In the case of Brown v. Cleveland, Ct. of Cl. Case No. 2018-01426PQ, the Ohio Court of Claims adopted the report and recommendation of a special master (2019-Ohio-1819) finding that private, residential addresses used for voting at a public meeting are public records subject to disclosure.
In this case, a local councilman held a special meeting for all residents of a city street to decide whether to change the street name in memory of a recently deceased child. At the special meeting, the residents voted against changing the street name. The mother of the deceased child made a public records request to obtain the attendance record of all participants at the special meeting. The city provided the requested attendance record but redacted the residential address, telephone number, and email addresses of all participants arguing that such information were not public records.
On the one hand, the special master determined that the residential addresses were public records as they “were used to document the procedures, participants, and decision of the city councilman” as the residential addresses were used to define an attendee as a resident. Brown at ¶ 11.
On the other hand, the special master agreed that the telephone numbers and email addresses were not public records as they were only obtained for “administrative convenience.” Brown at ¶ 12.
To read the special master’s report and recommendation, click here.
To read the court of claim’s entry adopting the recommendations of the special master, click Brown v Cleveland.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.