Title: State ex rel. The Miami Student v. Miami Univ.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

THE STATE EX REL. THE MIAMI STUDENT ET AL. v. MIAMI UNIVERSITY ET AL. 
[Cite as State ex rel. The Miami Student v. Miami Univ. (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 
168.] 
Mandamus to compel Miami University to provide records of student disciplinary 
proceedings held before the University Disciplinary Board to the 
university’s student newspaper — Writ granted, when. 
(No. 96-1596 — Submitted January 21, 1997 — Decided July 9, 1997.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
 
In the spring of 1995, relator Jennifer Markiewicz, then editor in chief of 
Miami University’s student newspaper, The Miami Student, sought records of 
student disciplinary proceedings held before the University Disciplinary Board 
(“UDB”).  Markiewicz intended to use these records to develop a data base and to 
track student crime trends on campus.  Initially, the university refused to provide 
Markiewicz with the requested records.  Markiewicz, and her successor editor in 
chief, relator Emily Hebert, then made a written request pursuant to R.C. 149.43, 
the Ohio Public Records Act, for all UDB records kept in the years 1993-1996.  In 
their letter, relators stated:  “It is not a condition to this request that the subject 
records contain the name, social security number, student identification number, or 
other information that conveys the identity of any accused or convicted party.  If 
this identifying information cannot be deleted from the aforementioned records, 
however, then the record[s] should be provided in their original form.” 
 
On April 5, 1996, Miami University released copies of UDB records.  
However, in reliance upon the confidentiality provisions of the Family 
Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”), Section 1232g(b), Title 20, 
U.S.Code, Miami officials deleted from these records the identity, sex, and age of 
the accuseds, as well as the date, time, and location of the incidents giving rise to 
2 
the disciplinary charges.  University officials also deleted certain internal 
memoranda, written statements prepared by students appealing adverse UDB 
decisions, and the disposition of certain proceedings. 
 
Markiewicz and Hebert believed that the response to their public records 
request was inadequate and that Miami University was required to provide them 
with complete copies of the public records requested, redacted only with respect to 
the “name, social security number, or student I.D. number of any accused or 
convicted party.”  Since the university also deleted other information from the 
requested records, Markiewicz and Hebert filed an original mandamus action in 
this court against respondents, Miami University, Miami University Board of 
Trustees, University Disciplinary Board, Myrtis Powell, Vice President, Division 
of Student Affairs, and Mary Link, former Chair, University Disciplinary Board, 
seeking full disclosure of the UDB records requested. 
 
The cause is now before this court for final disposition upon the evidence 
and briefs. 
__________________ 
 
Sirkin, Pinales, Mezibov & Schwartz, Marc D. Mezibov and Ted L. Wills, for 
relators. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General; Draper, Hollenbaugh & Briscoe 
Co., L.P.A., Gerald L. Draper and Margaret R. Carmany, for respondents. 
 
Baker & Hostetler, Michael D. Dortch, David L. Marburger and Lisa 
Hammond Johnson, urging issuance of the writ of mandamus for amicus curiae 
Ohio Coalition for Open Government. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General; Bricker & Eckler and Kurtis A. 
Tunnell, urging denial of the writ of mandamus for amici curiae twenty-two Ohio 
public colleges and universities. 
3 
__________________ 
 
FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, SR., J.  The issue before this court is whether relators 
are entitled to the requested records pertaining to Miami University Disciplinary 
Board proceedings for the years 1993-1996.  Since we find that university 
disciplinary records are not “education records” under the federal law, FERPA, 
relators are entitled to these records under R.C. 149.43 subject to relators’ own 
request that personal information regarding the students be deleted.  Accordingly, 
for the reasons that follow, we grant relators a writ of mandamus. 
 
The Ohio Public Records Act is intended to be liberally construed “to 
ensure that governmental records be open and made available to the public *** 
subject to only a few very limited and narrow exceptions.”  State ex. rel. Williams 
v. Cleveland (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 544, 549, 597 N.E.2d 147, 151.  R.C. 149.43 
therefore provides for full access to all public records upon request unless the 
requested records fall within one of the specific exceptions listed in the Act.  
 
Respondents contend that the requested records fall under one such 
exception, found in former R.C. 149.43(A)(1), now (A)(1)(o).  This section 
excludes from the definition of public records those records “the release of which 
is prohibited by state or federal law.”  In particular, respondents argue that the 
records sought are exempted from release under the federal law, FERPA. 
 
Congress enacted FERPA, also known as the Buckley Amendment, in 1974.  
The Act was passed to provide access to educational records to students and 
parents while preventing educational institutions from carelessly releasing such 
information to the public.  88 Stat. 571, 572; 120 Congressional Record (1974) 
39862-39866; Bauer v. Kincaid (W.D.Mo.1991), 759 F.Supp. 575, 589. 
 
Section 1232g(b)(1), Title 20, U.S.Code provides: 
4 
 
“No funds shall be made available under any applicable program to any 
educational agency or institution which has a policy or practice of permitting the 
release of education records (or personally identifiable information contained 
therein other than directory information * * *) of students without the written 
consent of their parents * * *.” 
 
Relators argue that FERPA is not an exception to Ohio’s Public Records 
Act because the requested records are not education records.1  Therefore, the 
records sought are subject to release.  The Act defines “education records” as those 
records that “contain information directly related to a student” and that are 
“maintained by an educational agency or institution.”  Section 1232g(4)(A), Title 
20, U.S.Code. 
 
In Red & Black Publishing Co. v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Georgia 
(1993), 262 Ga. 848, 427 S.E.2d 257, the Georgia Supreme Court was faced with 
the similar issue of whether FERPA restricts a public records request.  In that case, 
the student newspaper at the University of Georgia sought access to records 
relating to the Organization Court of the Student Judiciary.  The court initially 
questioned whether FERPA applies, since it does not actually prohibit the 
disclosure of records, but simply penalizes those educational institutions that 
engage in a policy or practice of disclosing such records by withdrawing that 
institution’s federal funding.  The court then held that FERPA does not prohibit 
the disclosure of such records.  The court reasoned that the records sought, which 
involved infractions allegedly committed by fraternities, were not education 
records, since they did not relate to student academic performance, financial aid, 
or scholastic probation.  In reliance upon this case, relators contend that 
respondents are likewise required to release the UDB records in their entirety 
5 
because the records sought here do not involve academic performance, financial 
aid, or scholastic probation. 
 
In deciding this issue, we are mindful that inherent in R.C. 149.43 is the 
fundamental policy of promoting open government, not restricting it.  Thus, the 
exceptions to disclosure are strictly construed against the custodian of public 
records in order to promote this public policy.  State ex rel. James v. Ohio State 
Univ. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 168,169, 637 N.E.2d 911, 912.  Any doubt of whether 
to disclose public records is to be resolved in favor of providing access to such 
records.  State ex rel. The Warren Newspapers, Inc. v. Hutson (1994), 70 Ohio 
St.3d 619, 621, 640 N.E.2d 174, 177. 
 
With these principles in mind, we turn to the facts of this case.  At Miami 
University, the University Disciplinary Board adjudicates cases involving 
infractions of student rules and regulations, such as underage drinking, but may 
also hear criminal matters, including physical and sexual assault offenses, which 
may or may not be turned over to local law enforcement agencies.  Thus, the UDB 
proceedings are nonacademic in nature.  The UDB records, therefore, do not 
contain educationally related information, such as grades or other academic data, 
and are unrelated to academic performance, financial aid, or scholastic 
performance.  Consequently, we adopt the reasoning of the Red & Black decision, 
supra, and hold that university disciplinary records are not “education records” as 
defined in FERPA. 
 
Relators filed this complaint for a writ of mandamus in order to compile 
enough information from UDB hearings to effectively track crimes and student 
misconduct on campus.  Respondents have prevented relators from accomplishing 
this task.  By deleting relevant data, such as the general location of the alleged 
misconduct, and, in some instances, the type of punishment imposed, respondents 
6 
have denied students at Miami University as well as the general public the right to 
obtain invaluable information, including when and where alleged offenses took 
place and how guilty offenders were punished.  
 
Unfortunately, at present, crimes and other student misconduct are 
escalating at campuses across the nation.  For potential students, and their parents, 
it is imperative that they are made aware of all campus crime statistics and other 
types of student misconduct in order to make an intelligent decision of which 
university to attend.  Likewise, for students already enrolled in a university, their 
safety is of utmost importance.  Without full public access to disciplinary 
proceeding records, that safety may be compromised.  By our decision today, we 
believe we are following the dictates of R.C. 149.43, which is to foster openness 
and to encourage the free flow of information where it is not prohibited by law. 
 
Since the release of the requested UDB records is not exempt from 
disclosure under R.C. 149.43(A)(1), respondents are required to comply with 
relators’ public records request.  In their request for university disciplinary 
proceeding records, relators informed the university that they need not disclose 
personal information regarding the students, such as their name, Social Security 
Number, student identification number, or other information that conveys the 
identity of the accused or convicted party.  The university, however, not only 
deleted this information but also deleted the age and sex of the students charged 
with disciplinary violations, the dates, times, and locations of the incidents, and 
the disposition of certain proceedings.  Although the university was warranted in 
deleting information that relators never sought, some of the information which it 
deleted was improperly withheld.  Therefore, in accordance with relators’ request, 
Miami University may delete from the UDB records the student’s name, Social 
Security Number, and student identification number.  The exact date and time of 
7 
the alleged incident may also be deleted, since this constitutes other information 
that may lead to the identity of the student.  The university must disclose, 
however, the general location of the incident, the age and sex of the student 
(which does not identify the student), the nature of the offense, and the type of 
disciplinary penalty imposed. 
 
Mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel compliance with R.C. 
149.43.  State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 420, 426, 639 
N.E.2d 83, 88-89.  Accordingly, we grant a writ of mandamus to compel 
respondents to provide the records specified above. 
 
We also find that relators are entitled to attorney fees and costs. R.C. 
149.43(C).  Relators’ counsel is instructed to submit a bill to document their 
request for attorney fees in accordance with DR 2-106.  State ex rel. The Plain 
Dealer Publishing Co. v. Cleveland (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 31, 661 N.E.2d 187. 
Writ granted. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK, J., dissents in part and concurs in part. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissents. 
FOOTNOTE: 
1. 
Relators make other arguments to support their position that the records do 
not fall within an exception to R.C. 149.43.  However, we do not address these 
arguments since we find that FERPA is inapplicable on other grounds. 
 
 
COOK, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part.  I concur in Justice 
Lundberg Stratton’s dissent but write separately to add the following observation.  
Miami University withheld by redaction information that should have been 
released.  Review of the requested records shows that Miami University deleted 
8 
the following information that was not personally identifiable, i.e., information 
that would not be easily traceable to the student’s identity: the age and sex of the 
student, the general location of the incident, any description of the student’s 
conduct leading to the disciplinary violation, and the severity of the sanction 
imposed.  Respondent additionally withheld entire records on the basis that they 
contained personally identifiable information.  However, these records also 
contain information, such as that listed above, that would not make the student’s 
identity easily traceable.  Therefore, I would grant a limited writ requiring 
disclosure of the records with only personally identifiable information deleted. 
 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting.  I respectfully dissent from the 
majority.  I would find that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act 
(“FERPA”) requires respondents to delete “personally identifiable information” 
from student disciplinary records.  “Personally identifiable information” includes 
the name of a student or student’s family member and “information that would 
make the student’s identity easily traceable.”  Section 99.3, Title 34, C.F.R. 
 
This court previously stated that Ohio’s Public Records Act, at R.C. 
149.43(A), expressly excludes records, the release of which would violate state or 
federal law.  State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Akron (1994), 70 Ohio 
St.3d 605, 607, 640 N.E.2d 164, 166.  As federal law, FERPA provides: 
 
“No funds shall be made available under any applicable program to any 
educational agency or institution which has a policy or practice of permitting the 
release of education records (or personally identifiable information contained 
therein other than directory information * * *) of students without the written 
consent of their parents * * *.”  Section 1232g(b)(1), Title 20, U.S.Code. 
9 
 
Under FERPA, the statutory definition of “education records” is all-
inclusive, covering “those records, files, documents, and other materials, which (i) 
contain information directly related to a student;  and (ii) are maintained by an 
educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or 
institution.”  Section 1232g(a)(4)(A), Title 20, U.S.Code. 
 
FERPA threatens the loss of federal funds for a policy or practice of 
disclosure of education records.  The majority finds that disciplinary records are 
not education records.  However, I believe this finding is clearly contrary to the 
history, language and intent of FERPA, as is well documented by the Secretary of 
Education in promulgating the regulations implementing FERPA.  Therefore, I 
believe we have no choice, despite my strong support for the value of open records 
in our society, but to follow Congress’s dictates. 
 
The majority primarily relies on Red & Black Publishing Co. v. Bd. of 
Regents of Univ. Sys. of Georgia (1993), 262 Ga. 848, 427 S.E.2d 257, as 
authority for concluding that the disciplinary records in dispute are subject to 
release because they are not education records and, consequently, not subject to 
FERPA.  However, Red & Black was decided prior to the 1995 amendments to 
regulations implementing FERPA, in which the Secretary of Education clarified 
that disciplinary records were always included as education records under FERPA. 
 
The 1995 amendments laid out a clear definition of “law enforcement 
records,” which the statute had specifically exempted from the disclosure 
prohibition: 
 
“Law enforcement unit means any individual, office, department, division, 
or other component of an educational agency or institution, such as a unit of 
commissioned police officers or non-commissioned security guards, that is 
officially authorized or designated by that agency or institution to - 
10 
 
“(i) Enforce any local, State, or Federal law, or refer to appropriate 
authorities a matter for enforcement of any local, State, or Federal law against any 
individual or organization other than the agency or institution itself;  or  
 
(ii) Maintain the physical security and safety of the agency or institution.”  
Section 99.8(a)(1), Title 34, C.F.R. 
 
Because the University Disciplinary Board is not a law enforcement unit, 
the law-enforcement exception to FERPA does not apply. 
 
The Secretary of Education invited public comment before the amendments 
were promulgated.  The Department of Education received over one hundred and 
fifty comments, with the majority of those responding stating that “to allow the 
release of student disciplinary records to the public without consent would 
compromise what they believe to be the fundamental educational mission of the 
campus judicial process.”  Some argued that “campus judicial systems have been 
effective in responding to violations of institutional policy because of the privacy 
protections afforded to students by FERPA.”  60 F.R. 3464. 
 
A minority of the comments dealt with the need to know about crime on 
campus.  Concerning those comments, the Secretary stated, “[T]he issue of full 
public access to disciplinary hearing records concerning criminal and other non-
academic misconduct is an important part of the ongoing debate concerning safety 
on college campuses and * * *, given the competing interest involved, these issues 
need to be aired and argued in the legislative arena.”  Id.  As a result, the Secretary 
notified Congress of the need to address this important issue and offered to work 
with Congress in writing an appropriate amendment to FERPA.  Id. 
 
In explaining the 1995 amendments, the Secretary of Education 
acknowledged the holding in Red & Black, but noted that another state court more 
recently had reached the opposite conclusion, citing Shreveport Professional 
11 
Chapter of Soc. of Professional Journalists v. Louisiana State Univ., Shreveport 
(Mar. 4, 1994), First Judicial District Court, Caddo Parish, La., No. 393,332, 
which found that student disciplinary records were not akin to law enforcement 
records and were education records. 
 
Further, as in the Shreveport case, the relators argue that FERPA is not a 
law which prohibits disclosure, only that it provides for the withholding of federal 
funds for institutions that have a practice of releasing educational records. 
Regarding the question of whether FERPA prohibits not only funding but also 
disclosure, the court stated, “However, the intent of Congress to withhold millions 
of federal dollars from universities that violate [the] Buckley [Amendment] is 
ample prohibition, regardless of how the word ‘prohibit’ is construed by the 
plaintiffs.”  Shreveport at 17. 
 
In addition, Section 1232g(b)(6), Title 20, U.S.Code permits postsecondary 
institutions to disclose to a victim of a crime of violence the results of any 
disciplinary proceeding conducted by the institution against the perpetrator.  The 
Secretary noted that this specific statutory exception to the prohibition of 
disclosure, enacted in 1990 as part of the Student Right-to-Know and Campus 
Security Act, P.L. 101-542, Section 203, 104 Stat. 2381, 2385, and implemented 
by Section 99.31(a)(13), Title 34, C.F.R., demonstrated Congress’s view that 
disciplinary records are education records under FERPA.  60 F.R. 3465. 
Information about the type and the amount of crime on college campuses is also 
available under Section 668.47(a)(6), Title 34, C.F.R. (Student Assistance General 
Provisions), which implements the Student Right-to-Know and Campus Security 
Act, and requires postsecondary institutions to report annually statistics regarding 
certain campus crimes, including sexual assaults, that have been reported to local 
12 
police agencies or to any official of the institution who has significant 
responsibility for student and campus activities.  60 F.R. 3465. 
 
A federal administrative agency, the Department of Education, has 
definitively interpreted the issue of whether disciplinary records are education 
records.  When interpreting statutes, courts must give due deference to an 
administrative interpretation formulated by an agency which has accumulated 
substantial expertise, and to which Congress has delegated the responsibility of 
implementing the congressional command.  Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971), 401 
U.S. 424, 433-434, 91 S.Ct. 849, 854-855, 28 L.Ed.2d 158, 165. 
 
The FERPA regulations leave no doubt that the records of the University 
Disciplinary Board are education records.  In comments to the 1995 amendments, 
the Secretary of Education concluded: 
 
“The Secretary remains legally constrained to conclude that records of an 
institution’s disciplinary action or proceedings are ‘education records’ under 
FERPA, not law enforcement unit records, and that excluding these records from 
the definition of ‘education records’ can be accomplished only through a statutory 
amendment of FERPA by Congress.”  60 F.R. 3464. Because their release is 
prohibited by federal law, as interpreted by a federal administrative agency, these 
records fall under the exception to release under Ohio’s Public Records Act, R.C. 
149.43(A). 
 
Therefore, I would grant a limited writ, requiring disclosure of the records 
with any personally identifiable information, such as the name of the student, the 
date and time of the incident, or any other easily traceable information (e.g., 
residence hall room numbers, names of roommates) deleted.  Because most of 
these records have already been released with such deletions, I would deny 
attorney fees.