Editorial: Why the hurdles for parks budget?

The budget for the Cincinnati Park Board should not be hard to get. But it is.

The Park Board is a public entity, after all, funded by taxpayer dollars. The multimillion-dollar budget, which details where the department gets its money and how it spends it, should be freely available for every taxpayer who wants a copy. The right of access to the budget is both common sense and enshrined in Ohio law. Parks officials should be all the more sensitive to this responsibility given that the November ballot will feature a city charter amendment creating a permanent property tax to fund parks.

Yet it proved difficult for Enquirer reporter Carrie Blackmore Smith to get a copy of the Park Board budget in recent weeks. Her identity was demanded when she called about getting a copy of the budget, as if that should matter. Smith was told her request needed to be in writing (which is contrary to state law) and Parks Director Willie Carden Jr. told Smith her request would have to be run through the legal department. All this for a copy of a budget?

Smith then turned to the city’s website and found the Park Board’s records retention schedule. The schedule is a form required by state law that lists all the documents government agencies must keep for the public to review, and details when they may be disposed. The annual budget is listed, as one should expect. However, it doesn’t appear the Park Board’s schedule has been updated since 1991. It lists former Director Jack Wilson as the “department authority” responsible for the documents. Wilson left Cincinnati for another job in 1999.

When Smith sent Carden the outdated records schedule, he returned it with a note that read: “I have no idea what this is. Not part of my Administration. Please check with City Budget.”

Respectfully, sir, that is concerning.

Finally, after an Enquirer lawyer called the city solicitor’s office, Smith got most of the Park Board’s budget. The Enquirer is accustomed to fighting for public records, and we have the resources to persist against the barriers public agencies throw up, whether they intend to or not. But we can imagine how discouraging it might be for an average citizen to ask for basic information about how his or her money is spent, only to face the hurdles encountered by our reporter.

This editorial board has not yet taken a position on the park levy, which will appear on the ballot as Issue 22. Regardless, it is our duty to call a public agency to account when it doesn’t follow the law on public records.

As the Park Board makes its case that it should receive more taxpayer money, it must be transparent about how it is handling the money it already has.

Carden and other Park Board leaders should update their record retention schedules and thoroughly review state open records laws. It seems a refresher course is in order.