Opinion
No. 76-343
Decided March 16, 1977.
Mandamus — Writ allowed, when — To inspect and copy records — Of Board of Cosmetology — "Public records," defined.
IN MANDAMUS.
Relator, Milo's Beauty Supply Company, requested access to the records of the State Board of Cosmetology listing licensed cosmetologists and their addresses, and the names and addresses of all beauty salons in the state of Ohio, for the purpose of copying or microfilming that list at relator's expense. The board, relying upon a directive of respondent, Richard Krabach, Director of the Ohio Department of Administrative Services, dated April 7, 1975, denied relator's request. The directive instructed all agencies not to provide their mailing lists unless the requester can prove to the director and the agency involved that the release of the information would promote the health and safety of the citizens of Ohio.
Relator filed this complaint in mandamus, on March 29, 1976, seeking the issuance of a writ requiring respondents to grant relator access to and inspection of the board's list with the privilege of taking copies, notes and other data therefrom.
Messrs. White, Rankin, Pfefferle, Herron Henney and Mr. George L. Henry, for relator.
Mr. William J. Brown, attorney general, and Mr. Charles T. Collett, for respondents State Board of Cosmetology, its members, and its executive secretary.
Mr. William J. Brown, attorney general, and Mr. George E. Lord, for respondent Director, Ohio Dept. of Administrative Services.
The issue presented is whether the records to which relator seeks access are "public records" under R.C. 149.43, and thus are required to be available for inspection and copying. This court, in State, ex rel. Grosser, v. Boy (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 498, relying on the definition of "public record" in R.C. 149.43, stated:
"* * * [T]he General Assembly defined, with certain exceptions, `public record' as `any record required to be kept by any governmental unit.' Therefore, if the records in question in the instant case are specifically required to be kept by law, the availability for inspection is mandated by R.C. 149.43." (Footnote omitted.)
This court has thus enunciated a twofold test to determine the existence of "public records": (1) the records must be kept by a governmental unit, and (2) the records must be specifically required to be kept by law. Affirmative application of these two elements in a given circumstance mandates that the records be available for inspection and copying.
R.C. 4713.02 created the State Board of Cosmetology and delegated to the board power to regulate specific activities pertaining to cosmetology. Furthermore, R.C. 4713.02 specifically states, in pertinent part, as follows:
"The board shall keep a record containing the names and known places of business, and the date and number of license, of every licensed cosmetologist, and those engaged in the practice of any branch of cosmetology, together with the names and addresses of all licensed beauty salons and schools of cosmetology."
It is apparent the records relator seeks to inspect and copy are "public records," as defined by R.C. 149.43. In this instance, the legislative mandate of R.C. 149.43 clearly dictates relator's right to the inspection and copying of said records.
A writ of mandamus, consistent with this opinion, is allowed.
Writ allowed.
O'NEILL, C.J., HERBERT, CELEBREZZE, W. BROWN, P. BROWN, SWEENEY and LOCHER, JJ., concur.