State, ex rel. Jones, v. Myers, 90-CIV-374

• Decision Date: 06 May 1991
• Docket Number: No. 90-CIV-374,90-CIV-374
• Citation: 581 N.E.2d 629,61 Ohio Misc.2d 617
• Parties: The STATE ex rel. JONES, Sheriff, v. MYERS, County Auditor.
• Court: Ohio Court of Common Pleas

Page 617

61 Ohio Misc.2d 617

581 N.E.2d 629

The STATE ex rel. JONES, Sheriff, v. MYERS, County Auditor.

No. 90-CIV-374.

Court of Common Pleas of Ohio Hocking County.

Decided May 6, 1991.

Cloppert, Portman, Sauter, Latanick & Foley and Robert W. Sauter, Columbus, for relator.

Christopher E. Veidt, Logan, for respondent.

THOMAS H. GERKEN, Judge.

This matter was submitted on stipulations, evidence, and written arguments upon a complaint in mandamus filed by the Hocking County Sheriff, James P. Jones, against the Hocking County Auditor, Leonard Myers, seeking disclosure of the complete computerized payroll record of Hocking County, Ohio, for a certain two-week period in 1990.

On October 25, 1990 Sheriff Jones filed a written request with Auditor Myers for a copy of the pay register for all various county offices for the pay period of October 7 through October 25, 1990. The respondent, Myers, refused to provide the requested records.

On December 2, 1990, the relator, Jones, filed a complaint in mandamus seeking disclosure of all information originally requested, i.e., the payroll register. It is apparent from testimony and from an exhibit (a payroll register previously and routinely supplied by the auditor to the sheriff, until the present controversy) that the payroll register requested will contain not only the employee's name, pay, statutory deductions and other mundane items, but also child support payments, garnishments, savings bond withholdings and other items considered by the auditor to be sufficiently protected by the employee's federal and state privacy rights to prohibit disclosure.

R.C. 149.43(C) provides that a person who is aggrieved by the failure of a governmental agency or person responsible to promptly make a public record available may commence an action in mandamus. The relator must establish: (1) a clear legal right to the relief requested; (2) a clear legal duty on the part of the respondent to perform the requested act; and (3) that relator has no plain and adequate remedy at law.

Sheriff Jones relies upon R.C. 149.43(B) as his mandate of legal right, which states:

"All public records shall be promptly prepared and made available for inspection to any person at all reasonable times during regular business hours. Upon request, a person responsible for public records shall make copies available at cost, within a reasonable period of time. In order to facilitate broader access to public records, governmental units shall maintain public records in such a manner that they can be made available for inspection in accordance with this division."

The term "public record" is defined in R.C. 149.43(A)(1) as " * * * any record that is kept by any public office, including, but not limited to, state, county, city, village, township, and school district units, except medical records, records pertaining to adoption, probation, and parole proceedings, records pertaining to actions under section 2151.85 of the Revised Code * * *, trial preparation records, confidential law enforcement investigatory records, and records the release of which is prohibited by state or federal law."

Findings of Fact

The sheriff is included in the class defined by the statute, i.e., "any person," and the auditor admittedly has the requested information. The information is a record kept by a public office whether or not required to be kept. Unless the auditor can demonstrate that the information is otherwise excepted from release, it is a public record and subject to disclosure.

Public policy requires this court to liberally construe the provisions of the statute defining public records and to strictly construe the exceptions set forth. Any doubt must be resolved in favor of disclosure. While the relator, through counsel, demands complete disclosure of all items contained on the payroll register, it is clear from the testimony of Sheriff Jones that he is not interested in interfering with the individual privacy rights of county employees. He is, however, interested in all items legally obtainable through the statute. His motives, though clear and proper, are not relevant to this proceeding.

The respondent argues that a balancing test is required where privacy interests compete with disclosure requirements. The relator maintains that the statute contains no privacy exception and its provisions are absolute. However, R.C. 149.43(A)(1) expressly provides that "records[,] the release of which is prohibited by state or federal law," are not public records. The United States and Ohio Constitutions have repeatedly been held to provide privacy rights and the Ohio Legislature has codified some privacy rights in R.C. Chapter 1347.

In State, ex rel. Fant, v. Pub. Emp. Retirement Bd. (May 30, 1989), Franklin App. No. 89AP-37, unreported, 1989 WL 57583, cited by the respondent the court determined that, although a retiree's home address is a public record, the disclosure of a retiree's home address would violate his right to privacy, where the purpose of seeking the home address was to perfect...