In shielding the home addresses of public-safety forces, the Ohio legislature set up a two-tiered system in which data about police, prosecutors, prison guards, parole and probation officers, firefighters and emergency medics are secret, while home addresses of other public servants remain part of open records.

Any government employee might face some sort of threat from the public. The rules should be the same, regardless of whether the employee works in public safety. Because public employers do their work for and draw their salaries from the taxpayers, taxpayers have a right to information about them. Some sacrifices in privacy are part of the cost of working for the public.

Another problem with exemptions is that they create major uncertainty for custodians of public documents. The best example in Ohio was the deletion of five words, maintained in a personnel record, in Substitute House Bill 141, which passed the lame-duck legislature in December and took effect on March 30.

The removal of the personnel-record language has government officeholders wondering if all public documents involving public-safety officers, such as voter-registration records, real-estate transfers and other items unrelated to their jobs, must be concealed.

In trying to guard the privacy of public-safety employees and their families, the General Assembly created a potential nightmare for offices that maintain public records.

The secrecy on home addresses extends not just to safety forces, but to their spouses, former spouses and children.

The new law has raised other questions. For example, should the names and addresses of the protected group be shielded or just the addresses? Does this law apply only to online data or to every paper document in a government office? Does it apply to retired safety officers?

A decision is pending from Attorney General Marc Dann, who should keep in mind the paramount importance of keeping public records public.

A strict interpretation of the law would create turmoil for the counties' elections boards, auditors, clerks, recorders and other officials whose staffs would have to pore over thousands of records to see what names have to be pulled from public view. People aren't identified as police officers or firefighters when they sign up to vote or file many other public records.

The legislature failed to understand that Ohioans, including safety officers, generally are safer when public records are open, not sealed. Secrecy anywhere in government is a breeding ground for corruption and malfeasance. No one has presented evidence that public records pose a threat unique to law-enforcement officers.

The General Assembly should undertake corrective legislation to clean up the mess it has created. The overriding goal of the correction should be openness, not concealment.