March 16, 2023 at 12:31 p.m.
Sunshine Week Grades 2023
The following grades are calculated using several measures, including how responsive officials have been this past year to open records' requests, how diligently they have strived to keep the workings of government open, how willing they were to communicate with the media and with the public, as well as their past track record.
The rating scale:
A - Excellent. Passionately committed to open government and accountability. The public is lucky to have these officials. They have full knowledge of the open records' and open meetings' laws.
B - Good. These records' custodians do an above-average job. They may need more knowledge and education about the law but are committed in principle to openness and side more often than not with open-records' advocates.
C - Average. These custodians need more immediate education about open government laws. They tend to respond slowly to records' requests, and they are as likely to withhold information as to release it. Still, these officials have never landed in court over an open records' dispute.
D - Below Average. These custodians do not believe in open government or in the release of open records. They usually land on the side of secrecy. These officials are suspicious of the public. They have very little knowledge of the open records' and open meetings' laws, and have even less interest in learning about them.
F - Failure. These people should be removed as records' custodians. They cannot be trusted by the public and couldn't spell FREEDOM if you spotted them F-R-E-E-_-O-M.
Consider them wanted posters in the post office of public records.
I - Incomplete. While it is too early to rate an overall performance in their current positions, we will record any recent actions and use their track records to calculate a "trending" rank.
HALL OF FAME
Vilas County circuit court judge Neal A. "Chip" Nielsen
Judge Nielsen has retired now, but his presence will always loom large in the field of open government. His was a lifetime record of consistency in supporting transparency, and we have never seen a public official match it.
While we do not expect to see his record equaled any time soon - though we certainly hope it will be - it is enough for now to say that all public officials should study judge Nielsen's record in open government as a model for their own conduct.
In several rulings, judge Nielsen articulated the principle of open government better than we ever could:
"In a democracy, or a democratic republic, certain principles are of paramount concern to ensure the sustainability of that form of government. In a government of, by, and for the people, there must be maintained a requisite degree of transparency. That is, people must be able to see how effectively their government functions. And there must be a free press, the Fourth Estate, as it has been called, in addition to the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government to examine the workings of those branches and to inform the public of matters that are of importance to ensure that the government works as intended and that the rights and indeed the best interests of its citizens are respected and promoted."
A PLATINUM -THE BEST OF THE BEST
Oneida County sheriff Grady Hartman
Oneida County sheriff Grady Hartman is not only one of the most transparent public officials in Oneida County but in the state. He excels not just in the law enforcement category for openness but across the spectrum of public officials.
It's not just that the sheriff is transparent and open. He is that, of course. For instance, the department continues to fulfill our open records requests promptly, and the department was a strong and positive voice in advocating for Oneida County's recent reform of open records laws. He has also been a long-time advocate for adding requirements that records custodians attend open records training within their orientation period and stay up-to-date with new open records case law.
More than that, Hartman is courageous in his defense of open government laws. He does not hesitate to call out his fellow county officials when he believes they have transgressed upon those laws, and, what's more, no one should ever forget the sheriff's department's 2019 raid on Rhinelander City Hall, prompted by an open records complaint filed by the Northwoods River News. We called it a courageous action to defend the integrity of our democratic institutions, and it was.
As we wrote in an editorial then, "They did not execute those warrants to find evidence of mid-management embezzlement. They did not enter the building to find a politician engaged in contract fraud or in dealing or buying drugs or who was committing election crimes. Rather, they entered the building to protect the people's right to access the information the people own, and to be confident that information has not been altered."
The outcome of that case was not what transparency advocates wanted for what was clearly outrageous conduct, but the outcome itself was not what was important. What was important is that, when probable cause that a crime had been committed presented itself, the sheriff's department acted to find out if that was the case, to enforce the open government laws that might have been broken. That's a rarity in this age, and a welcome one.
The citizens of Oneida County are very fortunate to have a sheriff who takes the open government laws seriously and investigates when there are violations.
But don't take our word for it. This past year, Hartman was honored with the Wisconsin Newspaper Association's inaugural Sunshine in Government award. The award, launched by the WNA Board of Directors, recognizes efforts by Wisconsin citizens and public officials to protect and strengthen open government.
Oneida County clerk Tracy Hartman
Oneida County clerk Tracy Hartman continues to run an efficient and open office and to go the extra mile to provide helpful links and suggestions about the information requested within her purview, not just for media but for the general public. We've said it before but we'll say it again: Hartman's greatest strength is fairness. The same degree of transparency and service is given to all who seek it, as it should be. In her office, it's not who you are that gets results.
Minocqua town clerk Roben Haggart
As always, Roben Haggart has demonstrated to us - and we believe to the general public - what a good town clerk should be.
In addition to advising the town board when necessary, she has also been excellent about answering and fulfilling our open records requests in a timely manner. This year Haggart was better than ever in her commitment to transparency. When she has received open records requests from us, she not only has made sure they were delivered in timely fashion, but she was pro-active in helping us get the records we needed and asked for. She put in extra effort, in fact, more than her job required, to be a good steward of openness. It's a trait she shares, by the way, with Oneida County clerk Tracy Hartman.
Oneida County Planning and Development Committee
In just two weeks, a public hearing will be held on revised shoreland ordinance amendments that the zoning committee has crafted over the past year or so. The amendments themselves are the result of an open and transparent committee seeking public input.
For example. when the committee learned that area landscapers had concerns about the ordinance, it promptly held a meeting at which close to 100 people attended. Then, responding to the public, the committee worked transparently to develop the proposed ordinance amendments - revising them based on public input and study.
To be sure, the committee is ever watchful that public input is not short-circuited. That leads to sometimes slow but methodical work on ordinance amendments, but that also gives the language time to stew and to be revisited by the committee and the public, all with multiple public hearings, if more than one is needed.
We also applaud the committee for not giving more favor to the giant DNR bureaucracy than it gives to the public.
The DNR always tries to bully its way into having its viewpoint get preferential treatment. In the case of the ordinance amendments, committee chairman Scott Holewinski told the agency to get in line with everybody else and present its viewpoint at the public hearing.
DNR transparency is needed more than ever, especially in Oneida County. The DNR right now is making a huge regulatory push in northern Wisconsin, seeking perpetual easements to lock away our land in government hands forever, and it is crafting its own new comprehensive pier rules. It's critical that the public has both the time and the access to fully participate in the decision-making process, and this committee has stayed the course to make sure that the residents of Oneida County are fully informed on planning and development issues.
Oneida County board chairman Scott Holewinski
We again single out board chairman Holewinski for his consistent individual commitment to open government.
He has always signaled an inherent distaste for closed meetings except when absolutely necessary. Year before last, for instance, Holewinski was a leader of an effort by supervisors to object to then chairman Dave Hintz's bid to move the county board into closed session to discuss open government issues. Yes, that's right, Hintz wanted to discuss in secret the county's ongoing problems with secrecy, which, in a nutshell, summarized that problem.
But Holewinski led the objections and stopped it. He is a breath of fresh air compared to Hintz, especially on transparency. It is refreshing to receive actual documents you can read instead of fully redacted and black-blotted papers. It is literally the difference between black and white, which is also the difference between Holewinski and Hintz, between transparency and secrecy.
State Rep. Rob Swearingen
State Rep. Rob Swearingen (R-Rhinelander) again scores an excellent Sunshine Week grade, this year in particular for co-authoring legislation that will rectify a terrible state Supreme Court decision on public records.
Last year (see related story), the high court overturned precedent by requiring that someone who files an open records lawsuit can only collect legal fees by prevailing in court. That allows a government to stall and delay the release of requested records until a requester files a lawsuit, then simply turn over the requested record without having to pay legal costs incurred by the requester.
This bill would alter the statutory definition of "prevail" to allow courts to award attorney fees in instances where records are released only because the requester filed a lawsuit to get the records.
Swearingen also continues to be one of the most responsive legislators when asked for records, and we praise him, too, for his past support of a bill to give small businesses that purchase advertising in local media outlets a 50-percent tax credit.
Under the bill, the tax credit would be capped at $5,000 and would expire after five years. Businesses with fewer than 100 full-time employees and less than $10 million in revenue would have been be eligible to receive the credit and ads would have to be placed with Wisconsin-based media, including newspapers, radio, and television stations and online news sites.
It's still a good idea. Local businesses best reach their target markets through local advertising, and the tax credit is a good way to boost that marketing while helping to sustain the local journalism that is critical to the survival of transparency.
When it comes to open government, Swearingen gets it.
Vilas County sheriff Joe Fath
Over the course of every year, a newspaper staff will require interactions with local law enforcement probably more than with any other type of agency, simply because of the nature of our business. There is a lot more crime - and a lot more public interest in crime - than there is in land information mapping.
All of which is to say that getting the news requires not merely transparent but cooperative law enforcement. Fortunately, we are blessed to have two sheriffs who are both transparent and cooperative. We have graded sheriff Grady Hartman already, but we also want to give kudos to Vilas County sheriff Joe Fath.
Sheriff Fath is as accessible as they come, and always ready to deliver appropriate records to the public.
Beyond that, Fath will take the time to give his reasoning of certain events, and he will point to research he has studied that has helped to guide his thinking.
All in all, its good to have a responsive and accessible sheriff; it's even better to have a sheriff who will share his knowledge of developing and ongoing matters with the media and the public, and point to pathways for further education.
Sheriff Joe Fath fits the bill.
Zoning director Karl Jennrich
Mr. Jennrich stays in the rarified air of those officials who believe in transparency and openness. There aren't many of them. The rest live in the swamps of suppressed information, drinking rat water. After a serious misstep on transparency year before last, we declared it an aberration last year and moved on. The past year has proven us right. Mr. Jennrich remains accessible and quick to fulfill requests and an utterly responsive public official.
City of Rhinelander
In recent years, the City of Rhinelander has made great strides when it comes to transparency and this year's grade reflects that fact. Mayor Kris Hanus and city departments have done an exemplary job of responding to questions from the media. Hanus has set the bar high by making himself available for one-on-one conversations about city issues and other city department heads have followed suit.
In particular, new public works director Randy Myrum has answered every question posed to him in a timely manner and has invited the media to tour city facilities. He also held an open house meeting to introduce himself to the community and answer questions about snow plowing and other public works matters. Fire Chief Brian Tonnancour and his department also held an open house so that the public can learn more about how their department works. Police Chief Lloyd Gauthier and City Clerk Austyn Zarda have also developed reputations for promptly responding to questions and timely releasing important information. We should also acknowledge city attorney Steve Sorenson, who is prompt in responding to requests for information and provides important explanations/clarifications when complicated legal matters arise. It's too early to evaluate new city administrator Patrick Reagan but we have high hopes that he will continue the city's positive tren in terms of transparency.
Newbold town board
The Newbold town board also received an A this year for its openness in government.
Long-time town chairman Dave Kroll, who will be retiring from the board at the end of his current term, leads by example. Town clerk Kim Gauthier does too.
When Gauthier noticed discrepancies in former town supervisor Jim Staskiewicz's nomination papers, she contacted Kroll and the two passed the information onto the Oneida County district attorney's office.
Even though Kroll has served with Staskiewicz for more than a decade, he didn't flinch when it came to doing the right thing. He also didn't flinch when the media asked him questions about it.
As he always does, Kroll answered his phone on the first couple of rings and gave his thoughts on the matter freely. He was also quick to "address the elephant in the room" at the board's Feb. 9 meeting, where he announced Staskiewicz's resignation.
The rest of the board, including town supervisors Dan Hess, Mike McKenzie and Mike Sueflohn, always answer the media's requests as well.
If there is any information or documentation needed by the press, they are easily approachable and never apprehensive to help.
Crescent town board
The Crescent town board also deserves a high grade in recognition of town chairman Joel Knutson and town clerk Tracy Hartman's openness and willingness to speak with the press.
Knutson fields questions with a certain sense of enthusiasm, while Hartman, who is also the Oneida County clerk, is there to help with any questions, concerns or records when her busy schedule permits.
State Sen. Van Wanggaard
State Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) earns an 'A' for unveiling and working hard to pass the "Parole Transparency Act," which he says is an effort to improve the transparency and efficiency of the state parole commission and to ensure that victims can be involved and have knowledge of the parole process.
Because so few in the legislature ever act on anything to do with transparency, when a lawmaker does take action, it should be rewarded.
The Parole Transparency Act (PTA) would eliminate the commission's exemption to the Wisconsin's open meetings law.
The PTA also requires the commission to post notice of its meetings on the Department of Corrections internet site, and post guidance documents used by the commission when making parole determinations. The commission must also post monthly and annual totals of persons granted and denied parole, and those who have had parole revoked.
The annual totals must also be presented by crime, sex, race, age of the individual and locality in which the individuals were convicted.
Trying to find out what's been going on has been exceedingly difficult, Wanggaard said.
"The commission has been operating in the shadows," the senator said. "Stonewalling of records requests, sidestepping and violating open meeting laws, and violating the constitutional rights of crime victims has to stop. The Parole Transparency Act sheds light on the parole-granting process while still maintaining the privacy rights of inmates."
State Sen. Chris Larson
If you comb through the legislature, you will be hard pressed to find a true supporter of open records. It's safe to say that because, if there were authentic open records advocates in that body, the legislature would have eliminated its exemption of itself from the open records retention law, which effectively exempts the legislature from the open records law.
To wit, the record in a lawmaker's hands might be public if you ask for it before he or she shreds it, but if said lawmaker shreds it before it is asked for, that's OK. Without the retention requirement, the open records law is toothless.
Enter Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee). Session after session now, including the 2021-22 session, he introduced a bill to place the legislature under the records retention law. And session after session, the bill keeps getting buried-doesn't even receive a public hearing-no matter which party is in power.
We hope he keeps trying. And because standing up for principle matters, he gets an 'A' in our book.
Sen John Kennedy
It's not often that we single out a federal lawmaker from another state, but we make an exception this year for Sen. John Kennedy, who has courageously pursued legislation to bring more transparency to the U.S. Supreme Court. There's no question it's needed, as the justices hand down bad decision after bad decision when it comes to transparency, all the while without having to disclose much or anything at all about their own court expenditures and funding.
To remedy that, Kennedy (R-Louisiana) has for several years pursued his Supreme Court Transparency Act, which would increase public access to Supreme Court justices' financial and ethics disclosures. It would provide the public with a level of transparency similar to that of the legislative branch.
"The legislative branch makes a great deal of information publicly available to those who elect them," Kennedy said. "Supreme Court justices serve lifetime appointments and should provide a similar level of transparency to Americans as the lawmakers who serve at the Capitol. The Supreme Court Transparency Act would make it easier for Americans to access the Supreme Court justices' disclosure reports. The public deserves to have great confidence in all its public servants, and my bill would strengthen that confidence by expanding transparency to every justice on the bench."
Kennedy said it can can take years for the public to gain access to requested public information from the Supreme Court, including the disclosure of various financial and ethics records.
The legislation would require the establishment of an internet database enabling public access to any ethics, personal finance or disclosure reports for Supreme Court justices required by federal law. It would also add the Supreme Court justices to the list of government officials who must comply with section 103(l) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, which requires the prompt disclosure of certain real estate and securities transactions.
Kennedy has also aggressively sought the records related to the travel of the justices, who frequently fly for free. Kennedy said it is vital to know who is subsidizing justices' flights because those donors could be involved in cases that come before the high court.
U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany
Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-Wisconsin-7) hasn't acted on any matters directly relating to open government, at least that we are aware of, but he has done an outstanding job in letting the sun shine in on what is going on at the nation's southern border, or what used to be called our southern border
Tiffany has been a constant voice for more transparency, too, when it comes to vetting Afghan refuges coming in through the borders and he has worked ahead to cast a light on the growing problem of drugs and the problem of human trafficking.
He has raised awareness on these and other issues, and gets a good grade for furthering the free flow of information to and from American citizens.
Oneida County corporation counsel Michael Fugle
In his now more than a year as the corporation counsel, Brian Desmond's successor has proven that he is not the evil offspring of Demonic Desmond after all. You can't be too sure these days.
We give him an A by reiterating some of what we said last year: Fugle makes himself accessible and returns calls, and he takes the time to reason and communicate with the public.
Last year, too, in a major open records request in which the newspaper asked for all the records pertaining to the Peter Wegner saga, the corporation counsel - along with county clerk Tracy Hartman - gathered and released all the records, excepting appropriate redactions, in a reasonable period of time. There were no long letters using legal poison and gobbledygook sentences, and no pages that were completely blacked out, as there were with Demonic Desmond.
Just this week, too, Fugle struck a blow for openness by advising the county's land conservation committee to postpone a discussion of materials the department included in supervisors' meeting packets related to proposed revisions to the shoreland ordinance. The conservation department had indicated on the department website that the controversial materials would be discussed at the meeting. The problem is, the official meeting notice and agenda listed nothing about any such discussion, only an umbrella topic on the general subject of the proposed original revisions.
At first Fugle said the generic umbrella item was OK and gave the green light for the committee to discuss it. The Lakeland Times protested and made our argument to the corporation counsel. At the meeting, Fugle said there were good arguments on both sides but advised the committee to postpone discussion until the next committee meeting when the agenda could be specific enough to leave no doubt.
Now that's a corporation counsel listening to all sides and taking a reasonable approach.
In the old days under Desmond, it would have been his way and the highway and the county likely would have wound up in expensive litigation, never mind the impeachment of the people's rights.
Night and day.
Oneida County supervisor Billy Fried
It's been a quiet year on the open records front for Oneida County supervisor Billy Fried, but he remains a solid and consistent voice for open government, with a few flaws, such as his advocacy not too long ago for an emergency procedure that would allow the county board chairman to bypass the county board to approve "emergency" requests - such as increased staffing levels - for the public health department during a pandemic.
Still, while worth noting, that position does not degrade Fried's overall commitment to transparency.
Oneida County district attorney Michael Schiek
While we have not always seen eye-to-eye with Oneida County district attorney Michael Schiek on matters of open government, we have been heartened by his interest in prosecuting open government violations over the past couple of years, not to mention that he is accessible, as are his records. We hope Schiek continues to embrace the willingness to prosecute those who don't think transparency laws are a big deal, or, if he is elected judge, to honor the principles of transparency in his work on the bench.
Doing so consistently sends a huge message to would-be lawbreakers and could significantly strengthen open government at the grassroots level.
School District of Rhinelander
The School District of Rhinelander continues to distinguish itself in terms of its commitment to transparency. District superintendent Eric Burke and school administrators respond to questions in a timely manner and the school board continues to welcome expanded public comment during its meetings. In the run-up to the November 2022 operational referendum, the district held a series of public informational meetings where school officials offered a concise explanation for the board's decision to go to referendum. The district also does a good job in advising the media of student and team projects and accomplishments as well as community education opportunities.
We will, however, renew our annual suggestion that the district use more specific language on its agendas when referring to possible topics for closed session.
The U.S. Supreme Court
As we pointed out in Sen. John Kennedy's grade, the Supreme Court pretty much evades all accountability when it comes to its finances and backers. Private donors routinely bestow upon them lavish gifts such as free plane trips and hotels. This should stop because of the possibility - and in some cases, the likelihood - that some of those donors end up arguing a case before the court.
Having said that, the high court did take some tentative steps toward transparency and liberty during the pandemic, particularly opposing the large employer mandate that would have required private companies that employ 100 or more people to implement vaccine mandates or testing alternatives. That decision to stay was based on the court's findings that the Occupational Safety and Health Act only "empowers [OSHA] to set workplace safety standards, not broad public health measures ... untethered, in any causal sense, from the workplace."
Otherwise, the court stated, OSHA would have limitless power over the personal health decisions of any American who works for a private company.
That ruling was just of many that continued the court's rollback of due deference to federal agencies and to look more closely at what federal agencies do and why they do it. That might mot seem connected to open government, but it most certainly is. Any time the court decides to probe an agency's internal workings, it opens a window for the public to see inside and, to use a phrase, to let the sun shine in. With decisions like these, the court is helping us see how federal agencies are operating.
State Sen. Mary Felzkowski
There's no ignoring or forgiving all the disastrous open government polices that state Sen. Mary Felzkowski has embraced over the years - unless she would change her mind on those policies, which we have no indication of - but we can commend her for her courage and transparency in fighting the proposed DNR purchase of a conservation easement in the Pelican River Forest.
The issue here is not so much her opposition to that purchase but her transparency in fighting for her position. Felzkowski was one of at least four lawmakers on the legislature's Joint Finance Committee to object to the project, thereby blocking it.
However, she was the only lawmaker who acknowledged that she was one of the objecting lawmakers. In these situations, members of the JFC can object to a purchase or project without having to say who they are. They are given an effective pocket veto without any public transparency.
Gov. Tony Evers has proposed that that anonymity be prohibited in the future, and we agree with him on that.
Though she could have cowered in anonymity, Felzkowski acknowledged her action publicly. She chose transparency and principle over political cowardice, and in so doing serves as a role model in transparency for her fellow lawmakers and the public. That deserves a significant upgrade to her ranking.
Attorney general Josh Kaul
Wow, even the progressives are done with state attorney general Josh Kaul when it comes to open records.
Just recently the liberal Wisconsin Examiner publisher a scathing rebuke of Kaul and the DOJ on transparency, observing that the Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ) has more than three dozen pending open records requests that have remained unfulfilled for more than a year.
"The backlog of requests has caused wait times to grow for newer requests," the newspaper wrote. "It also has open government advocates worried about the consequences for transparency when the agency responsible for interpreting and enforcing Wisconsin's public records and open meetings laws is itself struggling to keep up."
According to The Examiner, the DOJ's Office of Open Government, which is responsible for responding to open records requests and answering public inquiries about the interpretation of open government laws, reported that in 2022 the agency received a record-high 924 public records requests - beating the previous record by 100.
While the Wisconsin Public Records Law Compliance Guide states that 10 working days is a "reasonable time" for responding to a simple request, The Examiner reported that DOJ responded to 46 percent of records requests within that 10-day guideline. The median response time, the report found, was 18 calendar days.
As of February 27, The Examiner's analysis of agency records showed 171 requests older than 10 business days, while 41 requests have been pending for more than a year.
Of course, Kaul took the cake for too-clever-by-an-ethical-mile when he denied an open records request for documents because he said they were subject to attorney client-privilege. Only thing is, Kaul and the DOJ were just acting as attorneys for a client, which, as it turns out, Kaul and the DOJ were also the client. As the National Review put it, "In other words, the DOJ claimed the right to refuse open-records requests on behalf of itself. It's like the constitution 'pleading the Fifth' on itself, to itself. If the DOJ is its own client and can assert a privilege to avoid turning over documents, there is little (other than judicial challenges) stopping it from skirting Wisconsin's open records laws."
Josh Kaul likes to talk about transparency, but he only likes transparency when it benefits him. He is a failure as an advocate for open government, which makes a complete failure as attorney general.
Wisconsin Counties Association, Wisconsin Towns Association, Wisconsin League of Municipalities, Wisconsin Association of School Boards
Every year, we call for these four special interest organizations - Wisconsin Counties Association, Wisconsin Towns Association, Wisconsin League of Municipalities, and Wisconsin Association of School Boards - to be subjected to the open government laws, where applicable, and to be required to stop using taxpayer dollars to lobby for their special-interest causes.
These groups are quite clear about who they represent: not the citizens of counties, towns, municipalities, or school districts, but the institutional government of counties, towns, municipalities and school districts.
As such, they often advocate for things that institutional interests desire, such as higher taxes, but that citizens don't, and they often cajole elected boards to go along. What's worse, they use tax dollars - paid for as membership fees from elected bodies - to lobby against taxpayer interests.
One of those things they lobby for is more secretive government. These groups have all put great time and effort into various bids to end the requirement that public notices be published in newspapers, for instance.
On the federal level lobbying by government agencies is outlawed; these units of government are essentially state agencies by virtue of their relationship to state government, and they shouldn't be lobbying, either. When they do, they are almost certain not to lobby for the people so much as for the public officials themselves. That's why they formed an interest group for themselves, and that means they'll be lobbying for ever more secrecy, as they did with the public-notice legislation.
Even worse, the WCA has successfully challenged in court that the open-records law doesn't apply to such entities as WTA and the WCA.
That is preposterous. As the lobbying and educational arms of government interests, these organizations are by definition conducting public business when they lobby for legislation supported by those local governments.
Any other interpretation renders the very notion of public business superfluous and meaningless.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court
Last year, open government advocates were reeling from a ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court that let stand Oneida County judge Michael Bloom's absurd rewriting of the open records law in a walking quorum case brought by Lakeland Times general manager Heather Holmes.
In his ruling, Bloom took it upon himself to rewrite the definition of government business to mean "discussion, decision or information gathering" - and here's his freelance addition to the statute - that ultimately requires a formal vote of the governmental body.
That's right, the judge ruled that, as long you don't take a vote, a government body just getting together to discuss government "topics" within its jurisdiction isn't government business at all and doesn't have to be noticed to the public.
Bloom's absurd conclusion now stands, and that means government business isn't really government business unless it involves a specific proposal requiring a vote by a governing body.
Then, with everybody still reeling from that ruling, the state Supreme Court struck again this past year, ruling that a records requester who has gone to court in an open records case must win a outright legal victory to capture any legal fees and court costs.
Prior to the court ruling, requesters who went to court after a records request was denied or delayed only had to show that the record custodian subsequently released a record because a lawsuit was filed and influenced the decision to release the record.
In that situation, even though the lawsuit was over because the record was released, the requester could still collect legal fees, If that happens now, there is no final disposition in court, and so the records requester cannot collect legal fees.
Critics of the Supreme Court ruling say government custodians can deliberately forestall fulfilling a request, compelling requesters to go to court, and, if they do, simply release the record without penalty. It's an incentive to stall and delay the release of records, hoping that most people won't go the extra mile to file a lawsuit but knowing it won't cost the agency anything if they do go to court.
Fortunately lawmakers are trying to remedy the loophole the court created with this decision (see Swearingen's grade), and we hope they are successful.
The bottom line is, the state Supreme Court, and most of the courts below it, are engaged in a multi-year judicial rewrite of the state's open records laws. It's judicial activism of the worst kind, and it represents a steady erosion of transparency at all levels of government.
Judge Michael Bloom
As mentioned above, in a disastrous ruling for open government last year, Oneida County circuit judge Michael Bloom got his way, both with the state court of appeals and the state Supreme Court, both of which allowed his judicial activism to rewrite the open meetings law.
Because of Bloom, local governments can pretty much discuss whatever they want and anytime, if they are willing to have it tested in court. Judge Bloom did not make an open government ruling this past year that we know of, but this one was good enough to establish him a black mark for century.
The Wisconsin Legislature
We have said for many years that the Wisconsin Legislature is a miserable failure when it comes to transparency, and we haven't changed our minds.
One more year gone, and one more year has passed that the Legislature has not subjected itself to the open records retention law, meaning they can destroy records any time they want.
Oneida County supervisor Bob Thome
As the story in today's edition describes, supervisor Bob Thome slipped documents into the meeting packets emailed to land conservation committee members, in particular a ballot with recommendations on how to vote on proposed shoreland zoning amendments at an upcoming March 29 public hearing.
Many of the recommendations oppose what the zoning committee approved to send to public hearing. Nobody knows for sure who else might be behind the ballot beside Thome, if anyone. No one knows who the ballot would be distributed to, or how, or what Thome wanted the committee to do, if anything.
But what everyone does know is that Thome wanted a discussion without putting the specific item on the agenda. It appears Mr. Thome was trying to stack the deck with some narrowly distributed ballot without those who support the ordinance amendments ever finding out
This is just the latest in a pattern of disregard of the open government laws of the state. Several years ago, Mr. Thome was knee-deep in a lake association scheme to rewrite a portion of the shoreland ordinance - in collaboration with the DNR - without every telling the committee of jurisdiction.
The plan was of course to present a rewritten ordinance as a fiat accomplice, get a quick public hearing, and ram the ordinance changes through.
It could never have worked, and didn't, but during the process the DNR even refused to meet with the elected committee of jurisdiction, the county zoning committee, preferring to pal around with Thome and his cronies instead.
With Thome involved, there is always secrecy - an unposted ballot slipped in the meeting documents; an ad hoc committee working with the DNR to override elected officials, or worse.
In fact, these days Thome reminds us a lot of now retired Bob Mott, who was the unchallenged Darling of Darkness in Oneida County government. Thome has picked up where Mott left off in the mission to snuff out all light in government, leaving not even a smidgen as he picks up Mott's mantle and smashes his black anvil upon all those who cry for the disinfectant of sunlight.
Behind him, on the horizon, there is Mott himself, a giant cloaked reaper lifting and waving pom-poms larger than life, cheering on with his tufted squad of dark censors the new Darling of Darkness, the one and only Bob Thome.
Secretary of State Doug La Follette
Let's see, it's been more than three years since the Covid-19 hysteria and pandemic locked down America, but everything has opened up now, even schools. Well, not everything. We notice that the office of the Wisconsin secretary of state, Doug La Follette, is still closed.
This is the note on the official website: "Due to concerns about COVID-19 (aka Coronavirus) the Secretary of State Office has suspended walk-in services to better protect the health and safety of our staff and customers. We currently do not allow physical walk-ins to the office but will be pleased to speak with you through the door."
How condescending and absurd that is. For one thing, La Follette insists that the secretary of state is an office and position worth keeping and not eliminating but apparently they do nothing so important that they can't keep the door locked to the public for years after everybody else opened up. The idea that the public must talk to staff "through the door" is a visible and tangible affront to transparency. It is literally the perfect example of the closed door of government, and La Follette is the poster child.
Oneida County public health director Linda Conlon
Not too much to say this year about a not-too-much of a public official like Linda Conlon. For three years she has parroted the public health establishment's lies and it's deliberate and anti-transparent attempts to mislead the public, all the while the public opens its eyes to lies about lockdowns, mandates, and vaccine safety and efficacy.
We remember Ms. Conlon standing before the Oneida County board of supervisors and assuring everyone that it was "just two weeks to flattten the curve." And she was off and running with the rest of the public health cartel. Funny how three years later she and all the rest of them have their jobs, and continue to promote the jabs, while excess deaths soar and the nightly news is littered with the headlines of young men and women who have "died suddenly."
She is no better than the rest of them and not to be trusted or believed.
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
How low can an agency go?
Well, whenever that question is asked, to find the right answer you only have to head to the Wisconsin Department of Natural resources (DNR). They are the lowest of the low, and the most secretive of the secret.
This year, the modus operandi - lie and distort -is the same.
For example, the department has proposed to combine five chapters of the administrative code for efficiency sake and consolidations, but what it really is is a camouflaged attempt to assert authority where they have no authority to do so, and without any accountability or oversight.
What the DNR is really doing is changing the rules governing structures in navigable waters.
Of course the DNR lies and says it is just a little housekeeping: "This rulemaking is necessary to align the administrative code with statutory and programmatic changes and to consolidate these rules to improve administrative efficiency."
But as Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce points out, while the DNR says it intends to impose "reasonable" restrictions on the construction of piers, wharves, and culverts, such exemptions are clearly prescribed by statute.
The agency says another objective is the "consideration and potential incorporation of activity specific performance-based standards for permitting decisions" but WMC points out that the agency fails to cite any explicit statutory authority for such sweeping new requirements. Under the law, WMC argues, no agency may implement or enforce any standard, requirement, or threshold" unless it is "explicitly required or explicitly permitted" by statute.
But, in its underhanded way, that's just what the DNR is trying to do.
And then there is the agency's behavior in its bid too purchase the Pelican River Forest easement. As Oneida County board chairman Scott Holewinski has pointed out, the DNR had given the county little notice of the purchase and even less time to object, And when Holewinski did try to object, the agency didn;t respond.
"There was no notification," Holewinski said. "In about September, the DNR sent me a letter that I had 30 days to submit an approval or disapproval. They gave me a DNR telephone number to call. I called that number five times and left messages."
Holewinski said he never got a return call until after he submitted a resolution objecting to it.
"Then everybody came out of the woodwork," he said. "The DNR didn't do anything. They kind of hid on this thing. All we wanted was simple questions answered and we couldn't get an answer."
Holewinski said the DNR and involved groups failed to give adequate notification and information but suddenly now it was they who wanted more time.
"The DNR didn't do its job," he said. "You want to communicate now because we objected to it, but you didn't want to communicate with us up front."
Holewinski also both pointed out that the DNR publicized to the media and to the NRB resolutions passed by towns such as Schoepke supporting the easement, while never mentioning towns that passed resolutions opposing it, such as Monico and Sugar Camp.
It's always the same old story with the DNR. They fail miserably,
President Joe Biden
Mr. Biden is already one of the least transparent presidents ever, worse than even Barack Obama, and that takes a lot of work.
Let us count the ways.
As other reporters have complained, the administration has taken no steps to address significant problems relating to agencies' compliance with the Freedom of Information Act.
In February 2021, more than 40 organizations co-signed a letter, urging Biden to improve FOIA administration and offering a multitude of suggestion about how that might be accomplished. The president has done none of it.
Others, like the Knight Institute, point out that the administration has also failed to end the unnecessary secrecy surrounding the final legal opinions of the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) that bind federal agencies and officials on issues of public concern.
Those legal opinions have the force and effect of law, and so they should be published so the public can see them.
And here's a really big one: the Biden administration recently argued before the Supreme Court that the public has no constitutional right to see secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinions authorizing the surveillance of Americans.
Talk about weaponizing the federal government. The refusal to release legal opinions underpinning the government's very actions speaks to a government that has turned against its citizens, and stays in power through secrecy.
Of course, there's the whole classified document thing, apparently classified documents stream across the landscape like so many strands of spaghetti spilled across the dining table.
The president has stonewalled the media on basic questions surrounding the the fiasco.
PLATINUM F- THE WORST OF THE WORST
Gov. Tony Evers
The governor of Wisconsin has such a bad record on open government issues that almost anybody looks good by comparison.
Over the course of his first term, Evers found many ways to get sued over open records and to demonstrate a downright hatred of open government, and, by the looks of it, his second term will be no better.
Our favorite from his first term is when he tried to change the open records law to state that, instead of requests having to have a subject matter OR a time frame, which is what the statute actually says, the law really meant that a request has to have a subject matter AND a time frame.
He actually went into court and argued that "or" meant "and."
He lost, but he wasn't dejected. Evers decided against appeal, and turned over the records, but, he said, only because he wanted to, not because he had to.
What a guy.
This past year, Evers has already been chastised for a lack of transparency in spending all that Covid money the state has received, and which the governor has complete control over spending.
In December, the Legislative Audit Bureau said that Evers's Department of Administration did not provide information it claimed the governor based his decisions on when handing out some $3.7 billion in pandemic aid over the past two years.
According to the LAB, the administration received $5.7 billion between March 2020 and June 2022 in federal coronavirus relief from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, the American Rescue Plan Act and the Consolidated Appropriations Act.
Then, too, this past year, the governor vetoed the Classroom Transparency Act, a bill that would require students to share their curriculum, lesson plans, and assignments with parents so they know just what their children are being taught.
The governor said it would cost too much to implement a plan to gave parents critical information about what their children are being taught, despite the state's $7 billion surplus.
How less transparent can you be. State Sen. Duey DStorebl put it best when he said:
"A parent should not need to file an open records request, and possibly pay a fee, to find out what is being taught in the classroom."
INCOMPLETE
Vilas County district attorney Karl Hayes
Vilas County district attorney Karl Hayes is still relatively new on the scene as the Vilas County district attorney, and we have not had enough open government matters run his way to give him an adequate grade this time around.
We will say that the question for Mr. Hayes in Vilas County is: Will he follow in the footsteps of former Vilas district attorney Martha Milanowski when he finally faces with an open records or open meetings controversy.
Ms. Milanowski was a staunch supporter of the open government laws of this state and constantly acted in ways that upheld those laws, no matter which position she was in at the time.
Time will tell, but we hope Mr. Hayes chooses the path blazed by Ms. Milanowski - the path of sunshine and not one of darkness.
Comments:
You must login to comment.