Thu Sep 09 2010
By TODD HELBERG
Complying with changes to Ohio's Public Records Law prompts a shrug from some local officials, who don't believe following new guidelines pose a problem.
The legislation (Substitute House Bill 9), which has passed both the House and Senate, and signed by Gov. Bob Taft would make a number of changes, according to state sources. These include:
-- Expanding the definition of a public record, to include a "record that documents the depletion, expenditure or depreciation of the resources of the public office, even if unauthorized by that office," and specifying "that 'public record' includes records kept by any governmental or quasi-governmental entity that receives any governmental housing subsidy."
-- Requiring elected local officials or their designees to attend public records training during each term and requiring "public offices" to "adopt a public records policy."
-- An alteration to public records requests by journalists concerning concealed carry permit holders. Journalists may still view lists of permit holders at a sheriff's office, unlike the general public, but they cannot make copies as presently allowed.
-- Allowing those who file successful public record request lawsuits to recoup attorney fees as well as "statutory damages" under certain court findings. These are set at $100 "for each business day during which the public office or person responsible for the requested public records failed to comply with an obligation," according to the bill as posted on the Ohio General Assembly's website (www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=126_HB_9).
The legislation is a result of a public records audit conducted statewide by media organizations. They reported that public records requests were being properly fulfilled about half the time.
Ohio 74th House District Representative Stephen Buehrer, R-Delta, who supported the legislation said the above provisions in the bill "are all good things to make sure we spell out for government officials their responsibilities and the rights of the public so people who want to come in and look at these records can do that."
Local officials contacted for this article don't seem inconvenienced by the changes, although the need is questioned.
"We've been through records retention and open records so many times in the last few years that anyone who doesn't know what records are available to the public and has been working in government has been walking around with their eyes closed," said Henry County Sheriff John Nye who considers a dozen public records requests per year a lot. "I don't know of many things in my office I would not have open to the public other than ongoing investigations."
As for the training requirement, he considers it an unfunded mandate.
"Any time they tell us we have to have specific training and say it's required, unfortunately, they never attach funding to it, which means it will be coming out of local taxpayers' pockets," said Nye.
Defiance County Prosecutor Jeff Strausbaugh said his office already provides training on public records.
"We train people in our office and we train people in other branches of county government through the opinions we issue and sometimes in other fashions also," he said. "We have to stay up-to-date on the law."
Strausbaugh doesn't believe the legislation will have much impact on Defiance County.
"To me it's not going to have an impact on the county anyway," he said. "We've had no real problems. A number of other counties have had a number of problems."
So, he says he understands passage of a "consistently applied law."
"My only concern with it is they are requiring the prosecutor's office to train when we already are required to train as part of our job," Strausbaugh concluded.
Another Defiance County official who doesn't seem too concerned about the impact of new requirements is Auditor Marlene Goodwin.
"We've gone to quite a few of these training sessions in the past, either through the auditor of state's office or the attorney general's office, so I don't anticipate it being a problem," she said.
Goodwin said her office has handled many public records requests in the past, but the auditor's staff usually asks for something in writing.
"We ask them to write down what they are asking for," she explained. "If we don't interpret correctly what they are asking for we ask them to rewrite (their request).."
She said there have been no problems in the past with records requests through her office although some have been denied. For example, personal property tax returns are not public records, Goodwin noted.
Asked if she considered the training requirement an unfunded mandate, Goodwin said "no, because we are the keeper of records and people pay for that."
Many local jurisdictions don't have a stated records policy as required by HB9, although Defiance County has a five-member records commission which oversees the storage of county public records.
In the past those seeking large volumes of county records have been asked to write down their requests, noted Defiance County Commissioner Tom Kime. But he says if the new law requires a set policy, "that's what we'll do. We're waiting for the County Commissioners Association of Ohio to send us the particulars on it (HB9)."
Comments
By Posting to this site, you agree to our Terms of Service Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed.
Crescent-News.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Login above or Register to comment.
0 Total Comments Home | Back
Copyright Defiance Publishing, LLC 1995-2010. All Rights Reserved.
Content may not be republished without the expresse written consent of the publisher.
Content may not be republished without the expresse written consent of the publisher.
Dix Communications