Ban private e-mail accounts in conduct of public business

While Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann is be commended for making it clear that public business conducted via private e-mail accounts is governed by Ohio's public records law, we urge him to go further in his reading of the statute.
As Atty. David Marburger, one of the state's premier experts on open government, told the Associated Press, using a private e-mail account to conduct public business is against the law. Marburger, who represents the Ohio Coalition for Open Government, explained that the use of private accounts removes public records from the control of government.
He also said that deleting any private e-mails that contain public business could violate the provision that bans the destruction of public records.
Dann should embrace Marburger's position -- not only because the Cleveland lawyer has played a major role in the development Ohio's public records and open meetings laws, but because the lawsuits he has filed in the face of clear violations have resulted in a favorable judicial reading of the statutes.
The issue of the use of private e-mail accounts surfaced recently when the Columbus Dispatch sought to review e-mails sent to and from elected officials and top state government staffers on two days in March -- when Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat, delivered his State of the State address and when he introduced his two-year budget proposal.
The Dispatch found that some state agencies have no policies restricting public employees from using private e-mail accounts for official business, or using personal handheld digital devices where records are routinely deleted.
Records shielded, destroyed
Inspector General Thomas Charles told the newspaper that while e-mails and other electronic communications generated by state employees are considered public records, he is concerned that some public information is being shielded or destroyed.
Therein lies the problem.
The preservation of information relating to the conduct of public business is the hallmark of open government -- which is a linchpin of democracy. Those who have chosen to do the people's work, must be willing to withstand the glare of public scrutiny.
In reacting to the Dispatch's findings, Attorney General Dann, who ran on a platform of complete openness, said, "If I had a message for Ohio public officials, it would be that there is no distinction between public and private e-mail addresses. It's a distinction without a difference."
But given that House Democrats were reported "horrified" when they were told in a recent caucus that some e-mails on their personal handheld devices could be public records, it is clear that the public records law needs to be fine-tuned.
We urge Dann to meet with Atty. Marburger to determine how he arrived at the conclusion that the use of private e-mail accounts to conduct public business violates state law.
Indeed, they may want to come up an amendment to the law that prohibits the use of private e-mail accounts for official business.