2016-17 Ohio budget chips away at our right to know

Ten days ago, Ohioans’ right to know legitimate public information intensified its incredible, misguided shrinking act.

On July 1, actions by the Ohio General Assembly to approve and by Gov. John R. Kasich to preserve an insidious provision of the $71 billion state budget for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 took effect. The provision, tucked ever so sneakily deep inside the innards of the massive 4,000-page-plus document, slams the door firmly on media access to one set of important public documents.

Specifically, the provision in question strips journalists of their longstanding right to limited access to the names of the more than 400,000 Ohioans permitted to carry concealed weapons in public.

On both practical and philosophical grounds, the measure chips away anew at respecting transparency in public affairs and at maximizing the public interest.

Supporters argue that the ban merely closes a loophole in the state’s secretive statutes on concealed-carry weaponry. In reality, it seals in securely the last small hole through which journalists, acting in the public’s behalf, could grasp small nuggets of vital information that state residents have a right to know.

Under Ohio law before the change, reporters could view concealed-carry permits on file at county sheriff’s offices after submitting a signed, written request. They then could only view the name, county of residence and date of birth of CCW permit-holders. They could not request copies of the lists or even take written notes on what they saw.

NEW MUZZLE FOR JOURNALISTS

As Dennis Hetzel, executive director of the Ohio Newspaper Association, has rightly argued, there are times when it is necessary and in the public’s best interest for journalists to ask if someone has a concealed-carry permit. He cites the example of a shooting case, for which a reporter might wonder whether the shooter had legal authority to carry a firearm. If he did, was it proper and legal? And, if it wasn’t issued appropriately, why was the permit not revoked as the law requires? Today a muzzle has been placed on those who would even attempt to ask such legitimate and public safety-inspired questions.

On philosophical grounds, the provision fails the smell test as well. Maintaining the former language also is consistent with our open records law, which says public records should be open for public review. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled this year that government officials must have a compelling reason to deny public records requests. Vague and undocumented fears about threats to safety and security do not meet the “compelling” standard.

What’s more, any proposal that tinkers with the public’s rightful access to their government merits full and robust debate that originates in a separate piece of legislation, not a fleeting mention tucked deep inside a voluminous bill designed primarily to outline state spending.

As a result of these short-sighted actions, our government has again short-changed its taxpayers. With immediate remedies unlikely, Ohioans’ best hopes of restoring strict allegiance to the letter of our open-records laws likely lies in the statewide legislative elections of 2016, when all candidates should be vetted for their willingness to expand – rather than continually contract – Ohioans’ right to know.