Ohio’s Public Records Act is not a suggestion. Under R.C. 149.43(B)(1), a public office must promptly prepare records for inspection and produce copies “within a reasonable period of time.” If it withholds anything, R.C. 149.43(B)(3) requires a written explanation naming the specific exemption. Silence is not a legal option.
Clocktower Files has two open requests that Hudson has not fulfilled. Public Records Requests are imperative as Council moves quickly towards its Quid Pro Quo to rubber stamp Canterbury Meadows Development for their campaign donor despite BZBA, the Planning Commission, previous Council, and a judge ruling against the development and in favor of the City.
On August 14, we asked for browsing history and related logs from city-issued devices used by Councilwoman Samantha D’Eramo on August 10 and 11. Communications Specialist Lydia Pope acknowledged the request the same morning and said the city would “search our files and get back to you in a timely manner.” Thirteen days later, on August 27, we asked for a status update. As of September 22 — 39 days after the original request — no records, no denial, and no exemption letter have been produced.
On September 1, we sent a second request: screenshots from Dr. Patricia Goetz’s Hudson City Council Facebook page showing which administrator posted on six specific dates, plus messages and replies on that page since August 1. That request has not even been acknowledged. Twenty-one days of radio silence. As Clocktower Files previously reported, others post on Goetz’s behalf include Nicole Kowalski who is currently serving as Stow Clerk of Courts.
Ohio courts have already said what this looks like. In State ex rel. DiFranco v. S. Euclid, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that “the absence of any response over a two-month period constitutes a violation” of the duty to respond in a reasonable time. A form-letter acknowledgment followed by weeks of nothing is not prompt. No acknowledgment at all is worse.
The city can claim an exemption. It can say a request is overly broad and tell the requester how it keeps its records so the request can be narrowed. What it cannot do is ignore the statute and hope the requester goes away.
Hudson residents are entitled to know how council business is conducted on city devices and official pages. Until those records are produced — or a lawful written denial is issued — the city is not complying with R.C. 149.43.
Who is directing staff not to respond or even acknowledge public records requests?
Have a tip? Please email Clocktower44236@gmail.com
