Agencies fail to follow Sunshine Laws
Montgomery County, school districts among those out of compliance with Ohio public records laws.
Nearly 30% of government agencies across our nine-county region were found out of compliance with Ohio public records and open meetings act laws in state audits in recent years, a Dayton Daily News, Journal-News, Springfield News-Sun investigation found.
In state audits concluded in 2022 and 2023, more than 100 public agencies were cited for being out of compliance for many factors, including not having a public records retention policy or failing to provide records in a timely manner. The most common offenders are townships, community improvement corporations and villages.
Some have been found out of compliance with Ohio Sunshine laws in multiple audits over several years, according to an analysis of audit finding data this news organization obtained from Ohio Auditor of State Keith Faber using Ohio public records law.
The week of March 11 is Sunshine Week, when this news organization and others across the nation raise awareness of Sunshine Laws, protections for citizens to ensure government agencies are transparent about what is going on inside their offices. Journalists use the laws to request documents, track agency decisions and report stories.
“Ultimately, when officials step into public positions, they are required to know the responsibilities that go with those positions, and they should want to operate in compliance to properly serve their constituency,” said Marc Kovac, spokesman for the Ohio Auditor of State. “We are a reporting agency and test compliance as part of our audit work because we believe it is an important stewardship requirement. When we identify noncompliance, we report on it.”
Faber’s office conducts audits of more than 5,900 local governments, agencies and organizations across Ohio. Auditors
Records
a month behind.
“That is the problem we are having period, people are over-tasked,” Crank said. “It is frustrating.”
City Manager Paul Lolli said he anticipates equipping patrol offices will move more quickly because the supervisors will already be trained.
He said council was fully supportive of the cameras as well as city staff, but the price tag was high and decisions were made to wait for grant funding.
“The big problem is the storage and having to have people available for video redaction,” Lolli said. “Getting the training and the video redaction set up was a little bit more difficult than we had anticipated.”
Lolli said he personally has mixed feelings concerning the body cameras.
“I think it is a very good thing, it’s the wave of the future. The problem you start seeing every crime that is committed, even minor crime, the legal process comes forward and every little thing that happens, somebody wants the video of it. That is what causes a lot of manhours to meet what we need to do on those requests,” he said.
WHEN BODY CAMERAS ARE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE
A law took effect in 2019 that gave guidance for using body cameras. It identified 17 instances in which video recorded by body cameras are exempt from disclosure. Among them are:
■ Inside a residence unless the incident involves “an adversarial encounter with, or a use of force by, a peace officer”
■ Showing children
■ A death or body, unless it was caused by a peace officer
■ A nude body, unless the person consents
■ “Grievous” bodily harm to a peace officer, firefighter, paramedic or other first responder