Case Title: State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Krings

Citation: 2001-Ohio-1895

Docket Number: 20010982

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-12-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Krings, 93 Ohio St.3d 654, 2001-Ohio-1895.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. CINCINNATI ENQUIRER, DIVISION OF GANNETT SATELLITE 
INFORMATION NETWORK, INC., APPELLEE, v. KRINGS, CTY. ADMR., ET AL., 
APPELLANTS. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Krings (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 654.] 
Public records — Mandamus sought to compel Hamilton County Administrator 
et al. to grant relator access to the cost-overrun records relating to the 
construction of Paul Brown Stadium — Court of appeals’ grant of writ 
and award of attorney fees affirmed. 
(No. 01-982 — Submitted October 16, 2001 — Decided December 19, 2001.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-000408. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  In 1995, Hamilton County, Ohio, and the city of Cincinnati, 
Ohio, executed a memorandum of understanding in which the county agreed to 
implement a sales tax increase, subject to referendum, to fund construction of new 
stadiums and related facilities for the Cincinnati Bengals professional football 
team and the Cincinnati Reds professional baseball team.  Following an election 
in which the Hamilton County voters approved the increased sales tax to fund the 
construction of the stadiums, the county began planning for construction. 
 
In January 1998, Hamilton County and Cincinnati entered into an 
agreement for the redevelopment of the riverfront area, including the construction 
of Paul Brown Stadium, the new football stadium for the Bengals.  In the 
agreement, the county and the city specified that they had “determined that the 
construction of the new Stadium on the Cincinnati riverfront will create an 
extraordinary opportunity to eliminate blight and transform the riverfront into a 
nucleus of economic development and to make the Riverfront an integral part of a 
redeveloped downtown Cincinnati.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Pursuant to its authority under R.C. 307.0231 to construct sports facilities, 
the Hamilton County Board of Commissioners entered into contracts with 
appellant Getz Ventures (“Getz”) and a joint venture consisting of appellants 
Turner Construction Company, Barton Malow Company, and D.A.G. 
Construction Co., Inc. (“TBMD”), to construct Paul Brown Stadium.  Getz and 
the individual firms that constitute TBMD are privately owned and operated 
businesses that are not political subdivisions or governmental entities of Ohio, are 
not organized for a public purpose, and do not receive the majority of their 
revenues from taxes collected by or under the authority of the board of county 
commissioners.  But Getz’s and TBMD’s compensation under their contracts with 
the board did come from tax revenue. 
 
Under the board’s contract with Getz, Getz agreed to be the project 
manager for the construction of the new football stadium.  The contract provided 
that at the county’s direction, Getz would be authorized to act on behalf of the 
county as its agent.  Getz’s contractual duties included identifying significant 
changes affecting the overall project budget, presenting them to the county during 
review meetings, advising the county on the development of construction 
estimates and on the breakdown of the project into appropriate costs, attending 
cost meetings on behalf of the county, and monitoring expenditures against an 
agreed cost plan and reporting these items to the county.  Furthermore, on behalf 
of the county, Getz was required to advise the construction manager on the 
development of cost reports, their frequency, the extent of detail, and the 
distribution of the reports. 
 
The board contracted with TBMD to have TBMD act as the construction 
manager for the Paul Brown Stadium project.  In this contract, TBMD agreed to 
                                                          
 
1. 
R.C. 307.023 provides, “A board of county commissioners may acquire, construct, 
improve, maintain, operate, lease, or otherwise contract for the acquisition or use of sports 
facilities, as defined in section 307.696 of the Revised Code.” 
January Term, 2001 
3 
“furnish its best skill and judgment in furthering the interests of the Owner.”  The 
contract referred to a “construction team,” consisting of the Hamilton County 
Board of Commissioners, Getz, TBMD, and the project architect, which would 
work from the designing of the project through completion of the construction of 
the stadium.  The construction team is also commonly referred to as the project 
team.  TBMD was contractually required to identify variances between actual and 
budgeted or estimated costs and advise the board and the architect of steps 
necessary to meet the guaranteed maximum construction price.  The contract 
further provided that TBMD must maintain cost-accounting records on all work 
performed, afford the board access to these records, and keep a daily log of 
construction activity including specified information “and similar relevant data as 
the Owner may require.” 
 
By letter dated March 6, 2000, Dan Klepal, a reporter for appellee, the 
Cincinnati Enquirer, a newspaper that is a division of Gannett Satellite 
Information Network, Inc. (“Enquirer”), requested that appellant Hamilton 
County Administrator David Krings permit Klepal to promptly inspect under R.C. 
149.43, the Ohio Public Records Act, ten categories of records, including the 
following: 
 
“All correspondence—including e-mails, memos and reports—between 
project team members related to cost overruns or potential cost overruns at Paul 
Brown Stadium.  This should include memos and reports between different team 
members, for example Getz Ventures staff communicating with NBBJ [the 
project architect] or TBMD, as well as memos and reports among staff on the 
same company, whether it be Getz, NBBJ or TBMD.” 
 
The county provided the Enquirer with the following records in response 
to Klepal’s request: all records in existence and physically located in the county 
administration building and all records in existence and authored by, addressed to, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
or copied to county employees and officials at the time of the request and located 
in the construction trailer for Paul Brown Stadium. 
 
After Suzanne Burck, the Director of Administrative Services for 
Hamilton County, instructed the Enquirer that all communications with the 
construction team or any member of the team were to be directed through Brooke 
Hill, the Enquirer requested that Hill, as a representative of TBMD, provide the 
newspaper with access to inspect all communications, including e-mails, 
memoranda, reports, and draft reports, between team members relating to cost 
overruns and the construction schedule at Paul Brown Stadium.  Hill is an 
employee of HMS Success, which had a contract with Getz and was being paid by 
the county for its services as public information specialist for the project.  Hill 
responded in a letter in which she stated that the project team rejected the 
Enquirer’s request, specifying, “We do not believe that internal business 
documents of a contractor are public documents covered under the Ohio Open 
Records Act.” 
 
In June 2000, the Enquirer filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for 
Hamilton County for a writ of mandamus to compel appellants, Krings, TBMD, 
and Getz, to provide it with access to the requested records.  The Enquirer also 
requested an award of attorney fees.  In December 2000, after appellants filed 
answers and motions for summary judgment, the court of appeals granted the writ 
and ordered appellants to provide the Enquirer with access to the requested cost-
overrun records and deferred its consideration of the Enquirer’s request for 
attorney fees.  We granted the Enquirer’s motion to dismiss appellants’ initial 
appeal from the December 2000 entry.  State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Krings 
(2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 1458, 743 N.E.2d 399.  In May 2001, the court of appeals 
entered a judgment awarding the Enquirer attorney fees in the amount of 
$9,991.50 against Krings. 
January Term, 2001 
5 
 
This cause is now before the court upon the appeals as of right of Krings, 
TBMD, and Getz. 
Mandamus 
 
Appellants assert that the court of appeals erred in granting the writ of 
mandamus to compel access to the cost-overrun records relating to the 
construction of Paul Brown Stadium. 
 
Mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel compliance with Ohio’s 
Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43.  State ex rel. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Ohio 
Environmental Protection Agency (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 166, 171, 724 N.E.2d 
411, 417.  A “public record” is “any record that is kept by any public office, 
including, but not limited to * * * county * * * units.”  R.C. 149.43(A)(1).  It is 
uncontroverted that Krings, the county administrator to whom the initial records 
request was directed, is a public official appointed by a public office, the board of 
county commissioners.  See R.C. 149.011(A) and (D). 
 
As the court of appeals correctly held, the dispositive issue is whether the 
requested cost-overrun records in the custody of private entities like TBMD and 
Getz are public records for purposes of the Public Records Act.  “Records” that 
are referred to in R.C. 149.43 include “any document, device, or item, regardless 
of physical form or characteristic, created or received by or coming under the 
jurisdiction of any public office of the state or its political subdivisions, which 
serves to document the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, 
operations, or other activities of the office.”  R.C. 149.011(G). 
 
R.C. 149.43(C) permits a mandamus action against either “the public 
office or the person responsible for the public record” to compel compliance with 
the Public Records Act.  This language “manifests an intent to afford access to 
public records, even when a private entity is responsible for the records.”  State ex 
rel. Mazzaro v. Ferguson (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 37, 39, 550 N.E.2d 464, 467; 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Univ. of Toledo Found. (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 
258, 263, 602 N.E.2d 1159, 1163. 
 
In order for a private entity to be subject to R.C. 149.43, (1) it must 
prepare the records in order to carry out a public office’s responsibilities, (2) the 
public office must be able to monitor the private entity’s performance, and (3) the 
public office must have access to the records for this purpose.  State ex rel. Rea v. 
Ohio Dept. of Edn. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 527, 531, 692 N.E.2d 596, 600, citing 
Mazzaro. 
 
The construction of stadiums has historically been accomplished by 
public, rather than private enterprise.  See Bazell v. Cincinnati (1968), 13 Ohio 
St.2d 63, 69, 42 O.O.2d 137, 140, 233 N.E.2d 864, 869, quoting Cleveland v. Bd. 
of Tax Appeals (1950), 153 Ohio St. 97, 131-132, 41 O.O. 176, 192, 91 N.E.2d 
480, 497 (Taft, J., dissenting) (“The construction and operation of modern open-
air stadiums have not been developments of private enterprise.  They originated in 
the athletic needs of schools and colleges and have been undertaken generally as 
municipal functions throughout the country.  * * * [The] problems * * * that 
might arise * * *, if the enterprise were not conducted as a public enterprise, are 
important factors which justify the conduct of such enterprise at all times under 
governmental supervision”); Meyer v. Cleveland (1930), 35 Ohio App. 20, 25, 
171 N.E. 606, 607, referring to stadiums constructed in ancient Greece and Rome; 
see, also, CLEAN v. State (1996), 130 Wash.2d 782, 793, 928 P.2d 1054, 1059 
(“the overwhelming majority of courts from other jurisdictions confronting this 
issue have determined that construction of a publicly owned stadium to be leased 
to professional sports teams serves a public purpose”). 
 
Under R.C. 307.023, the Hamilton County Board of Commissioners was 
authorized to construct Paul Brown Stadium.  The board did so because Hamilton 
County and Cincinnati believed that construction of the stadium was in the best 
January Term, 2001 
7 
interest of the county and city.2  Pursuant to this statutory authority, the board 
contracted with TBMD and Getz to construct the stadium. 
 
In these contracts, TBMD and Getz were obligated to prepare records 
related to construction costs for the publicly funded stadium, the board and the 
county had the right to monitor their performance under the contracts, and the 
board was authorized to access records in order to monitor their performance.  In 
fact, in certain circumstances, Getz had a contractual duty to act as the county’s 
agent regarding construction costs, including attending cost meetings on behalf of 
the county and advising the construction manager, i.e., TBMD, on cost reports.  
And Getz had a further duty to monitor costs against the plan and report to the 
county.  TBMD specifically agreed to act to further the board’s interests, to 
provide access to cost-accounting records, and to record pertinent project 
information as the board required.  These provisions are sufficiently broad to 
establish a right of access on the part of the county to TBMD and Getz’s records 
concerning cost overruns on the public construction project.  As the Enquirer 
notes, it is significant that there is no evidence that either Krings or any 
representative of the county had been refused access to these records after 
requesting them from TBMD or Getz. 
 
Moreover, as in State ex rel. Gannett Satellite Info. Network v. Shirey 
(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 400, 403, 678 N.E.2d 557, 560-561, a public office 
contracted with private entities for a public purpose:  to construct a publicly 
funded stadium, an undertaking of enormous, unquestioned public importance.  
As we held therein, governmental entities cannot conceal information concerning 
public duties by delegating these duties to a private entity.  Id. at 403, 678 N.E.2d 
at 561; State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. Hancock Cty. Bd. of Commrs. 
                                                          
 
2. 
Public funding of the construction of sports facilities is not necessarily always in the 
public’s best interest.  See, e.g., Shropshire, Sports Facilities, Franchises, Events and the American 
Urban Renaissance (1999), 30 U.Tol.L.Rev. 385. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
(1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 134, 137, 684 N.E.2d 1222, 1225.  By undertaking to 
exercise its statutorily and historically supported authority to construct Paul 
Brown Stadium for specified public purposes, the board of county commissioners 
invoked the concomitant duty to provide public access, via proper records 
requests, to records relating to that construction. 
 
Nor were requests for records defective, as appellants contend, for not 
being properly directed to TBMD and Getz.  The Enquirer initially requested that 
Krings, an appropriate county official, provide access to the requested records and 
directed its second request to Brooke Hill only upon being instructed by the 
county’s director of administrative services that communications being directed to 
members of the construction team, including TBMD and Getz, be directed to Hill.  
Hill refused the second request by stating that the project team would not be 
honoring the Enquirer’s requests.  Under these circumstances, the Enquirer could 
have justifiably anticipated that additional requests to TBMD and Getz would be 
unavailing.  Cf. State ex rel. White v. Cleveland (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 37, 63 
O.O.2d 79, 295 N.E.2d 665, paragraph two of the syllabus (request for records not 
required if circumstances establish that action would be futile or unavailing).3 
 
More important, the requested records should have been made available 
for the Enquirer’s inspection after the initial request to Krings so that appellee did 
“not have to deal with a private third party in order to gain access to the records.”  
State ex rel. Recodat Co. v. Buchanan (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 163, 164, 546 
N.E.2d 203, 204. 
 
Furthermore, as the Enquirer notes, if we were to adopt appellants’ view, a 
private entity performing a government contract that obligates it to act to further 
the best interest of the governmental entity could prepare records concerning 
                                                          
 
3. 
Although TBMD and Getz contend that Hill was never authorized to act on their behalf, 
they claim that the requested records are not public records because they are “internal business” 
records, exactly the rationale used by Hill in rejecting the Enquirer’s second records request. 
January Term, 2001 
9 
massive cost overruns and fail to divulge these records to the public office unless 
the office specifically requested the records.  Given the scope of this undertaking, 
the public had a legitimate need to know whether the publicly funded project was 
proceeding as planned and the reasons for cost overruns, if any, in the project. 
 
“[T]he inherent, fundamental policy of R.C. 149.43 is to promote open 
government, not restrict it.”  State ex rel. Besser v. Ohio State Univ. (2000), 89 
Ohio St.3d 396, 398, 732 N.E.2d 373, 376.  This purpose is furthered here by 
construing R.C. 149.43 to encompass the requested records, and this construction 
is consistent with our duty to liberally construe the statute in favor of broad access 
and to resolve any doubt in favor of disclosure of the records.  State ex rel. 
Wallace v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 431, 433, 732 N.E.2d 
960, 964. 
 
Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly held that the 
requested cost-overrun records are within the jurisdiction of the Hamilton County 
Board of Commissioners, which appointed Krings, and that the records were 
public records for purposes of R.C. 149.43 and 149.011(G), regardless of whether 
those records are in the possession of the county, TBMD, or Getz.  Therefore, we 
affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.  By so holding, we need not address 
the Enquirer’s contention that the construction team constituted a public office for 
purposes of R.C. 149.43.  See, generally, State ex rel. Stys v. Parma Community 
Gen. Hosp. (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 438, 755 N.E.2d 874. 
Attorney Fees 
 
We also affirm the award of attorney fees against Krings.  The Enquirer’s 
requests were proper, the Enquirer established an unquestioned benefit through 
the public’s right to know about cost overruns in the construction of Paul Brown 
Stadium, which was largely financed with public tax revenue, and Krings failed to 
comply for reasons that were devoid of merit.  See State ex rel. Dillery v. Icsman 
(2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 312, 317, 750 N.E.2d 156, 162. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
RESNICK, J., not participating. 
__________________ 
 
Michael K. Allen, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, Carl J. Stich 
and Christian J. Schaefer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellant David 
Krings. 
 
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister and William J. Seitz, for appellants Turner 
Construction Co., D.A.G. Construction Co., Inc., and Barton Malow Co. 
 
Katz, Teller, Brant & Hild, L.P.A., and James F. McCarthy III, for 
appellant Getz Ventures, L.L.C. 
 
Graydon, Head & Ritchey LLP, John C. Greiner, John A. Flanagan and 
Ann K. Schooley, for appellee. 
__________________