State Ex Rel. Bardwell v. City of Cleveland

O’Donnell, J.,

concurring.

{¶ 6} I concur in the majority’s decision to reverse the judgment of the court of appeals, because R.C. 149.43(B)(2) does not require public records to be maintained in any particular manner or form. Thus, while the city of Cleveland’s outdated method of organizing and maintaining reports submitted by pawnbrokers to the chief of police resulted in the delayed production of the public records Bardwell had requested, the city nonetheless made those records available to him.

{¶ 7} However, although I agree that the city did not violate R.C. 149.43(B)(2) in this case, R.C. 149.43(B)(1) mandates that public records be “promptly prepared and made available.” Accordingly, when its budget allows, the city could take advantage of technological advances to upgrade its public-records system to minimize any delay in responding to public-records requests.

Brown, C.J., and Cupp, J., concur in the foregoing opinion.