There's little reason to be confused over public records

Why is it so difficult for many Ohio public officials -- and a strong majority of public school officials -- to understand that public records are supposed to be available to the public?
We don't know, but far too many public officials failed the public records test organized by the Ohio Coalition for Open Government. Forty-two newspapers in Ohio (including The Vindicator), two radio stations, The Association Press and two universities participated in the public records audit.
Stories detailing the success and failures of reporters who sought records that clearly fell within Ohio law's definition of public began appearing in The Vindicator and other participating newspapers yesterday. The series will run though Friday in The Vindicator.
One bright spot
Perhaps the only bright spot for us was that Mahoning County was one of only 15 counties in the state, and one of only three in the eastern half of the state, to register compliance above 75 percent. Not that there weren't exceptions even here. Youngstown Mayor George McKelvey managed to get special note in many of the newspapers running the public records stories.
Newspapers assigned reporters from other beats to make the public records requests at schools, city halls, county administration buildings and police stations because the law is written to ensure that everyone, not just reporters, are given access to public records. And the law does not require someone requesting a public record to identify himself or herself, or to explain why he or she wants a public record.
At Youngstown City Hall, McKelvey demanded that Vindicator Staff Writer Norman Leigh give his name and profession before approving a request to review what should have been a routine expense report. The mayor also called Vindicator editors to confirm Leigh was a reporter, and he audiotaped his conversation with Leigh.
Explaining the tape recording, McKelvey said, "It's not only to hold me accountable for what I say, but I also hold reporters accountable for reporting accurately what I say." Ironically, the only thing that McKelvey's recording memorializes is that after more than two decades as an elected public official, he hasn't bothered to learn the fundamentals of a state law that has been on the books since 1963.
There are nuances to any law, and lawyers can argue those nuances the same way that philosophers can discuss how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. But both the language and the intent of the law is clear: "All records shall be promptly prepared and made available for inspection to any person at all reasonable times during regular business hours."
There are records that are specifically exempted from the law, but none of the records being sought in this exercise fell into that category. As Attorney General Jim Petro said, "The records requested in this audit are clearly public in nature and, when available, should have been provided in a timely manner."
Note that the law says any person, not any person who identifies himself, or shows her drivers license, or says why he wants the information or fills out some form that the government entity has cooked up.
Yet time and again, public officials or public employees made those kinds of demands, or simply refused to provide the information.
Failing grade
The worst offenders were school districts, which were asked to provide two records: the superintendent's compensation and the school treasurer's phone bill.
Statewide, only 19 of 84 school districts provided the superintendent's' salary figures on the day they were requested. Another 19 complied partially. Forty-three simply refused.
More than half the school districts chose to break the law rather than tell a member of the public how much the superintendent was paid. In a suburban Dayton school district, officials took down the license number of the person who asked for the superintendent's salary figures. At Lake school district in Stark County, an assistant asked a reporter how she would feel if someone came to the newspaper asking for her salary.
These attitudes and questions belie an underlying problem. Too many people in public service no longer recognize that there is a difference between public employment and private employment. And far too many don't understand that public records belong to the public, not to the public employees who are paid to maintain them.