Improved compliance with public records law needed

There seems to be broad agreement in Columbus that Ohio's public records law needs improvement.
Rep. Scott Oelslager, a Canton Republican, has been working for a month with Attorney General Jim Petro and Frank Deaner, president of the Ohio Newspaper Association, to draft legislation that would improve compliance by public officials and employees. Gov. Bob Taft and House Speaker Larry Householder would like to see legislation passed this year.
Ohio already has a good public records law. Both the language and the intent of the law is clear: & quot;All records shall be promptly prepared and made available for inspection to any person at all reasonable times during regular business hours. & quot;
The problem was that far too many keepers of public records either didn't understand the law, or simply chose to defy it because they didn't agree with it or found it troublesome.
The legislation being drafted by Oelslager and Petro addresses both those weaknesses. It would provide education and training for keepers of public records so that they would clearly understand their responsibilities, and it would put some teeth into enforcement provisions when records keepers choose to break the law.
A wrong impression
Oelslager has tried in the past to toughen up the law, but there was no enthusiasm for his proposals in the General Assembly. He says his fellow legislators simply believed that the law was working. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, is a common enough attitude inside and outside of government.
But the public records law was broken, at least in practice. How broken was shown six weeks ago when a statewide audit was conducted. Forty-two newspapers in Ohio (including The Vindicator), two radio stations, The Association Press and two universities participated in the public records audit sending people in search of records that were clearly public and should have been provided as a matter of routine. They didn't identify themselves as reporters, because the law clearly does not require anyone seeking a record to identify himself.
The auditors were successful in getting public officials and employees to comply with the open records law only about half of the time. The lowest rate of compliance came when the auditors asked school officials how much the superintendent of schools was paid. Statewide, only 19 of 84 school districts provided the superintendents' salary figures on the day they were requested. Another 19 complied partially. Forty-three simply refused.
It is a sad state of affairs when more than half of the school districts audited broke the law rather than tell a member of the public how much the superintendent was paid.
Two-pronged approach
Oelslager and Petro's proposal so far includes fines of up to $1,000 for willful denial of public records, mandatory training on public records law for all elected officials, a written policy that all employees in a government office must acknowledge reading, and a requirement that officials denying requests give their full reasoning.
A requirement that attorney fees be paid by the government for those who successfully appeal a denied records request would make the law even stronger. That provision is being backed by the Ohio Newspaper Association, but it should be pointed out that the public records law protects the rights of citizens as well as the press to public records. In fact, some of the hardest fought battles for access to public records have been waged by private individuals who absorbed high legal costs at great personal sacrifice simply because they believed in what they were doing.
Those public spirited citizens deserve the full protection of the law.