State ex rel. Public Emp. Retirees, Inc. v. Public Emp. Retirement System, 79-767

• Decision Date: 12 December 1979
• Docket Number: No. 79-767,79-767
• Citation: 60 Ohio St.2d 93,14 O.O.3d 331,397 N.E.2d 1191
• Parties: , 14 O.O.3d 331 The STATE, ex rel. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREES, INC., v. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM of Ohio et al.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 93

60 Ohio St.2d 93

397 N.E.2d 1191, 14 O.O.3d 331

The STATE, ex rel. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREES, INC., v. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM of Ohio et al.

No. 79-767.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Dec. 12, 1979.

Relator, Public Employees Retirees, Inc., instituted this original action in mandamus to compel respondents, the Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio (PERS), to provide relator with access to a list of names and addresses of member retirees of PERS and a continual update of additions and deletions to this list.

Relator is a non-profit Ohio corporation engaged in the representation of all Ohio public employment retirees. Relator issues a newsletter three times a year to its members in good standing and once a year to all public retirees. Annual dues are collected at a rate of $3 a year from each member. Some of these funds are used for the promotion of legislation regarding retirement benefits and insurance and tax issues affecting its members. It is uncontested that relator works for the betterment of the position of the retirees taking part in the PERS.

From 1972 to 1977, respondents allowed relator access to the names and addresses of all active PERS members for membership solicitation by relator. PERS later agreed to provide relator with a tape each month showing deletions, additions and changes of address. When R.C. Chapter 1347, the Privacy Act, became effective on January 1, 1977, however, PERS thereafter refused relator access to the names and addresses of its members.

Relator then brought the present action to compel respondents to comply with its request.

Robert M. Draper, Columbus, for relator.

William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., and John R. Hewitt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

In order for a writ of mandamus to be issued, a relator must show:

" * * * (1) that he enjoys a clear legal right to the relief for which he prays, (2) that respondent is under a clear legal duty to perform the act demanded by relator, and (3) that he has no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law." State ex rel. Niles v. Bernard (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 31, at page 33, 372 N.E.2d 339, at page 340.

Relator's right of access to the list of names and addresses of member retirees of PERS, and the duty of PERS to make these lists available to relator, are governed by R.C. 149.43, which provides:

"As used in this section, 'public record' means any record required to be kept by any governmental unit, * * * except records pertaining to physical or psychiatric examinations, adoption, probation, and parole proceedings, and records the release of which is prohibited by state or federal law.

"All public records shall be open at all reasonable times for inspection. Upon request, a person responsible for public records shall make copies available at cost, within a reasonable period of time."

Respondents do not deny that the above section is applicable and that public records are involved herein. State ex rel. Beauty Supply Co. v. State Bd. of Cosmetology (1977), 49 Ohio St.2d 245, 361 N.E.2d 444. Nor do respondents contend that relator has an adequate remedy at law. Thus, unless there is an applicable exception to the cited provision, or unless the Privacy Act prevents the release of the requested information, the writ should issue.

Respondents contend that R.C. 145.27 provides such an exception. That statute states, in conformity with R.C. 149.43, that PERS records shall be open to public inspection, but then excludes from inspection history records of public employees filed pursuant to R.C. 145.16. R.C. 145.16 requires a public employee, when he becomes a member of PERS, to provide a detailed statement of all his previous service as a public employee. Respondents argue that this exception applies here, thus preventing...