Thwart new sneak attack on public’s right to know

There they go again. Ohio’s state lawmakers have conspired anew to launch a dangerous sneak attack on the public’s right to know.

Tucked away deep within the 4,000-plus pages of the $71 billion, two-year spending blueprint that the state Senate unveiled this week lies a seemingly minor footnote with a decidedly major hit on Ohioans who value openness and transparency in their government.

In the rush to complete and approve the state’s budget for 2016 and 2017 by month’s end, Republican leaders ever so quietly slipped in a host of 11th-hour amendments, many of which have little to do with dollars and cents.

One such amendment defiles both the letter and spirit of Ohio’s taut and responsible laws guaranteeing free and unfettered access to state documents. Specifically, Sen. Joe Uecker , R-Miami Township, inserted language in the bill to strip journalists of their right to limited access to the names of those permitted to pack heat in public. Uecker and allies from the Buckeye Firearms Association argue that they merely are closing a loophole in the state’s concealed-carry law.

Jim Irvine, president of BFA, asserts, “There’s no public good that comes out of the media accessing that list.”

We join the Ohio Newspaper Association and other friends of accountability and transparency in state government in respectfully disagreeing.

BENEFITS OF ACCESS

As Dennis Hetzel, president of the ONA, points out, “Newspapers around the country, in those states that have access, have done important work with this information. For example, they have shown that many county sheriffs do not receive information about convicted felons from other jurisdictions who should no longer be allowed to have [concealed] carry permits.”

Reporters also have exposed weaknesses and abuses in permit-granting, such as cases in which felons and the severely mentally ill have gotten licenses.

The amendment, if passed, would assault the journalist’s responsible role as watchdog over this critical domain with life-and-death implications.

And even if there were logical arguments to defend the amendment – which we strongly believe there are not – the very process of inserting the provision onto the high-speed track of the budget bill is misguided. Any proposal that tinkers with the public’s rightful access to their government merits full and robust debate in a separate piece of legislation, not a passing glance tucked deep inside a voluminous bill designed primarily to outline state spending.

If anything, legislators should examine ways to expand access of such critical records to journalists and residents. For now, however, the less-than-ideal status quo must be preserved. That means legislators must strike the dangerous provision from the amended Senate budget bill post haste.