Hicks v. Newtown
2017 Ohio 8952
| Ohio Ct. Cl. | 2017Background
- Hicks requested records about the Short Park Project, a joint venture between Village of Newtown and Miami Valley Christian Academy (MVCA), seeking donor information, a $500k loan source/terms, and bank/financial statements. Prior to this request he had already received over 700 pages of records.
- The Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) contains a clause stating documents pertaining to construction/use/maintenance of the park "shall be a public record" and requires MVCA to maintain such records or provide copies to Newtown.
- Newtown responded it had no responsive records in its possession and argued petitioner’s requests sought new compilations or records of MVCA, not Newtown; Newtown moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6).
- The Special Master applied the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard (derived from mandamus caselaw governing public-records disputes) to determine which requests identified "public records" of Newtown and which were impermissibly broad.
- Ruling: requests seeking generic "information" (donors, the $500k loan, entities set up for the project) were ambiguous/overbroad and properly denied; however, any donor agreements, bank statements, or other financial documents that were received, inspected, or shown to Newtown (i.e., used as "assurances" under JVA §4.8) are Newtown records and must be obtained from MVCA (MVCA is a "person responsible for" those records).
- The Special Master found Newtown violated R.C. 149.43(B)(2) by not advising Hicks how to revise ambiguous requests, but Hicks did not seek relief ordering that notice; he was awarded recovery of the filing fee and ordered Newtown to obtain and produce any relied-upon financial records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether requests for "transparent information" seeking donor identity, loan source/terms, or entities set up for the project are valid public-records requests | Hicks sought broad disclosure of donors, $500k loan details, and financial statements relating to the project | Newtown argued these requests improperly ask it to compile/search for information and seek records of MVCA not Newtown | Held: Requests for loose "information" (donors, loan, unidentified entities) are ambiguous/overbroad and may be denied; requests for specific documents (donor agreements, bank statements) are valid when properly identified |
| Whether documents shown to Newtown's officials as assurances of MVCA's financial capacity are Newtown "records" | Hicks argued financial evidence shown to the mayor and used in project approval are public records of Newtown | Newtown argued such records are MVCA's and not Newtown's public records; contract terms cannot create confidentiality | Held: Documents received/inspected/proffered to Newtown as "assurances" meet the statutory definition of Newtown records and must be produced |
| Whether Newtown can avoid production because records are physically held by MVCA or another private party | Hicks argued Newtown must retrieve records it relied upon regardless of physical custody | Newtown argued it did not "have" responsive records and need not obtain MVCA documents | Held: Offsite physical custody does not defeat public-record status; Newtown must retrieve records maintained by MVCA under the JVA, and MVCA is a "person responsible for" them |
| Whether MVCA is the functional equivalent of a public office (making its entire records subject to R.C. 149.43) | Hicks suggested the joint venture effectively withheld financial records from public view | Newtown contended MVCA is private, project primarily benefits MVCA, and MVCA is not functionally a public office | Held: On balance MVCA is not the functional equivalent of a public office, but it is a "person responsible for public records" for documents created/received for Newtown's public duties under the JVA |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Dann v. Taft, 109 Ohio St.3d 364 (2006) (Public Records Act promotes open government and accountability)
- State ex rel. Strothers v. Wertheim, 80 Ohio St.3d 155 (1997) (statute construed liberally in favor of disclosure)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hamilton Cty., 75 Ohio St.3d 374 (1996) (resolve doubts in favor of disclosure)
- State ex rel. Shaughnessy v. Cleveland, 149 Ohio St.3d 612 (2016) (requests that compel research/compilation are improper)
- State ex rel. White v. Goldsberry, 85 Ohio St.3d 153 (1999) (no duty to create new records by compiling information)
- State ex rel. Findlay Publ. Co. v. Hancock Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 80 Ohio St.3d 134 (1997) (public entity cannot contractually cloak public records as confidential)
- State ex rel. Krings v. Cincinnati Enquirer, 93 Ohio St.3d 654 (2001) (public records remain subject to disclosure regardless of physical location; private custodian does not defeat public status)
- Kish v. Akron, 109 Ohio St.3d 162 (2006) (broad statutory definition of "records")
- State ex rel. WBNS TV, Inc. v. Dues, 101 Ohio St.3d 406 (2004) (information relied upon by public office in decision-making is a public record)