Trustee Communication

Mr. Flak:

Wright Memorial Public Library has reviewed your public records request. As currently submitted, your records request specifies the personal e-mail address of one of the Board of Trustees, names of the other Trustees; however, your request gives an open-ended time period, and does not specify subject matter or terms, and is therefore, overly broad as under ORC 149.43(B)(2).

Please clarify your request and identify specific documents you are seeking. I look forward to receiving clarification from you. Thank you.

Mary Hopton, Fiscal Officer

Wright Memorial Public Library
1776 Far Hills Avenue
Oakwood, OH 45419
937.294.7171

Mr. Flak:

I am responding to your recent public records request, which requested:
All e-mail messages sent to or received from:
joseph.fulford@gmail.com
And the following persons for which the Wright Library should have e-mail addresses:
Randale J. Honaker III
Lu Ann Stanley
Darrell Crowe
Bob Eling
Jennifer Enseleit
Joshua Lounsbury
If you deny second portion as specific addresses are not available, please process the first. Deleted or not and irrespective of account upon which the message resides.
From the dates: 1 January 2021 to the date upon which this request is processed.

In response to your request, it is the Library’s position that it is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad. Pursuant to R.C. §149.43(B)(2), “If a requester makes an ambiguous or overly broad request * * * such that the public office or the person responsible for the requested public record cannot reasonably identify what public records are being requested, the public office or the person responsible for the requested public record may deny the request.” Ohio courts have consistently held that where a person requests access to all correspondence of a certain office, or all records containing any reference whatsoever to a particular person or topic, or requests correspondence and communications between unspecified people, over unspecified periods of time, and over general, non-specific matters, the request is improperly ambiguous and overbroad. (R.C. §149.43(B)(2)). See also State ex rel. Glasgow v. Jones, 119 Ohio St.3d 391, 2008-Ohio-4788, 894 N.E.2d 686; State ex rel. Dillery v. Icsman, 92 Ohio St.3d 312, 314, 750 N.E.2d 156; State ex rel. Daugherty v. Mohr, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 11AP-5, 2011-Ohio-6453; State ex rel. Zidonis v. Columbus State Community College, 133 Ohio St.3d 122, 2012-Ohio-4228, 976 N.E.2d 861; State ex rel. Zouderer v. Joseph, 62 Ohio App.3d 752, 577 N.E.2d 444 (10th Dist. 1989); Kanter v. City of Cleveland Hts., Ct. of Cl. No. 2018-01092PQ, 2018-Ohio-4592. Because your request for public records is overly broad and ambiguous, and since the Library cannot readily determine what you are specifically requesting, the Library must deny your request at this time.
Ohio Courts have specifically found that a request for all emails sent and received by certain public employees and/or officials is ambiguous and overly broad. State ex rel. Bristow v. Baxter, 6th Dist. Erie No. E-17-060, E-17-067, and E-17-070, 2018-Ohio-1973. Limiting the request even to short periods of time does not cure the ambiguity and overbreadth of such generic requests. Id. Notably, the request for emails in Bristow was limited to just two one-month periods. The Court concluded that this time limitation did not cure the ambiguity and overbreadth of the request. On the other hand, a request for all emails relating to a certain subject over a specified period is proper under R.C. 149.43. State ex rel. Glasgow v. Jones, 119 Ohio St.3d 391, 2008-Ohio-4788, 894 N.E.2d 686.

Because your public records request is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, the Library is again denying your request at this time in accordance with R.C. §149.43(B)(2). However, you are welcome to revise and refine your request so that it is not vague, ambiguous and overly broad. As indicated in my previous correspondence, please clarify your request and specify the subject matter of the documents you are requesting. I look forward to receiving clarification from you.

Mary Hopton, Fiscal Officer

Mr. Flak:

Thank you for revising your request. As I am sure you are aware, the Library is currently undergoing construction since January, 2021. Within your request, we estimate thousands e-mails will be included for this project. We would like you to confirm whether or not you wish to have the construction project e-mails and attachments as part of your public records request. Please note including these e-mails will add significant time for retrieval, reviewing, and redaction of any, to complete this request. I look forward to your response. Thank you.

Mary Hopton, Fiscal Officer

Mr. Flak:

I am investigating how to exclude the construction e-mails, as well as any duplicate e-mails from your previous OIC e-mail request. I will let you know once I have a better idea of what is possible. Thank you.

Mary Hopton, Fiscal Officer

Mr. Flak:

We have reviewed your request and will begin gathering the records for this request. An update on time to completion will be given once the records have been reviewed. Thank you.

Mary Hopton, Fiscal Officer

Mr. Flak:

The public records containing "Aidan" have been gathered. I am starting the process of reviewing these records and will be able to give you a time estimate to complete the request no later than Monday, September 13, 2021. Thank you.

Mary Hopton, Fiscal Officer

Mr. Flak:

Update: The review and redacting process is 25% complete on this public records request.

Mary Hopton, Fiscal Officer

Mr. Flak:

The review and redaction of the files is complete. On any document where there is a redaction, I have noted Redaction A or Redaction B in red in the upper right hand corner. Redaction A is for items under ORC Section 149.432(B) for Library Records and Patron Information and Redaction B is for items under ORC Section 149.011(G) for non-public records.

Mary Hopton, Fiscal Officer