Opinion: A victory for transparency in the Ohio Supreme Court | Strictly Legal

A nearly unanimous Ohio Supreme Court recently issued a ruling that helps ensure transparency of school records. In doing so, it implicitly overruled an older decision from the first appellate district that had severely limited transparency. Better late than never, I suppose.

The case involved a request by Brian Ames, who asked for a copy of "the records documenting the results of the public health survey" that the Crestwood Ohio School District had recently conducted.

In spring 2022, the athletic director of the school district sent a mental health survey to district staff. The board did not authorize the survey to be conducted, but the superintendent allowed the athletic director to circulate it. The survey is entitled "Mental Health PD Survey."

It stated "With this data, Crestwood Local Schools intends to recognize areas of concern and improvement, [to] acknowledge individuals' anonymous statements and/or opinions, and to implement strategies that can be utilized by both staff and students to reduce the feeling of 'burnout' and increase mental health-wellbeing."

The survey asked a series of questions about the recipients' mental health, including what negatively influences their mental health at work, what they do to positively influence their mental health, and what ideas or actions might improve mental health in the district or their building. The survey stated that it did not collect respondents' names or email addresses.

The district refused to provide the survey results, arguing that they did not fall within the definition of public records. It claimed that the results were personal to the surveyed individuals and "were not relied upon by the board in taking any action." Interestingly, the district did provide a copy of the survey itself.

The 11th appellate district agreed with the district and granted summary judgment, finding as a matter of law that the survey results didn't constitute public records. Ames appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which saw things differently.

In the Supreme Court's view, the survey results satisfied all three criteria for public records. The first two criteria were satisfied easily. The results were a tangible item that were created by the district. The fight was over the third criteria: Did the survey results document the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations or other activities of the office? The district argued that the survey results did not document the activities of the office because they were "personal to the surveyed individuals and were not relied upon by the board in taking any action."

In the Supreme Court's view, the district's focus was too narrow. As the court noted, "the survey was sent (with the superintendent’s permission) to employees about work-related matters, and the district retained the survey results. The survey results are not merely about the employees' general mental health; they document employees' responses to inquiries about how their mental health is negatively affected by the workplace and how well the school district or individual schools support the employees."

In addition, the court noted, "the responses to questions five and six of the survey, which respectively ask what types of things negatively influence employees' mental health and why, do shed light on the school district's performance and likely aid in the school district’s accountability to its employees and the public. Therefore, the survey results document the functions, policies, and operations of the school district."

In reaching its conclusion, the Supreme Court implicitly overruled a first district decision involving the City of Blue Ash.  In that case, the first district ruled that compilations of anonymous employee feedback were not public records subject to disclosures because the feedback documents "were not utilized by Blue Ash to carry out its duties and responsibilities." That decision was erroneous at the time it was rendered, and it is good to see the Supreme Court effectively overrule it now.

Chalk one up for transparency! Well done Supreme Court.

Jack Greiner is a partner at Faruki PLL law firm in Cincinnati. He represents Enquirer Media in First Amendment and media issues.

This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: Opinion: A victory for transparency in the Ohio Supreme Court | Strictly Legal