Access to Public Records - Once Again Denied by City Hall!

[Lori Allen _]

What a nightmare! I went up to the clerk of courts office today at City Hall to inspect the records pertaining to a case that was apparently dismissed last year in Lakewood Municipal Court by motion of the prosecutor. I was especially concerned that this case was dismissed because it was a fourth-degree felony of procuring prostitution. According to my interpretation of state law, the only time procuring prostitution is a felony four is when those being procured are under the age of sixteen.

I went up to the desk and told the clerk that I wanted to inspect the courtroom transcript of this case. I was told something along the lines of the City of Lakewood did not keep a paper transcript of what is said and done in the courtroom. After I told the clerk that every courtroom I had ever been in had a stenographer present, she admitted that the happenings of the courtroom were kept on an audio tape and that I would have to make a written request (not legally true), pay $20.00 to listen to it, along with obtaining permission from Judge Carroll. This was after I stood around the clerk's office lobby for close to half an hour.

They were all whispering and looking at me. They appeared to know that what they were doing was against the law. I don't believe any of them knew what to do. I tried repeatedly (by having to talk over Terri O'Neil) to tell her that pursuant to state law and State ex rel. Warren Newspapers, inc. vs. Hutson, that public records have to be made available promptly for inspection free of charge during regular business hours. I recall Ms. O'Neil telling me that it didn't matter what state law said, that the city had policies that they followed and that was that. I started thinking "state law be damned then?"

I told her that perhaps I should contact the Ohio Attorney General's Office. She looked at me in a very disgusting manner. At the beginning of my request, I felt that she already had an attitude. I reminded her that I am a taxpayer and that I pay her salary. Once again, I got the disgusting look back. Hopefully if we get a new administration next year, they will put an end to the disrespect for citizens by some city employees.

I guess lack of transparency isn't just confined to the hospital deal. I would encourage everyone to start paying attention to what is going on in our city. Do not let city hall intimidate you. It is your right to be able to go in and ask to view records on the spot. I hope you all will do this if you feel it necessary.

[Valerie Molinski]

"I reminded her that I am a taxpayer and that I pay her salary."

Did you really say that? If so, I would argue that you are being just as rude to her as you felt you were being treated. I understand you were frustrated by your experience, but saying something like that is offensive.

[Valerie Molinski]

I have no inside track, Jim. I don't plan on reading the rest of your post, but as a fellow tax payer, I just have an issue with people trying to do their job as they are required or trained to do and people being rude or not affording them the courtesy they deserve.

I'm tired of hearing the "I pay their salary" comment as referred to fire fighters, police officers, teachers, etc.... as if we somehow own them. Yes, accountability and service can be an issue, but using that line is beyond rude. if you want to break down how much salary of any particular person I as a tax payer actually pay, it's pretty small.

Anyway, you catch more flies with honey. My issue is the treating people with a mere modicum of respect has gone out the window in lieu of pulling rank to get what you want when you want it.

[Terri ONeill]

All proceedings in the courtroom of the Lakewood Municipal Court are recorded by audio disc, rather than a court reporter. This procedure is not only legally permissible but greatly reduces public funds that would be required for the court to hire a full time court reporter. A court reporter is only used upon request of one or both of the parties and payment of the fees by the requesting parties.

A copy of the audio recording may be obtained with the cost of $20.00 for the disc. The procedure is set out in Rule 19 of the Local Rules of Court. Any and all recordings are available to the public. Upon proof of indigency, the fee may be waived.

The Lakewood Court is a busy court, handling approximately 14,000 cases per year. Preparation of transcripts for each case to be immediately available upon unforeseen request would impose a huge financial burden on the court, the city and ultimately, the taxpayers of the City of Lakewood.

Because there is only one disc for each recording, copies are readily available. The original must be kept in possession of the court. The court does not have an employee immediately available to stop his or her other duties without notice and make arrangements to play the original recording for an individual person.

The Lakewood Court’s procedure complies with State Law. Ohio Revised Code Sec. 149.43 (B) provides:

[A]ll public records responsive to the request shall be promptly prepared and made available for inspection to any person at all reasonable times during regular business hours. . . [U]pon request, a public office or person responsible for public records shall make copies of the requested public record available at cost and within a reasonable period of time.

The Ohio Supreme Court has held that a 3 day response time for public records in not unreasonable. The employees of the Lakewood Court are busy handling civil and criminal cases all day. Often, because an employee is working on other cases or assisting other people, there is no one immediately available to retrieve a record and have it immediately available upon demand with no prior notice. An audio recording is more time consuming. The audio recordings are handled by the court bailiffs. Thus it not only requires a bailiff to be available to obtain the disc, but also take the time to play it for the person making the request.

In this particular case, the person requesting the record was immediately provided the case file for review. She was not, however, willing to comply with the court rules for a copy to be made nor willing to have the recording played for her within a reasonable, mutually agreeable time.

As the clerk of court, I am charged by law to retain custody of all records and to safeguard them for the public. This includes making sure that the records are safely kept for future public requests.

Judge Carroll has implemented procedures for the efficient administration of justice and to provide an open, accessible and responsive forum to resolve legal disputes in our community. All court documents are public records and readily available to the public. The court proceedings are open to the public. Any case information can be obtained from the court’s website 24 hours a day. (www.lakewoodcourtoh.com).

Terri O'Neill
Clerk of Court
Lakewood Municipal Court

[Lori Allen _]

According to my interpretation of State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Seneca Cty. Bd. of Commrs, the right of inspection, as opposed to the right to request copies, is not conditioned on the payment of any fee under R.C. 149.43. I did not request a copy of anything at any time to take off of the premises. Under this court ruling, there is no reason to charge me $20.00 simply to listen to (inspect) the public record. I am also not legally required to put any records request in writing in order to view or inspect public records on the premises, see R.C. 149.43 (B) (5).

I don't recall Ms. O'Neil ever mentioning to me that a bailiff would be who I would go to if I needed assistance with audio recordings.

I simply wanted to know why an oral motion by the prosecutor was made to dismiss a felony four procuring prostitution charge (procuring prostitution with children under the age of sixteen). Apparently, the only way I can find out is through the audio recording, which I was denied access to unless I paid an exorbitant amount of money, put a request in writing, and obtained permission from the judge.

If it is this difficult (and apparently costly) to simply inspect a public record, it makes me wonder what is really happening in our court system and City Hall, for that matter.

[Valerie Molinski]

According to my interpretation of State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Seneca Cty. Bd. of Commrs.....

Are you an attorney? If so, I apologize.

Apparently, the only way I can find out is through the audio recording, which I was denied access to unless I paid an exorbitant amount of money, put a request in writing, and obtained permission from the judge.

If it is this difficult (and apparently costly) to simply inspect a public record, it makes me wonder what is really happening in our court system and City Hall, for that matter.

So if they did not charge a fee and had to instanteously drop everything to respond to a walk in request to grab this while someone waited, I wonder how many requests would come in and someone would have to be hired to be dedicated to these requests. The $20 probably covers the media or the time it takes to get this stuff for people. So if some crazy dude came in and made 500 requests in a day just because they could, and it was free, would I be ok with a city employee spending all of their time acquiesing to this request? No way. At least with the $20, you may be covering some of the cost of the request and also be judicious in a request because you have some skin in the game, so to speak.

Also, what if they were already dealing with responding to previous requests? Do you automatically get to jump to the front of the line?

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/149.43

According to Ohio law, as stated above, the city is well within their rights to charge (6) and require the request in writing(5) (anytime I need work on my computer at my job, I have to submit a request in writing so that it can be tracked and handled). A reasonable time (7) has been established as up to three days. And you were not 'denied,' in my opinion. You were just given the protocol you needed to follow ($20 and not instantaneous) and decided that was not sufficient for you.

I am not an attorney, however, so that is just my interpretation of Ohio law.

[Lori Allen _]

State ex rel. Wadd v. Cleveland - no pleading of too much expense, too much time involved, or too much interference with normal duties can be used by a public office to evade the public's right to inspect or obtain a copy of public records within a reasonable amount of time.

My problem was not necessarily with the fact that the record could not be produced right there, on the spot. My main problem was the fact that the public office attempted to charge me a fee (illegally) and attempted to mandate that I make a request in writing (also illegal). The law is very clear, it states that the public office may ask that a request be put in writing. However, they cannot condition the accessibility of public records because you do not wish to put it in writing.

(5) A public office or person responsible for public records may ask a requester to make the request in writing, may ask for the requester's identity, and may inquire about the intended use of the information requested, but may do so only after disclosing to the requester that a written request is not mandatory and that the requester may decline to reveal the requester's identity or the intended use and when a written request or disclosure of the identity or intended use would benefit the requester by enhancing the ability of the public office or person responsible for public records to identify, locate, or deliver the public records sought by the requester.

I was never informed that I was not obligated by law to put my request in writing (I knew this already). I was never told that we had the option of coming back in a couple of days to review this recording so that the proper accommodations could be made by the city. Had I been informed of this option, I would have gladly come back in a few days.

[Valerie Molinski]

I was never informed that I was not obligated by law to put my request in writing (I knew this already). I was never told that we had the option of coming back in a couple of days to review this recording so that the proper accommodations could be made by the city. Had I been informed of this option, I would have gladly come back in a few days.

Maybe they would be more informed of the law and protocol if they were better compensated? Perhaps you should give them a raise since you pay their salary?

I would encourage everyone to start paying attention to what is going on in our city. Do not let city hall intimidate you. It is your right to be able to go in and ask to view records on the spot.

Part of this would be that every citizen read up on what is a reasonable request and time it takes to respond to that request, and be as informed of state law as you appear to be. Perhaps the miscommunication in this request was that the record you sought to 'see immediately' was audio and they needed time to transpose or make a copy available. I would imagine that they cannot give anyone the original lest they leave the premises with it.

It may be your right to ask to view records ON THE SPOT, but the law you are quoting also states that if this is not possible, they are not necessarily denying your request, but need more time to comply. I completely understand your frustration, but I have issue with the way you described going about this request (the rude comment) and the hyperbolic description ("I was denied! People are whispering! They are intimidating me!" et al) is not productive nor a fair characterization.

[Lori Allen _]

I have presented my case and I don't have anything else on the matter, case closed.

Let's just agree to disagree.