Ohio’s biennial budget bill for FY 2026–2027 (HB 96) is moving through the legislature with several significant modifications to Ohio Revised Code Chapter 149, particularly R.C. 149.43 (public records law) and R.C. 149.011 (definitions). Every public official should understand these proposed changes and their interaction with established jurisprudence.
If you’re a superintendent, township fiscal officer, village administrator, or city manager, these modifications will likely affect how you process, respond to, and manage public records requests under Ohio’s disclosure framework.
I. Constitutional and Statutory Framework
Ohio law has a default presumption favoring disclosure of public records: “All public records shall be promptly prepared and made available for inspection.” (R.C. 149.43(A)(1)) This presumption operates within Ohio’s constitutional structure of democratic governance, which Ohio courts have recognized requires transparency for effective citizen oversight, even absent an explicit constitutional guarantee of records access.
The proposed budget changes create new exemptions to this disclosure presumption. Under Ohio Constitution Article II, Section 22, and Article VIII, these modifications are embedded within appropriations legislation, raising questions about their severability should budget negotiations fail.
II. Analysis of Proposed Statutory Changes
A. ALPR (Automated License Plate Recognition) Data Exemption
Legal Context: Interacts with existing R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(v). Creates explicit statutory protection beyond current investigatory exemptions established in State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson, 70 Ohio St.3d 420 (1994).
Practical Impact: Law enforcement gains clear authority to withhold ALPR data without case-by-case justification.
B. Investigatory Work Product and Assistive Technology Records
- “Specific investigatory work product” during criminal proceedings
- Records from personal assistive technology (e.g., speech-to-text software)
- Personal notes/calendars not shared in public business
- Future calendar entries (past remain disclosable)
Legal Context: Codifies and possibly expands Steckman protections; ADA implications arise with assistive technology exemptions.
Practical Impact: Provides protection for internal, preliminary, or ADA-accommodation records.
C. Personal Notes Clarification
Legal Context: Reinforces State ex rel. Dann v. Taft, 109 Ohio St.3d 364 (2006), regarding non-public personal notes.
Practical Impact: Offers statutory defense clarity across jurisdictions.
D. Future Calendar Entries Protection
Legal Context: Introduces a temporal distinction not currently in law. Builds on Dann precedent.
Practical Impact: Protects forward-looking operational details while keeping historical records transparent.
E. Legislative Communications Shield
Legal Context: Expands legislative privilege beyond current law by shielding communications and subpoena access.
Practical Impact: Sets precedent for shielding internal government communications more broadly.
F. Critical Questions Requiring Legal Clarification
- How do ALPR exemptions interact with current R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(v)?
- What defines “specific investigatory work product” versus existing exemptions?
- Do assistive technology records conflict with ADA obligations?
- How is “public business” defined in the context of future calendar entries?
III. Procedural Timeline and Constitutional Constraints
- June 2025: Conference committee finalizes unified version
- June 30, 2025: Passage and gubernatorial signature
- July 1, 2025: Budget appropriations effective
- October 2025: Non-budget statutory changes take effect
If negotiations fail, these changes may not survive unless passed as standalone legislation.
IV. Enforcement and Penalty Considerations
New exemptions must align with R.C. 149.43(C)(1) and court-established procedural requirements from State ex rel. Clifton v. Pierce, 2004-Ohio-2684. Failure to comply could result in litigation and statutory penalties.
V. Recommended Action Steps for Local Governments
- Policy Audit: Align with Clifton and new exemptions.
- Staff Training: Emphasize case law and statutory language over convenience.
- Documentation: Maintain clear exemption rationale and response templates.
- Legal Review: Coordinate with counsel to ensure compliant retention and redaction practices.
VI. Conclusion
These changes offer relief from certain compliance burdens, but introduce new complexities. Officials must apply exemptions within legal bounds to avoid penalties. Until judicial interpretation evolves, legal counsel remains essential when denying public access under the revised framework.
