It’s Good To Be The Governor

Security concerns justify the denial of access to records relating to Governor Mike Dewine’s 2022 trip to Los Angeles to attend the Super Bowl, according to a decision of the Ohio Supreme Court

Relator, the Cincinnati Enquirer, seeks a writ of mandamus compelling respondent, Andy Wilson, the director of the Ohio Department of Public Safety (the “department”), to produce records regarding the travel and expenses for Ohio State Highway Patrol troopers and staff attending the 2022 Super Bowl in Los Angeles, California, with Governor Mike DeWine. The Enquirer also seeks statutory damages, court costs, and attorney fee.

A dissent

In this case, there is no evidence—or reason to believe—that the department uses its expense records for anything related to protecting or maintaining security; there is evidence only that such records could be misused by someone else. Although there was testimony suggesting that information about past security procedures could be used in planning and training for future events, there was no suggestion that the information in these records (basically, a collection of receipts) will be used for security training—and it is pretty hard to imagine how they could be used in that way.

It is obvious that all disclosures of public records come with some security concerns. As an extreme example, there is no doubt that any governor would be much safer if no one knew his or her name, what she or he looks like, or where he or she lives and works. But the incremental concern at issue here is not, to my mind, sufficient justification for shrouding government spending in secrecy. The best guarantee of good government is transparency, which is why the General Assembly has decreed that doubts regarding the release of public records are to be decided in favor of disclosure.

The security interests ostensibly at stake in this case are de minimus in general, let alone when weighed against the people’s right to know how much public money was spent while the governor was in California to watch the Super Bowl. I would conclude that the requested records—copies of expenditures for meals, travel, lodging, and overtime pay—are not security records and, therefore, that they should not be exempt from disclosure. I would issue a writ ordering production of the requested records subject to any proper redactions necessary for security reasons.

Accordingly, I dissent.

STEWART and BRUNNER, JJ., concur in the foregoing opinion.

(Mike Frisch)