A recent ruling by the Ohio Court of Claims has significant implications for public records requests directed at private organizations. The court dismissed a case brought by Kurt Fankhauser against the Bucyrus Tourism and Visitors Bureau, stating it lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint. This decision highlights the limitations of the Public Records Act when it comes to private entities.
The ruling, filed on June 4, 2026, affects individuals and organizations seeking transparency from private non-profits that engage in public activities. It underscores the challenges faced by requesters when dealing with entities that are not classified as public agencies under Ohio law.
In this case, Kurt Fankhauser filed a public records request on April 28, 2025, seeking various documents from the Bucyrus Tourism and Visitors Bureau. His request included un-redacted bank statements, minutes from meetings, and records retention schedules from 2019 to 2024. However, it appears the Bureau did not respond to his request.
After Fankhauser's complaint was filed on March 3, 2026, the matter was referred to mediation, which ultimately failed to resolve the dispute. Following this, both parties submitted evidence and memoranda to support their positions, leading to the court's decision.
The court's analysis centered on the jurisdictional issue. It referenced a prior case, Martin v. Accel Schools Ohio, in which the Eighth District Court of Appeals determined that the Ohio Court of Claims does not have the authority to hear public records claims against private entities. The court noted, "The plain meaning of that provision confers a limited expansion of this court’s jurisdiction to include R.C. 149.43(B) claims against political subdivisions, but not to the same claims against private entities."
Special Master Sarah Pierce, who authored the report and recommendation, emphasized that while private entities can be subject to the Public Records Act, the enforcement of such duties does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims. This ruling is significant because it clarifies the boundaries of where individuals can seek recourse when public records are not provided by private organizations.
As a result of the ruling, the court recommended that Fankhauser's complaint be dismissed due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Additionally, it ordered that Fankhauser bear the costs associated with the case, as there was no finding of a violation of the Public Records Act.
This decision has broader implications for how public records requests are handled in Ohio. Individuals seeking records from private organizations may need to explore alternative legal avenues, as the Court of Claims may not be the appropriate venue for such disputes. The ruling could lead to increased scrutiny of the Public Records Act and its applicability to private entities.
Looking ahead, the ruling can be appealed, but it is unclear whether Fankhauser will pursue that option. The court filing did not specify any plans for an appeal or any related cases pending in the Ohio Supreme Court. As it stands, this decision sets a precedent that may influence future public records requests directed at private organizations in Ohio.