Recently, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the email-distribution list used to send out a superintendent’s newsletter met the definition of a “public record” under the Public Records Act and must be disclosed.
A citizen made a public records request to an Ohio school district for the email-distribution list that the district superintendent used to disseminate a newsletter to the community. The district initially denied the request, asserting that:
- the list was not a “record” under the Public Records Act because it didn’t document the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations or other activities of the school district; and
- even if the list were a public record, it contained personally identifiable student information and was therefore exempt from disclosure under state and federal law.
The court held that the email-distribution list met all three elements of RC 149.011(G)’s definition of a public record. First, the list was an “item.” Second, the list was created by the school district. It was generated through the district’s website and was maintained by the district to disseminate the superintendent’s newsletter. The district’s website included hyperlinks enabling users to “opt-in” or “sign up” to receive the superintendent’s weekly newsletter. Finally, the court held that the list served to document the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations or other activities of the school district. The list used to email the superintendent’s weekly newsletter was central to keeping the community informed about news and events in the district. Relying on prior precedent, including Hicks v. Union Twp. Clermont Cty. Bd. of Trustees, the court concluded that the list documented particular functions and procedures of the school district because it revealed how and to whom the superintendent’s newsletter was regularly distributed.
The district argued that the list contained personally identifiable student information and protected student information, the disclosure of which would violate state and federal law. The district did not submit the distribution list to the court for its review, nor did it submit evidence showing the list contained protected student information. Because the court couldn’t determine whether the list contained any protected student information, the district was unable to prove that the list fell squarely within an exception that exempted it from disclosure under the Ohio Public Records Act. The court ordered the district to produce the list, but directed the district to redact any personally identifiable information before producing it.
The decision serves as an important reminder to districts that materials created and maintained as part of a district’s official operations, including communication tools and distribution lists, may qualify as public records and be subject to disclosure. If you have additional questions about the case or Ohio’s Public Records Act more generally, please feel free to reach out to OSBA’s legal division at 855-OSBA-LAW.