Case Title: State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer, Div. of Gannette v. Cincinnati Bd. of Edn.

Citation: 2003-Ohio-2260

Docket Number: 20021844

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2003-05-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer, Div. of Gannette v. Cincinnati Bd. of Edn., 99 Ohio 
St.3d 6, 2003-Ohio-2260.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. CINCINNATI ENQUIRER, DIVISION OF GANNETT SATELLITE 
INFORMATION NETWORK, INC. v. CINCINNATI BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer, Div. of Gannett Satellite Info. 
Network, Inc. v. Cincinnati Bd. of Edn., 99 Ohio St.3d 6, 2003-Ohio-2260.] 
Public records — Mandamus — Writ sought to compel Cincinnati Board of 
Education to provide relator newspaper access to materials submitted by 
three school superintendent finalists at their interviews with the school 
board — Writ denied when records requested are not public records — 
Request for attorney fees denied. 
(No. 2002-1844 — Submitted April 15, 2003 — Decided May 7, 2003.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent Cincinnati Board of Education contracted with the 
International Center on Collaboration, Inc., a Florida nonprofit corporation, to 
help the board with superintendent evaluations and setting goals for the district.  
In June or July 2002, International Center retained respondent Proact Search, Inc., 
to assist the board in its search for a new superintendent. 
{¶2} 
By letter dated July 12, 2002, a reporter for relator, the Cincinnati 
Enquirer, a division of the Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc., requested 
from the Cincinnati School District “any resumes, documents, candidate profiles, 
letters, memos, e-mails, correspondence, videos and/or other items related to 
Cincinnati Public Schools’ superintendent search of 2002.”  The reporter advised 
the school district that she was requesting these records under R.C. 149.43, Ohio’s 
Public Records Act, and that the district should treat the request “as a standing 
Ohio open records request and provide copies as relevant items * * * arrive.”  In 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
August 2002, the Enquirer submitted a second request for all documents related to 
the superintendent search. 
{¶3} 
Proact prepared a profile to be used to solicit applicants for the 
Superintendent of the Cincinnati School District.  The profile specified that “all 
formal applications will be made public.”  Proact subsequently narrowed the field 
of applicants for superintendent to six finalists.  After one of those finalists 
withdrew because of concerns that the applicant’s name would become public, 
Proact assigned numbers to the remaining five finalists and made reservations for 
them under pseudonyms at the hotel where interviews were to be conducted. 
{¶4} 
Proact instructed the five finalists to bring relevant application 
materials with them to their interviews with the board during a September 2002 
executive session.  At the beginning of the interviews, the board president 
explained to the finalists, pursuant to a script prepared by Proact, that any 
materials they decided to leave with the board or Proact would be made public to 
requesters under the Public Records Act.  Only one of the applicants elected to 
leave his materials in the possession of the board and Proact at the conclusion of 
the interview. 
{¶5} 
After the interviews were completed, the application materials 
submitted by the other four finalists were given back to them.  The finalists had 
provided those materials to the board during their interviews, conducted in 
executive session, upon the condition that the materials would not be left with the 
board or Proact and would be returned to the finalists at the close of the 
interviews.  No copies of those materials were provided to the board at any time 
outside the executive session except for those later provided to the board by the 
superintendent ultimately hired, for placement in his official file. 
{¶6} 
In response to the Enquirer’s requests, the board produced 
materials submitted by the new superintendent as well as the one finalist who had 
left his materials with the board after his interview.  The board, however, refused 
January Term, 2003 
3 
to give the Enquirer the materials submitted by the other three finalists because 
neither the board nor Proact had those materials. 
{¶7} 
In October 2002, the Enquirer filed this action for a writ of 
mandamus to compel respondents, the board and Proact, to make the requested 
records available for inspection and copying.  The Enquirer also requested 
attorney fees and a civil forfeiture of $1,000 under R.C. 149.351(B)(2).  After 
respondents filed an answer, we granted an alternative writ on the Enquirer’s R.C. 
149.43 claim and dismissed the Enquirer’s R.C. 149.351 civil-forfeiture claim.  
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer, Div. of Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc. v. 
Cincinnati Bd. of Edn., 98 Ohio St.3d 1407, 2003-Ohio-60, 781 N.E.2d 1016. 
{¶8} 
This cause is now before the court upon the Enquirer’s request for 
oral argument and its R.C. 149.43 mandamus claim and request for attorney fees. 
Request for Oral Argument 
{¶9} 
The Enquirer requests oral argument “[i]n the event that the Court 
finds the decisional process would be aided by oral argument.”  We deny the 
request.  “S.Ct.Prac.R. IX(2) does not require oral argument in this [original 
action] and [the Enquirer] does not specify why oral argument would be 
beneficial in this case.”  Johnson v. Timmerman-Cooper (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 
614, 615, 757 N.E.2d 1153.  Moreover, this case involves none of the usual 
criteria warranting oral argument, and the parties’ briefs are sufficient to resolve 
the issues raised.  See State ex rel. Painesville v. Lake Cty. Bd. of Commrs. 
(2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 566, 569, 757 N.E.2d 347. 
Mandamus 
{¶10} The Enquirer seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the board and 
Proact to provide it with access to the materials submitted by the three 
superintendent finalists at their interviews.  “Mandamus is the appropriate remedy 
to compel compliance with R.C. 149.43, Ohio’s Public Records Act.”  State ex 
rel. Cincinnati Enquirer, Div. of Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc. v. Dupuis, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
98 Ohio St.3d 126, 2002-Ohio-7041, 781 N.E.2d 163, ¶ 11.  In resolving the 
Enquirer’s claim,  “R.C. 149.43 must be construed liberally in favor of broad 
access to records kept by public offices, and any doubt is to be resolved 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; State ex rel. Beacon Journal 
Publishing Co. v. Bond, 98 Ohio St.3d 146, 2002-Ohio-7117, 781 N.E.2d 180, ¶ 
8. 
{¶11} R.C. 149.43(A)(1) defines “public record[s]” subject to the Public 
Records Act as “records kept by any public office, including * * * school district 
units.”  In construing this definition, the court first looks at the statutory language, 
according the words used their usual, normal, or customary meaning.  State ex rel. 
Cincinnati Enquirer, Div. of Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc. v. Joyce, 97 
Ohio St.3d 192, 2002-Ohio-5807, 777 N.E.2d 253, ¶ 14.  “Kept” is the past 
participle of “keep,” which in this context means “preserve,” “maintain,” “hold,” 
“detain,” or “retain or continue to have in one’s possession or power esp. by 
conscious or purposive policy.”  Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 
(1986) 1235. 
{¶12} Based on the language of R.C. 149.43(A)(1), the documents 
requested by the Enquirer do not constitute public records because neither the 
board nor Proact kept the materials submitted during the interviews of those three 
finalists.  Neither the board nor Proact was required by law1 or policy to retain 
those materials, and neither respondent did keep them.  To the contrary, their 
express policy during the interviews was that those materials remain in the 
possession of the finalists and not be integrated into respondents’ records.  Thus, 
the documents were not kept in the ordinary course of business for the school 
                                                 
1. 
The Enquirer claims that R.C. 149.351 required the board to keep the materials submitted 
by the applicants, but that statute does not so provide.  And the court has already dismissed the 
Enquirer’s R.C. 149.351 civil-forfeiture claim.  98 Ohio St.3d 1407, 2003-Ohio-60, 781 N.E.2d 
1016. 
January Term, 2003 
5 
district.  See State ex rel. Margolius v. Cleveland (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 456, 461, 
584 N.E.2d 665 (“a public record is simply a record kept in the course of business 
of a public institution”). 
{¶13} The Enquirer’s reliance on State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. 
Hancock Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 134, 684 N.E.2d 1222, to 
contend otherwise is misplaced.  In Findlay, we rejected a board of county 
commissioners’ argument that because it had returned a settlement agreement to a 
private attorney hired by the county’s insurer to defend a lawsuit on behalf of the 
county, the record was not a public record subject to R.C. 149.43.  Id. at 137, 684 
N.E.2d 1222.  But unlike the documents at issue here, the private attorney acted as 
the county’s agent and still had possession of the records.  Therefore, the records 
in Findlay were still in effect kept by the county.  Id. at 137-138, 684 N.E.2d 
1222.  In contrast, the applicants who kept their materials are not agents of the 
school board. 
{¶14} Our duty to liberally construe R.C. 149.43 in favor of access to 
public records also does not require a different result.  There is no need to 
liberally construe a statute whose meaning is unequivocal and definite.  State ex 
rel. Wolfe v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 182, 186, 724 
N.E.2d 771.  Since the definition of “public records” in R.C. 149.43(A)(1) 
unequivocally requires that the records be “kept” by any public office, the 
requested materials are not public records. 
{¶15} Moreover, because neither the board nor Proact has these requested 
materials, the Enquirer is not entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel what 
would be tantamount to an impossible act.  State ex rel. Spencer v. E. Liverpool 
Planning Comm. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 678, 680, 710 N.E.2d 1129; State ex rel. 
Moore v. Malone, 96 Ohio St.3d 417, 2002-Ohio-4821, 775 N.E.2d 812, ¶ 38.  As 
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western 
Division, recently held in dismissing the Enquirer’s claim under Section 1983, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
Title 42, U.S.Code, regarding the board’s actions, there is no “historical basis for 
access [to] resumes returned to candidates or for forcing a school board to create 
records.”  Cincinnati Enquirer, Div. of Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc. v. 
Cincinnati Bd. of Edn. (Feb. 11, 2003), S.D. Ohio No. C-1-02-775. 
{¶16} Therefore, we deny the writ. 
Attorney Fees 
{¶17} The Enquirer also requests attorney fees.  Under R.C. 149.43(C), a 
person aggrieved by a public office’s failure to provide access to public records 
under the Public Records Act “may commence a mandamus action to obtain a 
judgment that orders the public office or the person responsible for the public 
record to comply with division (B) of this section and that awards reasonable 
attorney’s fees to the person that instituted the mandamus action.” 
{¶18} The Enquirer is not entitled to attorney fees.  As noted previously, 
the requested records are not public records because they were never kept by the 
board or Proact.  In addition, the case the Enquirer cites to support its proposition 
that attorney fees may be awarded is distinguishable because in that case, the 
respondents provided the requested records after the relator commenced a 
mandamus action.  State ex rel. Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc. v. Shirey 
(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 400, 678 N.E.2d 557; see, also, State ex rel. Pennington v. 
Gundler (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 171, 661 N.E.2d 1049, syllabus. 
Conclusion 
{¶19} The requested records are not public records.  Therefore, we deny 
the writ of mandamus and deny the Enquirer’s request for attorney fees. 
Writ denied. 
 
MOYER, C.J., F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK, LUNDBERG STRATTON and 
O’CONNOR, JJ., concur. 
 
RESNICK, J., not participating. 
__________________ 
January Term, 2003 
7 
 
Graydon, Head & Ritchey, John C. Greiner and John A. Flanagan, for 
relator. 
 
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, L.L.P., William J. Seitz III and Mark J. 
Stepaniak, for respondents. 
__________________