When Hamilton County and the Cincinnati Bengals negotiated a new stadium lease late last year, the two sides put out a statement that answered some questions about what was new and what was changing.

But it didn’t explain everything.

It didn’t, for example, say how much county taxpayers might have to pay to buy land for a Bengals practice facility on the riverfront. It didn’t reveal much about a proposed music venue next to the stadium. And it didn’t say what other give-and-take might have gone on between the team and the county to reach the deal.

County officials say none of that is anyone’s business but their own. They say anything they’ve talked about is top secret, for their eyes only, this-recording-will-self-destruct-in-five-seconds kind of stuff.

The Enquirer knows this because it asked to see county emails and related documents connected to the negotiations in October and November, in hopes of better understanding the costs and benefits to taxpayers.

Six months after the request was filed, county officials sent back 275 pages that had been almost completely blacked out. Every word, other than the date, subject line and names of email recipients, was gone. No noun or verb remained. No punctuation mark survived.

Several pages appeared to contain bullet-point presentations or slide shows, but they, too, were entirely redacted. Links to all of the redacted 35 emails are at the bottom of this story.

Whatever proposals and counter-proposals may have been discussed, whatever trade-offs the county and the Bengals may have talked about regarding the team’s lease and its taxpayer-funded stadium, all of them were blacked out.

Did anyone raise a question about the new lease agreement? It’s impossible to know. Did anyone suggest better ways to invest taxpayer dollars? Can’t say.

Even page numbers on some of the documents had been redacted.

Public records laws in Ohio allow governments to withhold information in some situations, such as personnel matters, contract negotiations or some communications between public officials and their attorneys.

The exceptions are not all-encompassing, however, and it’s unusual for records to be so heavily redacted. Not every discussion or document about a public employee’s job performance is private, for example, and elected officials cannot shield conversations from public view by copying their attorney on every communication.

Media organizations, The Enquirer included, have gone to court many times over the years to argue about what is and is not a public record.

In the case of the lease records, Hamilton County officials said they won’t provide the content of the emails or the attached documents because all are protected by attorney-client privilege.

When The Enquirer objected, the county agreed to provide the subject lines of the emails, but nothing more. County Administrator Jeff Aluotto said attorney-client privilege means the rest of the records are off limits because keeping them secret is in the best interest of the taxpayers on whose behalf the county was negotiating.

“The county endeavors to be as responsive as possible, however there is a reason this communication is confidential,” Aluotto said in a statement. “Our obligation is to the taxpayers.”

The county’s lawyer in the negotiations, Tom Gabelman, said disclosure of any information about the talks, specifically those related to land acquisition, could “place the county and its taxpayers at a competitive disadvantage.”

“We are working to negotiate the best possible deal for the taxpayers,” Gabelman said.

Once the deal is done and presented to county commissioners, he said, the public can review it and weigh in with any concerns. “The county’s hearing process provides for public participation as part of the Board’s review and approval process," he said.

Enquirer lawyer Jack Greiner said the county’s approach is out of line. While some portions of the emails might be covered by attorney-client privilege, he said, the “notion that every word, every comma, every individual should be redacted is absurd.”

He said interpreting public records laws so aggressively leaves the public in the dark until the process is almost over. And, he said, the county’s approach also complicates the ability of anyone to challenge its position in court.

“When you just take a paint brush and redact rather than a marker, you make it impossible for the other party to meaningfully challenge it,” Greiner said. “That’s not how it’s supposed to work.”

As it stands, the only clues available come from the subject lines, which include references to land acquisition and the stadium lease.

Aside from the county's effort to buy the land, which is ongoing, other work referenced in the subject lines is complete and the finished product is now public. That work includes the renegotiated lease, a memorandum of understanding between the county and the Bengals and a joint statement from the team and county officials.

Yet emails and supporting documents connected to that completed work, all of which were requested by The Enquirer, are being withheld by the county.

The stakes are high for taxpayers. The new lease capped the county’s obligation to build stadium improvements at $42 million, instead of the $100 million some feared those improvements could cost.

But the new lease also obligated the county to buy riverfront land currently owned by Hilltop Basic Resources, so the Bengals can build a new practice facility there.

The cost of that land could run into the tens of millions of dollars.

The new lease also ended the Bengals’ objection to a new concert venue next to the stadium, as long as the county comes through with its promise to buy the Hilltop property. But many questions remain about the venue, which would be run by the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra.

Some of those questions might have been answered back in November, when the new lease deal was signed, or in the months that followed.

But when every word is blacked out, there's no way to know.

County's redacted emails on Bengals deal

Redacted emails - part two

Redacted emails - part three