Case Title: State ex rel. Kerner v. State Teachers Retirement Bd.

Citation: 1998-Ohio-242

Docket Number: 19971188

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1998-07-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
THE STATE EX REL. KERNER, APPELLANT, v. STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT BOARD, 
APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Kerner v. State Teachers Retirement Bd. ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Public records — Mandamus to compel State Teachers Retirement Board to 
provide relator access to documents reflecting names and addresses of all 
STRS members who have completed five years of service credit, but are 
inactive and have made no contributions during the preceding school year 
— Writ denied, when. 
(No. 97-1188 — Submitted May 12, 1998 — Decided July 1, 1998.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 97APD03-441. 
 
Appellant, Joseph Kerner, is a member of the State Teachers Retirement 
System (“STRS”) who ran for a position on appellee, State Teachers Retirement 
Board (“board”), the statutory administrator of STRS, at the 1997 election. At the 
time that Kerner was a board candidate, he had five years of STRS service credit, 
but he had not made any contributions to STRS during the preceding school year. 
Kerner requested that the board give him access to “documents reflecting the 
names and addresses of all STRS members who have completed five years of 
service credit, but are inactive and have made no contributions during the 
preceding school year.”  Kerner had hoped to economically target this subclass of 
STRS members, which he thought to be approximately eighteen thousand people, 
for solicitation for purposes of his campaign.  The board denied Kerner’s requests, 
although it offered to provide Kerner a list of the names and addresses of all STRS 
members, which exceeded two hundred thousand people. 
 
In fact, the requested compilation of information does not exist in record 
form.  In order to compile this record, the board would have to create one by 
 
2
writing a new computer program that could be used to search the existing personal 
history records of all STRS members. 
 
In March 1997, Kerner filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for 
Franklin County for a writ of mandamus to compel the board to make the 
requested records available for inspection and copying in accordance with R.C. 
149.43, Ohio’s Public Records Act.  After the board filed an answer and the 
parties filed additional pleadings, the court of appeals denied the writ. 
 
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
Martin, Pergram & Browning Co., L.P.A., and James M. Dietz, for 
appellant. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Michael W. Gleespen, 
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  In his propositions of law, Kerner essentially asserts that the 
court of appeals erred in denying the writ.  Kerner claims that the requested names 
and addresses of STRS members who have completed five years of service credit 
and who have made no contributions during the preceding school year are public 
records that must be disclosed under R.C. 149.43.  For the reasons that follow, 
Kerner’s argument lacks merit, and we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
 
Initially, as the board cogently noted both below and on appeal, it has no 
duty to create a new document by searching for and compiling information from 
its existing records.  See State ex rel. Lanham v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1997), 
80 Ohio St.3d 425, 427, 687 N.E.2d 283, 285, quoting State ex rel. Fant v. Tober 
(Apr. 28, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 63737, unreported, 1993 WL 173743 (“ 
‘[R]elator’s request for mandamus relief is denied to the extent that his public 
 
3
records request broadly sought respondents to search for records containing 
selected information.’ ”); see, also, State ex rel. Thomas v. Ohio State Univ. 
(1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 1438, 638 N.E.2d 1041. 
 
In other words, a compilation of information must already exist in public 
records before access to it will be ordered.  State ex rel. Scanlon v. Deters (1989), 
45 Ohio St.3d 376, 379, 544 N.E.2d 680, 683, overruled on other grounds, State ex 
rel. Steckman v. Jackson (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 420, 426-427, 639 N.E.2d 83, 89 
(“We hold that the clerk could not be required to create a new ‘document’ by 
compiling material to facilitate review of the public records.  Conversely, if the 
clerk’s computer were already programmed to produce the desired printout, the 
‘document’ would already exist for the purpose of an R.C. 149.43 request.”); State 
ex rel. Kinsley v. Berea Bd. of Edn. (1990), 64 Ohio App.3d 659, 664, 582 N.E.2d 
653, 656. 
 
Here, the evidence establishes that the board did not have the requested 
compilation of names and addresses of STRS members who have completed five 
years of service credit and who have made no contributions during the preceding 
school year.  In order to create the requested records, the board would have had to 
reprogram its computer system.  Therefore, the board had no duty to provide 
access to the requested records.  Scanlon, 45 Ohio St.3d at 379, 544 N.E.2d at 683.  
The Public Records Act does not compel the board to create a new document to 
satisfy Kerner’s demands.  State ex rel. Fant v. Mengel (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 455, 
455-456, 584 N.E.2d 664, 665. 
 
In addition, assuming the board had a duty to compile the requested records, 
Kerner still would not have been entitled to access to the requested records under 
R.C. 149.43.  Public records do not include “[r]ecords the release of which is 
prohibited by state or federal law.”  R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(p); State ex rel. Gannett 
 
4
Satellite Information Network, Inc. v. Petro (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 261, 265-266, 
685 N.E.2d 1223, 1228. 
 
The requested records were exempted from disclosure under R.C. 149.43 by 
R.C. 3307.21(B) and Ohio Adm.Code 3307-1-03(A).  R.C. 3307.21(B)(2)(b) 
exempts from public inspection an individual’s “personal history record” unless 
the individual concerned authorizes its release in writing.  “Personal history 
record” includes “information maintained by the board on a member, former 
member, contributor, former contributor, retirant, or beneficiary that includes the * 
* * record of contributions * * * or other information the board determines to be 
confidential.”  R.C. 3307.21(B)(1).  Ohio Adm.Code 3307-1-03 was promulgated 
by the board to specify “other information the board determines to be confidential” 
under R.C. 3307.21(B).  State ex rel. Lindsay v. Dwyer (1996), 108 Ohio App.3d 
462, 466, 670 N.E.2d 1375, 1378.  In the absence of written authorization of the 
person to whom the record pertains, Ohio Adm.Code 3307-1-03(A)(2) and (3) 
prohibit the release to a third party of records identifying service history, service 
credit, or contributions of STRS members. 
 
Kerner contends that R.C. 3307.21(B) and Ohio Adm.Code 3307-1-03(A) 
do not apply because he is requesting names and addresses of a subclass of STRS 
members rather than information concerning specific service credit and 
contributions for any individual.  But, as the court of appeals held, “were 
respondent to produce the requested names, it would necessarily disclose the 
[service credit and] record of contributions of each person whose name was 
produced.”  The requested names would divulge that each person had at least five 
years of service credit and had made no contributions during the preceding school 
year.  R.C. 3307.21(B) and Ohio Adm.Code 3307-1-03(A) prohibit this disclosure. 
 
5
 
In addition, Kerner erroneously relies on R.C. 3307.21(E), Ohio Adm.Code 
3307-1-03(B), Police & Fire Retirees of Ohio, Inc. v. Police & Firemen’s 
Disability & Pension Fund (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 231, 18 OBR 289, 480 N.E.2d 
482, and State ex rel. Public Emp. Retirees, Inc. v. Public Emp. Retirement System 
(1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 93, 14 O.O.3d 331, 397 N.E.2d 1191, in support of his 
claimed entitlement to the writ.  As the court of appeals held, R.C. 3307.21(E) 
“either allows or requires the board to produce only the names and addresses of 
the specified persons; it does not allow the board to pare down the list in a fashion 
which discloses information otherwise prohibited from disclosure.”  Ohio 
Adm.Code 3307-1-03(B) does not permit disclosure of the requested records 
because subsection (B) applies only to “[a]ll other information not described in 
paragraph (A) of this rule or otherwise made confidential by law * * *.”  Police & 
Fire Retirees and Pub. Emp. Retirees are inapposite; neither involved records 
exempted from disclosure by R.C. 3307.21(E) and Ohio Adm.Code 3307-1-03(B). 
 
Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly denied the writ.  The 
board had no duty to provide Kerner with access to the requested records.  
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.