Public records help assess officials’ actions, especially if timely

Some Dispatch readers might have wondered why the story about former Ohio State University assistant football coach Zach Smith was in the news again recently.

The short answer is because public records related to the Powell Police Department investigation of complaints about Smith finally became public — months after The Dispatch first requested them.

The story would not have appeared in December if Powell officials had followed the law in July, when The Dispatch asked to review police records after Smith’s former wife made public her allegations of abuse.

Dispatch reporters and editors routinely seek public records on your behalf so that, through their reporting, you can see and judge how public officials are doing their jobs.

And to be fair, most officials are pretty good about providing access to public records.

When reporters run into roadblocks, they typically try to work through them on their own. The Dispatch staff knows the Ohio access laws and is equipped to make sound arguments for access to public information.

If that doesn’t work, they typically involve a senior-level editor in the conversation. And if that doesn’t open up the filing cabinets, the newspaper leadership considers legal action.

The Dispatch does not take any of this lightly. The staff seeks to work with public officials willing to explain the rationale — and legal citations — for withholding records. Sometimes, officials have solid arguments rooted in the law and court decisions.

Sometimes, they supply hot air and no records.

In the past, an escalation to legal action meant the likelihood of thousands of dollars in legal fees and months of waiting for court action.

But a relatively new and inexpensive process in the Ohio Court of Claims allows for a much quicker decision and the low cost of $25 to file the complaint.

Court of Claims Special Master Jeffrey W. Clark, who wrote the decision to open the Powell police records, found that the police department failed to comply with Ohio publicrecords law.

In refusing to release most of the investigatory records, Powell officials argued that they would reveal the identity of the uncharged suspect (Zach Smith) and endanger the lives or physical safety of crime victims or witnesses.

“The Powell PD does not submit any evidence ... of a present threat to Courtney Smith and the Smith children,” Clark wrote in his decision, noting that the investigation was closed nearly two years earlier.

Powell also argued that it could withhold records because the identity of the uncharged suspect (Zach Smith) was “inextricably intertwined” with the other investigatory information. But Clark found that in many pages of the records that was not true. He identified certain records that are exempt from disclosure, including photos deemed to be of “a sexual, personal and humiliating nature.”

So it was this month when Powell officials finally produced the records, which included interview videos and thousands of pages of summaries, text messages, subpoenas and a grand jury report, among other items, from the department’s 2015 investigation into complaints by Courtney Smith.

Ultimately, the records showed that police and prosecutors took the complaints seriously. The records also illustrate the complexities and challenges in considering charges related to domestic-violence allegations. And both of those outcomes show the value of public records — and releasing them in a timely manner.