Plain Dealer sues for access to juvenile proceedings

CLEVELAND: The Plain Dealer has filed a mandamus action in the Ohio Supreme Court, seeking access to Juvenile Court proceedings in Cuyahoga County.

The newspaper's dispute with Judge Alison Floyd evolved over a series of high-profile cases involving the "Goonies," a teenaged gang in the Slavic Village charged with terrorizing the south-side Cleveland neighborhood -- including the killing of a 76-year-old woman. Finally, on May 2, the judge said she would bar reporter Gabriel Baird from the courtroom unless he could get a lawyer to the courthouse for a hearing in 30 minutes.

According the the Plain Dealer's memorandum written by attorney David L. Marburger:

Thus, Judge Floyd claims the authority to close the courtroom sua sponte without a closure hearing if an objecting citizen or reporter does not immediately employ a lawyer to appear to argue against it.

Also according to Judge Floyd, she may close the courtroom without a closure hearing whenever a party requests closure and no one appears to argue against it. That view is especially troublesome because the respondent Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court does not afford publicly available notice of the dates and times of closure hearings, the existence and grounds of closure motions, or the existence and grounds of adjudications of the public's interest in attending proceedings.

The Plain Dealer wants access to court dockets, which would give notice of closure hearings, and transcripts of the closed cases.

More:

• Docket in Ohio Supreme Court case 2006-0945.
  

• Initial complaint filed in the Ohio Supreme Court in State ex. rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. The Honorable Alison Floyd (in .pdf format).
  
  
• Memorandum in support of the complaint (in .pdf format).
  

(Via the Cleveland Law Library Weblog.)

Akron Democrat wants state audit workpapers opened

COLUMBUS: State Rep. Barbara Sykes has introduced a bill in the Ohio House that would open up the work papers of the state's outside auditors to public inspection.

House Bill 598 would remove the following paragraph from state law:

(B) The statements, records, schedules, working papers, and memoranda made by a certified public accountant or public accountant incident to or in the course of performing an audit of a public office or private entity, except reports submitted by the accountant to the client, are not a public record. Statements, records, schedules, working papers, and memoranda that are so made in an audit by a certified public accountant or public accountant and that are in the possession of the auditor of state also are not a public record. As used in this division, "public record" has the same meaning as in section 149.43 of the Revised Code.

In a written statement sent through the House Democratic Caucus, Sykes said the purpose of the bill is to open up the audit workpapers of Crowe Chizek & Co., which conducted the audit of the now-infamous investment in rare coins by the Ohio Bureau of Workers Compensation.

"Any work, any audit paid for with taxpayer dollars should be open to the public and open to public scrutiny," said Sykes, D-Akron. "All taxpayers deserve to know how their tax dollars may have been wasted."

"The public's trust has been broken, and Ohioans do not want or deserve a secretive government," said Sykes. "It will take full openness and transparency to rebuild trust in our system."

Oxley defends NSA program, castigates leakers

LIMA: U.S. Rep. Michael Oxley defended the National Security Agency's practice of collecting a database of phone calls -- and said the leak to USA Today about the secret program was "treason."

"First of all, it is irresponsible for people to leak and secondly for people to write about those leaks. They are endangering people that we have all over the world in the clandestine service," Oxley told the Lima Rotary Club, according to the Lima News. "There is a reason why some of these programs are secret. You don’t want to give that kind of information to al-Qaida so they can find some other kind of method to communicate."

Was lawsuit 'pending or imminent' in Canal Fulton?

CANAL FULTON: Canal Fulton City Council went into a closed-door session to talk about casino negotiations with an American Indian tribe, despite the objections of two newspapers.

The Canton Repository and the Massillon Independent both contend that the discussions should have been in public under the Ohio Open Meetings Act. But the Stark County city's law director said the executive session was justified because the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma has sued the state, claiming it has the right to operate casinos on its ancestral lands.

The Open Meetings Act allows executive sessions when court action is "pending or imminent," but Canal Fulton is not a party to the lawsuit.

Law Director Dale Kincaid gave this explanation to the Massillon Independent:

"It's unusual, but we are affected by choice," Kincaid said. "It's not like we are suing someone. We elected to take advantage of an opportunity that results from litigation."

"We are choosing to be impacted by the litigation," he added. "The statute does not require us to be a named party, and it does not require us to involuntarily be brought into the lawsuit."

How's this for imminent? The Rep is contemplating its own lawsuit.

"We're consulting our attorneys about whether there was a Sunshine Law violation," Repository Editor David C. Kaminski said in an exclusive interview with his reporter. "As a layman, I think the explanation from Canal Fulton was quite a stretch."

Taft signs 'Dale Earnhardt' bill on autopsy records

COLUMBUS: Gov. Bob Taft has signed Amended Substitute House Bill 235, which would exempt certain coroner's records from the Ohio Public Records Act, the Associated Press reported.

The bill was sponsored by state Rep. Jeff Wagner, R-Sycamore.

The law goes into effect in 90 days.

Previously:

• Dale Earnhardt bill now pending in Ohio Senate (March 9, 2006)
  

Advertiser-Tribune: Overturn Supreme Court ruling

TIFFIN: The burden of proof should be on public officials to show a "particularized need" that public records shouldn't be public, the Tiffin Advertiser-Tribune said in an editorial.

Plain Dealer: Revoke the executive privilege

CLEVELAND: Calling last month's Ohio Supreme Court ruling on executive privilege "a horrible decision," the state's largest newspaper threw its support behind a bipartisan bill to revoke it.

"If the writers of Ohio's Constitution had intended the governor to have an executive privilege, they would have given him one," the Plain Dealer wrote in an editorial. "Other legislators should join in this effort to remove unwarranted secrecy from government."

Stark County man seeks $358,000 for destruction of records

CANTON: A Stark County man acquitted on rape charges is suing the Jackson Township Police Department, claiming the department "sanitized" the personnel file of an arresting officer by removing public records about his discipline, reports Fellicia Smith of the Canton Repository.

Relying on the Ohio Supreme Court's recent decision in Akron v. Kish upholding a $1,000 fine per page destroyed, Thaddeus J. Cwynar is seeking $358,000 in compensation.

House Bill 9 is 'fair and balanced,' Cincy reporter says

CINCINNATI: House Bill 9 strikes the right balance between taxpayer access to public records and the government's need to operate without being overburdened with requests, opined reporter Liz Carey of the Community Press.

It's not unreasonable for the government to need time to comply with public records requests without worrying about lawsuits, Carey writes.

Quoting state Rep. Tom Brinkman Jr., R-Mount Lookout: "The original bill, as drafted, was a trial lawyer's dream ... It allowed suits against local officials who didn't respond to public records requests in a reasonable amount of time, but didn't outline what a reasonable amount of time was."

"We can't make it open season for trial lawyers and be able to sue if a school doesn't produce multiple records in 24 hours," Brinkman said. "This provides a sense of reasonableness."

Blade wins First Amendment award for 'Coingate' reporting

COLUMBUS: Newspaper journalists from around the state gave The Toledo Blade a standing ovation as it won the First Amendment award in the annual Associated Press Society of Ohio awards ceremony.

Said the judges: ''This package had it all - corruption, cronyism on the public nickel, arrogance of public officials, and a newspaper that wouldn't back down. ... A great example of sticking with the story in following every loose thread, terrific impact.''

More:

• "Blade Wins Top Awards for 'Coingate.'"
  
• The Blade's "Coingate" coverage.
  
• Associated Press Society of Ohio.
  

Hamilton County to destroy old court records

CINCINNATI: The Hamilton County Clerk of Courts will begin to destroy closed Municipal Court case files more than four years old, according to a notice posted on the clerk's web site by Administrator Henry Stacey.

The disposal is in accordance with Supreme Court rules and the retention schedule adopted by the Hamilton County Records Commission.

Petro to investigate rival's release of Social Security numbers

COLUMBUS: Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro, egged on by the Ohio State Troopers Association, has launched an inquiry into Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell's release of voter's Social Security numbers, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported.

Taft: Secrecy allows 'sound gubernatorial deliberations'

COLUMBUS: Gov. Bob Taft argued to the Ohio Supreme Court Friday that Coingate records requested by a Democratic state senator should be subject to executive privilege, the Associated Press reported.

The Supremes created a right of executive privilege in a decision last week, but withheld a decision on whether the specific records requested fell under that privilege. Taft's affidavit Friday said the weekly reports "are communications from the executive assistant for business and industry that were prepared for the purpose of fostering informed and sound gubernatorial deliberations, policy-making and decision-making."

Attorney general candidates agree: No privilege for gov

COLUMBUS: Two candidates for Ohio attorney general -- one Democrat and one Republican -- will co-sponsor legislation in the Ohio Senate to revoke the executive privilege that the Ohio Supreme Court has granted to the governor, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported.

"Thank you, Supreme Court, for bringing Senator Dann and I together," said state Sen. Timothy Grendell, R-Chesterland, said as he stood side-by-side with state Sen. Mark Dann, D-Youngstown. quipped as the two smiling political adversaries stood side by side. "This is certainly nothing that I had on my agenda a couple of weeks ago, but it does transcend politics."

Their primary opponents in next week's election each gave somewhat more tempered statements, telling the Plain Dealer that they support "a limited privilege" or "would err on the side of open government."

The Associated Press has more.

Chillicothe reader: Court records should be online

Rosalyn Robinette writes from Ross County:

Can some one tell me why it is, that there is no information on court records on a web site for Pike County -- absolutely nothing, no municipal court records of any kind. I have not had a problem looking things up in counties surrounding my own Ross County. Surely Pike County is not so far far removed from modern times, that they can not have a web site like other counties surrounding them. If so, it's time that they get off their rump and get with the program.

This is a public service that is helpful to the community when checking out background checks on future employees or people who may be working in and around their home. I guess people will just have to skip the applications of people in Pike County, and stick to the counties that have the info avaliable online.

Social Security fiasco has virtually shut down court records

CELINA: Shelly Grieshop, a reporter at the Daily Standard, wants to know why she's having so much trouble looking at court records in Auglaize County.

The clerk of courts there, Sue Ellen Kohler, in February posted signs on all file cabinets prohibiting anyone from searching through the files until sensitive information - primarily Social Security numbers - are removed. That was in February and even new criminal files have not had any information redacted yet.

When asked, Kohler said SS numbers aren't being taken off criminal files because it is the basic means for identifying the defendant.

Clerks in area counties say they don't have money or staff to start the redacting process. Most have been redacting the personal information only off copies they are asked to give out.

In a story I wrote for our newspaper, published this past Saturday, I explained that I surveyed nine area counties in northwest Ohio and only Kohler is completely barring the public from the files. She has two onsite computers for public use but they offer only limited, condensed information.

Is this allowed? I'm looking for some "meat" to back up our rights to look through the Auglaize County files at my leisure. I can't request specific pages from a file I've never seen!! And even copies are subject to a reasonable wait time (I was told by the AG's office the timeframe depends on each court and how busy they are).

Help!

Grieshop reported on the situation in the Daily Standard last week: "Protecting Open Records or Trampling Public Rights?"

She's not alone. Reporters in small counties all over Ohio are having trouble getting court records after an attorney general's opinion on Social Security numbers earlier this year.

More Social Security number problems for Blackwell

COLUMBUS: Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell accidentally released 20 sets of voter lists that contained the Social Security numbers of Ohio voters, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported.

Is the Ohio Supreme Court steering away from openness?

COLUMBUS: Open government advocates see a discernible shift toward secrecy in recent public records decisions by the Ohio Supreme Court. But James Nash of the Columbus Dispatch reports that a look at the record over the past two sessions shows the court is simply unpredictable.

Taft is now in the company of Nixon, ONA director says

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the press wrote up the Ohio Supreme Court's executive privilege decision, and interviewed Ohio Newspaper Association director Frank Deaner.

Deaner told RCFP's Amanda Buck:

"It's a disturbing and disappointing decision," Frank Deaner, executive director of the Ohio Newspaper Association and president of the Ohio Coalition for Open Government, said in an interview. Reading a prepared statement, Deaner called secrecy "an incubator for wrongdoing." ...

"Our law has always been based on the premise that something is public unless the public official can prove otherwise," he said. "The way this decision is worded, the government documents are secret, and the burden is put on the requester to prove why they should be released." ...

"There's nothing in the public records act that would indicate there is an executive privilege," he said. "There is nothing in the Ohio Constitution. There is nothing in any other kind of legislation. The majority opinion was based almost solely on the U.S. Supreme Court cases having to do with Richard Nixon and his Watergate tapes. If they wanted to tie Bob Taft to additional scandal, there it is."

Editorial roundup: Taft's executive privilege

Editorial boards around the state are blasting the Ohio Supreme Court decision recognizing an "executive privilege" for Ohio governors. Excerpts:

The Cincinnati Enquirer, "Ohio Court Wrong on Privilege" (April 14):

We agree with the strenuously worded dissent by Justice Paul Pfeiffer: "the majority has crafted a lingering monument to bad government. For the first time in our history, Ohio governors will be free to operate in the dark."

The Columbus Dispatch, "Too Much Privilege" (April 15):

This troubling decision creates problems even worse than its interference with the public’s right to know. Five Republicans on the court, led by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer, who wrote the majority opinion, are granting a right to governors that they have not had in Ohio’s 203-year history.

The Toledo Blade, "Hide But Don't Seek" (April 17):

In concocting a special legal privilege for Gov. Bob Taft to keep public records secret, the Ohio Supreme Court has forever buried the notion that Republican judges don't legislate from the bench.

The Canton Repository, "Court Opened Secret Door for Governor" (April 17):

If the approach fashioned by the court applied to some portion of criminal proceedings, you might call it “guilty until proven innocent.” As a result of the ruling, anyone who sues to see documents produced by the governor’s office must argue that the value of making the information public outweighs the value of the governor’s keeping the information secret.

Supreme Court recognizes privilege for Coingate records

COLUMBUS: In a ruling that relied on Nixonian precedent, the Ohio Supreme Court said 5-2 that Gov. Bob Taft can assert an executive privilege over documents related to the Coingate scandal.

The Taft Administration has claimed a separation of powers argument in arguing that a state senator cannot use the Ohio Public Records Act to see copies of internal reports related to the state's investment in now-missing rare coins.

The decision makes reference to United States v. Nixon -- the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing President Richard Nixon to quash a Watergate subpoena -- 30 times.

"We have found no more precise and persuasive statement of the rationale for executive privilege than these words in the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States," the majority wrote. "The rationale applies with equal force to the chief executive official of a state."

The dissent from Jusice Paul Pfeiffer said the decision goes against history, the law, and common sense:

With the gubernatorial communications privilege as defined by this court, every memorandum in the executive branch will read, "To: The Governor," whether it is intended for the governor’s eyes or not. Just adding the governor’s name to a document will cloak it in secrecy. True, this court does enunciate a test for determining whether the privilege applies to specific documents. But anyone who requests a document under the Public Records Act can now be forced by the governor to pursue a difficult legal battle to retrieve it. The Act is designed to make it easy for citizens to learn about their government. The majority has made it easy for the governor to thwart that intent.

Justice Alice Robie Resnick agreed with Pfeifer's "powerful and compelling" dissent, but added that even if "executive privilege" exisits, it wouldn't apply to these records:

These reports do not reflect gubernatorial decisionmaking, and they do not appear to meet the majority’s test, i.e., they were not "made for the purpose of fostering informed and sound gubernatorial deliberations, policymaking, and decisionmaking." Nothing about these reports is advisory, investigatory, decisional, consultative, deliberative, or sensitive in nature, at least not in any sense or to any degree that would justify their protection under the executive privilege. They are, by and large, innocuous administrative and bureaucratic transmissions, at times informative of public events, but by no means so reflective of the sensitive decisional responsibilities of the governor as to warrant the protection of such a high privilege. Indeed, the governor’s chief policy advisor and director of cabinet affairs testified at deposition that executive administrators have used other means of communicating sensitive information to the governor.

Read the full decision in State ex. rel. Dann v. Taft (in .pdf format)

Coverage from:

• The Dayton Daily News: "Ohio Court Looked to Nixon Case in Ruling on Secrets"
• Associated Press: "Court Gives Governor Limited Ability to Keep Records Private"
• The Columbus Dispatch: "Top court says governor’s office may withhold internal documents from public"
• Cleveland Plain Dealer: "Justices: Governor May Shield Documents"

Supremes split the baby in Oriana dispute

AKRON: Both sides claimed victory after a unanimous Ohio Supreme Court ruled on Ohio Auditor Betty Montgomery's ability to issue subpoenas to follow how taxpayer money is spent, the Akron Beacon Journal reported.

The decision did not make reference to the Ohio Public Records Act. But in ruling that the auditor has the power to subpoena Oriana House, a non-profit Summit County correctional facility, the court let stand a lower court ruling that Oriana's financial records are public. A magistrate for the Tenth District Court of Appeals found that Oriana got 88 percent of its funding from taxpayers and that the operation of a prison is "historically a government function."

"We wanted a strong statement about what the auditor's authority is with regards to public records,'' Montgomery told the Beacon Journal. "We should be able to follow public money wherever it goes.''

Oriana House said it was satisfied that the Supreme Court decided that subpoena power did not extend to personal records of Oriana executive director James Lawrence.

More:

• Download the Ohio Supreme Court decision in Montgomery v. Oriana House (in .pdf format).
  
• Download the magistrate's decision in the Tenth District Court of Appeals (in .pdf format).
• Read a press statement from Ohio Auditor Betty Montgomery.
  

Previously:

• When is a non-profit subject to the Ohio Public Records Act?
• 'Friends' of private jail argue against public records

Priest abuse activists claim open meetings violation

CLEVELAND: Another strange twist -- or two -- in the story of state lawmakers who removed a one-year "look back" provision that would have allowed victims of priest sex abuse to file lawsuits in abuse cases up to 35 years old.

A lawsuit in Franklin County Common Pleas Court alleges that Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee met behind closed doors to discuss the bill, violating the Open Meetings Act. The suit was brought by members of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests.

Now the really strange part: The Franklin County case has been assigned to Judge John Connor -- the same Democratic judge that Republicans wanted to impeach because they said he gave a too-lenient sentence to a man accused of sexual battery.

Scott Borgemenke, chief of staff for House Speaker Jon Husted, acknowledged that the meeting happened, but denied that it broke the law. According to the Plain Dealer:

In an attempt to avoid Frondorf and other SNAP activists who had massed inside the Statehouse, several Republicans on the Judiciary Committee ducked into a conference room, he said. But he said a majority of members were never in the room and they did not discuss the bill.

"We watch that constantly," Borgemenke said. "We're very cognizant of the fact that we have to be careful as the majority."

But SNAP member Dan Frondorf told the Plain Dealer that the back-door deal protected abusive priests:

"It makes me angry because I'm a citizen and taxpayer, and there was a majority of those members behind closed doors, meeting and discussing something before the committee," he said. "By statute, that's supposed to be an open meeting, and I don't like the fact that they violated the law and then passed a version of the bill that I didn't like."

Frank Deaner, director of the Ohio Newspaper Association, said the case could help clarify what constitutes a "caucus" for purposes of the Open Meetings Act. From the Toledo Blade:

"Legislative attorneys have recently started fretting openly about how to interpret the word 'caucus,'" said Executive Director Frank Deaner. "Republicans have the majority on all of these committees, and there's a general feeling that the word 'caucus' refers to any time you want to go off and talk as a political party. But I'm hearing that in-house attorneys are advising their committees not to caucus as a committee because they're afraid it might violate the open-meetings law."

More:

• The Cincinnati Enquirer: "Child Abuse Bill Brings Lawsuit"

Canton Rep: Officials too, see value in public records

CANTON: A mayor, a former mayor and a congressman are supporting The Canton Repository's efforts to get the Canton Community Clinic to explain its plans to buy a building owned by its former chairman.

U.S. Rep. Ralph Regula told the Repository that the clinic should "disclose everything" that involves its spending of taxpayer money.

Opined the newspaper in an editorial:

Sometimes it takes an extreme situation to make public officials as passionate as journalists are about access to public records.... If being burned by secrecy makes public officials more empathetic toward the average citizen who’s denied timely access, or any access, to records he is entitled to see, one good thing will come out of the clinic fiasco.

Akron case could set largest fine ever for destroying records

COLUMBUS: In what would likely be the largest public-records fine in Ohio history, the Ohio Supreme Court recommended a $1,000 penalty against the City of Akron for every record destroyed in an overtime case.

Total: $860,000.

But the 4-3 opinion is only advisory. The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals will make the final decision. Still, the Akron Beacon Journal's Dennis J. Williard wrote, the decision "will have a broader impact on how local governments maintain and destroy public records."

Justice Maureen O'Connor wrote for the majority:

Public records are one portal through which the people observe their government, ensuring its accountability, integrity, and equity while minimizing sovereign mischief and malfeasance. ... Public records afford an array of other utilitarian purposes necessary to a sophisticated democracy: they illuminate and foster understanding of the rationale underlying state decisions .... In recognition that the right of access to government records is a hollow one if records are not preserved for review, R.C. 149.351 proscribes the destruction, mutilation, removal, damaging, transfer, or disposal of public records and imposes penalties for violation of the law, including “a forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars for each violation.”

More:

• Download the Ohio Supreme Court opinion in Kish v. City of Akron (in .pdf format).
• Read a summary of the case from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
• Canton Repository: "Akron Liable for Records Destruction."
  

Ohio records law trumps federal health privacy law, court rules

COLUMBUS: The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the Cincinnati Health Department must disclose the owners and addresses of properties cited for lead paint violations.

The decision, in a case brought by the Cincinnati Enquirer, is the first of its kind in the country to rule that state public records laws trump the federal Health Insurance Portablity and Accountability Act of 1996.

Interim city health commissioner Walter Handy told the Enquirer after the ruling: "Our feeling was that if we gave the addresses ... we would de facto be giving information about the identity of the kids," said Walter Handy, the assistant health commissioner. "We were simply looking to make sure we did not fall victim to violating the law."

Justice Terrence O'Donnell wrote for the unanimous court:

(W)e are confronted here with a problem of circular reference because the Ohio Public Records Act requires disclosure of information unless prohibited by federal law, while federal law allows disclosure of protected health information if required by state law. ... Because Ohio's Public Records Act requires that public records be "made available" and because the information contained in the lead-hazard reports does not constitute "health information" as defined in HIPAA, and because we have concluded that even if they contained protected health information, they would still be subject to disclosure pursuant to the "required by law" exception to the HIPAA privacy rule, the Cincinnati Health Department and its commissioners have a clear legal duty to make the lead citations available to the Enquirer.

More:

• Download the Ohio Supreme Court decision in State ex. rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Daniels (in .pdf format)
  
• Read a summary of the case from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
• Cleveland Plain Dealer: "Health Citations Public, Court Decides"
• Columbus Dispatch: "Ohio Records Law Trumps Federal Health-Data Secrecy"
• Canton Repository: "Ohio Justices Make Protected Health Records Public"
  

University medical research is not public record, court rules

COLUMBUS: The Ohio State University does not have to release records related to its animal testing in university laboratories, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled.

The unanimous decision said the records were intellectual property of the university and exempt from the Ohio Public Records Act as a "trade secret."

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine had sued to get the records. The case turned on whether the records had been publicly released, published or patented," and the court ruled that sharing the records with a small number of scientists did not constitute a broader release that would negate the trade secret exception.

An Associated Press report contained this response from the university: "This ruling should ease scientists' concerns that their research might be compromised by disclosure of data particularly in areas of controversial biomedical research."

More:

• Read the Supreme Court decision in State ex. rel. Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine v. Board of Trustees of the Ohio State University (in .pdf format).
  

Do Ohio governments keep too many secrets?

CINCINNATI: Of the 272 provisions of Ohio law dealing with public records, many exceptions make sense: investigations of organized crime, income tax returns and Social Security numbers.

But for other records that the legislature has decided to make secret over the years, the need for secrecy isn't as clear, Gregory Korte writes in the Enquirer.

They include applications for junkyard licenses, State Medical Board investigations of acupuncturists and reports of adults abused by caretakers. And under a 1999 law exempting bill-writing records of the Legislative Service Commission, it's difficult to find out even how some of these exemptions became law.

Records requests to state colleges met with 'suspicion, hostility, and interrogations,' audit finds

ATHENS: Almost 60 percent of requests for routine public records at Ohio's state universities were denied in a recent audit conducted by the Ohio University Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists.

Without using any special access as student-reporters, the students tried to get records from university offices to gauge compliance with the Ohio Public Records Act. Just 24 percent of records were provided "no questions asked;" another 17 percent were released after students identified themselves or explained the reason for the request.

"This isn't a scientific study, and I'm sure we would have gotten different results on different days," said OU journalism Professor Bill Reader, the campus SPJ advisor. "But the basic findings aren't surprising -- that most campus offices simply don't know their responsibilities under Ohio's public records law."

More:

• Cincinnati Enquirer: Student journalists encounter resistance, little success in open records experiment
• Bill Reader: Laws must hold public officials accountable
  
• The Report: Closed campuses: A report on public records access at Ohio's public colleges (in .pdf format)
  

Journalists will keep access to concealed-carry lists -- for now

COLUMBUS: Concealed-carry advocates have dropped efforts to close county-by-county lists of gun permit holders to access by journalists, the Associated Press reports.

The provision was dropped from a rewrite of the gun bill after Gov. Bob Taft threatened to veto it.

Dale Earnhardt bill now pending in Ohio Senate

COLUMBUS: A bill pending in the Ohio Senate would close records of county coroners to the general public, while allowing access to family members, journalists and insurance companies, the Dayton Daily News' Laura A. Bischoff reported.

House Bill 235 follows moves by several states to close access to coroners' records, starting with Florida's reaction to press coverage of race car driver Dale Earnhardt's death in 2001.

Autopsy reports and investigative notes, photographs, suicide notes and medical records would all be closed to the public. Family members could get some records, while journalists would be allowed to inspect -- but not copy -- everything expect medical records. Only insurance companies investigating a claim would have unrestricted access.

Hanke: Oelslager is fighting 'daddy knows best' mentality

CANTON: State Rep. Scott Oelslager, R-North Canton, is having a tough time selling his public records reform bill to his fellow Republicans, the Canton Repository's general manager writes in a column.

Michael E. Hanke said Oelslager "has long has been the main force behind enhanced open-meetings and public-records legislation in Ohio," but the Republican-dominated legislature and lobbyists for local government agencies "don't want the public to have access to anything."

Hanke concluded: "The Republicans have enough problems with a cover-up reputation; they don't need to add to it by stonewalling this bill."

Hamilton County clerk of courts to allow journalist access

CINCINNATI: The Hamilton County Clerk of Courts, Gregory P. Hartmann, is instituting a policy of allowing reporters for accredited news organizations to have special login privileges on his web site -- allowing journalists access to court records that are otherwise blocked to public view because they may contain sensitive information like Social Security numbers.

Hartmann explained the program in a letter to the Cincinnati chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists received Friday -- the same day news broke of an identity theft ring that used the Courtclerk.org web site to steal nearly $500,000 between 2001 and 2005. The same day, the clerk ordered the removal of hundreds more documents that contained personal data.

More from the Cincinnati chapter web site.

House Bill 9 roundup: Court exception tossed, vote in 2 weeks

COLUMBUS: The sponsor of the public-records rewrite bill has suddenly dropped a provision allowing the courts to police their own records.

The bill is now scheduled for a vote March 15.

But state Rep. W. Scott Oelslager's decision to drop the court provision angered a Cincinnati Republican who vowed a fight to put it back. State Rep. Bill Seitz told the Columbus Dispatch's Jim Siegel:

"It's dirty pool and it's typical of the way the chairman has proceeded throughout," Seitz said after the hearing. "He has a press release. He has a press conference. He says it's in there. And today it isn'’t in there. That kind of conduct is reprehensible."

Oelslager said Seitz "has always been against open records" and said he was trying to kill the bill.

More coverage:

• Associated Press: "Open-records Revamp Snags on Oversight."
  
• The Canton Repository: "Oelslager Touts New Records Bill."
  
• The Dayton Daily News: "Access to Court Records Disputed."

More:

• Substitute House Bill 9 (in .pdf format)
  

Update:

• The Chillicothe Gazette applauds Oelslager in an editorial for dropping his "hot potato.

Long-stalled public records bill now on fast track

COLUMBUS: House Bill 9 -- the public records overhaul legislation that has been sitting in committee without a hearing for more than a year -- could finally get a vote in a few weeks.

House Speaker Jon Husted told the Dayton Daily News that he's committed to a vote in early April.

At the same time, opposition is growing to a soon-to-be-released amendment that would allow the Ohio Courts to decide which of its own records should be open to the public. A group calling itself the Ohioans for a Better Future -- a coalition that includes labor unions, trial lawyers and environmental groups -- opposes the judicial exception.

Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer now says he supports that provision. "It makes sense that the third branch of government should decide which of its records --— case records and administrative records --— are open," Moyer told the Daily News' William Hershey.

More from the Canton Repository: "Sides Still Differ on Open Records Bill."