Why the Hillsboro secrecy over $78,168.64?

A decade ago, the Ohio Coalition for Open Government – in conjunction with the Ohio Newspapers Foundation – conducted an audit of the availability of public information across many of Ohio's public offices.

In the spring of 2004, the OCOG published its results under the headline: "Statewide audit: Records granted only half the time."

Randy Ludlow of The Columbus Dispatch wrote in that 2004 report: "Public records allow Ohioans to make educated decisions in many ways every day about their lifestyles, pocketbooks and government."

Indeed.

Fast-forward 10 years and we see this from a similar audit, as reported by veteran journalist Andrew Welsh-Huggins of The Associated Press this week: "Public employees asked to provide common records during a statewide test of Ohio’s open-records laws in April (2014) followed the law in nine of every 10 requests, according to audit results that found much higher compliance than a similar survey a decade ago."

The increase in compliance with state law is both admirable and encouraging. Still, one out of every 10 requests fails to meet the standards as outlined in Ohio Revised Code 149.43, the state Public Records Act, the Open Meetings Act, or the Sunshine Law.

Providing timely and accurate public records upon reasonable request ought to be a sacred tenet of the public officeholder and elected or appointed public official.

The "reasonable request" caveat is inserted in the previous paragraph for good reason. Those requesting public records ought to maintain a reasonable respect for the myriad other responsibilities of the respective officeholder. (Ohio law addresses this, too, and for good reason.)

If memory serves, not too many years ago, a Scioto County man made numerous public records requests from city, county, public schools and college officials. Some would say he made excessively quantitative demands on officeholders, albeit within the scope (mostly) of his rights in the state of Ohio.

In the past 24 years in newspaper journalism, I suspect that I have made fewer than 50 formal requests for public information. You could, if you so desire, look it up. Because, as Dan Tierney of the Ohio Attorney General's Office wrote to me: "A public records request is itself a public record."

Yes, it is. As is most everything a public office receives, including those useless visitor sign-in sheets often requested by public offices. (Like the one in the Hillsboro mayor's office.)

Sometimes, after receiving the requested information, I have realized there were valid reasons to withhold publication – and I did.

The state laws on public records and information are established by members of the Ohio General Assembly, signed into law by the sitting governor, interpreted by the Ohio Supreme Court, and enforced by no one.

Therein lies the proverbial rub.

Consider the following scenario.

• During a lame-duck session of the Hillsboro City Council and on New Year's Eve (no less) 2013, the city received $78,168.64.

• A receipt (No. 778420) from the mayor's office, on the "received from" line, indicates "Anonymous." No address is written on the address line.

• Under the "for" line, it is written: "Parks & Recreation @ Mayors (sic) Discretion."

• Highlighted in red is "Project #143201."

• In the "how paid" line, there is an entry next to "check" with #1002.

The receipt is signed by an employee in the mayor's office.

On June 10, on behalf of The Highland County Press and its readers who have made inquiries to me about the money, I asked an elected official from whom the $78,168.64 was received.

At 11:59 a.m. on June 10, the unelected Hillsboro Safety and Service Director Todd Wilkin replied:

"Dear Mr. Ryan,

"We are in receipt of your public records request. I have forwarded this request to our records custodian, Debbie Sansone."

At 2:13 p.m. on June 10, the records custodian replied:

"Rory – I sent you all the records that the city maintains regarding this donation."

At 4:48 p.m. Friday, June 13, 2014, Mr. Wilkin replied to my follow-up request as follows:

"Mr. Ryan, Again, thank you for your records request. I have forwarded this request on to our records custodian, Debbie Sansone. Unfortunately, she is out of the office today."

While I appreciate Mr. Wilkin and Ms. Sansone for their prompt replies, and can only trust that they are following administrative directives, I still have no idea who the generous soul or souls donated the $78,168.64.

Nor do Hillsboro residents and taxpayers.

To borrow a quote from a former U.S. senator and secretary of state who may be our next president, "What difference does it make?"

Well, maybe it does make a difference. (Or maybe it's just a calculated gamble that no one else will make a similar request.)

Consider these Conflict of Interest Prohibitions from O.R.C. 102.03 (D), (E), and (F).

The conflict of interest provisions in R.C. 102.03(D) and (E) state:

(D) No public official or employee shall use or authorize the use of the authority or influence of office or employment to secure anything of value or the promise or offer of anything of value that is of such a character as to manifest a substantial and improper influence upon the public official or employee with respect to that person’s duties;

(E) No public official or employee shall solicit or accept anything of value that is of such a character as to manifest a substantial and improper influence upon the public official or employee with respect to that person’s duties;

(F) No person shall promise or give to a public official or employee anything of value that is of such a character as to manifest a substantial and improper influence upon the public official or employee with respect to that person’s duties.

Without making any determinations or accusations whatsoever regarding the $78,168.64 (right down to the 64th cent, mind you), I am left wondering (as are many Hillsboro residents) how any would-be arm of legal enforcement or oversight could possibly weigh in on the conflict of interest prohibitions if no one knows how the public officeholder came to have $78,168.64 to use at his "discretion."

Quite possibly, there is no conflict. Perhaps there is. Who knows?

But why the secrecy?

Community benefactors have many opportunities with which to contribute to worthwhile causes. They may make charitable contributions – as many do – that do not raise questions of public record.

As Mr. Ludlow wrote in 2004: Louie Bauer discovered the Rossford Police Department in suburban Toledo contributed $100 to a candidate for mayor, so he asked City Hall for records detailing police spending. He received information disclosing the political contribution came from what he derided as a $9,000 'slush fund' of donated money. He unsuccessfully waited more than two months for detailed records.

"The former four-term Rossford mayor wrote his own legal brief and went to the 6th District Ohio Court of Appeals seeking a mandate for the records, which city officials soon delivered.

"'City officials need to understand and respect the law. There is no penalty for a public official who does not uphold the public records law. It then becomes a game," Bauer said.

It seems to have become a game in Hillsboro.

From Exodus, we know there has been "manna from heaven."

But as one of my dear friends said to me: "Yahweh provides. But he doesn't leave a discretionary note with the receipt."

If no one in Hillsboro city government knows where $78,168.64 (right to the red cent) came from, we may have bigger problems than yard sale legislation.

In other words, as former Ohio Supreme Court Justice Andrew Douglas put it: “When government operates in the closet without the sun shining in, bad things tend to happen."

Rory Ryan is the owner of The Highland County Press.