Judge in Ford case holds court in office, bans public despite objections

From The Akron Beacon Journal While her husband lay lifeless in their bed, Margaret Schobert was lured to her New Franklin home where Shawn Eric Ford Jr. was waiting with a sledgehammer. Like her husband, Jeffrey, Mrs. Schobert was bludgeoned to death by Ford, the Akron man who had been dating their teenage daughter.

For Margaret Schobert’s death, an outwardly emotional Summit County jury decided Ford should be executed. Common Pleas Judge Tom Parker has the final say on Ford’s sentencing. No hearing date was set (Oct. 31) when the jury released its verdict after about six hours of deliberation over two days.

... Parker and the trial attorneys met early Friday in private — despite objections by the Beacon Journal — apparently to discuss the psychiatric report. Parker gave no reason for the closed-door hearing when he ushered Ford, prosecutors, defense attorneys, deputies and a stenographer from the courtroom and into his chambers.

At the time, a Beacon Journal reporter was the only member of the public seated in the gallery.

When the reporter told the judge that the newspaper was objecting to the closed-door hearing, Parker said “OK,” and the door closed.

About 15 minutes later, Parker and the others returned to the courtroom and again went on the record. During the brief session, Parker ruled that a presentencing report and the psychiatrist’s report on Ford’s mental health would not be shown to jurors.

The Beacon Journal has requested a transcript of the closed-door hearing, which is the second decision by Parker that the newspaper has questioned this week.

On Wednesday, courthouse workers — based on orders from Parker — placed a black plastic trash bag over a Beacon Journal vending box stationed outside the courthouse. Newspapers in the courthouse cafeteria were also removed.

Parker made the demand when the newspaper published an interview with Lloyd, the juror who was removed during deliberations.

After the newspaper complained, Parker had the bag lifted and a placard was put in the vending box window. The placard was later removed. The juror’s story was not visible in the window box.

Past reversal guides Ohio court’s latest denial of fines against village that destroyed old records

From Court News Ohio The Fifth District Court of Appeals has upheld a decision to deny a man trying to use the public records law for financial benefit. In a twist of fate, the court relied on a 2011 Supreme Court of Ohio decision overturning one of its own rulings in a similar case.

The Fifth District last week affirmed a ruling of the Tuscarawas Common Pleas Court granting summary judgment to the Village of Dennison, which claimed the motive for James Verhovec’s public records request was to ultimately gain up to $10,000 in fines that could be imposed on the village.

In September 2010, James Vehovec filed a written public records request asking for 20 years of all council meeting minutes, handwritten draft minutes, and audio/video recordings of council proceedings dating back to January 1990. The village provided all typewritten minutes, the handwritten notes in existence, and indicated all audiovisual recordings were non-existent. Vehovec then filed suit seeking damages, court costs, and attorneys fees for failing to provide the old handwritten records.

In October 2013, the common pleas court found for the village indicating the Verhovec was not “aggrieved” by the inability to provide the handwritten draft minutes and was not entitled to damages.

Writing for the Fifth District, Judge Sheila G. Farmer noted the verdict centers on the interpretation of R.C. 149.351 that allows the collection of a civil forfeiture against a government body of $1,000 per violation up to a maximum of $10,000 if a person is “aggrieved by the removal, destruction, mutilation, or transfer” of a public record without following a state prescribed process.

Judge Farmer cited the Supreme Court’s Rhodes v. New Philadelphia ruling that determined who can sue for damages when records are destroyed. In that case, Timothy Rhodes of Chillicothe filed numerous public records requests against several cities seeking 20 years of antiquated reel-to-reel “Dicataphone-Dictatape Logger” police dispatch recordings. Rhodes found New Philadelphia did not follow the process for erasing the old tapes and Rhodes sought damages for the destruction. In that case, the Tuscarawas Common Pleas Court ruled against Rhodes, but the Fifth District overturned the decision determining that Rhodes fit the description because “an aggrieved party is any member of the public who makes a lawful public records request and is denied those records.”

Using the Rhodes decision, the Fifth District ruled the damage award is only available to a person who had a public records request with the goal of accessing the public records, and that if the goal was to seek forfeiture, the requestor is not aggrieved.

In this case, the court labeled James Verhovec “a shill” for his uncle Ed Verhovec, who himself had filed similar public records requests in other jurisdictions. The court determined James Verhovec did not write the records request, but only signed his name to it, that he was not a resident of Dennison, and had no economic connection to Dennison.

“The trial court saw the ‘forest for the trees’ and grasped that (Verhovec’s) records request was not a legitimate request, but merely part of a scheme to find destroyed public records that could result in pecuniary gain,” Judge Farmer wrote.

The court also drew the connection between the Verhovecs and Rhodes. Both Ed Verhovec and Timothy Rhodes signed contracts with Cleveland Attorney Paul Cushion to file the records requests and Cushion would pay them between $1,000 and $4,000 for making the requests.

Judges William B. Hoffman and Patricia A. Delaney concurred in the decision.

Bill would hide name of Ohio’s execution drugmaker

From The Columbus Dispatch High-stakes legislation aimed at preventing public disclosure of the source of drugs used in Ohio executions ran into opposition minutes after it was formally unveiled yesterday.

House Bill 663 would protect the identity of individuals and entities that manufacture, compound or supply drugs used for lethal injections. It also would provide anonymity for any physician who participates in the process, as well as members of the prison execution team.

Introduced on Monday by Republican Reps. Jim Buchy of Greenville and Matt Huffman of Lima, the bill was promptly assigned to a House committee and had its first hearing yesterday.

The sponsors said executions in Ohio will be unable to proceed next year unless the General Assembly passes the bill before the end of the current session, on Dec. 31.

“Ohio and most other states have exhausted their options” in obtaining execution drugs from manufacturers, most of them in Europe, Buchy told the House Policy and Legislative Oversight Committee.

He said the bill would require that information about drugs used in executions be “confidential, privileged and not subject to subpoena, discovery and public-records law.”

That would provide anonymity for small “compounding pharmacies” that make drug combinations specifically for customer requests. Some of the pharmacies are in Franklin County.

Rep. Mike Curtin, D-Marble Cliff, a member of the committee, questioned the consequences of making secret the state’s power of “life and death,” a process he said has been public since Ohio conducted executions by hanging.

“Why should we be rushing in lame-duck session to pull the shroud of secrecy over this issue?” Curtin said.

Continue Reading>>

Public records would turn secret under executions bill

By Randy Ludlow, The Columbus Dispatch Public policy in Ohio historically has insisted that transparency surround the state’s ultimate exercise of its authority.

Reporters are asked to stand witness in Lucasville as the condemned are executed with a flow of lethal chemicals introduced into their bloodstreams.

Defense lawyers, and the courts, are permitted to inquire about the means of death and how it is acquired and administered. The public has access to records concerning the execution process.

Under House Bill 663 introduced yesterday, a blanket of secrecy would be tossed over how Ohio kills its killers.

Prison officials and Attorney General Mike DeWine insist passage of the bill is necessary to revive capital punishment in Ohio amid a court-ordered lull after a botched execution.

The bill states that in order to protect people and companies “from harassment and potential physical harm, it is necessary to keep their identities anonymous and absolutely confidential.”

The bill would proclaim that the identities of execution team members and physicians and compounding pharmacies that prepare the lethal doses of drugs are exempt from release under public records laws. No compounding pharmacies will sell the drugs if they can be identified, state officials say.

The legislation further states that not even defense lawyers and judges could obtain the information – not even with a subpoena.

Pushback against the bill likely will include the Ohio Newspaper Association, said Dennis Hetzel, executive director of the group.

“This bill represents a sweeping expansion of the secrecy surrounding state-sanctioned executions. Do we honestly believe the government can do no wrong and never should be scrutinized in the act of executing people? Recent history in Ohio bluntly teaches us otherwise.  Even the court system is blocked from access to information in this language, not just journalists, citizens, families and others,” he said.

“If this is truly a problem, let’s document the need with real evidence and attack it thoughtfully with more respect for the importance of transparency. Executions involve the government’s role in taking away the most fundamental right of all -- the right to life. Maximum transparency in that process should be treated like a goal, not a hassle to be legislated away,” Hetzel said.

Weeks after releasing plans for Mayfield Road, Mayfield Heights fumbles to explain why meetings were held privately

From The Plain Dealer For five months, Mayfield Heights has been privately planning a new 15-acre shopping complex on Mayfield Road, shocking and upsetting business owners and residents who found out about the plans through the media. Now, some good government experts say the secret sessions could violate the Sunshine Laws, and the city is struggling to explain why they were kept under wraps.

Architecture firm URS Corp. and developer the Coral Co. met with Mayor Anthony DiCicco, Council President Gayle Teresi, council members Joe Mercurio, Don Manno, Bob DeJohn and Susan Sabetta; and several other city officials and residents including the service, building, finance and recreation directors to plan the redevelopment.

The majority of council members attended three of the four meetings, and at least two of them were "seated in the audience," the minutes note. The only members who did not attend were Paul Sciria and Nino Monaco.

DeJohn said he did not know the meetings were private.

"That was the mayor's call," he said.

Law Director Paul Murphy explained: "I'm their lawyer and it wasn't a public meeting, because it was not a meeting of council."

Dennis Hetzel, executive director of the Ohio Newspaper Association, called the lack of public information "very problematic."

Even if council members were not there, Hetzel said, the strategic planning committee itself could be subject to open meetings laws, because the law defines a public body as "any board, commission, committee, council or similar decision-making body of a state agency, institution or authority."

"If they are keeping minutes, that is circumstantial evidence they agreed it's a public body. It's not at Bob Evans shooting the breeze," he said. "You have all the council members being invited to this meeting, so that makes it even clearer."

Continue Reading>>

Clinton County Port Authority turns down projects after questionable executive session

From The Wilmington News Journal The Clinton County Port Authority turned down $34 million worth of projects in March without voting or meeting the prospective investor. And everyone involved has a different explanation why

The incident raises questions about apparent decision making in private, executive sessions rather than public meetings

Kevin Carver, the executive director of the port, said the port turned down the proposal because developer Mark Herres wanted the land for free and the board members doubted his ability to make good on his promises.

Continue Reading>>

Attorneys scoff at state health department’s claim of non-existent records

From The Columbus Dispatch For more than two years, Ohio Department of Health officials told judges and justices that it was nearly impossible — even under subpoena — for the agency to turn over past test results from Intoxilyzer 8000 alcohol breath-test machines.

Faced with an Ohio Supreme Court decision that could have made the $8,000 machines useless in testing drunken-driving suspects, the agency now says it expects to be able to turn over test results to defense attorneys by Dec. 1.

Over the years, some judges across Ohio have refused to admit test results from the Intoxilyzer 8000, ruling that it has not been proved scientifically reliable.

The Supreme Court ruled on Oct. 1 that DUI defendants are allowed to challenge the accuracy of their tests by obtaining data from previous results generated by the alcohol-test machine into which they blew.

Health officials had said it was a difficult technical and financial challenge to turn over years’ worth of computerized data about previous drivers’ test results and calibration tests from the oft-questioned testers.

Now, records provided in response to a request by The Dispatchshow that attorneys who since have issued subpoenas for test results are being told that “software is being created to access the requested records.”

DUI defense attorneys had contested the notion that the state could not produce data from hundreds of the Intoxilyzer 8000s that the health department bought for $7 million in 2009 and distributed to law-enforcement agencies across Ohio.

Defense lawyers said that state officials balked at turning over the data because it could prove that the machines deliver inaccurate results and cannot be legally relied on to convict suspects of drunken driving.

Continue Reading>>

Benjamin J. Marrison commentary: Government secrecy keeps public in the dark

From The Columbus Dispatch Are you a fan of government secrecy?

What if the secrecy involves the taking of a life? What about someone threatening to explode a bomb at your local high school?

These issues are bubbling in central Ohio.

After the state botched its last execution, lawmakers are rushing to pass legislation that would limit information available to the public about executions. If you recall, convicted killer Dennis McGuire gasped and choked for about 20 minutes before succumbing during his Jan. 17 execution.

I’ve heard from folks who have no sympathy for McGuire because he showed none for his victim, a pregnant woman he raped and murdered in 1989.

State officials have said the problems with McGuire’s execution stem from difficulties obtaining the necessary drugs. Some companies that don’t want to be associated with executions have refused to make their drugs available for that purpose. They don’t want to be harassed by protesters.

Continue Reading>>

Mayfield Heights City Council met secretly to plan Mayfield Road redevelopment, refuses to release documents

From The Plain Dealer Mayfield Heights City Council met secretly for months to discuss redeveloping Mayfield Road. Days before council was set to vote on Phase 2 of the plan, the city refused to release documents detailing its strategy.

According to councilman Donald Manno, the engineering firm URS Corp. and developer Coral Co. led four sessions with a host of public officials, including Mayor Anthony DiCicco, the city's human resources director, finance director, service director, parks and recreation director, Council President Gayle Teresi and council members Joe Mercurio, Susan Sabetta, Bob DeJohn and Nino Monaco.

Ohio open meetings laws require any board, commission, council or other public decision-making body to notify the public and open the meeting whenever there is a prearranged gathering of the majority of its members to discuss public business.  Officials also must take attendance and record minutes.

The meetings were closed, and the city never distributed public notices.

Manno said he didn't know why the sessions were private. Law Director Paul Murphy said they didn't have to be open, because they were not meetings of council.

"It was just an informal meeting with the mayor. It wasn't a public meeting," Murphy said. "If they happen to come to a meeting, and there happen to be four of them here, it is not a public meeting of council."

But Catherine Turcer, policy analyst for Common Cause Ohio, said any time the majority of the members of a public body meet and deliberate, they must abide by Sunshine Laws.

Continue Reading>>

Media groups make last push for FOI improvement law

From ASNE

ASNE is one of the 50 organizations that signed a letter to President Obama that asks for greater freedom of information and open government.

As ASNE and others hope for one last push at passing the FOIA Improvement Act of 2014 (S 2520), we also have joined a letter sent to President Barack Obama that identifies six key components integral to upholding the commitment he made on his first full day in office to be the most transparent administration in history. The letter, signed by 50 organizations dedicated to open government, asks for:

• Codification of the "presumption of openness" underlying FOIA
• Codification of the "foreseeable harm" standard contained in a 2009 Attorney General's memorandum, which says that information should be given out even when it could be withheld pursuant to a FOIA exemption, unless foreseeable harm would result from its disclosure
• Creation of a public interest balancing test to allow greater disclosure of documents currently being withheld under Exemption 5
• Creation of a sunset to allow for presumptive release of documents currently being withheld under Exemption 5
• Strengthening the penalties for failure to meet the statutorily mandated 20-day deadline for responding to a FOIA request
• Strengthening the Office of Government Information Services

Those who have been paying close attention to our prior updates on S 2520 will note that these are all addressed in that legislation. We hope that the White House will show a strong commitment to these issues, spurring the Senate (and, soon after, the House of Representatives) to pass this bill.

Court: State has no jurisdiction over tweets

From The Cincinnati Enquirer The Ohio Elections Commission can't crack down on Tweets -- even if those 140-character messages include false political information, a Cincinnati federal judge ruled on Monday.

The decision by Judge Michael Barrett, who sits on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, bars the Ohio Elections Commission from enforcing the state's false claims statute. That law bans political lies in campaigns, and it's been the subject of multiple legal battles in recent years.

At the center of this fight: a series of 140-character messages posted on Twitter in 2011 by a Cincinnati anti-tax group, COAST, which urged support for a charter amendment that would have blocked the streetcar project. COAST said the streetcar was diverting money from the city's fire department, causing services to be reduced.

One COAST tweet, for example, said: "12.5% of the fire dept. browned out again today to pay for streetcar boondoggle that 62% think is a waste. @CFDHistory YES ON 48 No streetcar."

A pro-streetcar group, Cincinnatians for Progress, filed a complaint against COAST in November 2011, arguing that 20 tweets posted by the group violated Ohio's law banning false statements in political campaigns. The Ohio Elections Commission dismissed the complaint, finding no probable cause that COAST had violated the ban.

But COAST used the case to go to federal district court and challenge the Ohio law—saying it infringed on the group's free-speech rights.

On Friday, COAST won an initial victory with Barrett's decision, a temporary injunction barring enforcement of the ban on political lies.

Christopher Finney, a founder of COAST, said the decision is important because it shows how the "meddling" the law is, allowing the Ohio Elections Committee to "bother themselves with speech as irrelevant as a Tweet. That's how involved in our lives they were."

This decision says "stay out of our political speech entirely," Finney added.

It's the second setback for the false-claims law.

In September, another federal judge struck down the Ohio law after an anti-abortion group, the Susan B. Anthony List, challenged its constitutionality. That case related to billboards the SBA List wanted to put up criticizing then-Rep. Steven Driehaus in his 2010 re-election. In that case, Judge Timothy Black said voters—not the government—should decide whether a campaign is telling the truth.

The Ohio Attorney General's office has appealed that decision.

Westlake police found records for GOP but not Dispatch

From The Columbus Dispatch People with Ed FitzGerald’s personal information accessed a state website to check on his driver’s license months before his well-documented woes surfaced in public. And at least one of his county employees learned in early 2012 that the boss did not have a license.

But it’s impossible to identify who used an Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles Web page, set up so that Ohioans can check on their own licenses, to look into the Democratic gubernatorial candidate twice last year and five times this year.

“I’m concerned about who accessed it. How much of my personal information did they have?” FitzGerald said. “These are important privacy questions that have ramifications for anybody, whether they are a candidate or not.”

FitzGerald’s campaign said six of the seven checks were unauthorized, including both in 2013. His campaign only once shared his date of birth, driver’s license number and the last four digits of his Social Security number with a former campaign aide to run a check on Aug. 4 or 5 of this year after his driver’s license problems became public.

All of that information is needed to access an individual’s “unofficial” information on the BMV Web page, which shows only whether a license is valid and lists traffic convictions from the previous two years.

Continue Reading>>

Dispatch editorial: Ohio Supreme Court can ensure that government operates openly

Columbus Dispatch editorial Open-meetings laws are effective only if they actually compel public entities to conduct public business in public. That clearly is the intent, and the Olentangy school board appears to have violated the intent of the law by discussing what should have been public matters through private emails.

The Ohio Supreme Court is being asked to take up an appeal of a case filed by an Olentangy school board member, Adam White, against other members who corresponded with each other via email before taking an official action. White filed suit last year in Delaware County Common Pleas Court, which ruled that four other school board members did not violate open-meetings laws in exchanging the emails.

The Dispatch would welcome the Supreme Court taking the case and affirming the need for boards to adhere to what often are referred to as “sunshine” laws. Other groups supporting White’s appeal include the Ohio Coalition for Open Government, Common Cause Ohio and the League of Women Voters of Ohio, all which joined in a “friend of the court” brief backing White.

The suit came about after the board’s four other members — Dave King, Julie Wagner Feasel, Kevin O’Brien and Stacy Dunbar — exchanged emails and calls that White says constituted an illegal, private meeting. Anyone in business today knows that many “meetings” as they were known a decade or two ago now have been replaced by this type of technology-enabled communication, so to argue that an email or phone call can’t constitute a meeting is nonsense.

That argument also renders meaningless the laws that are supposed to ensure public oversight of government. If a board thinks there are no consequences for these type of secretive communications, they will become commonplace, especially where controversial topics are involved.

Clear direction from the Supreme Court also would be welcome to counter another lower-court ruling in a similar Ohio case several years ago.

In 2005, an Ohio judge ruled against a board member in the Northwest Local School District in Cincinnati who alleged his colleagues broke open-meetings laws via emails; the judge said the man failed to prove that such an email could be called a meeting.

White is seen by some in the school district as a gadfly. Since his election in 2011, he often has been at odds with his school board colleagues, and accused the schools superintendent of threatening him — something other board members deny.

But he was elected to serve the public, and on this score, White seems to be doing his job.

Some boards already have been shown to act as rubber stamps for the administrations they were supposed to be overseeing, as was the case with Columbus City Schools under former Superintendent Gene Harris. Some government boards are surprised or even hostile when members of the public appear at meetings. Many operate for years with nary a “no” vote or substantive debate in open meetings, a clear indication that discussions and decisions are being made out of sight of the public.

This isn’t the way it’s supposed to work; technology was supposed to enhance, not reduce, transparency and access to information for the public.

Olentangy school board member turns to Supreme Court in fight with other members

From The Columbus Dispatch The Ohio Supreme Court is being asked to overturn lower-court ruling holding that Olentangy school board members did not violate open-meetings laws while exchanging emails underlying an eventual decision.

Board member Adam White filed the appeal last week in the case he brought against his four fellow school board members in the Delaware County district alleging that they illegally “ deliberated” via email.

The Ohio Coalition for Open Government, Common Cause Ohio and the League of Women Voters of Ohio yesterday filed a “friend-of-the-court” brief supporting White’s appeal.

Allowing the prior decisions to stand “sets a dangerous precedent which allows all public agencies in the state to avoid the Sunshine Law simply by deliberating electronically, rather than in person,” White argued in his filing.

The case centers on the four school board members — White was excluded — writing each other to authorize a letter to the editor ofThe Dispatch in response to an editorial criticizing a new board policy White viewed as aimed at him.

After White’s investigation uncovered misspending by two high school athletic directors, the board passed a policy requiring its members to communicate with employees only through the superintendent or treasurer.

Continue Reading>>

Could Cleveland police keep body-camera footage secret? Ohio law is unclear

From The Plain Dealer Hundreds of Cleveland police could be equipped with body cameras as soon as next year, but whether the footage the cameras capture would would be available to the public is unclear.

Ohio's open records law doesn't address whether video from the cameras could be kept secret. And any records not specifically exempted under state open-records law are typically required to be open for inspection by the public.

But police could try to invoke an exemption in state law that allows them to withhold records related to a police investigation, according to Dan Tierney, a spokesman for Attorney General Mike DeWine.

If that happens, Tierney said, state courts or the legislature would need to resolve the issue.

Earlier this year, the 12th District Court of Appeals in southwest Ohio ruled that footage from police cruiser dashboard cameras are investigatory documents, and thus are not public records. Right now, that ruling only applies to the eight counties included in the 12th district.

On the other hand, Tierney noted, the Ohio Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that police incident reports don't fall under the exemption and must be released upon request.

Continue Reading>>

Ohio GOP urges court to make Ed FitzGerald give sworn testimony in public records suit

From The Plain Dealer Filings with the Ohio Supreme Court make clear that the Ohio Republican Party isn't willing to mediate its public records dispute with Cuyahoga County and that it wants sworn testimony from County Executive Ed FitzGerald.

In a filing Monday, lawyers for the Republican Party argued that FitzGerald, as the chief executive, is the person who best could answer questions about the county's refusal to release the documents due to security reasons. That refusal, they say, should be put to the test.

The filing was in response to a request by the county, on behalf of FitzGerald, that he not be made to give a deposition. FitzGerald was scheduled to give a deposition last week, but the Supreme Court delayed that while it decides the county's request.

Attorneys for the county said FitzGerald and Sheriff Frank Bova are not responsible for the records and therefore would offer no valuable information to offer in depositions.

County attorneys described efforts by the GOP to depose FitzGerald as an attempt "to create newspaper fodder in the middle of a gubernatorial campaign."

The Ohio GOP sued in the Supreme Court in July to force FitzGerald, the Democratic challenger to Republican Gov. John Kasich, to release data about his use of a county parking garage and key swipe data that would show his comings and goings.

County officials declined to release the records, which also were requested by Northeast Ohio Media Group, citing safety concerns. FitzGerald called the lawsuit a "political tactic," arguing that he, like the governor, faces legitimate security concerns. He said he had received death threats and that some of the cases involving the threats remain open.

Continue Reading>>

Lucas County commissioners claim meeting with mayor legal

From The Blade he three Democratic Lucas County commissioners skated on the edge of Ohio’s open-meetings law recently when they prearranged and attended a last-minute meeting with Toledo Mayor D. Michael Collins.

Commissioners Carol Contrada, Pete Gerken, and Tina Skeldon Wozniak, along with Lucas County Administrator Laura Lloyd-Jenkins, asked to see Mayor Collins after receiving a letter from him about his decision to order police to charge most criminals under state laws rather than city ordinances. The move could save the city $4 million to $9 million but leave the county short that money.

The four took the elevator from the county’s eighth-floor office in One Government Center to the mayor’s 22nd-floor suite.

Mrs. Contrada, president of the commissioners, said it was not a public meeting and not a violation of the law because the three did not deliberate.

The Ohio Attorney General’s resource manual on the sunshine laws states: “With narrow exceptions, the Open Meetings Act requires the members of a public body to discuss and deliberate on official business only in open meetings.”

The law also states: “In evaluating whether particular gatherings of public officials constituted ‘meetings,’ several courts have opined that the Open Meetings Act is intended to apply to situations where there has been actual formal action taken, such as deliberation upon official business.”

Mrs. Contrada, an attorney, acknowledged that there was a majority of the board present and that it was prearranged, but stressed that the commissioners neither spoke among themselves nor answered any questions from the mayor.

Continue Reading>>

Innocence group sues to gain inmate’s case file

From the Associated Press Columbus police are improperly shielding the complete files of a long-closed criminal case, according to a public records lawsuit that contends police around the state increasingly refuse to release such records until all chance of appeals are exhausted, usually because the defendant is dead.

At issue is an attempt by the Ohio Innocence Project to review the case of a man sentenced to 38 years in prison for killing a woman in 2005. The project doesn’t represent defendant Adam Saleh but wants to review the records, which Saleh alleges will bolster his claim that he didn’t do it.

The broader issue, according to the lawsuit, is that police departments are wrongly interpreting prior court rulings when it comes to the public’s right to get information about closed cases.

The agencies are using their interpretation “to rationalize blanket denials of public records requests by both criminal defendants and members of the general public,” according to the lawsuit by Cincinnati attorney Donald Caster.

A 2000 appeals court ruling said police aren’t obligated to release the files without proof that no further appeals are possible, “e.g., the defendant’s death.”

The suit says changes in Ohio Supreme Court evidence rules have addressed concerns raised by older court rulings regarding the release of case files. The lawsuit wants the court to order Columbus to make the records immediately available.

The court referred the case to mediation. The city attorney’s office declined comment.

Continue Reading>>

Federal judge recuses herself in Blade suit

From The Blade A mediation session scheduled in a federal lawsuit filed by The Blade over the detention of a reporter and photographer outside the Lima tank plant was canceled Tuesday after the judge recused herself.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Vernelis Armstrong, who was assigned to the case by Judge James Carr, removed herself because Fritz Byers, attorney for The Blade, represents her son in a personal matter, “which could give the appearance of impropriety,” she wrote in an order filed Tuesday. The matter was sent back to Judge Carr for further disposition.

Blade reporter Tyrel Linkhorn and photographer Jetta Fraser were detained outside the General Dynamics plant March 28 by military security personnel, who confiscated Ms. Fraser’s cameras and deleted photos. The lawsuit states that Ms. Fraser and Mr. Linkhorn were unlawfully detained, that Ms. Fraser was unlawfully restrained and received unlawful threats of bodily harm, that the cameras were unlawfully confiscated and pictures unlawfully destroyed, and that the pair’s constitutional rights were violated.

'Crippling penalties' urged for drillers hiding fracking chemical lists

From Columbus Business First Some big, diverse names are speaking out on proposed EPA rules that could require oil and gas drillers to disclose the chemicals they use in fracking.

Comments from the New York Attorney General and commissioners in Portage County, Ohio, plea for federal regulation, while oilfield services giant Halliburton Co. and the governor of Wyoming want the EPA to butt out. The commenting deadline was Sept. 18.

Drillers generally oppose such regulations. They say their mix of chemicals used to get gas and oil out of shale is a trade secret. Other groups are in favor, because when accidents happen it’s imperative to know what emergency responders are dealing with. Plus, nearby residents should know what’s being pumped beneath them.

Continue Reading>>