Recordpub.com - Portage court denies access to records New state law creating confusion, meant to simplify the process

Fri Jul 03 2009

Home | Back

Portage court denies access to records New state law creating confusion, meant to simplify the process

Email To A Friend
Printer Friendly
Comments

Mike Sever

October 4, 2007

By Mike Sever

Record-Courier staff writer

A new state records law intended to make public records more accessible has caused confusion and, in one case, had Portage County courts denying media access to court records.

A Record-Courier reporter was told Wednesday by county court employees that there would be no access to physical court records until employees attended an Oct. 17 training session on the new law.

A Portage County Common Pleas Court clerk denied any access to the common pleas court physical files. On another floor, a municipal court clerk did make copies of files and blacked out information that is not public, such as Social Security numbers.

It was not clear whether the access ban was universal or limited only to the press.

The irony is the new law, which went into effect Sept. 29, is meant to make public access to public records easier, not to expand government's ability to deny access.

Under the law, a public official or their designee must make available all of the information within the public record that is not exempt.

The law required the Ohio attorney general to develop and provide a model public records policy to all public offices. The law also requires all public offices to adopt a public records policy.

Local governments have yet to enact their open records policies as required. That's because the Ohio attorney general's office is required by the law to provide training to all government bodies, from township trustees on up, on the law before adopting a policy. The earliest session available for Portage County officials is Oct. 17 in Akron.

The new law also says public officials may not require that the requestor disclose their identity or the intended use of the requested public record, unless specifically required or authorized to do so by state or federal law. The requestor's identity or the intended use of the information may be requested only if that information will make it easier to comply with the request.

Comments

By Posting to this site, you agree to our Terms of Service Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed. Recordpub.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.

23.	Posted by dp October 7, 2007
	On October 5, I received the following email in response to a request I made to the Ohio AG's office in early September about current information on the law to go into effect September 29. This came from Ian Porter at the Ohio Attorney General's office: "I am responding to your inquiry about reviewing and commenting on the Model Public Records Policy created by the Attorney General's office. The Attorney General's office strongly encourages all interested parties to give input on this policy as it affects every citizen. You may access the policy through the Attorney General's website, http://www.ag.state.oh.us, by clicking on the link "Model Public Records Policy" on the homepage. You will be able to review the model policy and submit a comment through the link found at the bottom of the page under the heading "Related Links." Furthermore, if you would like to receive formal training on the law and how the law will be implemented through this model policy, you may register for one of the seminars being presented by the Attorney General's office. To register for a seminar, go to the Attorney General's website at http://www.ag.state.oh.us and click the "Model Public Records Policy" link, followed by the "Training Seminars" link. Please fill out all the information requested in the registration form. I hope I have answered your question in a satisfactory manner. If you have further questions, contact the Attorney General's office at 1-800-AG4OHIO, or through the website by clicking the link "AG4OHIO Help Center" on the homepage."

22.	Posted by DoWhatsRight October 5, 2007
	rmr8414 You must be one of those civil servants that do not want to do anything more than they have to. First of all the police report should have been done by the policeman. These civil servants need to realize that the public pay their salary and that is who they work for. It is the office holder responsibility to properly staff the department and that includes making sure that the staff is enough to serve the public. I doubt that anyone seeking public records would object to a clerk taking the first person. In the case you mentioned it would be the court. Your example is lame. You darn right I would fire any employee that grunts at a customer, and the public is the customer. You treat the customer with respect and give them good service. Without customers you have no business. Yes the worker is hired help. That does not make them any less, but they are hired to do a job and that includes serving the public. I might add that I have been to hundreds of places across this country to search public records. In about 95 % of them I was treated great and the staff was a big help. Portage County was part of that 95% I might add.

21.	Posted by s.swenson October 5, 2007
	Rage Be sure to check out the lamp repairs article. A new destination has been added to our travels in the old Studdie. Another location has surfaced that I the (youngster) have no clue and have never heard of prior.

20.	Posted by Rageman October 5, 2007
	You got it right, don't ya kno'! There's a dual purpose here, to inform and confuse at the same time! Most people, when they see the extent to which they must "research" will throw their hands up and say, "I quit, this is too much work". Then they'll move on to the next article ...leaving this article to "little ol' me and you" to play on. Good thinking, huh. Well, you and me and the former CVS picture cop, now an "RC web censor" to play on.

19.	Posted by s.swenson October 5, 2007
	C'mon Rage can't you just interpret for us? That's a whole lotta reading to do, the reporters job is to scale that down for us "simpletons" yes I'm referencing myself here. I thought you'd do the homework for me prior to our lil drive out through the county! It's midnight I'm cinderella off to la la land. You can't publish the "new" paper if your going to make us do all the work! I'd gladly pay you a profitable price to take the research part of it out of here for me. Are you doing to have a link to the public records on your papers site?

18.	Posted by Rageman October 5, 2007
	But seriously folks.... H.B. 9 was a bill of the previous State Assembly (126th) originally sponsored by Rep. Oelslager, Flowers, Buehrer, White, Trakas et al, and introduced Jan 25, 2004, (http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/analysis.cfm?ID=126_HB_009&hf=analyses126/h0009-i-126.htm) and finally enacted 12-19-06.(http://www.lbo.state.oh.us/fiscal/fiscalnotes/126ga/HB0009EN.htm) Take particular note on above link; (Status - As Enacted " Effective March 3, 2007 (Sections 1 and 2 effective September 29, 2007)) I was unable to find Marc Dann's name anywhere as a originator or a sponsor of the bill. Irrelevant. H.B. 9 is actually an amendment to the law I pointed to earlier, O.R.C. Section 149.43 (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/149.43). (note effective dates bottom of page) Read that law and you'll understand the requirements that are presently in place. What recent amendments the RC is talking about now is unspecified by them and still unclear to me. After reviewing action history of the 127th General Assembly, I found no reference to any new law having been passed that resembles what the RC seems to be referring to. They "might" be talking about provisions 1 & 2 of H.B. 9, but they don't specify that. Bottom line? I'm still left to speculate.

17.	Posted by s.swenson October 4, 2007
	Hmmmm? We may have to take the old Studie out and drive around the "loop" & out past the blimp and then you can show me the local of the ol' l4inn and we can talk in private about our new enterprise. Who does the paper pay to sit up all night and monitor our personal smiles to one another through these posts? Holy Cow, they may have hired the clerk from CVS to censor us....and our words!

16.	Posted by Rageman October 4, 2007
	I agree with you OhioGal, the public policy of "voiding" records should be strictly prohibited by law. Wait a minute! We've been redacted! That's illegal under a provision of this law! I want unredacted copies of that!! The law says, "The Public Records Act is to be interpreted liberally to facilitate broader access to public records". Do you feel like you've been treated liberally? I don't! I should have known that it would be strictly prohibited for any and all commenters to engage at any time in expressions denoting happiness, camaraderie, or friendliness without first applying for express written consent of the Owners. YOUR SUBSCRIPTION WILL BE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE TERMINATION AND A CHARGE OF ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100.00) FOR EARLY TERMINATION; YOU MAY BE SUBJECT TO LEGAL ACTION; AND MLBAM RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REPORT SUCH MISCONDUCT TO APPROPRIATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES. Uh... wait a minute, that's from MLB.com. Can I get a copy of that?

15.	Posted by Rageman October 4, 2007
	Thank you dp. I am now significantly better informed. Too bad the RC couldn't have furnished a couple footnotes to provide us readers with leads to this info. After all, what's a newspaper for but to inform. The big papers and many other small papers reference their articles all the time. No excuse. There's room to do better!

14.	Posted by s.swenson October 4, 2007
	Did you miss the public policy no flirting and no playing nice? Maybe they don't want us playing in the same sandbox. I will have to take my toys and go home? That is no fun. Yes I do believe we were put in to time out? Wow! I bet a handful of people missed that one Rage, had to be here to see it. The Vanishing Post. Hey a good name for the new paper. Competition must have scared em.

Next 10 Comments | Home | Back

Advanced Search