State ex rel. Toledo Blade v. University of Toledo Foundation

This Ballotpedia article needs to be updated.
This Ballotpedia article is currently under review by Ballotpedia staff as it may contain out-of-date information. Please email us if you would like to suggest an update.

---

State ex rel. Toledo Blade vs. University of Toledo Foundation Number: 65 Ohio St. 3d 258 Year: 1992 State: Ohio Court: Ohio Supreme Court Other lawsuits in Ohio Other lawsuits in 1992 Precedents include: The finding in the case was that records of donors to a private corporation that functioned as the fund raising arm of a state university should be public. It affirmed the decision in State ex rel. Fostoria Daily Review Co. v. Fostoria Hospital Association that established that private entities that receive public funds and perform a governmental function are in fact public bodies subject to the Ohio Open Records Law. It also established that the entire history of an organization needs to be considered, in order to determine if it is publicly funded.

Sunshine Laws

Open Records laws

Open Meetings Laws

How to Make Records Requests

Sunshine Litigation

Sorted by State, Year and Topic

Sunshine Nuances

Deliberative Process Exemption

State ex rel. Toledo Blade v. University of Toledo Foundation was 1992 court ruling from the Ohio Supreme Court concerning the Ohio Open Records Law.

Important precedents

The finding in the case was that records of donors to a private corporation that functioned as the fund raising arm of a state university should be public. It affirmed the decision in State ex rel. Fostoria Daily Review Co. v. Fostoria Hospital Association that established that private entities that receive public funds and perform a governmental function are in fact public bodies subject to the Ohio Open Records Law. It also established that the entire history of an organization needs to be considered, in order to determine if it is publicly funded.

Background

• The University of Toledo Foundation is a private nonprofit corporation whose sole purpose is to receive and invest funds on behalf of the university. Past versions of the Foundation used university office space rent free and the employees of the Foundation are paid for by the university. The current articles of incorporation, established in 1990 do more to separate the Foundaiton from the University. The employees are paid by the Foundation and it pays rent for the university office space it occupies. The relationship with regard to University investments has not changed. The University still directs all donations to the Foundation and the FOundation manages approximately $17 million in University funds.
• The Toledo Blade requested a number of documents from the Foundation including donor records.
• The FOundation denied the request, claiming instead that it was not a public body subject to the open records law, citing 4-H Road Com. v. W.Va. Univ. Foundation in its defense.
• The Blade filed suit, seeking to compel disclosure.

Ruling of the court

The Court ruled in favor of the newspaper, ordering the documents released. The court first cited State ex rel. Fostoria Daily Review Co. v. Fostoria Hospital Association in establishing that an entity need not be operated by the state in order to be considered a public body. The court went on to establish that the Foundation's recent transition away from the old organizations did not legally separate it from the policies of those institutions and that the court must consider the policies of its predecessors in determining if the Foundation is a public body. The court decided that the Foundation's role of collecting donations and funding operations was a clear governmental function of the University. Based on this function and the continued governmental funding in its past, the court decided that the Foundation was in fact a public body subject to the law. The court went on to reject the Foundation's contention that the donor records in question are exempt. First, the court rejected the notion that the list of donors was a trade secret, rejecting the idea that public bodies could have trade secrets and that trade secret law was designed to protect anything other than private competition. The court also rejected the Foundation's allegations that federal statute exempted the donor lists. Finally, the court declined to establish a common law practice exempting the records of donors, deciding instead that the legislature has already outlined the exemptions to the public records law and if it wished to add others, it was at liberty to do so. Based on these determinations, the court ruled in favor of the Toledo Blade and ordered the documents released.

Associated cases

• State ex rel. Fostoria Daily Review Co. v. Fostoria Hospital Association
• 4-H Road Com. v. W.Va. Univ. Foundation

See also

• Ohio Open Records Law

External links

• Ruling of the Court