Bill would exempt judicial records from Ohio public records law

ANDREW WELSH-HUGGINS
Associated Press

COLUMBUS, Ohio - A new version of a bill updating Ohio's open records laws would exempt records kept by Ohio courts and give authority over keeping such records open to the state Supreme Court instead.

Proponents of the bill and court officials say the issue stems from the constitutional separation of Ohio's legislative and judicial branches and is not meant to close off court records that are now open.

"The third branch, the judicial branch, has the authority to determine which records are open and not open," said Chief Justice Thomas Moyer of the Ohio Supreme Court.

However, the measure would be a significant change to current Ohio law governing taxpayers' ability to examine court records pertaining to administration and personnel.

Advocates for open records say the change by itself won't close any records. But they're concerned that lawmakers would lose control of the process for keeping court records open in the future if the bill becomes law.

"The way it's written now, the legislative branch would totally give up any oversight of those records," said Frank Deaner, executive director of the Ohio Newspaper Association. "That's the danger."

The change is included in the latest draft of open records legislation proposed by Rep. Scott Oelslager, a Canton Republican and open records' advocate.

The legislation was introduced following a 2004 survey by the Newspaper Association and The Associated Press that found public employees followed the law only about half the time when asked to provide common records on an unconditional and timely basis as required by law.

The proposal regarding courts and open records was made by Rep. Bill Seitz, a Cincinnati Republican who had held up an earlier version of the bill when Seitz was chairman of the House Civil and Commercial Law Committee.

Seitz, now the sixth-ranked Republican leader, and Oelslager had disagreed over the time a public agency would have to fulfill a records request of more than 100 pages.

Oelslager wanted a 10-day limit; Seitz said in some cases, public officials would need more time.

Oelslager has since replaced Seitz as committee chairman, and the new version includes the 10-day limit with extensions allowed based on the size of a request.

Seitz said courts are governed both by a constitutional requirement to keep their records open and by state law, which he said could create problems.

A law prohibiting the release of a public employee's name, for example, might conflict with the appearance of that name in a court document, Seitz said.

Moyer emphasized that the change is not meant to close off any documents, whether case files or a court's administrative records.

"There should not be a concern that seven members of the court in the future would decide to close from public view a substantial category of records that have been traditionally open," Moyer said. "That's not very realistic to think that that would occur."

Oelslager agreed but acknowledged he doesn't think the change will come easily.

"We're going to have a lot of discussion on this one, and we'll see what happens," he said Friday.

The new version of the bill would also permit individuals who sue public agencies for refusing to provide records to seek fines of up to $1,000.

It would also create a state office to handle complaints from people who say they were denied records or kept out of public meetings. That provision is modeled after a similar office in Indiana.