State auditor is keeping count of who is open and who isn’t

Auditor of State Dave Yost is con- cerned, as all auditors are, that local governments are being scrupulous in the ways they account for the spending of taxpayer dollars. But he has, as have most of his recent predecessors, made it clear that the interest of the auditor’s office goes beyond balancing the books. It extends to many facets of government performance.

Thus the office has become increasing active in performance audits, which assess the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which an office operates.

Last week, appropriately enough, Yost (a Columbus newspaper man before he became a lawyer, county prosecutor and state auditor) used “Sunshine Week” as the time to announce that his office was monitoring how well local government entities respond to the public’s request for government records.

Yost’s office conducted a simple audit of local openness by filing requests in October for payroll records in Ohio’s 247 municipalities. Many passed with flying colors, but overall they received what would be an F under any grading system. Just 60 percent responded within seven to 10 days. The grade improved to a gentleman’s C by the end of a month, with 77 percent responding.

Of particular local interest, Yost said that two cities have yet to comply, despite several follow-up requests: Campbell and Niles.

Yost said the decision to ask for a payroll print-out was made because that is just the kind of information that a local resident might want to know about his government, and because it is information any city is required to have and should be able to produce quickly. And some cities did exactly that, responding in a day or two. There is really no excuse for any to take more than a week.

Rhetorical question

If his office had difficulty getting access to information that is obviously public record, what chance does the average citizen have, Yost asked rhetorically.

The issue of public records and the reluctance of some government officials to take requests seriously is not rhetoric, it is real. Public officials have a stake in their taxpayers feeling that government is being conducted in a transparent way. And officials should know that Ohio courts have recognized that when people are denied access to that which is obviously and legally public, the government entity can be required to pay the legal fees for someone who has to go to court.

Yost’s office is seeking to make local government more aware of its public records obligations. He is suggesting that government entities create a log of public record requests and how they are handled. And while his office is not in a position to negotiate with local officials who balk at providing public records in a timely fashion, he has established a toll-free complaint line: 1-888-877-7760. If Yost’s office gets a call from a citizen about noncompliance with a public records request, the government entity will get a call from Yost’s office. And while some cities or townships or school districts may be foolish enough to ignore Yost’s call, they do so at their own peril. That taxpayer who ends up having to sue to get that to which he or she is entitled is going to be able to tell a judge that the request was ignored — even after a warning from the state auditor’s office.

Yost’s office is responsible for encouraging Ohio’s elected officials to follow best practices in running their subdivisions. Yost should be commended for encouraging transparency as one of those best practices.