min r&o 10-21-19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ordinance 16-19 in the form of a draft public records policy, offering that it could allow Council the opportunity to make a statement on the importance and value of having strong public records availability. The current policy was recently augmented to include provisions regarding electronic records, some of which can be found in the proposed Ordinance 16-19. Members of the administration indicated that it could be a better approach because it is easier to change than an ordinance. Members of the Law Department also noted that they removed the section 110.99 from the initial draft of Ordinance 16-19, as the city does not have jurisdiction to enforce the penalty proposed in it. Mayor Summers stated that from an operator standpoint, a policy is more a living document and can be more nuanced than ordinances. Policies can also help the city anticipate the possibility of exceptions and allow a nimbler approach to a public records request. Council has the opportunity to affirm a public records policy through a resolution affirming the policy. Chairwoman George asked if most cities codify a public records ordinance or just have a policy in place. Director Butler indicated that every city must have a policy, and in his experience, he has never seen a local code take on a public records provision, which is not to say that it is not important. There is already a thick body of state law that governs all cities in the state regarding public records. Members of the committee questioned that if Council chose to adopt a resolution supporting a public records policy, could the body require that it be notified if a future administration changed it. It was also mentioned that members believed that the county had adopted a public records ordinance and how a city adopting one would be any different. Mayor Summers and Director Butler stated that in home rule counties, such as Cuyahoga, they have the ability to do what cities do, however they historically have not exercised that it right to legislate. It was added that city home rule trumps county level home rule, and that the administration is not suggesting that Lakewood could not adopt a public records law. It just may be easier to go the policy adoption route to make things easier from an operator standpoint, as there is large amounts of state public records law and previous court decisions to navigate. Policy resolution adoption would permit Council to weigh in on this important issue without running afoul of state code. Members of the committee asked the administration to explain its reasoning regarding the removal of the penalty section of the ordinance. Director Butler gave an example dating back to 2016 when Lakewood passed its human rights ordinance. The ordinance stated aggrieved parties could sue his or her employer in court for a civil cause of action, which would lead to a court decision on the case. The city then learned that cities in Ohio cannot create jurisdiction for courts outside of municipal criminal offenses. The administration and Council create crimes that can be prosecuted in Lakewood Municipal Court by the city's judge. The courts are the exclusive domain of the state and outside of municipal crimes, the state courts hear every other type of case. Members further questioned whether Council could make it a criminal offense to not comply with a public records ordinance. Director Butler indicated that Council could make it a crime, however the presence of such a law could make it more difficult to hire people in the Law Department due to potential criminal penalties that could be imposed on an employee.