Case Title: State ex rel. Consumer News Serv., Inc. v. Worthington City Bd. of Edn.

Citation: 2002-Ohio-5311

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-10-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Consumer News Serv., Inc. v. Worthington City Bd. of Edn., 97 Ohio St.3d 
58, 2002-Ohio-5311.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. CONSUMER NEWS SERVICES, INC. v. WORTHINGTON CITY 
BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Consumer News Serv., Inc. v. Worthington City Bd. of 
Edn., 97 Ohio St.3d 58, 2002-Ohio-5311.] 
Public records — Mandamus sought to compel Worthington City Board of 
Education to provide access to requested public records in the future 
without delay in accordance with R.C. 149.43(B)(1) — Writ granted — 
Request for attorney fees granted. 
(No. 2002-0131 — Submitted August 27, 2002 — Decided October 16, 2002.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Relator, Consumer News Services, Inc. (“CNS”), publishes 
ThisWeek Newspapers for 22 communities in central Ohio, including ThisWeek 
Worthington for the city of Worthington.  ThisWeek Worthington is distributed to 
residents and businesses of the Worthington area every Wednesday and covers 
matters of local interest, e.g., the Worthington City School District.  Candace 
Brooks is a staff writer for ThisWeek Worthington. 
Previous Requests for Public Records from the Worthington City School District 
{¶2} 
On April 10, 2000, Brooks requested that Gregory Viebranz, the 
communications director for the Worthington City School District, provide her 
with the names and resumes of candidates for the position of superintendent of the 
school district.  As part of his duties as communications director, Viebranz 
responds to requests for public records.  On April 11, 2000, Viebranz advised 
Brooks that the school district would not release the candidates’ names and 
resumes until after the final interview.  This decision was based in part on the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
school district’s desire to protect the candidates’ privacy in case anybody decided 
to withdraw from consideration.  A subsequent written request by Brooks for 
these records on April 11 did not result in release of the records.  It was only after 
CNS’s counsel sent a letter threatening a public-records mandamus action that the 
school district provided the requested names and resumes on the evening of April 
11, 2000. 
{¶3} 
In October 2000, Brooks requested access to a settlement 
agreement between the school district and a teacher who had sued the district for 
racial discrimination.  The school district refused Brooks’s and the Columbus 
Dispatch’s requests for access to the agreement.  The school district provided 
access to the requested records after the Columbus Dispatch filed suit. 
{¶4} 
In May 2001, Brooks again requested that the school district 
provide her access to the records relating to the settlement of a separate lawsuit 
against the district.  After numerous requests and the passage of two months, the 
school district finally provided the records in July 2001. 
Candidates for Treasurer 
{¶5} 
In 2001, the school district hired a new treasurer, but after 
subsequently discovering that she did not have the required state treasurer’s 
license to hold the office, the school district dismissed her in November 2001. 
{¶6} 
The Worthington City School District Board of Education retained 
Ohio Association of School Business Officials (“OASBO”) to assist and advise 
the board in hiring a new treasurer.  Pursuant to the agreement, OASBO posted 
the position, collected responses, and presented them to the board.  OASBO 
received sixteen resumes in response to the posted vacancy. 
{¶7} 
At an executive session held at a board meeting on January 8, 
2002, the board narrowed the field of candidates from sixteen to the five 
applicants it wanted to interview.  On January 14 and 19, 2002, the board held 
special meetings and interviewed the five candidates in executive sessions.  Two 
January Term, 2002 
3 
applicants were interviewed on January 14 and three applicants were interviewed 
on January 19.  The superintendent of the school district advised each candidate 
interviewed that if there was a public-records request for his or her application, 
the superintendent would advise him or her before his or her records were 
disclosed.  The board took no action during the meetings on January 14 and 19 to 
further narrow the five-candidate field.  The board scheduled a meeting for 
January 24, 2002, to reduce the field. 
Requests for Names and Resumes of Candidates for Treasurer 
{¶8} 
On January 14, 2002, Viebranz left Brooks a voice-mail message 
advising her that the board would interview the finalists for treasurer at executive 
sessions on January 151 and 19, 2002.  Viebranz left the message in order to 
comply with the media-notification requirement of the Sunshine Law.  R.C. 
121.22(F). 
{¶9} 
Around 4:00 p.m. on Friday, January 18, 2002, Brooks left a voice-
mail message for Viebranz, requesting the names and resumes of the finalists who 
had been interviewed by the board on January 14 and who would be interviewed 
on January 19.  Viebranz did not receive the request that day because he had left 
his office.  The administrative offices of the school district were closed on 
Saturday, January 19, and Sunday, January 20, and on Monday, January 21, 2002, 
in observance of Martin Luther King Jr. Day. 
{¶10} On January 21, 2002, Brooks sent a written request by facsimile to 
Viebranz for these records: 
{¶11} “I am requesting the names and identiftying [sic] information 
(resumes) of the top candidates for the position of Treasurer of Worthington 
Schools.  In a telephone message left from you to me last week, you indicated the 
Worthington Board of Education was about to begin interviewing finalists for the 
                                                 
1. 
The initial interview date for the first two of the final five candidates was actually 
January 14, not January 15. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
position.  I would like the names and background information on all those who 
were asked to interview. 
{¶12} “The information I am requesting is a public record as described in 
Section 149.43 of the Ohio Revised Code.  * * * 
{¶13} “I am requesting the records be made available to me by the end of 
the business day (5 p.m.) Tuesday, Jan. 22, 2002. 
{¶14} “Please send me copies of the information by fax (841-0436), 
deliver by [sic] to my office in person, or inform when I may come to your office 
to inspect the records.  Also, please inform of any fee associated with making 
these records available.”  (Emphasis added.)   
{¶15} On that same day, which was the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, 
Brooks left another voice-mail message requesting the resumes of the applicants 
who had been interviewed on January 14 and 19, 2002.  Brooks made multiple 
requests for the records because she wanted to be certain that her requests were 
heard and read by Viebranz as early as possible on the morning of Tuesday, 
January 22, 2002, so that Brooks could meet her Tuesday evening deadline for the 
Wednesday, January 23 edition of ThisWeek Worthington. 
{¶16} On the morning of January 22, 2002, Viebranz received Brooks’s 
requests, and he called Brooks to tell her that he would provide her with the 
requested records by the end of the day.  Viebranz then contacted Superintendent 
Rick Fenton before 10:00 a.m. on January 22 about the requests because Fenton 
had the resumes of the treasurer applicants.  Fenton called Board President Sue 
McNaghten, who had not been at the January 14 and 19 interviews, to determine 
what records were subject to the requests.  Fenton and Viebranz construed 
Brooks’s requests as asking for the names and resumes of finalists for the 
treasurer position, and McNaghten advised Fenton that as of January 22, there 
were only two finalists. 
January Term, 2002 
5 
{¶17} McNaghten and Fenton believed that there were only two finalists 
even though the board had not acted during the open or executive sessions on 
January 14 and 19 to reduce the five-candidate field to two, McNaghten 
acknowledged that the private board deliberations to reduce the number of viable 
candidates had to be conducted in executive session, McNaghten and Fenton had 
eliminated one of the candidates through a telephone conversation between 
themselves, McNaghten had not been present at either the January 14 or 19 
interviews and meetings, Fenton was not a board member, and Fenton’s 
conclusion that there were only two candidates was based on postmeeting 
discussions on January 19 involving less than a quorum of the board. 
{¶18} At 4:30 p.m. on January 22, Viebranz received from Fenton the 
resumes of the two candidates that Fenton and McNaghten considered to be the 
finalists.  Viebranz hand-delivered the two resumes to Brooks’s office at 4:45 
p.m. that day. 
{¶19} Brooks received the two resumes and attempted to contact board 
members to prepare a story for the January 23 ThisWeek Worthington.  After 
unsuccessfully attempting to contact McNaghten, Brooks contacted Board Vice-
President Robert Horton.  Horton informed Brooks that there had been five 
candidates interviewed, not two, and that the board had not yet narrowed the field 
of candidates.  Horton further advised Brooks that the board was considering a 
meeting on January 24 to narrow the field to two candidates. 
{¶20} Upon being informed of this discrepancy, Brooks contacted 
Viebranz and asked why she had not been provided all five resumes.  Viebranz 
advised Brooks that he would contact Fenton.  Brooks then left a voice-mail 
message for Fenton expressing her confusion about why she had received only 
two of the five requested resumes. 
{¶21} Brooks next called board member Jennifer Best and asked why 
Fenton had not given her the five resumes of the candidates interviewed.  Best 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
confirmed that five candidates had been interviewed by the board and speculated 
that Brooks had not received more than two resumes because of the board’s 
concern that candidates be notified before their resumes were publicly disclosed.  
Brooks then left another message with Fenton reiterating her request for the 
resumes of all five candidates and advised that she needed the additional resumes 
by 10:00 p.m. that evening, January 22, to meet her deadline.  Fenton received 
Brooks’s two voice-mail messages on January 22 before he left for the day, but he 
did not make the additional three resumes available to Brooks on January 22, 23, 
or 24, 2002. 
{¶22} When Brooks did not receive the additional resumes, she drafted a 
story for the Wednesday, January 23 edition of ThisWeek Worthington.  Brooks’s 
story, entitled “Names of 3 of 5 candidates are withheld,” specified that she had 
requested the names and resumes of all candidates who had been interviewed for 
the treasurer position and that the names and resumes of three candidates had 
been withheld.  After reading the January 23 article, Viebranz understood that 
Brooks wanted the resumes for all five applicants but instead of delivering the 
remaining resumes, the school district prepared a letter to the editor to respond to 
the article. 
{¶23} Late on Thursday afternoon, January 24, 2002, Brooks again 
telephoned Viebranz and Fenton requesting the three withheld resumes.  On that 
same day, CNS filed this action for a writ of mandamus to compel respondents, 
Worthington City Schools, Worthington City School District Board of Education, 
and Superintendent Fenton, to provide the requested records immediately.  At the 
executive session during the January 24 special meeting, the board reduced the 
names of the candidates to two and ordered that OASBO arrange a second set of 
interviews for these candidates.2 
                                                 
2. 
On February 14, 2002, the board hired Jonathan L. Boyd as the treasurer of the school 
district. 
January Term, 2002 
7 
{¶24} On January 25, 2002, Viebranz left Brooks a voice-mail message 
in which he stated that if she absolutely insisted on receiving the names of all of 
the people who had interviewed for the treasurer position, respondents would 
comply with that request, but that Brooks should withdraw her request because of 
concerns regarding publication of the other three candidates’ interest in the 
position: 
{¶25} “I think that what you’re going to hear is a request to just leave it 
with those two names [that you received] for one reason only.  * * * [I]f you want 
the five, we’ll give you the five, but that’s the reasoning, that’s the rationale, is 
because then these other three people are gonna have to go and explain why their 
name is in the paper as someone who was just, you know, taking a shot at looking 
for another job.” 
{¶26} On Monday, January 28, 2002, Viebranz received notice of CNS’s 
mandamus action and later called Brooks to ask whether she still wanted the 
names and resumes of the other three candidates.  After Brooks said that she still 
wanted the requested resumes, Viebranz sent them by facsimile at 1:15 p.m. on 
that day. 
School District Practice for Responding to Public-Records Requests 
{¶27} The practice of the school district has been to make public records 
available on the same day that they were requested if it was reasonably practical.  
Historically, the school district has made records available to Brooks by facsimile, 
hand delivery, or pickup at Viebranz’s office.  Respondents concede that the 
records at issue in this case were not voluminous and could have been made 
available to Brooks on the same day that her requests were made. 
Amended Complaint for Writ of Mandamus 
{¶28} On February 5, CNS filed an amended complaint to compel 
respondents to “produce public records in the future without delay.”  (Emphasis 
sic.)  CNS also requested an award of its “costs, and expenses, including 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
attorneys’ fees, incurred in filing this action.”  Id.  Respondents filed a motion to 
dismiss, and CNS filed a motion for leave to amend its amended complaint to 
show that this mandamus action is being brought in the name of the state on its 
relation. 
{¶29} In April 2002, we granted CNS’s motion for leave to amend its 
amended complaint, denied respondents’ motion to dismiss, and granted an 
alternative writ.  State ex rel. Consumer News Serv., Inc. v. Worthington Bd. of 
Edn. (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 1420, 766 N.E.2d 161.  The parties filed evidence and 
briefs.  This cause is now before the court for its consideration of the merits. 
{¶30} CNS requests a writ of mandamus to compel respondents to 
produce public records in the future without delay.  Mandamus is the appropriate 
remedy to compel compliance with Ohio’s Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43.  
State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 420, 426-427, 639 N.E.2d 
83.  In resolving CNS’s claims, we must liberally construe R.C. 149.43 in favor of 
broad access and resolve any doubt in favor of disclosure of public records.  State 
ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Krings (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 654, 660, 758 N.E.2d 
1135. 
Timeliness 
{¶31} CNS challenges the timeliness of respondents’ January 28, 2002 
provision of the requested resumes to Brooks.  Because CNS specifically raised 
its timeliness claim in its amended complaint, this case was not rendered moot by 
respondents’ eventual provision of the initially desired records.  State ex rel. 
Wadd v. Cleveland (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 50, 52, 689 N.E.2d 25; cf. State ex rel. 
Taxpayers Coalition v. Lakewood (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 385, 391, 715 N.E.2d 
179. 
{¶32} Moreover, given the respondents’ historical lack of diligence in 
complying with public-records requests by CNS, Brooks, and other members of 
the media, the issue of the timeliness of respondents’ provision of public records 
January Term, 2002 
9 
is not moot because it is capable of repetition yet evading review.  Wadd, 81 Ohio 
St.3d at 52, 689 N.E.2d 25. 
{¶33} This case consequently presents issues outside the general rule that 
mandamus will not issue to compel the general observance of laws in the future.  
Cf. State ex rel. Kirk v. Burcham (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 407, 409, 696 N.E.2d 582, 
and State ex rel. Love v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecutor’s Office (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 
158, 718 N.E.2d 426.  Respondents do not contend otherwise. 
{¶34} As we have repeatedly emphasized, “ ‘When records are available 
for public inspection and copying is often as important as what records are 
available.’ ”  (Emphasis sic.)  State ex rel. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Ohio 
Environmental Protection Agency (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 166, 172, 724 N.E.2d 
411, quoting Wadd, 81 Ohio St.3d at 52, 689 N.E.2d 25. 
{¶35} R.C. 149.43(B)(1) provides that “all public records shall be 
promptly prepared and made available for inspection to any person at all 
reasonable times during regular business hours” and that “upon request, a public 
office or person responsible for public records shall make copies available at cost, 
within a reasonable period of time.” 
{¶36} Respondents assert that they had no duty to promptly prepare 
records for inspection because CNS failed to present any evidence that it ever 
requested to inspect the resumes or that anyone from CNS ever arrived at 
respondents’ offices to inspect them.  But respondents ignore Brooks’s January 21 
facsimile, in which she specifically requested that respondents either send copies 
of the requested records by facsimile, deliver the copies to respondents in person, 
or inform when she could come to respondents’ offices to inspect the records. 
{¶37} To the extent that Brooks requested inspection of the records, 
respondents had a duty under R.C. 149.43(B)(1) to “promptly” prepare the 
records and make them available for inspection.  Although the word “promptly” is 
not defined by applicable statute, its customary meaning is “ ‘without delay and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
with reasonable speed’ ” and this meaning “ ‘depends largely on the facts in each 
case.’ ”  Wadd, 81 Ohio St.3d at 53, 689 N.E.2d 25, quoting Black’s Law 
Dictionary (6th Ed.1990) 1214.  Moreover, insofar as Brooks requested copies of 
the records, respondents had a duty to provide the copies within a reasonable 
period of time.  R.C. 149.43(B)(1); cf., e.g., Siegwald v. Curry (1974), 40 Ohio 
App.2d 313, 318, 69 O.O.2d 293, 319 N.E.2d 381, quoting Atwell v. State (1973), 
35 Ohio App.2d 221, 230, 64 O.O.2d 342, 301 N.E.2d 709, for the proposition 
that what is a “ ‘reasonable period of time’ ” to determine whether to take or 
refuse a chemical test in a DWI case will depend on  “ ‘all the facts and 
circumstances in each case.’ ” 
{¶38} Therefore, we must examine the pertinent facts to determine 
whether respondents acted within the required time to provide access to the 
requested resumes.  Respondents claim that after considering all of the relevant 
facts, they fully complied with their duties under R.C. 149.43(B)(1).  They assert 
that their six-day delay (four business days) from their receipt of Brooks’s initial 
requests to their provision of all of the requested resumes was justified by (1) their 
reasonable interpretation of Brooks’s ambiguous records requests, (2) the 
presence of only two final candidates for the treasurer position on January 22, 
2002, (3) the fact that after January 22, 2002, Brooks’s next publication deadline 
was not until January 29, 2002, (4) Brooks’s failure to subsequently clarify her 
requests, and (5) respondents’ reasonable attempts to seek clarification of 
Brooks’s requests and to request that Brooks voluntarily withdraw her requests. 
{¶39} For the reasons that follow, respondents’ reasons for delaying 
compliance with relators’ public-records request are meritless. 
{¶40} First, respondents are public offices and officials for purposes of 
the Public Records Act.  R.C. 149.43(A)(1) defines public records to include 
records kept by “school district units.”  R.C. 149.43(C) also authorizes mandamus 
actions against persons responsible for public records.  “The law does not require 
January Term, 2002 
11 
that the action be brought against the person ultimately responsible for the 
records, but requires suit against a person responsible for them.”  (Emphasis sic.)  
State ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. Schweikert (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 170, 174, 527 
N.E.2d 1230.  Superintendent Fenton had custody and control over the requested 
resumes when CNS requested them. 
{¶41} Second, it is uncontroverted that the records sought by CNS, i.e., 
the resumes of the applicants who interviewed for the treasurer position, 
constituted public records that did not fit any recognized exemption from 
disclosure under R.C. 149.43.  See State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. 
Cleveland (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 31, 661 N.E.2d 187, and State ex rel. Gannett 
Satellite Info. Network v. Shirey (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 400, 678 N.E.2d 557, both 
holding that resumes and supporting documentation supplied by applicants for 
public employment are subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. 
{¶42} Third, CNS identified the records it wanted with sufficient clarity.  
Respondents claim that they reasonably interpreted Brooks’s January 21 written 
facsimile request to be limited to names and resumes of candidates who were 
finalists for the treasurer position.  “ ‘[I]t is the responsibility of the person who 
wishes to inspect and/or copy records to identify with reasonable clarity the 
records at issue.’ ”  Taxpayers Coalition, 86 Ohio St.3d at 391, 715 N.E.2d 179, 
quoting State ex rel. Fant v. Tober (May 20, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 63737, 
1993 WL 173743, affirmed (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 117, 623 N.E.2d 1202.  But 
Brooks’s reference to “finalists” in her January 21 facsimile referred to 
Viebranz’s earlier message that the board would begin interviewing finalists for 
the treasurer position on January 14 and 19.  In other words, “finalists” meant the 
five candidates interviewed by the board.  This is further evident from Brooks’s 
statement in the January 21 facsimile that she “would like the names and 
background information on all those who were asked to interview.”  (Emphasis 
added.)  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
{¶43} Fourth, the evidence establishes that as of January 22, 2002, when 
respondents received Brooks’s initial requests, the board had not yet reduced the 
field of candidates from five to two.  In this regard, Board President McNaghten 
conceded that private board deliberations to narrow the list of viable candidates 
had to be conducted in executive session at a scheduled board meeting and that 
the board did not conduct an executive session narrowing the field of treasurer 
candidates from five before January 24.  See, e.g., State ex rel. Floyd v. Rock Hill 
Local School  Bd. of Edn. (Feb. 10, 1988), Lawrence App. No. 1862, 1988 WL 
17190 (“The sunshine law does not permit deliberations concerning the 
employment of a public employee to be conducted during one-on-one 
conversations.  Such deliberations, if not held in public, must be held during an 
executive session at a regular or special meeting”). 
{¶44} Fifth, even assuming that respondents are correct that Brooks’s 
January 21 written request was ambiguous and that as of that date, the board had 
narrowed the number of candidates to two, Brooks’s numerous other requests and 
actions clarified that she wanted the resumes of all five of the treasurer candidates 
who had been interviewed by the board.  Brooks’s voice-mail messages on 
January 18 and January 21, both received by Viebranz on January 22, specifically 
requested the resumes of all of the candidates who had been and would be 
interviewed.  Brooks’s voice-mail message and phone call to Fenton and Viebranz 
on January 22 reiterated her requests for the resumes of all five candidates.  
Brooks’s January 23 article specified that Brooks had requested all five resumes.  
Brooks further requested the three withheld resumes on January 24 and January 
28.  As of January 22, it should have been clear to respondents that Brooks 
wanted all five resumes.  Consequently, Brooks did not fail to clarify her requests. 
{¶45} Sixth, the fact that after January 22, 2002, Brooks’s next 
publication deadline was not until January 29, 2002, did not authorize respondents 
to delay providing the requested records until January 28.  It is not within the 
January Term, 2002 
13 
province of a public office or officer to determine for the requester when a 
requester’s purpose in obtaining public records would best be served.  Brooks’s 
purpose in requesting to inspect and copy public records is irrelevant.  “A person 
may inspect and copy a ‘public record,’ as defined in R.C. 149.43(A), irrespective 
of his or her purpose for doing so.”  State ex rel. Fant v. Enright (1993), 66 Ohio 
St.3d 186, 610 N.E.2d 997, syllabus; State ex rel. Wilson-Simmons v. Lake Cty. 
Sheriff’s Dept. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 37, 40, 693 N.E.2d 789.  Moreover, Brooks 
has other deadlines regarding her work, and she cannot wait to write all of her 
stories on the night of the publication deadline. 
{¶46} Finally, respondents’ further delay in providing access to the 
withheld resumes by asking that Brooks voluntarily withdraw her requests in 
consideration of the candidates’ desire to keep their interest in the treasurer 
position confidential was inconsistent with their duties under R.C. 149.43(B)(1).  
Promises of confidentiality to applicants do not alter the public nature of resumes 
and documents submitted by applicants for public positions.  Shirey, 78 Ohio 
St.3d at 403, 678 N.E.2d 557.  Respondents concede that they could have 
accomplished the same thing by including a request not to publish the information 
with their timely provision of the records to Brooks. 
{¶47} Therefore, respondents’ claimed justifications for delaying the 
provision of access to the withheld resumes are meritless. 
Mandamus 
{¶48} In Wadd, 81 Ohio St.3d 50, 689 N.E.2d 25, the relator requested a 
writ of mandamus on a comparable timeliness claim, and under the facts of that 
case, we granted the writ to compel the city of Cleveland and certain city officials 
to prepare and provide access to motor vehicle accident reports within eight days 
after accidents occur.  In so holding, we observed that the respondents in that case 
had previously provided access to the requested accident reports in a much shorter 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
14 
period of time than they did when relator filed his mandamus action.  Id. at 53, 
689 N.E.2d 25. 
{¶49} Similarly, respondents’ practice had been to provide public records 
on the same day that the request was received to the extent that records were 
readily available and not voluminous.  The requested resumes here were readily 
available, not voluminous, and could have been provided to Brooks on January 
22, 2002, i.e., the same day that her initial three requests were received.  Instead, 
respondents delayed providing some of the requested records for reasons that are 
improper. 
{¶50} In fact, respondents have a history of delaying compliance with 
comparable public-records requests. 
{¶51} Based on the foregoing, we grant a writ of mandamus to compel 
respondents to provide access to requested public records in accordance with R.C. 
149.43(B)(1).  We refuse, however, to grant the specific request by CNS that 
respondents provide public records “without delay,” because the statutory 
standard “promptly” relates only to the right to inspection, and access to public 
records will ultimately be dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each 
request. 
Attorney Fees 
{¶52} CNS requests attorney fees.  We grant attorney fees for the 
following reasons. 
{¶53} CNS has established a sufficient public benefit.  The public has an 
unquestioned public interest in the qualifications of potential applicants for 
positions of authority in public employment.  See, e.g., Plain Dealer, 75 Ohio 
St.3d at 36-37, 661 N.E.2d 187, quoting Kenai v. Kenai Peninsula Newspapers, 
Inc. (Alaska 1982), 642 P.2d 1316, 1324.  In addition, given the board’s previous 
decision to hire a treasurer who lacked the requisite certification, the public 
interest in the qualifications of the applicants to succeed that treasurer was 
January Term, 2002 
15 
heightened.  Moreover, respondents have had a history of failing to timely comply 
with public-records requests, with an actual or threatened lawsuit often required 
before they comply with R.C. 149.43. 
{¶54} Furthermore, respondents’ delay in providing the records despite 
manifest requests for them was unjustifiable.  Respondents cannot withhold 
public records simply because they disagree with the policies behind the law 
permitting the release of these records.  See Plain Dealer, 75 Ohio St.3d at 36, 
661 N.E.2d 187 (“the court has consistently rejected similar policy arguments as 
matters resolved by the General Assembly’s enumeration of very narrow, specific 
exceptions to R.C. 149.43”). 
{¶55} Therefore, we grant CNS’s request for attorney fees, and order it to 
submit a bill and documentation in support of the request, in accordance with the 
guidelines in DR 2-106.  This result is consistent with our awarding of attorney 
fees in comparable cases involving the disclosure of resumes submitted by 
applicants for public employment.  See Plain Dealer, 75 Ohio St.3d at 38, 661 
N.E.2d 187; Shirey, 78 Ohio St.3d at 404, 678 N.E.2d 557. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur. 
 
DOUGLAS and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., concur in judgment only. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., not participating. 
__________________ 
 
Zeiger & Carpenter, L.L.P., John W. Zeiger, Marion H. Little, Jr., and Eva 
C. Gildee, for relator. 
 
Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., Randolph C. Wiseman, Nicholas A. Pittner and 
Warren I. Grody, for respondents. 
__________________