Public records should be available to all

The last thing Ohio needs is to make public records harder to get. Unfortunately, some members of Lorain City Council see things differently, which is why they've proposed the creation of a new state law that would allow some of those people seeking public records to be declared "vexatious" records requesters. The idea is modeled on the concept of a "vexatious litigator," defined in the Ohio Revised Code as someone who "habitually, persistently, and without reasonable grounds engaged in vexatious conduct in a civil action." In other words, someone who deluges the court system with frivolous lawsuits that can consume defendants' time and money as well as court resources. Those deemed vexatious litigators are restricted in what lawsuits they're allowed to file. On Monday, Council debated whether to ask state lawmakers impose "reasonable limits on the frequency and scope of requests and (provide) public agencies with the authority to seek relief or impose reasonable restrictions when faced with vexatious or harassing requests." As Councilman Antonio Baez, D-6th Ward, correctly pointed out, such a law could become a "slippery slope." Indeed, we fear it would limit transparency and be used as an excuse to withhold records that are damaging or embarrassing to public officials. Besides, it shouldn't matter why a member of the public wants a public record. If a requester is legally entitled to a record, he should get it. (Ohio law doesn't typically allow public entities to ask why a requester wants a particular public record. Nor should it.) We also don't agree that there should be limits on the number of public-records requests a person can make. After all, how many requests would be too many? Ohio law allows public entities to charge a reasonable fee to cover copying costs. Granted, some people seeking public records are on fishing expeditions, but that shouldn't lead to limits on how many records they should be able to request. That said, those seeking public records should do so in a respectful manner and recognize that the more requests they make, the greater the backlog they risk creating. That can lead to delays in requests being fulfilled for everyone trying to get public records. Ohio law allows public officials a "reasonable" amount of time to comply with records requests. It's also fair to point out that public officials already are allowed to deny records requests as overly broad, forcing requesters to limit what they are asking for. It's an exception that can be abused, just as the creation of a vexatious requester law could be abused. Councilman Josh Thornsberry, D-8th Ward, insisted that those who favored such a vexatious requester designation weren't trying to limit access to public records. Instead, he said, they wanted "common-sense rules in place." But whose "common sense" would be used to decide what constitutes a "harassing" request for public records? We suspect that responsibility likely would fall to whoever is charged with reviewing public-records requests, a task in Lorain that is usually handled by Law Director Pat Riley. (We have, admittedly, clashed with him and other Lorain officials over the years about getting public records. That raises another question: Could pesky reporters be declared vexatious requesters?) Councilwoman Pam Carter, D-3rd Ward, argued that the concept of a vexatious requester wasn't directed at any one person. However, it appears to us that it would almost certainly be used to curtail Lorain resident Aaron Knapp's near-daily barrage of public-records requests to city officials. Knapp also sends numerous emails complaining about how his records requests were handled and about his treatment by public officials. Lorain officials do appear to have grown exasperated with Knapp, but that isn't a good-enough reason to try to interfere with his or anyone else's right to review public documents. As Councilwoman Victoria Kempton, D-2nd Ward, reminded her colleagues, they work for the residents of Lorain and should comply with public-records requests whether they like a resident or not. She's right. The question of whether Council would send a letter to state lawmakers asking them to create a vexatious requester law was handed over to Council's Police, Fire and Legislative Committee. However, the committee's chairman, Councilman Tony Dimacchia, D-at large, seemed to have little interest in discussing the issue any further, pointing out that Council didn't have the power to make such a law themselves. "The fact that this body is spending this amount of time on this is mind blowing to me," he said. It's even more mind blowing that Council was discussing ways to limit the public's access to public records at all.