Carrie Blackmore Smith

csmith@enquirer.com

In late October, someone in a powerful position sent 37 Ohio troopers on a law enforcement mission to provide security at one of the largest protests in American history over the construction of a pipeline under the Missouri River on a Native American reservation in North Dakota.

Right away residents in Ohio, including some politicians, objected.

"Ohioans should not be paying to assist a dispute between private oil interests, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, the federal government and the state of North Dakota," reads a letter from the majority of Cincinnati City Council to Gov. John Kasich.

Other states, including Indiana, Minnesota, Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection sent officers. North Dakota agreed to reimburse expenses.

The Ohio unit spent a little more than two weeks 1,200 miles away. Work estimated to cost roughly $653,000.

So what did the officers do there? Ohio officials will not say, nor will they say directly who approved sending the troopers to North Dakota, only that "all operations of the Ohio State Highway Patrol are subordinate" to Superintendent Col. Paul Pride.

The questions the state won't answer about the deployment include what were the troopers' roles in this situation, where Native Americans and environmental activists had decided to literally stand in the path of a pipeline that they say would threaten the region's water supply and damage sacred cultural lands and tribal burial grounds?

Were Ohio officers on the front lines?

Confrontations written about by the media and in official statements reported injuries on both sides; officers in riot gear, reportedly shooting rubber bullets and water cannons.

The Enquirer has asked three times for records that would provide basic information about the Ohio State Highway Patrol's mission, including who went and what was in the contract between Ohio and North Dakota.

As with many requests, The Enquirer did not plan to name the officers in a story, but, as a government watchdog, felt it important to check and provide the public with some information about what the state employees were doing.

A lawyer for the highway patrol declined the release of any public records, aside from a few emails providing weather reports and a letter from a counselor offering services to the troopers. The counselor noted "many are feeling conflicted with how to feel about 'sides.' " There was also an email North Dakota distributed about absentee voting and emails about an increase in available travel cost reimbursements.

That's it.

"It makes the story even more bizarre," Cincinnati councilman Chris Seelbach said. "There are more pressing issues for Ohio state troopers to be in Ohio for, like the heroin epidemic, and now it looks like they are preventing us from finding out questions – what were they doing there?"

Highway patrol lawyer P.R. Casey IV said The Enquirer's requests were either "overly broad" or that the state had the law on its side to withhold information, such as the names of the officers and the Emergency Management Assistance Compact between Ohio and North Dakota.

One of the cases that the state references in its argument for an exemption is Kallstrom v. City of Columbus, an Ohio Supreme Court case that provides anonymity for officers who are undercover.

Enquirer attorney Jack Greiner said without more information it's unclear whether the officers were undercover.

The highway patrol also cited an Ohio Revised Code provision that exempts records "maintained ... to prevent ... or respond to acts of terrorism."

Greiner responded by asking "is your position that the Standing Rock protestors are engaged in acts of terrorism? Would that include the U.S. military veterans who came to the protestors' assistance as well?"

The Enquirer did not receive a response.

"Among well-intended protesters, you will occasionally find people who are truly domestic terrorists," said Mark Weaver, a Columbus lawyer who worked for years to defend the state in open records cases. "Not sure if any are running around Standing Rock. Highway Patrol would have to have proof if it went to court."

North Dakota, on the other hand, offered some information about Ohio's involvement when asked for public records.

The Peace Garden State released a heavily redacted copy of the Interstate Mutual Aid Request for Assistance form.

Timothy D. Smith, emeritus journalism and media law professor at Kent State and former director of Kent's Center for Ethics and Access, said Ohio should have released the entire form, unredacted.

According to the redacted form released by North Dakota, the Ohio troopers were sent to Mandan, North Dakota, about 60 miles north of Cannon Ball, ground zero for the protest.

North Dakota warned working conditions would require "extended periods of exertion" and that the troopers "should be physically fit and prepared to operate in an outdoor environment with unpredictable weather," according to the form.

Health and safety concerns check-marked on the form are "environmental hazards exist" and "personal protection equipment needed."

North Dakota described the job as a "civil disobedience situation."

Smith said the form also states that working conditions are "normal," and wondered why anything then could be blacked out?

Smith said there is now a "knee-jerk reaction" from state agencies to deny record requests and claim requests are overly broad, Smith said. "That has been encouraged by the Ohio Supreme Court, unfortunately."

The form provided by North Dakota also included estimated costs for the Ohio unit, totaling $653,182. North Dakota will reimburse Ohio, according to the highway patrol spokesman Lt. Robert Sellers.

Personnel costs said to be for 36 officers, not 37 as Ohio had said, made up $454,063.

Reimbursement per officer for about two weeks of work ranged from $8,939 to $20,666, though only 24 individual lines for officers, names redacted, are listed on the form.

North Dakota redacted nearly every other bit of information.

"Ohioans deserve to know how state resources are being used" even if North Dakota will reimburse the state, said Catherine Turcer , a policy analyst for Common Cause Ohio, a citizens' lobby focused on holding government accountable.

"These records are public records. They belong to all Ohioans, not just to Department of Public Safety," Turcer said. "State troopers can't just go on field trips without accountability. The public deserves to better understand what happened and why."

The Enquirer plans to file an appeal Wednesday, under a new law created last year to expedite claims that public records have been unlawfully denied.

Meanwhile, the protest has thinned in North Dakota after the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers denied a permit for further pipeline construction on Dec. 4, considered a victory, for now, for the Sioux and protesters.

That decision could be overturned by President-elect Donald Trump. The Associated Press reported in November that Trump's 2016 federal disclosure forms show he owned between $15,000 and $50,000 in stock in Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners, one of two corporations behind the project. That was down from between $500,000 and $1 million a year earlier, according to the AP.

Energy Transfer Partners and Sunoco Logistics, which are building the pipeline, are expected to appeal the decision or sue the Obama administration and send the case to federal court.