial records, but nothing related to legal spending or overtime payments. DiFranco filed suit on May 21, 2014, asking the Supreme Court to order South Euclid to produce the remaining records. The city sent additional documents related to her request on May 30, but DiFranco contended she still had not received 2004 and 2005 disposal forms or records about the cost of snow removal for nine city properties.

Court Orders Release of Records, Awards Damages In today’s 6-1 per curiam decision, the Court issued a writ of mandamus ordering South Euclid to provide the remaining records, if they exist, to DiFranco.

In addition, the Court noted it can award court costs, attorney fees, and statutory damages up to $1,000 if a public-records request was made by certified mail and the public office did not comply with the state’s public records law. One of the statute’s requirements is that public records must be delivered “within a reasonable period of time after the request.”

The opinion pointed out that this is the third time South Euclid has been unresponsive to DiFranco’s public-records inquiries until after she sued. In one case, the city did not respond for two months, and, in another, her request was not addressed for almost six months.

In this case, “two entire categories of DiFranco’s requested documents were not produced for eight months, until DiFranco filed a lawsuit,” the Court stated. “After seven years of fielding her requests, the officials of South Euclid should know to be diligent and responsive to DiFranco’s public-records requests, as they should be with all such requests.”

South Euclid had argued that DiFranco’s true motive in asking for the records was to obtain the damages award, not the documents. The Court concluded the assertion has no merit.

The Court first noted that DiFranco stopped following up with the city’s law director, Michael Lograsso, about incomplete or slow responses to her requests because he told her in a March 2011 email he was ceasing communication with her. Therefore, DiFranco “acted reasonably in no longer communicating with the city about her public-records requests,” the opinion stated.

In addition, the Court pointed out, she has only filed complaints against the city in recent years. DiFranco had explained to the Court that she did not have the opportunity to comment fully about a proposed tax levy because she had not received requested records.

These factors contradict the city’s claim that DiFranco was solely seeking the money, the Court reasoned, concluding that DiFranco is entitled to statutory damages.

Noting the six business days between the filing of her complaint and the next release of records, the Court stated, “If, as South Euclid asserts, they have produced all existing documents as of May 30, 2014, DiFranco is entitled to $600. We therefore grant statutory damages in the amount of $600 and costs to DiFranco.”

Votes in 2013 Records Request Case The majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor and Justices Terrence O’Donnell, Judith Ann Lanzinger, Sharon L. Kennedy, Judith L. French, and William M. O’Neill.

Justice Paul E. Pfeifer dissented and would have dismissed the petition.

2014-0831. State ex rel. DiFranco v. S. Euclid, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-4914.

Court Rejects Frivolous Conduct Allegation In another case, DiFranco filed a different public-records lawsuit against South Euclid. While the suit was in the courts, the city gave DiFranco the records. After the Ohio Supreme Court determined DiFranco should receive damages but not attorney fees, DiFranco asked the Eighth District Court of Appeals to sanction the city and its community services director for frivolous conduct. The appellate court denied her request.

In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court today determined first that DiFranco’s motion was not filed within the required timeframe. The final judgment on the merits of this case was issued in September 2012, but the motion was made nearly two years later. Second, the Court concluded the city did not engage in frivolous conduct because South Euclid’s finance director and DiFranco’s accountant worked together to figure out what documents had not been provided, and the city then produced them.

The decision affirmed the Eighth District’s judgment in the case.

2014-1761. State ex rel. DiFranco v. S. Euclid, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-4915.

Justices split on damages, fees award in Otterbein case

From The Columbus Dispatch It was that close.

A bid by a former student journalist at Otterbein University in Westerville to win an award of damages and attorney fees in her successful public-records lawsuit was shot down 4-3 by the Ohio Supreme Court on Tuesday.

Anna Schiffbauer won a 4-3 decision from the justices on May 21 that held the police departments of private colleges and universities are subject to public records laws and must release campus-crime reports and other records.

With the Ohio Coalition for Open Government and the Society of Professional Journalists covering part of her legal fees in the lawsuit, she and her lawyer, John Greiner of Cincinnati, petitioned the court for an award of legal fees and damages.

Justices William M. O’Neill, Judith L. French and Sharon L. Kennedy formed the minority in the ruling, writing they would have awarded damages, costs of $247 and legal fees of $15,050 to Schiffbauer.

O'Neill and Kennedy, interestingly, voted against Schiffbauer’s case on the merits.

In a dissent, O’Neill wrote, “It is disingenuous for this court to now find that the Otterbein University police department was reasonable in its belief that it was not a public office subject to the PRA (public records act).

“The whole purpose of awarding attorney fees and statutory damages in public-records cases is to encourage compliance with the law and to compensate those who have had to file a lawsuit to force compliance,” O’Neill wrote.

“I do not have to agree with the holding to assert that the individuals who challenged the Otterbein University police department’s interpretation of the law are entitled to be compensated."

In another ruling today, the court awarded damages, which are capped at $1,000, in a public records case. The justices ordered the city of South Euclid to turn over any records it had not yet produced for a woman who filed a records request and awarded her $600 in damages. The city took an unreasonable amount of time to turn over records, the court ruled in a 6-1 vote.

State auditor sides with Findlay in dispute over taxpayer names

From The Courier Findlay officials may keep secret the names of more than three dozen businesses or taxpayers allowed to defer payments or make installment payments on city income taxes, state Auditor Dave Yost said Tuesday.

Yost, acting on The Courier’s request for a special “sunshine audit” of the practice by city Tax Administrator Andrew Thomas, said there is “insufficient evidence to support a finding of non-compliance against the city … with respect to Ohio’s public records laws.”

The newspaper, citing “the public interest” in a Freedom of Information Act filing with the city on June 8, requested the names of businesses and individuals paying taxes under a deferral or installment plan. The newspaper did not seek the amounts involved.

The city denied the requests then and later, citing the privacy of income tax returns under state law and city ordinance.

The Courier and city officials tried and failed to resolve their differences informally on Oct. 6, and the newspaper filed for Yost’s special public-records audit a week later, according to Editor Peter Mattiace.

Continue Reading>>

State treasurer asks charter schools to put finances online

From The Dayton Daily News State Treasurer Josh Mandel is cajoling thousands of local governments, public universities, the Ohio pension systems and others to post their expenditures on his government transparency website, OhioCheckbook.com, but until recently he had omitted Ohio’s 395 charter schools – an entire wing of public education that costs taxpayers nearly $1 billion in state funding each year – from his call list.

Following an inquiry from the Dayton Daily News about why charters had not been approached, Mandel’s office sent letters to 374 community school operators inviting them to post their daily expenditures on OhioCheckbook.com at no cost to the schools. “I look forward to partnering with you to shine sunlight on spending and help showcase your school as a leader in government transparency,” Mandel’s form letter concludes.

Continue Reading>>

Ohio Supreme Court considers whether exchange of emails by members of school board violated open meetings law

From The Mansfield News Journal The Ohio Supreme Court is considering whether an exchange of emails by members of a central Ohio school board violated the state open meetings law.

At issue is an October 2012 letter to the editor published with input from four members of the Olentangy school board in response to an editorial that criticized the board.

A fifth member of the board, Adam White, sued his fellow board members six months later, alleging that circulating drafts of the letter by email violated the open meetings law. That same day, April 25, 2013, the board voted at a public meeting to ratify the letter.

Events leading to the dispute began in March 2012, when White conducted an independent investigation of alleged improper spending at the district.

That September, the board voted to require that in the future, board members should communicate with district staff by going through the superintendent or treasurer first. On Oct. 11, the Columbus Dispatch published an editorial criticizing that policy, saying board members should have leeway in examining district finances on their own.

Continue Reading>>

Plain Dealer editorial: Let the sun shine in Ohio on public documents

Editorial from The Plain Dealer Ohio's D+ grade in the latest state-by-state analysis of public records access by the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity and Global Integrity shockingly ranks it better than all but five other states.

Alaska was the top score-earner with a C-, while Michigan, which was among 11 states that received an F, was dead last.

Despite Ohio's strong ratings on public access to information about lobbyists and pensions, the report left no doubt that this state could do a much better job ensuring that taxpayers have easy access to information that is rightfully theirs.

The Ohio legislature, which works on behalf of the citizens of Ohio, needs to do more to protect the public's right to know as much as possible about the government's workings.

Too often Ohioans must struggle to get government documents. Ohio earned a string of Ds on public access to documents on political financing, judicial accountability, state civil service management, ethics enforcement and executive and legislative accountability -- the report pointed out, for instance, that amendments of unclear origin are wont to surface unexpectedly in bills. 

According to the Public Integrity report, "Ohio has no statutory mechanism to monitor how officials are adhering to open government laws, no formal appeals process when access is denied and no serious repercussions" for violators.

It noted two special trouble spots: the lack of transparency for charter schools and for JobsOhio, Gov. John Kasich's flagship quasi-private economic development organization.

The report's methodology isn't perfect. Tony Bledsoe, Ohio's legislative inspector general, pointed out that the report grades states on whether they provide records on lobbyists' salaries – Ohio does not – but not on other important measures that Ohio demands, such as the name of the lobbyist's boss and which legislator and bill is being lobbied.

And it should be noted that Ohio is making progress. The report cited state Treasurer Josh Mandel's searchable database of government spending, although it noted that sometimes it is not up to date.

Still, the report offers a useful signpost: It should not be difficult for any member of the public to get their hands on government documents. Ohio has to work harder to meet that goal.

In Ohio: a struggle to obtain public records from state

From The Cincinnati Enquirer Where did a mysterious amendment come from, Rep. Ron Amstutz was asked after a House Finance Committee meeting in 2014.

After some hemming and hawing, the panel’s chairman came up with an answer:

Out of thin air.

He later said he was joking.

But Ohioans who want to keep track of both their tax money and their public officials don’t find much humor in the Buckeye State’s laws and everyday practices on government accountability, ethics and transparency.

In recent years Ohio’s legislature has weakened many of those laws – the same legislature that since 2012 has seen seven members convicted of crimes, including grand theft, bribery, perjury, money laundering and securities fraud.

“While Ohio has many appropriate ethics rules and a strong Sunshine Law, there are simply too many loopholes,” said Catherine Turcer, veteran watchdog with Common Cause-Ohio.

Sixth in the nation

Ohio earned a D+ in the State Integrity Investigation, an assessment of state government openness and accountability by the Center for Public Integrity and Global Integrity, but that modest score was actually good enough to place 6th in the nation. Alaska, which received a C, was No. 1. Michigan, among 11 states getting an F, was last.

In a 2012 State Integrity Investigation, Ohio got a D, which ranked 34th among the 50 states. Despite the apparent improvement, the two scores are not directly comparable due to changes made to improve and update the project and methodology, such as eliminating the category for redistricting, a process that generally occurs only once every 10 years.

The state did worst in simply providing overall public access to information, getting its only F in that specific category. Part of the reason for such a low score: unlike many states, Ohio has no statutory mechanism to monitor how officials are adhering to open government laws, no formal appeals process when access is denied and no serious repercussions if public officials violate these laws.

The tone has been set at the top.

Continue Reading>>

Cincinnati Enquirer editorial: Ohio, Ky. get D grades on openness

Editorial from The Cincinnati Enquirer Ohio and Kentucky governments have some work to do to be more accountable to their citizens.

A review of open government, accountability and campaign finance laws found Ohio and Kentucky scored relatively well nationally, ranking sixth and ninth, respectively. But that’s not saying much. Forty-four states got failing grades. Ohio and Kentucky just scored on the upper end of poor. Both states have more to do to limit corruption and ensure state governments are open to the public.

As you’ll read in the report cards below, Ohio scored a D and Kentucky a D+ in the 2015 State Integrity Investigation, an assessment of state government openness and accountability by the Center for Public Integrity and Global Integrity. Both Ohio and Kentucky have laws protecting openness and requiring accountability, but they have loopholes. Neither state is good at monitoring to make sure public officials are following the laws, and enforcing the laws if they’re broken.

Continue Reading>>

Even without party labels, website info on Ohio judicial candidates is a good thing

By Thomas Suddes, Northeast Ohio Media Group Because information on judgeship candidates can be scarce, and because of Ohio's ballot format, some Ohioans may ignore judgeship elections.

Insiders don't: They gave more than $1.1 million to the 2014 campaign of Republican Justice Judith L. French when she won a full Ohio Supreme Court term. The Columbus Dispatch, citing data from judicial research groups, reported last month that the $1.1 million in donations French's campaign got "ranked second in the nation among the 19 states that elected justices to their highest courts [in 2014]."

That is, Ohio ranked No. 7 in population among the states but ranked No. 2 in how much money was, in effect, bet on the election of a single judge of a state's highest court.

French, a native of Mahoning County's Sebring, now of the Columbus area, fended off her Democratic challenger, Cuyahoga Common Pleas Judge John P. O'Donnell, of Lakewood. She drew 56 percent of the vote to O'Donnell's 44 percent. French had backing from business interests and their lawyers. O'Donnell had backing from unions and lawyers who represent injured Ohioans. O'Donnell's seeking election next year to a Supreme Court seat now held by Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger, a Toledo Republican who's retiring.

More data on the French-O'Donnell contest are in the study The Dispatch cited, "Bankrolling the Bench: The New Politics of Judicial Elections, 2013-2014." Its authors are associated with the group Justice at Stake; the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law; and the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

Continue Reading>>

Alan Miller commentary: Body camera recordings must remain open records

By Alan Miller, editor, The Columbus Dispatch Columbus Mayor Michael B. Coleman wisely has appointed a committee to review body cameras for police officers.

The purchase of the devices for 1,900 city officers seems inevitable; the question is when it will happen. City Council President Andrew J. Ginther, as a candidate for mayor, has proposed that they be purchased as soon as next year. Opponent Zach Scott, the Franklin County sheriff, has questioned their cost and how they’d be used.

Police Chief Kim Jacobs says the estimated $10 million to $15 million needed to buy the cameras and store the images isn’t in her budget.

The mayor’s task force looking at various aspects of the devices met for the first time on Oct. 23. And the group of city employees and community leaders will meet again on Thursday.

Columbus Public Safety Director George Speaks told the task force that that it would delve first into privacy issues raised by the cameras.

These questions of privacy fall under the larger umbrella of the public records law, and we ask that the committee examine this law closely and that this city and all others that seek to use such cameras follow the law.

Further, we ask state officials to set clear standards for the use and retention of such video and public access to it.

We ask this not in the name of “selling papers” or anything other than transparency in policing and good government. We routinely make such requests and push for open access to government records because it is in society’s best interest.

Ohio’s public-access laws are an antiseptic against ill-willed behavior and inappropriate action by government officials.

In short, the reason to have cameras on cops is accountability — so that the public can see what’s happening in our cities. We already have seen many cases in which such video shows police officers doing their jobs properly. The recordings provide clear evidence for their need to take quick action at a crime scene.

We also have seen instances, such as with the shooting of a motorist by a University of Cincinnati officer, in which an officer makes a bad decision and should be disciplined or even prosecuted.

The Ohio Newspaper Association has drafted provisions that should be included in state legislation to provide uniform standards to assure consistency in the retention and release of video.

Until uniform state rules are enacted, we ask all jurisdictions to uniformly treat body camera recordings as the public records that they are. Among the points we in the media make to lawmakers:

• Body camera footage is a record like any other, so it must be subject to the open-records laws. Existing exceptions to those laws, by statute or court decision, cover most areas of concern about privacy. If someone believes new exemptions are needed to deal with any unique issues of privacy raised by body cameras, they should be crafted clearly and narrowly. Special exceptions should not be left to the sole discretion of a police chief.

• When there are exceptions, police agencies must follow existing legal standards that say if a record can be made public by redacting the exempted information, redacting (editing or blurring) that specific information must be the outcome — not denial of access to the entire recording.

• Permanent logs of archived recordings must be kept, and we urge uniform labeling, including keyword standards of basic information, to make it easy for government employees and the public to easily find the recordings when needed. When recordings have been redacted or deleted, that also must be noted. These logs always should be open to the public.

We respect and appreciate the thoughtful approach the city of Columbus is taking. And we respectfully ask that all involved focus on the reason for this exercise — accountability — and that it will happen only when the public has access to these public records.

Ask for check registers and other public records tips you probably haven’t thought of

From Poynter I was at a journalism conference in Nashville last year when I heard about a public record I had never thought to request.

Tawnell Hobbs, a reporter at The Dallas Morning News, was giving a presentation on school finance reporting when she mentioned an investigative story she had done using check registers.

“I get them every month. That’s somebody sitting there with a checkbook writing checks,” she said. “On its face it’s not that sexy, but it can be.”

Hobbs found that the Dallas Independent School District “spent at least $57 million over four years — or one year’s average base pay for 1,086 teachers — on purchases such as pricey meals, costly trips, lucrative consulting contracts and overnight stays at hotels in the Dallas area and beyond.”

She also found that the school system spent more than $300,000 at Atlanta Bread Co., about $86,000 at Chick-fil-A and at least $1.7 million on promotional items, such as mugs, wristbands, T-shirts and hats.

As Hobbs spoke, I thought, “Why didn’t I think of that?” I’ve requested credit card records from public agencies I’ve covered, but I never thought about checks.

I reached out to Hobbs recently and asked her to tell me more about her story and what advice she has for reporters:

Continue Reading>>

Expand the FOIA to include Congress

From The NY Times

“DEAR Ms. Coe,” an archivist at Marquette University, Senator Joseph McCarthy’s alma mater, wrote in an email, “I regret to inform you that all post-1946 correspondence is sealed for the lifetime of McCarthy’s daughter.” The archivist pasted a link to the collection’s finding aid before concluding, “She has not responded to any inquiries on this matter.”

I was trying to gain access to the senator’s papers for a book project. I’ve worked in lots of government archives, and while the bureaucracy can be a hassle, I usually find what I need. Not this time: Short of suing Senator McCarthy’s daughter or Marquette, I have no real means of recourse.

That’s because the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to the legislative branch. When Congress enacted the F.O.I.A. in 1966, it was after the executive branch’s records, and tailored the law to fit its needs. (Not that the executive branch has done a great job: According to the Center for Effective Government’s 2014 F.O.I.A. Access to Information Scorecard, only eight out of 15 government agencies earned “passing grades.”)

Why are there different rules for the executive and legislative branches of government? The obvious answer is a disheartening one: Congress makes the rules, and its members have chosen to exempt themselves.

Continue Reading>>

Bill seeks to open more info on officer shootings

From The Columbus Dispatch The president of the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus and a conservative southwest Ohio Republican have teamed up to push for more transparency involving officer-involved shootings.

“Perceptions of injustice following an officer-involved shooting death – whether substantiated or not – can further erode a community’s trust in the criminal justice system,” said Rep. Alicia Reece, a Cincinnati Democrat.

Reece and Rep. Jonathan Dever, R-Madeira, this week introduced House Bill 380, which would require law enforcement agencies to craft written policies regarding the investigation of firearms-related deaths involving officers.

The bill also would require an unbiased panel to investigate the shooting and report its findings to the local prosecutor’s office. Should the prosecutor decline to press charges, the report would be released to the public within 72 hours.

Reece said the bill is based on legislation recently passed in Wisconsin, and from recommendations of the Ohio Task Force on Community Relations.

“By requiring full disclosure and transparency, we can ensure honesty in the investigative process,” she said. “This bill is a positive step in the right direction that will allow the public to get the answers and information they deserve.”

Sentinel editorial: Ohio court not supreme about open record rulings

Editorial from The Morrow County Sentinel You’d like to believe Ohio’s Supreme Court would be on the side of open governments and the little guy. Unfortunately, it looks like it might be favoring government officials over your right to know.

The Ohio Coalition for Open Government built a spreadsheet of Supreme Court rulings between July 2010 and July 2015, to test the notion that the Supreme Court usually favors government officials when they fight with members of the public about transparency.

Sadly, that point of view seems to be proven true.

The review found 46 cases but excluded routine prisoner cases and the eight cases in which the opinions were mixed too much to fairly be scored as pro-government or pro-citizen’s right to know. That left 32 cases.

Of those cases, only 12, or 37.5 percent, were in favor of opening records up to the public. The other 20 favored restricting or denying access. In a statement, the Supreme Court said it was just interpreting laws.

“The role of the Supreme Court of Ohio in open government cases is to interpret and apply the public records access laws passed by the General Assembly,” according to a press release. “The Supreme Court is not free to use cases to legislate its own views on open government.”

Justice Terrence O’Donnell voted 77 percent of the time against releasing records. Justice Judith French was the most friendly toward citizens’ cases — and we intentionally use this term ironically — as she voted against releasing records 60 percent of the time.

As a watchdog on the public’s behalf, open records and open meetings are near and dear to our hearts at The Lima News. Every citizen should be concerned, though, when their government hides records and meetings that are specifically mentioned in Ohio’s laws.

It’s not simply so we can meddle. It’s so we, as taxpayers, can see that our public officials are doing things the right way.

“We agree that people should keep in mind that there are a lot of factors that go into decisions, starting with the facts of the case, the existing law and evidence as presented,” Dennis Hetzel, president of the OCOG and executive director of the Ohio Newspaper Association, said in a press release. “Sometimes it means a poorly written statute needs fixing, which was starkly demonstrated by their recent ruling involving Ohio charter schools. A number of decisions in recent years have made it particularly difficult to gain access to government records in Ohio.”

We can’t tear into all public officials, of course. Many follow the laws about public meetings and public records to the letter of the law, willingly cooperating. This study only looks at the ones that kept getting pushed to the Supreme Court.

That also makes you wonder how small this number is compared to the real problem of uncooperative government officials. Lawsuits like these are costly to fight. Publications and members of the public must think twice before sinking tens of thousands of dollars into defending what’s right.

Further, the Ohio Attorney General’s office instituted a free mediation process between governments and people seeking public information, in hopes of limiting the number of cases that must make their way to the Supreme Court.

The good news is the court seems to be swaying back in favor of John Q. Public. Five of the most recent decisions tabulated are in favor of citizens’ right to see documents.

We can only hope this means more openness from our government in the future, with the Ohio Supreme Court’s backing it up.

Akron Beacon Journal reports on document destruction controversy

From The Akron Beacon Journal Stow Clerk of Courts Kevin Coughlin ordered the email of two former employees to be destroyed June 15, the same week the city of Stow’s Law Department was working to fill a public records request about the attendance record of one of the employees in question.

On Oct. 2, Coughlin instructed the courthouse’s computer server company not to cooperate with any public records requests made by the city or its law department.

And this week, the city complied with a public records request in which Coughlin sought everything from emails to expense reports involving Stow Mayor Sara Drew and Law Director Amber Zibritosky.

What started out as a war of public records involving the three candidates for the clerk’s seat — Coughlin, an independent, and his challengers, Democrat Diana Colavecchio and Republican Don Robart — has now fully involved the courthouse’s host city.

Asked what he was looking for on the mayor and law director, Coughlin replied: “I’m just a curious guy. Always learning.”

Drew said she could shed no light on what Coughlin hoped to find, and that if the clerk is seeking some kind of retaliation because the city filled public records requests, “it would be unfortunate.”

“The law director and I have been very clear that our job and our role is to ensure that the city of Stow’s interests are protected and that everyone is fully complying with Ohio public records law to the best of their ability,” she said.

The Beacon Journal requested a copy of the records that were delivered to Coughlin, as well as any communications the city has had with Dynamic Data Inc. (DDI), the company that maintains the courthouse server.

Those email communications detail the process of filling recent records requests.

Continue Reading>>

Judge excludes evidence in trial of Richland County Health Commissioner, OKs gag order

From The Mansfield News Journal Richland County Health Commissioner Martin Tremmel is doing what he can to keep his private life private.

Leading up to his trial related to alleged domestic violence against his wife, Tremmel's attorney filed a gag order prohibiting any contact with the media. Visiting judge John S. Ridge granted the motion Friday.

The state and the defense are "restrained from speaking with the media regarding this case until further order of this court," Ridge wrote in his judgment entry.

He also granted Tremmel's motion to exclude evidence from his trial Thursday. The jury trial starts at 8 a.m. in Erie Municipal Court.

Specifically, Ridge's judgment will remove from evidence the arresting officer's bodycam, which recorded actions and statements made after authorities responded to the Tremmels' Kelley Island home July 11. Joyce Tremmel had called 911 alleging Tremmel struck her numerous times and placed his foot on her throat.

Continue Reading>>

Ohio Supreme Court often rules against public records

From The Telegraph-Forum More often than not, the Ohio Supreme Court rules against people requesting public records from government officials.

The Ohio Coalition for Open Government recently found the court ruled against records requests and open meetings 20 times — 62.5 percent of the 32 cases reviewed between July 2010 and July 2015. Researchers did exclude some cases over the four years: ones from prisoners or others with no clear winner.

"The court most often ruled against the citizen or the journalist in favor of the government," said Dennis Hetzel, president of the open-government coalition. The nonprofit organization is associated with the Ohio Newspaper Association.

Among the current judges, Justice Terrence O’Donnell was most likely to deny access to records. He did so 77 percent of the time. Justice Judith French was the justice most likely to vote in favor of parties seeking access, voting against access 60 percent of the time, according to the research. Both are Republicans.

But Ohio Supreme Court officials said they are limited by the laws that legislators pass. If lawmakers say medical records aren't public, the court must agree. Also, the cases that reach the Ohio Supreme Court are often the most complicated or unclear.

"(T)o the extent that the analysis is meant to portray the Court as opposing open government, it is not fair," according to a statement from the Ohio Supreme Court.

Among the cases reviewed were several from the Cincinnati area. In 2013, the court withheld records from a man seeking rents charged at Findlay Market, saying they were trade secrets and did not need to be disclosed. The court also rejected the (Cincinnati) Enquirer's request for the names of two Cincinnati police officers injured in a 2010 motorcycle gang shootout. A person seeking the addresses of retirees in the city's retirement system was also rejected.

In 2009, the Enquirer sued Cincinnati Public Schools, seeking copies of superintendent applications locked in a post office box. School officials later retrieved the applications and provided redacted copies to the Enquirer. However, the Ohio Supreme Court found that the Enquirer wasn't entitled to attorneys fees for the trouble.

But the Ohio Supreme Court did award attorney fees and $1,000 to the Enquirer in 2015. That was after Butler County Prosecutor Michael Gmoser withheld 911 recordings in a 2012 murder. The court also ruled in favor of the Enquirer in 2014, unsealing records related to a Miami University student who posted an offensive flier about rape.

In Richland County, the state supreme court ruled against a person seeking records from municipal and common pleas court clerks, saying the clerks didn't have to produce records they didn't have.

Hetzel said the four-year review is a starting point to evaluate how judges fare on public records questions and how some laws favor government officials over citizens seeking records.

"A lot of the issues involve statutes that could use some improvement," Hetzel said.

Courier seeks "audit" over Findlay's tax practice

From The Courier The Courier on Tuesday filed a complaint with the state Auditor’s Office seeking a “sunshine audit” of the Findlay tax administrator’s practice of granting deferrals and installments of owed and overpaid city income taxes.

The state Auditor’s “Sunshine Audit” program “is to afford individuals who believe they are aggrieved as a result of a public entity’s refusal to release records recourse to seek release without the necessity of protracted and potential expensive litigation.”

The newspaper, citing “the public interest” in a Freedom of Information Act filing on June 8, requested the names of businesses and individuals paying taxes under a deferral or installment plan.

The newspaper has not sought the amounts involved.

The city denied the request, citing the privacy of income tax returns under state law and city ordinance.

The city has said about 40 taxpayers are involved and, generally, were contacted for the deferral or installment plans by city Tax Administrator Andrew Thomas.

The city has said that Thomas has no application, criteria, or other records of the program. The city objected to using the word “program” to describe the practice.

The newspaper and city officials as recently as last week tried and failed to resolve their differences in the matter, according to Courier Editor Peter Mattiace.

Dispatch editorial: Lawmakers and courts are making it harder to monitor government

Editorial from The Columbus Dispatch

When Ohioans find their access to government thwarted and sue to assert their open-government rights, the odds are stacked against them in the Ohio Supreme Court.

So finds a recent analysis by the Ohio Coalition for Open Government in a report that examines 32 such cases between 2010 and this year. Of those cases, only 12 rulings favored open government. The remaining 20 decisions went the other way.

Asked about the disparity, the court’s official response was that it is not the court’s job to make law, but simply to apply the laws the legislature has written. If the legislature has made government less open, and the laws that restrict access are constitutional, the court has no authority to overrule them.

The court makes an important point. The three-branch system of government relies on each branch sticking to its role and not encroaching on the roles of the other two. Laws are to be written by the legislature, not by judges.

However, not every decision examined by the coalition was unanimous. Sometimes the decisions are 4-3 or 5-2, indicating that even among the justices, there is some disagreement about how to apply a given law.

And in at least one case, the Ohio Supreme Court appears to have legislated from the bench, when it created a limited executive privilege for the governor in 2006, allowing the state’s chief executive to bar public access to certain communications with advisers. There is no provision for executive privilege in the Ohio Constitution, yet the court found it by citing federal case law involving the U.S. president and in examples from other states.

But the court does point to the biggest threat to public access to government: the legislature. Over the years, lawmakers have chipped away at public access. Lawmakers have made the employment records of certain classes of public employees, such as police, off-limits on the grounds that they face threats, though little evidence is offered to back the claims.

In other instances, the legislature closed the records of concealed-carry permit holders and shielded the operations of JobsOhio, the state’s economic-development arm.

When transparency and accountability are reduced, it creates ideal conditions for corruption and malfeasance to take root.

Meanwhile, government bureaucrats at all levels think that it is OK to stall, delay, ignore, obfuscate and withhold, all to thwart citizens and journalists seeking to find out what the government has been up to.

For example, the Ohio Department of Education recently delayed a request from The Dispatch for a copy of the grant application the department submitted to win a $71 million federal grant for charter schools. The department claimed that the application had to be vetted by its attorneys first, which was nonsensical. The grant application is unquestionably a public document and its release should be automatic.

Likewise, the department refused to provide any information about the number of Ohio schools that have failed to submit emergency plans required by the state. This is vital information for parents, but the department refused to budge.

The ultimate losers in such situations are the residents and taxpayers of Ohio, whose ability to monitor and hold their state and local governments accountable is reduced, but who pay to clean up the mess when government goes awry.