State ex rel. James v. Ohio State Univ., No. 94-833

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
• Writing for the Court: WRIGHT; MOYER
• Citation: 637 N.E.2d 911,70 Ohio St.3d 168
• Decision Date: 31 August 1994
• Docket Number: No. 94-833
• Parties: , 92 Ed. Law Rep. 1259 The STATE ex rel. JAMES v. OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY et al.

Page 168

70 Ohio St.3d 168 637 N.E.2d 911, 92 Ed. Law Rep. 1259 The STATE ex rel. JAMES
v.
OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY et al. No. 94-833. Supreme Court of Ohio. Submitted June 29, 1994.
Decided Aug. 31, 1994. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

Page 169

Promotion and tenure records maintained by a state-supported institution of higher education are "public records" pursuant to R.C. 149.43(A)(1), are not subject to any exception, and are, therefore, subject to the public records disclosure requirements of R.C. 149.43(B).

Relator, William Calvin James, an assistant professor in the department of geological sciences at respondent Ohio State University[637 N.E.2d 912] ("university"), seeks access to and copies of records contained in tenure and promotion files maintained by the university in various college and departmental offices. Respondent James Garland, dean of the college of math and physical sciences, offered James access to a redacted version of James's own promotion and tenure file, but refused James access to any other employee's promotion and tenure file. As to James's promotion and tenure file, respondent Garland refused to provide James access to the chairperson's evaluation letter and any information which might reveal the identity of persons evaluating James's work.

James brought this original action in mandamus to compel respondents to provide access to the disputed records.

William Calvin James, pro se.

Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur and Kathleen M. Trafford, Columbus, for respondents.

WRIGHT, Justice.

At issue in this case is whether documents contained in promotion and tenure files maintained by the university are public records subject to disclosure under R.C. 149.43(B), or whether the records meet any of the exceptions contained in R.C. 149.43(A)(1) so as to prevent disclosure.

The university does not dispute that it is a state agency and public office under R.C. 149.011. Rather, it argues that the records are excepted from disclosure under R.C. 149.43(A)(1). In considering the university's arguments, we are mindful that exceptions to disclosure are to be construed strictly against the custodian of public records and doubt should be resolved in favor of disclosure. State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Lesak (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 1, 4, 9 OBR 52, 54, 457 N.E.2d 821, 823 (Celebrezze, C.J., concurring). Further, the burden to establish an exception is on the custodian of the public records. State ex rel. Natl. Broadcasting Co. v. Cleveland (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 79, 83, 526 N.E.2d 786, 790.

Page 170

The university makes two claims that the records are not subject to disclosure: that R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(a) and (b) justify redaction of the evaluators' names, and that disclosure would substantially infringe the university's constitutionally protected right to academic freedom. We reject both arguments.

The university contends that an evaluator is the equivalent of "an information source or witness to whom confidentiality has been reasonably promised" under R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(a) and (b). However, in making this argument the university ignores R.C. 149.43(A)(2), which limits the applicability of R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(a) and (b) to "[c]onfidential law enforcement investigatory record[s]." Under no stretch of the imagination can the personnel records in question be deemed confidential law enforcement investigatory records. Therefore, the university's reliance on R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(a) and (b) is at best misplaced and, at worst, disingenuous.

This is particularly true in light of the university's statement in its own "GUIDELINES FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE PROCEDURES AT THE DEPARTMENT, COLLEGE, AND UNIVERSITY...