2006: Supreme Court Decision Favors Open Records
By Christy B. Bishop, Esq.
Postscript: On March 20, 2006, the Ohio Supreme Court in a 7-3 decision returned a wonderful ruling for Ohioans, fully upholding open-records laws and finding that a “violation” is generally the act of destroying a single record. The Court also in footnote 2 stated its appreciation for the amicus briefs (“friends of the Court”) submitted to the Court. Christy B. Bishop was one of the drafters of the two amici briefs praised by the Court. Read the Opinion.
Let the sunshine in
Regarding your Sept. 26 editorial “Party favors”: I am one of the attorneys of record on a case currently before the Ohio Supreme Court that involves the question of whether an official who destroys public (and historic) documents will be punished, and how much.
For years, Ohio’s open records and “sunshine” laws have been geared towards open government and free access to officials’ conduct. But that’s all in jeopardy now, unless we the people can be heard.
In the “Coingate” scandal, Bureau of Workers Compensation officials closely tied to Gov. Bob Taft made bad investments in rare coins, and otherwise ran through millions of public dollars. What is not well known is that the bureau tried to hide records relating to the investments by claiming that they were exempt from public records law.
When the issue went before the Ohio Supreme Court in July, five of the seven justices recused themselves because of their close ties to a political doner linked to the bureau, and were replaced by judges without such conflicts. This “new” court ruled the documents were public and newspapers could have access to and report on them. This, in turn, ensured Ohioans were aware of the State’s shenanigans.
But a case before the state Supreme Court, Kish v. City of Akron, is over what the punishment should be for destroying public and historical documents. The law says that whichever governmental entity wrongfully destroys public records (which belong to the public) must pay $1,000 for “each violation.” The court is deciding what constitutes a single violation. Is it the shredding of one document or lighting a single bonfire and destroying 10,000? Which act more properly garners a fine? Which interpretation will protect public documents?
Naturally, public entities involved in the case are arguing for loose definitiona of “document” and “violation.” The other side is arguing that any loose definition is essentially a repealing of the law. The consequences at issue are enormous: move over, Patriot Act. Any corrupt official who is embarrassed or in possible trouble could destroy relevant records, claim it is only a single violation, pay a mere $1,000 (taxpayers’ money), and continue to lie about his or her activities. If Ohio’s open-records laws are essentially repealed by Court interpretation, then any buffoon or con-artist in government can be insulated not just from prosecution but also from historical examination.
People need to be aware of these issues, and they need to be heard. We should adopt a law: Let the Shredder Beware. Otherwise, Ohio may continue to be plundered, but with no public awareness or accountability.
Christy B. Bishop
Akron
