Ohio's Public Records Law currently allows citizens to receive civil forfeitures from local governments that have improperly destroyed requested records, and late last month the Ohio Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case involving Timothy Rhodes, who originally sought approximately $5 million in damages from the city of New Philadelphia, which destroyed audio recordings of roughly 20 years of 911 calls.Misschien kan in een van de aankomende wijzigingen van de Archiefwet dit nog in artikel 5 geregeld worden?
Rhodes initially submitted identical requests to several Ohio communities, all of which had destroyed their recordings. However, New Philadelphia was the only one that did not have an Ohio Historical Society-approved records schedule that gave it the legal right to destroy the recordings after they reached the end of their retention period.
Het interessante is trouwens ook dat de discussie in de rechtzaal vergelijkbaar is met de Nederlandse discussie over de boete die een overheid krijgt als er niet snel genoeg aan een WOB-verzoek wordt voldaan:
New Philadelphia contends that Rhodes' multiple requests prove that he had no interest in the content of the records themselves and was seeking to exploit the Public Records Law for personal gain. Rhodes asserts that even though he did have a legitimate need for the information in the records -- he was involved in a group that opposed tax increases earmarked for countywide 911 services -- the Ohio Public Records Act states very plainly that records requesters do not need to explain why they want to see records or what they plan to do with the information the records contain.Gerelateerd
Niet op tijd afgewerkt, dan gooi ik het weg