In recent years, public schools in Wisconsin and across the country have come under intense scrutiny. At issue are some of the most politically engaging, high-stakes issues of our time: what we teach children about race, gender and identity; how we police the line between free speech and anti-discrimination law; and the role of parents in shaping their childrens’ world view.

These are political questions, but they are also highly personal, reaching into the most intimate details of children’s and families’ lives.

That puts schools in a significant bind. On the one hand, the public has a right to know how public schools act, meaning that schools have a duty to be transparent. On the other hand, students have special rights to privacy enshrined in both state and federal law. How do schools balance the transparency they owe the public with the confidentiality they owe their students?

Schools across Wisconsin are approaching these challenges in wildly different ways — some reasonable; others nonsensical and legally insupportable. In my work as an attorney representing students and families in school matters, I’ve encountered a grab bag.

For example, at one extreme, I recently filed a public records request asking a school district to provide records showing the district’s disciplinary response to incidents where students used racial slurs. Essentially, I was asking the district to search its disciplinary record-keeping system for incidents coded as involving racial harassment (about 50 for the requested time period, I believe), redact any information that could identify individual pupils, and provide a document showing the school’s response (detention, suspension, counseling, etc.) in each case. The district refused to provide those records, claiming it would violate student privacy.

At the other extreme, I have represented parents whose children’s highly sensitive information has been made public through open records requests. The recurring pattern goes something like this:

A parent emails a school administrator highly sensitive information — for example, asking that a child be barred from accessing library books with sexual content, or notifying the school that the child is navigating issues related to gender identity. Another community member (often politically motivated) files an open record request asking for all emails to the district addressing issues of library book access or student gender identity. The school then releases the highly sensitive email — sometimes with no redactions, other times just deleting the child’s name but leaving in enough detail to easily discern which student it applies to.

These examples are extreme, but they’re also not uncommon. They speak to the lack of coherent understanding in Wisconsin of how school district transparency can be reconciled with student privacy.

Fortunately, there is a workable solution. Under federal law, schools are prohibited from releasing “personally identifiable information” about students. That means that schools can share records, data and information with the public, so long as they make sure to redact any language or details that can be tied to an individual student.

Wisconsin school districts that diverge from this practice standard claim to be acting based on differences between the federal and state student privacy laws. But the federal approach strikes the right balance. It would, for instance, allow districts to redact identifying information from the racial harassment disciplinary records while showing what (if any) discipline was applied.

This shared understanding of the requirements of state student privacy laws will restore consistency between school districts, ensure that sensitive information regarding individual students is kept confidential, and give communities the big-picture information they need to understand what’s happening in their schools.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a group dedicated to open government. Elisabeth Lambert is the founder and principal of the Wisconsin Education Law and Policy Hub (wisconsinelph.org).

Your right to know: Strike a balance on student privacy is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

In early April, I requested some records from the Madison Police Department regarding what it said was the sole disciplinary action taken against an MPD officer or employee in the first three months of this year. 

It was an exceedingly minor matter — a sergeant who got a one-day suspension for sending an “unprofessional email to command staff.” And all I wanted was to see the complaint that would disclose what the email said and some document that explained how the matter was concluded. Just a few sheets of paper.

The response I received said the request had to go through the MPD’s records custodian, Julie Laundrie, who informed me: “I am currently at 14 months for personnel requests to receive [a] reply.”

Fourteen months? 

Laundrie’s official explanation is that she puts requests for personnel records into a queue with other, often voluminous requests, which are handled in order. (The office now says it may just be a few more weeks.) But the real reason for the delay is that the department, like too many other public agencies in Wisconsin, does not devote enough resources to handling records requests.

It’s a problem that has grown markedly worse in recent years, as agencies have gotten bolder in exploiting the lack of specificity in the state’s open records law regarding the question of “How long is too long?”

The Madison Metropolitan School District, for instance, has been sued at least five times since 2021 for long delays in responding to records requests, while a staff position for records work went unfilled. Like some other records custodians, the district seems to think “We’re busy doing other things” is an acceptable reason for not providing records in a timely fashion. It isn’t.

The state’s open records law, enacted in 1981, directs all state and local government officials to respond to records requests “as soon as practicable and without delay,” but sets no precise time frames. The state’s attorney general’s office, which has statutory authority to interpret and enforce this law, has long advised that “a reasonable time” for responding to most simple requests is ten working days, although actually providing the records may take longer. 

Gov. Scott Walker passed executive orders in 2016 and 2017 that set tighter response times for state agencies — requiring them, for instance, to fulfill and not just respond to “small and straightforward” requests within 10 business days when possible. But those rules did not apply to local governments and are no longer considered binding past Walker’s term.

The AG’s Office of Open Government, under both Democratic and  Republican leadership, has not taken a hard line against records custodians for taking too long. And indeed, a report by the Wisconsin Examiner found that the office itself had more than three dozen records requests that remained unfulfilled after more than a year. The office met its own 10-day guideline for just 46% of the 924 records requests it received in 2022.

This is not okay. A vital but often overlooked part of the open records law says providing records in response to requests “is declared to be an essential function of a representative government and an integral part of the routine duties of officers and employees whose responsibility it is to provide such information.”

If an agency lacks staff to handle the volume of requests it receives, it should allocate more staff, as happened recently with the city attorney’s office in Green Bay, which had fallen behind in handling requests. 

Responding promptly to record requests is not just a good government best practice. It’s the law. And sooner or later, the courts are going to have to enforce it.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a group dedicated to open government. Bill Lueders is the Council’s president.

Your Right to Know: Record delays are contrary to the law is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

When Madison Metropolitan School District communications director Tim LeMonds sued his employer in March to block release of a complaint against him, he claimed there would be grave repercussions if the public were allowed to see the allegations it contained.

Access to the documents, LeMonds’ lawyers argued, would harm the school district’s “ability to effectively function” and “almost certainly subject Mr. LeMonds to unwarranted, unfair and irreversible public ridicule and gossip, negative public perception, and jeopardize his ability to credibly perform his duties as MMSD’s chief public spokesperson.”

At a hearing on May 25, however, Dane County Circuit Judge Rhonda Lanford rejected LeMonds’ claims, instead finding an overriding public interest in access to the complaint.

“There is a significant public interest in the release of documents pertaining to investigations and public employees,” Lanford said. “It’s critical that the public oversee the public body and evaluate the matter in which it fulfills its responsibilities.”

Shortly after the ruling, the school district released the 14-page complaint, which had been signed by seven current and former district employees and alleged that LeMonds engaged in “years of screaming, demoralizing criticism, name-calling, belittling, lying, and intimidation” directed toward employees and local journalists, especially women and people of color. 

The complaint alleges that several employees quit their jobs in part because of the experiences with LeMonds, sometimes in large part. “We do not feel Tim LeMonds is fit to work in our department,” the employees wrote.

While the district investigated and concluded there was “insufficient evidence” that LeMonds violated workplace policies, the probe did not cover all aspects of the complaint, and the district in court papers denied that all accusations against LeMonds “were found to be without merit,” as he claimed.

The case is important to the Madison community, but it also has broader consequences for the state. Here’s why.

First, Lanford’s ruling highlights a fundamental value embedded in Wisconsin’s public records law: accountability. Citizens have a right to know what their government is doing beyond just what those in power want to tell them. Courts have repeatedly recognized this monitorial function in the context of employment investigations, concluding that the public has a substantial interest in learning how the government investigates allegations of employment misconduct so it can assess the nature and propriety of the investigation.

As for LeMonds’ concerns about his reputation, a Wisconsin state appeals court has held that high-ranking officials — like LeMonds — should expect “close public scrutiny” and that once an investigation has concluded, “the danger of warrantless harm to reputation is reduced.”

Second, the case is important because of how it arose: by the inquiry of a local journalist.

After WMTV reporter Elizabeth Wadas filed a records request in December that covered the complaint at issue, MMSD followed the law and determined that the record should be released. When LeMonds was informed of this decision, he went to court. Like nearly all litigants who seek to block the release of records using this provision of the law, he lost.

That may be in part because the television station hired lawyers to intervene in the litigation and argue for disclosure of the complaint.

As local news outlets in the United States face budget cuts and closures due to declining revenue, it has become increasingly challenging for local journalists to spend money on litigating records disputes. WMTV’s commitment to its watchdog role is a bright light. 

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a group dedicated to open government. Council Treasurer Jonathan Anderson is a former Wisconsin journalist and current Ph.D. candidate at the University of Minnesota.

Your Right to Know: Records case a win for public accountability is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

A unanimous voice vote by the Wisconsin Senate on a piece of legislation is a rare occurrence. But that’s what happened on April 19, when state senators approved a bill to undo a decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court regarding public records.

Senate Bill 117, sponsored by Sen. Duey Stroebel (R-Saukville) and Rep. Todd Novak (R-Dodgeville), would allow a judge to decide whether a records requester is entitled to attorney fees regardless of when a stalled request for public documents is finally fulfilled.

In an opinion issued last July in a case called Friends of Frame Park v. the City of Waukesha, the state Supreme Court held that if a governmental entity releases records after a suit has been filed but before a court has acted on the case, the requester is not entitled to recover attorney fees and costs. 

The court based its decision on a narrow interpretation of the word “prevail” in the public records statute. It ruled that a judge must affirmatively order a unit of government to turn over public records for a requester to prevail. This effectively allows government actors to hold onto records until a requester files a lawsuit, knowing they face no penalty if they turn over the records before a judge has a chance to act. 

Prior to the decision, a broader definition of “prevail” was used, allowing for fee recovery in cases where the filing of a lawsuit was deemed a substantial factor in securing the records’ release. By codifying the previously used broader definition of “prevail” in Wisconsin statutes, SB 117 will remove the perverse incentive for governments to hold on to records until a lawsuit is filed. 

The Wisconsin Newspaper Association believes that transparency in government is essential to a democratic society. It helps ensure that government business is being conducted fairly and ethically. The new standard created by Friends of Frame Park threatens the ability of the public, including the media, to access information about the workings of government.

Newspapers are the eyes and the ears of the communities they serve and accessing public records is an integral part of the reporting process. In most instances, public records are readily available. But, in those cases when access is denied, newspapers often turn to the courts.

Litigation over wrongfully denied records can be expensive. Raising the bar on when requesters can recover attorney fees will have a tremendous chilling effect on the media and the public’s ability to pursue public documents. If left to stand, this decision will make it financially difficult to keep government agencies accountable.

SB 117 now heads to the state Assembly, where it will be assigned to a committee for consideration. Citizens who support the public’s right to access government information should urge their state representatives to support this bill. While they’re at it, they should also thank their state Senators for helping ensure that Wisconsin’s rich history of transparency in government is upheld.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a group dedicated to open government. Beth Bennett, a Council member,  is the executive director of the Wisconsin Newspaper Association. which advocates on behalf of the newspaper industry, promotes government transparency and defends the constitutional rights of a free and independent press. 

Your Right to Know: Bill to fix records problem deserves support is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Recently, Wisconsin Watch revealed how members of the Wisconsin Legislature’s powerful budget committee secretly hold up projects or programs they don’t like. 

They often do so, reporter Jacob Resneck found, without following a state law that requires the committee to schedule a hearing within 14 working days of such an objection. The hearings are designed to let the public, stakeholders and other lawmakers debate the merits of the expenditure. 

And even in cases where a hearing is held, agencies and interested parties may not be allowed to speak.

The effect is a secretive “pocket veto” over projects and programs, ranging in recent years from $15.5 million for recreational access along the Pelican River, to a historic fraternity house remodel in Madison, to a $17.5 million program to encourage low-income Wisconsinites on Medicaid to become vaccinated — all without a public hearing or explanation.

Backers of some of these projects say they are left in the dark about who is objecting or why, with no opportunity to address concerns. 

“There’s no transparency to the process, obviously. We don’t even know where to go,” said Bart Kocha, director of a nonprofit whose grant to restore an historic mansion near Madison’s Lake Mendota was secretly blocked without a hearing. 

Republicans who run the Legislature have used the maneuver more frequently in recent years, Resneck found, especially to halt recreational or conservation projects. But these anonymous vetoes have been around for years, used by both Republican and Democratic lawmakers. 

That doesn’t make it right. 

This stealth maneuver also opens the door to corruption. Imagine the power a lawmaker wields by single-handedly and secretly blocking a project that a person or group has worked months or years to bring to fruition. What would that lawmaker want in return for lifting the objection?

This is not a theoretical threat. 

In 2002, then-Senate Majority Leader Chuck Chvala, D-Madison, was charged with extortion for pressuring backers and opponents of an historic preservation project to donate to state Senate candidates of Chvala’s choosing. Both sides coughed up money to win Chvala’s approval, according to the criminal complaint. The extortion charge was later dismissed as part of a plea deal, but Chvala still ended up being sentenced to nine months in jail for other offenses.

In his 2023-25 budget, Gov. Tony Evers is proposing to do away with this secretive process when it comes to conservation and recreational projects paid for by stewardship funds. But GOP lawmakers have already vowed to rip up the document and start over, leaving little chance the Legislature will adopt Evers’ idea.

This is not the only stealth move lawmakers use. They also can add anonymously authored amendments to the state budget, which carries its own opportunity for mischief. 

The Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council’s “Legislative Wish List” includes a call to lawmakers to “prohibit any rule, motion, bill or amendment from being introduced without a clearly identified sponsor and cosponsors.”

Lawmakers have the chance to do the right thing — and finally let some sunlight into their  murky budget process. 

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a group dedicated to open government. Dee J. Hall, the Council’s secretary, is the managing editor of Wisconsin Watch.

Your Right to Know: End Wisconsin’s secretive ‘pocket veto’  is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

A group of residents concerned about the impact of a local park redevelopment, a school board member who blew the whistle on his colleagues for being too secretive, and a longtime city official who has made a habit of accessibility are among the winners in this year’s Openness Awards, or Opees, bestowed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council. 

Also being honored are news outlets that fought for and used records to break important stories. Meanwhile, a school district that has demonstrated “casual contempt for the public’s right to know” is being singled out for negative recognition. 

The awards, announced today in advance of national Sunshine Week (sunshineweek.org), March 12-18, recognize outstanding efforts to protect the state’s tradition of open government — and highlight some threats to it. 

This is the 17th consecutive year that Opees have been awarded. Winners will receive a certificate suitable for framing and be invited to attend the Wisconsin Watchdog Awards annual reception and dinner, which will take place sometime this fall. 

“This was an uncommonly flush year in terms of the number of nominations that were received and it was not easy to decide on just a few,” said Bill Lueders, council president. “There is much that is happening to advance the cause of open government in Wisconsin.” 

The Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, a nonpartisan group that seeks to promote open government, consists of about two dozen members representing media and other public interests. Sponsoring organizations include the Wisconsin Newspaper Association, Wisconsin Broadcasters Association and the Madison Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists. 

The judging committee for this year consisted of Lueders, Wisconsin State Journal editor Kelly Lecker, Capital Times editor Mark Treinen, former Milwaukee Journal Sentinel “Ideas Lab” editor David Haynes, and Sam Martino of the Society of Professional Journalists.

Awards are being given this year in six categories. The winners are: 

Public Openness Award (“Popee”): Jim O’Keefe 

This longtime legislative analyst for the city of Madison and now director of its Community Development Division was nominated by Judith Davidoff, editor of the? Isthmus newspaper in Madison, for his “extraordinary” accessibility under four mayors. In an era where, she noted, “it is now rare for public administrators to answer their own phones and talk directly to reporters,” O’Keefe goes the extra mile, even intervening to help a reporter who was having trouble getting a call-back from someone else in city government. In recognizing O’Keefe, we also acknowledge the many other public officials in Wisconsin who regard transparency as a blessing and not a burden. 

Media Openness Award (“Mopee”): The Badger Project 

This nonpartisan, nonprofit and citizen-supported investigative reporting outlet, led by managing editor Peter Cameron, pulled back the veil on police officers who are disciplined and even fired for misconduct only to be hired by other law enforcement agencies. It has filed lawsuits to pry loose relevant records against two police departments (La Crosse and Wausau) and used a list maintained by the state Department of Justice to shine a light on these cases. The outlet’s reporting on this issue began in 2021, when it revealed that nearly 200 Wisconsin officers have been rehired after being fired or forced out, and it is ongoing. 

Citizen Openness Award (“Copee”): Friends of Frame Park 

Concerned about a proposed baseball stadium that would have transformed a local park in Waukesha, this group of local residents fought all the way to the Wisconsin Supreme Court to defend the public’s right to access records regarding the details of the plan, such as how much it would cost taxpayers. Sadly, the court’s conservative majority, in a 4-3 vote, reversed an appellate court ruling and gutted the fee-shifting provisions in the state’s open records law, for which a legislative fix is now being sought. 

Open Records Scoop of the Year (“Scoopee”): “Cash Not Care,” The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 

The state’s largest newspaper proved its mettle for the umpteenth time in this powerful series of articles by reporters Cary Spivak and Mary Spicuzza. They examined the high infant mortality among Black people in Wisconsin while exposing malfeasance in a shadowy network of businesses known as prenatal care coordination companies. They spent months filing public records requests, reviewing thousands of pages of documents, conducting interviews and doing shoe-leather reporting. The series led to increased scrutiny of these companies by state officials.

Whistleblower of the Year (“Whoopee”): Mike Meier 

This member of the Wauwatosa School Board alleged that the board met improperly to discuss how to respond to a records request and that he was punished by the board president for being more open than necessary. Meier is a quoted source in several articles about a school administrator who helped steer a contract to consultants who employed her husband. In the end, both the administrator and board president resigned. Pushing back against the charge that he revealed too much, Meier said, “Our whole system counts on the elected officials being watched in the public square as to how they conduct their business.” 

No Friend of Openness (“Nopee”): The Madison Metropolitan School District

It’s rare for a public institution that depends on taxpayer support to be as awful as this one when it comes to public records and accountability. The district, through spokesperson Tim LeMonds, has become notorious for outrageous delays and excuses, prompting multiple lawsuits alleging violations of the records law. Tom Kamenick, the president and founder of the Wisconsin Transparency Project, wrote in an email to the Capital Times that he has “received more complaints about MMSD than any other government agency.” It is time for the district’s casual contempt for the public’s right to know to come to a screeching halt.

Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council names ‘Opee’ winners is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Many people in Wisconsin are under the impression that the disastrous probe into the state’s 2020 presidential election conducted by former state Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman is over, as are its costs to taxpayers. They’re wrong.

The probe, conducted over 14 months by Gableman at the behest of Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, failed to find any evidence of significant fraud. It did, however, reveal ample evidence of incompetence on the part of Gableman and his team, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), including multiple spelling errors. It also led to contempt charges against both Vos and Gableman, and to a judge’s referral of Gableman to the office that regulates attorney conduct for his disgraceful behavior during a court proceeding.

Vos, whose name the OSC routinely rendered as “Voss,” fired Gableman last August, after relations between the two had soured to where Gableman endorsed the speaker’s GOP primary opponent. At the time, the cost of the probe and associated records battles was tallied at more than $1.1 million, all paid for with taxpayer dollars. Remarked state Sen. Melissa Agard (D-Madison): “I’m glad that Speaker Vos has stopped the bleeding for these tax dollars going to a sham investigation.”

In fact, the bleeding never stopped. The amount paid by taxpayers now stands at more than $2 million, including nearly $1.5 million in legal fees, according to a report by WisPolitics.com; it could yet rise by hundreds of thousands more. That’s in part because Vos and attorneys for OSC are continuing to drag out litigation over the four records-related lawsuits brought by American Oversight, a liberal watchdog group.

One case, involving contractors’ records controlled by Vos, awaits resolution on various issues, including whether American Oversight can recover its in-house counsel fees. Vos is arguing, against logic and history, that attorneys who work for a group bringing a fight cannot recover their fees. A second case, involving records in Vos’ own files, is being briefed in the circuit court on attorneys’ fees; which Vos is contending are too high, though they are well within the norm. 

A third case, in which a judge ruled in American Oversight’s favor and awarded it $197,510 in attorneys’ fees, is being appealed over every aspect, including attorneys’ fees and a contempt finding against the OSC. The group’s attorney, Jim Bopp, received permission from the court to file a 35,000-word brief, more than three times the usual limit. In this case, according to WisPolitics.com, “Assembly Republicans have already spent more fighting a judge’s order that they cover legal fees for American Oversight than the $197,510 taxpayers are currently on the hook to pay.”

A fourth case, regarding preservation of OSC records, remains pending.

In all of these legal challenges, taxpayers are footing the bill for the outside counsel; if American Oversight prevails, which I think is likely, taxpayers will also have to cover the group’s legal costs.   

“All of this could have been avoided if Speaker Vos and OSC had simply followed the law” by preserving and providing records of their investigation, says Heather Sawyer, executive director at American Oversight.

Enough already. It’s time for Vos and the Legislature to truly turn off the spigot of tax dollars flowing into this ill-begotten cause.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a group dedicated to open government. Bill Lueders is the council’s president.

Your Right to Know: Wisconsin taxpayers still paying for election fraud probe records fights is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

As ever, 2022 was a roller coaster year for open government.  

The Wisconsin Supreme Court made it harder for requesters to recover attorneys’ fees for open records suits, but also issued a ruling to prevent outsiders from blocking responses to open records requests

Elections officials struggled under the weight of open records requests in the 2022 election season, but information about the Wisconsin Assembly’s investigation into the 2020 election was finally made public.  

So what can Wisconsin officials do better in 2023? Plenty. 

First, the Wisconsin legislature should pass a fix to the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s opinion in Friends of Frame Park v. City of Waukesha, which set a higher bar for requesters to recover their attorneys fees when they have to sue to get records.  

The Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council issued a statement when the decision was issued, calling it a “body blow to the state’s traditions of open government” and expressing concern that it could deter lawsuits and lead to more delays in providing records.

A conservative law firm, the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, agreed. The law firm issued a policy brief proposing different solutions to the decision, including one similar to the fix made by Congress to the federal Freedom of Information Act. We hope the legislature and governor’s office pay attention.

Second, some agencies are experiencing backlogs in providing responses to records requests, in part due to staffing and funding challenges. Agencies should request more funding to fulfill their open records duties in the next budget process, and the legislature should give it to them. Doing so recognizes the open records law’s command that “providing persons with [government] information is declared to be . . . an integral part of the routine duties of officers and employees.”

This includes the Wisconsin Attorney General’s office, charged with enforcing and providing advice to the public about the state’s openness laws, and with fulfilling records requests made to the state Department of Justice. In the runup to the November 2022 election, both attorney general candidates said additional resources would help the office meet its open government obligations. 

Now that the election is settled, Attorney General Josh Kaul should work to make sure these resources are requested, obtained and utilized. He should also consider separating the office’s advice-giving and records-fulfilling functions, so delays in one do not bog down the other.  

Third, local governments, like agencies, can and should work on reducing the time it takes to respond to records requests and reduce or even waive fees for locating and producing records.  To that end, the legislature should take up Gov. Tony Evers’ proposal to raise location fee thresholds from $50 — set in the early 1980s — to $150.

Local governments could also post more records online proactively, and take steps to ensure that exemptions that allow closed meeting sessions are not overused.

All levels of government in Wisconsin should resolve to have a sunny 2023.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a group dedicated to open government. Christa Westerberg is the council’s vice president and a partner at the Pines Bach law firm in Madison, Wisconsin. She also is the counsel for the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism.

Your Right to Know: Here’s to a more transparent 2023 is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

The holidays serve as yet another reminder that I am doing time, time away from family and friends, time spent wasting away in front of a TV, time entertaining strangers with superficial conversations.  

The time-management system imposed upon us by the prison is strict and monotonous, but each individual must decide how they will utilize their “free” time.  

Arts and crafts are a favorite pastime for many incarcerated people. Artwork, and greeting cards, in particular, take on a different significance in the prison context.

For the incarcerated population, postal mail is our most accessible mode of communication, making a prison gift card market inevitable. Some people lack the ability or desire to make cards, but they may be fortunate enough to have a financial support system so they can pay an artist for their handiwork. 

I have also encountered people who make cards, collages or ornate letters not for profit, but as a hobby or out of a sincere desire to connect with their loved ones on that missed birthday or holiday.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Corrections’ disciplinary procedures, “Any inmate who engages in a business or enterprise, whether or not for profit, or who sells anything except as specifically allowed … is guilty of enterprises and fraud.”  

I cannot agree with further punishing someone in a difficult situation who is trying to better themselves. It takes a savvy and dedicated mind to see the supply and demand market at work, and use their resources and skills to pave their own way.

I have spoken to most of the artists and cardmakers in my unit. Talking to them, I realized how differently each person involved is impacted, depending on where they fall in this closed, little economy behind prison walls.  

To put things in perspective, I work laundry on the unit. This requires long hours that I could use to study or practice playing the guitar, but I need the money. 

When the biweekly institution pay is distributed, I am always disappointed to see earnings of just $2.25 for the entire period. Because I owe the state thousands of dollars in court fees, 85% of any funds I receive, including anything sent by family and friends, is deducted. Without the laundry job, I would receive 90 cents every two weeks. This is quite a shock, considering that the commissary charges $2.79 for a jar of peanut butter as of the beginning of November. 

By contrast, a man in my prison whose sought-after cards involve pop-up paper mechanics and vibrant imagery, told me he has sold more than “100 cards at $3 a card.”

“That was in one Christmas season!” he said.  

Pablo treats making cards as his job, and he is able to sustain himself financially. He has many returning customers. Some even have people outside send money to his prison account rather than paying for the cards in the common prison currency of  purchased canteen items. 

In an age of technology and instant digital transmissions, it’s rare to receive handmade gifts and cards — and they should be appreciated. These individuals spend hours of effort and diligence to create something personalized. 

Being incarcerated, we must rely on loved ones outside to get by. Maybe those are the very people we would rather be spending the holidays with. In our absence, we send a card as an attempt to fill the void. 

Brian Bragg is a Prison Journalism Project writer incarcerated at Stanley Correctional Institution in Wisconsin.

Opinion: Prison’s holiday card market is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

More than a year and a half after the expiration of his term, Dr. Frederick Prehn continues to occupy a seat on the Natural Resources Board, which sets policy for the state Department of Natural Resources. His refusal to step down has allowed him to cast the deciding vote in key decisions related to wildlife management, PFAS water quality standards, and land acquisition, with other important issues on the horizon.

On Nov. 16, my organization, Midwest Environmental Advocates (MEA), asked a Dane County circuit court judge to rule that Prehn violated Wisconsin’s open records law when he failed to turn over dozens of text messages related to his refusal to step down. Those text messages recently came to light because of our ongoing lawsuit against him.

The open records law is a critical tool for holding the government accountable to the people it purports to represent. Under the law, Prehn should have turned over the text messages in question more than a year ago, in response to MEA’s records request.

Instead, he has relied on the three D’s — denial, delay and deflection — to avoid complying with the law. These tactics have led to unnecessary and costly litigation and deprived Wisconsinites of their right to information about the actions and inactions of public officials.

In response to our June 2021 records request, Prehn denied that he possessed any relevant text messages. When a separate records request sent to another public official turned up a text he had sent about his tenure on the board, MEA filed a lawsuit to compel full disclosure. 

Prehn asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that he was not a government authority and that communications related to his decision to remain on the board were not subject to the records law. 

When those arguments were rejected by the court and our lawsuit was allowed to proceed, MEA negotiated an agreement to give third-party forensic investigators access to Prehn’s cell phone and set a timeline for complying with MEA’s records request. But Prehn’s side failed to comply by the agreed-upon deadline. 

Although Prehn has still not fully complied with our request, we received dozens of text messages that were previously withheld. They contradict his claims that his decision to stay on was not politically motivated.

Six months before his term ended, Prehn exchanged text messages with former Gov. Scott Walker in which Walker told Prehn to remain on the board. In another text, Prehn told a lobbyist he would “see if I can hang on till Becky gets in,” an apparent reference to holding his seat until former Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch was elected governor. She lost in the Republican primary.

Prehn has questioned MEA’s motivation for requesting these records. Our interest lies in ensuring government transparency in environmental decision making, but our reason for requesting the records is beside the point. Under the open records law, a requester’s reasons, real or perceived, for wanting records has no bearing on an official’s duty to provide them.

A decision in this case is expected soon. Let’s hope the court takes this opportunity to send a strong message that officials who violate the open records law will be held accountable.

Your Right to Know: Prehn records fight seeks accountability  is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

How much does it cost to copy one piece of paper? If you ask records custodians in Wisconsin, many will tell you 25 cents. At least that’s what they charge.

Is that number accurate? Commercial printers charge half that for small jobs, and bulk printing jobs can get as low as two cents per page. One would assume that they are making a profit, even at this low rate. So why do some public officials charge so much?

Most custodians haven’t actually calculated their per-page costs. Instead, they use 25 cents because they look around and see other government agencies charging that much. That price likely goes back to the Attorney General’s Compliance Guide, which until 2018 said that “anything in excess of $0.25 cents may be suspect.” Custodians saw that as permission to charge up to 25 cents, so many did.

But state law says custodians can only charge the “actual, necessary and direct cost of reproduction.” 

What does that mean? It means they can’t make a profit. It means they should be looking at what they actually pay for supplies, using receipts. It means the costs they charge must bear a direct relationship with those they incur.

As an attorney who specializes in open government legislation, I deal with this issue all the time. Last month, in a case I litigated against the town of Worcester, in Price County, a judge ruled that the town had committed several violations, including charging too much for copies.

The town was charging 50 cents per page. The judge determined that the town arrived at this figure by including costs like maintenance, insurance and other computer equipment that were not “necessarily direct and actual.” Using evidence of the town’s actual expenses for paper and toner, we showed that its cost per page was about 1.8 cents.

That low number might surprise you, but it’s in the ballpark of what the Wisconsin Department of Justice in 2018 calculated its per-page cost to be: 1.3 cents. The agency released guidance stating that “copying fees should be based on the actual costs of the copy machine or contract, and the actual cost of paper.” 

Sometimes, I hear custodians say that 25 cents includes the cost of labor. But no court has ever ruled labor can be included in a copying charge. And commercial printers – including labor, supplies, overhead, and a profit – charge half that. If it really costs governments 25 cents to print every piece of paper, they should contract those services out and save taxpayers huge amounts of money. 

So if you request paper records (remember, you are entitled to electronic copies of electronic records if you ask), and a government custodian tries to charge you 25 cents per page, push back. Show them the attorney general guidance and ask to see their actual receipts for paper and ink or toner.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a group dedicated to open government. Council member Tom Kamenick is the president and founder of the Wisconsin Transparency Project.

Your Right to Know: Don’t pay too much for that photocopy! is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

I just read Scott Bauer’s AP article about the judge’s decision regarding incomplete addresses on absentee ballots. I have been voting absentee for about two years now. The problem with these ballots is they simply do not give you enough room for the witness to record their complete address. It is amazing to me that no one, including the press, takes the time to point this out to the public. For the November 2022 election, I called the clerk’s office for clarification and was told I could use an additional line for the witness address. I’m pretty sure there are a lot of Republicans who would like to toss that ballot. 

Thank you for your time. 

Frank Lowry 
Chippewa Falls, WI

Opinion: Absentee ballots don’t give enough space for witness address is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.