A misguided attempt to limit public-records access

"Frivolous" is in the eye of the beholder. Which is why it was so worrisome to see a bipartisan bill introduced last month in the Ohio General Assembly that would allow some public-records requests to be rejected as "frivolous." The bill, which has yet to receive a hearing, would allow public officials to seek a court order limiting or denying a public-records request if a requester submits multiple requests to the same office, according to the Ohio Legislative Service Commission's analysis. Frequent requesters also could see their requests denied as frivolous if there is "reason to believe the requests are intended to harass the office or person or disrupt the essential functions of the office or person," the analysis said. If the judge determines that the intent of public-records requests was "to harass or disrupt, the court may limit or deny the requests." The judge could also issue an order preemptively denying future requests from the same requester. While the matter is in court, the public agencies, whether at the state or local level, wouldn't have to comply with the records requests. Journalists, some lawyers and state agencies would be exempt from being declared frivolous requesters. House Minority Leader Rep. Dani Isaacsohn, D-Cincinnati, who introduced the bill with state Rep. Sharon Ray, R-Wadsworth, told the Statehouse News Bureau that there was a small number of people submitting huge numbers of public-records requests. Isaacsohn insisted the bill wouldn't weaken Ohioans' access to public records. Rather, he argued it would target requesters who are trying to "gum up the works." "These are not legitimate, substantive public-records requests," Isaacsohn said. While that might sound good to public employees who are weary of having to respond to numerous and at times voluminous public-records requests, it would be a disservice to the public. Access to government records is an essential tool for members of the public to see what those who work for them are doing. Isaacsohn's bill isn't the first example we've heard of public officials pining to restrict access to public records. Last year, Lorain City Council members discussed a resolution in support of creating a state law that would allow people to be declared "vexatious" records requesters. (Our reporter Carissa Woytach checked Tuesday, and learned the resolution never made it out of committee.) The Lorain idea was modeled on the concept of a "vexatious litigator," which Ohio law describes as someone who frequently files unreasonable lawsuits. Limits can be imposed on future lawsuits from those deemed to be vexatious. Similarly to Isaacsohn, Councilman Josh Thornsberry, D-8th Ward, argued last year that the goal wasn't to limit access to public records, but rather to create "common-sense rules." What's "common sense," though, could depend on who makes the request and who receives it. A member of the public might consider a request reasonable, but it could strike a government employee charged with providing the records as vexatious or frivolous. Besides, public officials already can deny requests as overly broad, forcing those who ask for too much to sharpen their requests. Additionally, public agencies can charge reasonable fees to cover the cost of making copies. It's also important to remember that when someone files a public-records request, he or she is asking for information that belongs to the public. It shouldn't matter why someone wants the information, and public officials usually aren't allowed to ask. If you're in public service, responding to such requests goes with the territory. That's as it should be. Despite our objections to limiting access to public records, we do recognize that some people ask for huge amounts of information. We also suspect there are a few frequent filers whose requests city officials would be happy to limit. As we pointed out last year, those asking for public records should be respectful and recognize that as requests pile up so does the risk of creating a backlog, for themselves and others. That problem, such as it is, doesn't justify giving public officials the authority to ask a judge to declare a request frivolous. Moreover, we are worried about the growing trend in Ohio to restrict public access to government records. The state's recently passed biennial budget, for instance, included a provision that allows state lawmakers to keep secret, for as long as two years, documents, emails and text messages they share among themselves and with staff. The budget also included restrictions on the public's access to some police and prosecutorial records. Those restrictions are more watered down than what was originally proposed, but they still limit what the public can see. Allowing people to be designated as filers of frivolous public-records requests would further erode the public's access to information. That's not something those who believe in government transparency should want to see.