43
Supreme Court orders release of FitzGerald records
By Marc Kovac
COLUMBUS
The Ohio Supreme Court has ordered the release of key-card records tracking former Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald’s comings and goings while in office, more than a year after his failed gubernatorial campaign.
In a split decision, a majority of justices noted that FitzGerald’s term in office had ended, and that the records already were released by the county to reporters almost a year ago.
“Additionally, there is no longer any basis to withhold the requested key-card-swipe data, and therefore we grant the writ and order the release of the records,” a majority of justices determined.
The key-card data was an issue during FitzGerald’s run against Gov. John Kasich last year. FitzGerald lost that race by a wide margin after revelations that the then-Cuyahoga County executive didn’t have a driver’s license and drove for years with a learner’s permit.
In May 2014, the Ohio Republican Party requested access to key-card data showing when FitzGerald was arriving or leaving his county offices. Access to those records was denied at the time, with Cuyahoga County officials citing security concerns.
Since then, Cuyahoga County moved its administrative offices to a new building, and FitzGerald’s term in office ended.
Justices ruled Wednesday “because FitzGerald is no longer the county executive, the key-card-swipe data are no longer security records, and because the old county administration building has been demolished, that data cannot disclose the configuration of its critical systems and are not infrastructure records.”
The majority decision was backed by Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, Justice Terrence O’Donnell and two appeals court judges who sat in on the case.
Justices Paul Pfiefer, Judith Ann Lanzinger and William O’Neill dissented.
In a counter opinion, Justice O’Neill wrote that the earlier denials for releasing the records were proper at the time they were issued.
He noted, “A proper public-records request was made. It was properly denied. Any action taken by anyone subsequent to that final denial is irrelevant, and the majority’s focus on those acts obfuscates the question before us. … The request was properly denied at the time, and respondents do not have a duty to examine old requests to determine whether the conditions that permitted denial of the request have subsequently changed.”