STATE OF OHIO ex rel., DIANA BOWMAN, Relator-Appellant, vs. JACKSON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent-Appellee.
Case No. 10CA3
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JACKSON COUNTY
Released: May 5, 2011
[Cite as State ex rel. Bowman v. Jackson City School Dist., 2011-Ohio-2228.]
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Edward L. Ostrowski, Jr., Dublin, Ohio, for Relator-Appellant.
Dane A. Gaschen, and Daniel C. Gibson, Bricker & Eckler LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Respondent-Appellee.
McFarland, J.:
{¶1} Relator-Appellant, Diana Bowman, appeals the Jackson County Common Pleas Court‘s deniаl of her petition for a writ of mandamus against Respondent-Appellee, Jackson City School District, to compel compliance with the Public Records Act. On appeal, Relator-Appellant contends that the trial court erred when it determinеd that the documents requested are not public records pursuant to
FACTS
{¶2} On March 12, 2009, Jackson City School Superintendent, Phil Howard, notified the Ohio Department of Education (hereinafter “ODE“) that an employed teacher, Christy Parks, had “engaged or may have engaged in conduct unbecоming to the teaching profession.” This notification was made via completion of a School District, MRDD & Community School Educator Misconduct Reporting Form. Attached to the form was a letter from Superintendent Howard explaining that after being asked to chеck Parks’ use of school email, it was discovered that “she had sent inappropriate emails during the time that should have been teaching[,]” and that the “email correspondence was between her and another adult and had nothing to do with any of our students or any other child.” In the letter, Superintendent Howard also informed ODE that Parks, among other sanctions, had been suspended without pay for forty-five days.
{¶3} The record further reflects that, prior to the report to ODE, Respondent-Appellant, Jackson City School District, and Parks entered into a “Last Chance Agreement” dated March 5, 2009, whereby the parties acknowledged that Parks had “improperly used school computers for
{¶4} At some point thereafter, Respondent-Appellant, Diana Bowman, made a public records request to Respondent-Appellee seeking “all emails and all other supporting documents, in the disciplinаry case of Kristy Parks, March 2009.”1 By letter dated October 22, 2009, Superintendent Howard refused to provide the requested records, explaining that the emails requested were not public records in that they did not serve to document the organization, functions, procеdures, policies, or other activities of the school district, citing State ex. rel Glasgow v. Jones, 119 Ohio St.3d 391, 2008-Ohio-4788, 894 N.E.2d 686, in support.2 Respondent-Appellant made another request by letter dated November 18, 2009. This time, Relator-Appellant requested “to see the separate public file referred to by Ohio Depаrtment of Education,”3 explaining that the file “should show a pattern of excessive and inappropriate emails.” On November 24, 2009, Superintendent Howard responded to the records request by enclosing the
{¶5} On December 16, 2009, Respondent-Appellant filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in Jackson County Court of Common Pleas seeking production of the requested emails. In a decision and order dated February 25, 2009, the trial court denied the petition for mandamus. In reaching its decision, the trial court noted that “the emails were used as the basis of discipline against the teacher who wrote them.” However, the trial court ultimately reasoned thаt “[t]he fact that the use of a public email system for private purposes may result to disciplinary actions for the employee does not render the contents public.”
{¶6} It is from this decision and order that Respondent-Appellant now brings her timely appеal, setting forth a single assignment of error for our review.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
“I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DETERMINED THAT DOCUMENTS REQUESTED BY RELATOR ARE NOT PUBLIC RECORDS PURSUANT TO
LEGAL ANALYSIS
{¶7} In her sole assignment of error, Respondent-Appellant contends that the trial court erred when it determined that documents requested by her
{¶8} ” ‘Mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel compliance with
{¶9} ” ‘Public record’ means records kept by any public office, including * * * school district units.”
{¶10} Turning our attention to the specific records requested, we note that the requested e-mail messages are “records” subject to the Public Records Act if they are “(1) documents, devices, оr items, (2) created or received by or coming under the jurisdiction of the state agencies, (3) which serve to document the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the office.” State ex rel. Glasgow v. Jones, supra, at ¶ 20; citing State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Johnson, 106 Ohio St.3d 160, 2005-Ohio-4384, 833 N.E.2d 274 at ¶ 19;
{¶11} Secondly, the e-mail messages requested are those sent and received by an employed teacher through Respondent school district‘s public email system during business hours. The record further indicates that these emails were sent and received “during time that she should have been teaching.” Thus, the requested emails meet the second prong оf the definition of “records.”
{¶12} It is primarily the final requirement upon which the parties herein disagree. Relator-Appellant, Diana Bowman, contends that the requested emails are public records subject to disclosure because the emails served as thе basis for Respondent-Appellee‘s decision to discipline Parks. More specifically, Relator-Appellant argues that private emails sent over a public office computer become public records when they are utilized to make decisiоns in the public office. Respondent-Appellee contends that the emails requested are not public records because they were personal in nature and did not serve to “document the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the office” as provided in
{¶14} The record before us also includes a “Last Chance Agreement” entered into by Parks and Respondent-Appellee. In the agreement, the parties stipulate that Parks “improperly used school computers for excessive amounts of email during which time she should have been teaching as well as the inappropriate content of such email.” Both the letter to the Ohiо Department of Education and the Last Chance Agreement indicate that, as a result of the findings of the investigation, Parks would be disciplined.
{¶15} Any email “which serves to document the organization, functiоns, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the office” constitutes a public record under
{¶16} Further, in State ex rel. Highlander v. Rudduck, 103 Ohio St.3d 370, 2004-Ohio-4952, 816 N.E.2d 213, the Supreme Court of Ohio reasoned that ” ‘[A]ny record used by a court to render a decision is a record subject to
{¶17} Both court records and school district records are subject to
{¶18} As such, Relator-Appellant‘s sole assignment of error is sustained and the decision of the trial court denying her petition for a writ of mandamus compelling the release of the requested records is reversed.
JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED.
It is ordered that the JUDGMENT BE REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED and that the Appellant recover of Appellee costs herein taxed.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a speсial mandate issue out of this Court directing the Jackson County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.
Any stay previously granted by this Court is hereby terminated as of the date of this entry.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rulеs of Appellate Procedure.
Exceptions.
Kline, J.: Concurs in Judgment and Opinion.
Abele, J.: Dissents.
For the Court,
BY: _________________________
Judge Matthew W. McFarland
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final judgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing with the clerk.