March 9, 2006

EDITORIAL

Courts should bolster records law

Proponents of open government won a victory last week when a state representative dropped a proposal that would have exempted the Ohio judiciary from the state’s Public Records Act. Such an exemption is unnecessary and contrary to the notion that government, including the courts, works best when it operates in the light of day.

Courts should not be able to determine carte blanche which judicial records are public and which are not. The Ohio General Assembly and the governor should have some role in overseeing the judiciary’s record-keeping decisions.

Thomas Moyer, the chief justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, is among those who support giving the Ohio Supreme Court authority over court records. Chief Justice Moyer says that the constitutional principle of separation of powers gives the Supreme Court the responsibility “to exercise superintendence over the courts of Ohio,” including record-keeping. “The third branch, the judicial branch, has the authority to determine which records are open and not open,” the chief justice told the Associated Press.

Luckily, last week Representative Scott Oelslager, a Republican from Canton, removed from a proposed open records reform bill the exemption for Ohio courts. Representative Oelslager, who is considered an advocate for open records, has said that lawmakers and others interested in the records bill need more time to hash out the court provision. Instead, the court exemption should be dismissed entirely.

The court provision could limit taxpayers’ ability to examine court records, including those containing information about administrative policies, budgets, personnel and management functions of courts. Records describing basic operations should not be treated any differently because they occur in a court. Ohioans should also be concerned that, if the court system gains control of its record-keeping process, the public’s right to access court records, including case files, could slowly be eroded. The danger is that the courts themselves would be less accountable to the public.

The court exemption was just one part of Representative Oelslager’s proposal to reform Ohio’s records laws. The bill contains other sound provisions that would slightly strengthen the Public Records Act.

For instance, the bill would require mandatory public records training for custodians of public records. Another important point in the legislation is a provision that would prohibit public offices from requiring someone requesting a public document to identify himself or to state why he wants a record. The bill would create a state office to handle complaints from people who are denied access to records or kept out of public meetings. Individuals would be able to seek fines from public agencies that refuse to provide public records.

These types of provisions, unlike the court exemption, would improve Ohioans’ access to public records, thus helping citizens to better understand what government officials are doing. If the judicial system wants to increase its clout in the keeping of public records, the Supreme Court should strengthen public records laws, not undermine them.

—Robert Mihalek