Some have been found out of compliance with Ohio Sunshine laws in multiple audits over several years, according to an analysis of audit finding data this news organization obtained from Ohio Auditor of State Keith Faber using Ohio public records law.
The week of March 11 is Sunshine Week, when this news organizations and others across the nation raise awareness of Sunshine Laws. Sunshine Laws are protections for citizens to ensure government agencies are transparent about what is going on inside their offices. Journalists use the laws to request documents, track agency decisions and report stories.
“Ultimately, when officials step into public positions, they are required to know the responsibilities that go with those positions, and they should want to operate in compliance to properly serve their constituency,” said Marc Kovac, spokesman for the Ohio Auditor of State. “We are a reporting agency and test compliance as part of our audit work because we believe it is an important stewardship requirement. When we identify noncompliance, we report on it.”
Faber’s office conducts audits of more than 5,900 local governments, agencies and organizations across Ohio. Auditors issue “findings for recovery” for identified misspent funds, and rates compliance with Sunshine Laws on a five-star system. Of the 478 audits released in 2023 and so far this year in this nine-county region, 138 of them received zero stars, meaning they weren’t in basic compliance with the law.
Statewide, of 7,677 audits released since 2022, there were 2,374 found non-compliant with Sunshine Law requirements. That means nearly one-third of Ohio governments fail to meet state standards for complying with those laws.
Asked what the auditor’s office is doing to improve compliance, Kovac said their role is limited to checking for compliance.
“While we do offer options for local officials to complete their mandated public records training, the onus is ultimately on those officials to understand what the law requires and fulfill their obligations,” Kovac said. “We expect/intend our (Sunshine Law) ratings and information included in audit reports to both inform the public and to prompt local officials to action to address areas of deficiency.”
Agencies expose themselves to civil lawsuits from members of the public if they don’t comply with the laws. But there is no body responsible for enforcing Sunshine Law violations identified in state audits.
Julio Mateo, a local activist who advocates for government transparency and participatory Democracy, said he wishes local governments would comply with Sunshine laws “because it’s the right thing to do, not necessarily because they’re afraid of getting sued, but unfortunately that’s not, I guess the world we live in.”
“I think it’s beneficial not just for us outside of government, who need to know how government operates, but also I think it’s beneficial for public officials who are wanting to act in the public interest,” he said.
Local examples
Local government agencies that were not compliant with Ohio Sunshine Laws last year included Dayton Early College Academy. DECA had problems with administrators and board members who either could not provide documentation of attending, or did not attend, mandatory Sunshine laws training.
DECA administrators and board members completed the training for this school year, a spokeswoman for the school said.
Middletown Schools was cited in audits released 2022, 2023 and 2024 for being out of compliance because the administrators and board didn’t attend public records training. The district said public records training is scheduled for April.
Montgomery County was also cited in its past three released audits for not having public records available for inspection and copying.
In 2022, the problem was specifically with the board of county commissioners, and departments of environmental sciences and job and family services, failing to provide written acknowledgement that the public records custodian/manager received the public records policy.
Montgomery County spokeswoman Deb Decker noted that the citations were considered “insignificant and immaterial.” The county has made several improvements to the portal that requestors use and technology to improve the redactions were made.
“Since August of 2021, we have one dedicated employee to track all records requests we receive for departments under the Board of County Commissioners,” Decker said. “We received 505 requests in 2023 alone, and we have 138 requests so far this year.”
Centerville Schools was cited in an audit released last year for not creating a records retention schedule, and for not having a public records commission. District administrators said the district has corrected this. A spokeswoman said the public records commission had been established during the audit but hadn’t been meeting regularly.
In Clark County, state auditors reviewed public records requests at Greenon Local Schools for an audit released in January.
“For one out of five public records requests examined, the response provided by the school district included redactions which were plainly visible; however, no explanation or legal authority was given to the requestor for the redactions made,” the audit says. “Failure to provide all required information for public records requests could result in legal action against the school district.”
Greenon’s superintendent, Darrin Knapke, told this news organization the violation occurred because the district did not cite legal authority to redact social security numbers, students’ names and health information, which he said was “obvious information to redact.”
“This year, we have complied with citing the legal authority when redacting public records,” he said.
About the Authors
