Reading Time: 2 minutes

Every year in Wisconsin state government, billions of taxpayer dollars are spent on programs and policies that impact every citizen, community, school and business.

While many people roll their eyes and tune out the sometimes messy, partisan, unpredictable work of state government, WisconsinEye Public Affairs Network encourages citizens to lean in. For the past 18 years, Wisconsin’s equivalent to C-SPAN has provided an inside look into the workings of state government. This inside look, which I have been involved in from the start, has included:

•  Free, live and unedited coverage of the Wisconsin Legislature, executive branch and state Supreme Court.
•  Fourteen thousand hours of searchable and shareable archived video of official state proceedings.
• An additional 16,000 hours of unedited and spin-free coverage of news conferences, interviews, campaigns, elections, and related civic events that add context and perspective. 

As the nation’s first independent, non-government-controlled state Capitol network, WisconsinEye does not favor the political left or right, but is rooted firmly in that all-important middle ground where diverse voices are welcome and informed dialogue contributes to positive outcomes for Wisconsin. The transparency that it delivers is essential to building the trust that keeps democracy functioning. Once citizens in a democracy come to understand how decisions are made, they can better use their voices and voting power to shape outcomes.

As an independent not-for-profit resource, WisconsinEye has relied on charitable donations to support its lean annual budget of $900,000. But this funding approach is no longer sustainable in what has become a highly competitive, post-pandemic philanthropic environment. That’s why the painful decision was made to shut down the functions of WisconsinEye, beginning Dec. 15, until the funding gap is plugged.

To this end, WisconsinEye is asking the Legislature and governor to reconfigure a previously designated $10 million matching grant approved in a unanimous bipartisan act, to help WisconsinEye build a permanent $20 million endowment. We are asking for lawmakers to remove the “match” requirement and instead allocate $900,000 for the network’s 2026 budget.

Additionally, we are calling on the state to invest the rest of the endowment, with earnings flowing annually to the network to cover two-thirds of its annual budget. The remaining one-third will be raised through three proven streams: annual program sponsorships, small-gift and online donations, and an annual fundraising dinner.

Meetings with state officials are underway, but it will potentially take three months to work its way through the state process.

In the meantime, WisconsinEye needs to raise $250,000 (three months of its operating budget) to bridge the financial gap and allow state Capitol programming to resume. Without this bridge funding, WisconsinEye could lose up to four highly skilled, cross-trained staff members. The domino effect would put the network at considerable risk of failure.

An alternative plan, that of a state government takeover of the network, was introduced by several Democratic legislators. Their plan, in my view, is in opposition with the decades-long commitment of the Wisconsin Legislature to provide citizens with an independent, trusted, neutral view of state government.

WisconsinEye cannot continue to provide a valued space where citizens can see for themselves, consider events and issues in context, and draw their own conclusions — if it is operated and controlled by the very entity it exists to cover.

Please consider joining the movement to save WisconsinEye by going to wiseye.org/donate. Your donation is tax-deductible. 

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a nonprofit, nonpartisan group dedicated to open government. Jon Henkes is the president and CEO of Wisconsin Eye.

Your Right to Know: Protect transparency, save WisconsinEye 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.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

In 2018, a mobile home park owner in Stevens Point lost his operator’s license after submitting falsified drinking water samples to the state, purportedly leaving longtime residents of the park at risk of consuming excess iron and manganese. He appealed.

In 2022, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources authorized the spreading of human waste on farmland in Vilas County. A nearby Indigenous tribe contested the permit when it became apparent the state hadn’t included sufficient setbacks from tribal land.

And in 2021, a wildlife rehabilitator in Frederic, Wisconsin, who also served as a local police chief, lost her rehabilitation license after a raccoon in her care — Gimpy — bit an employee. The rehabilitator appealed.

These cases, all of which went to administrative hearings, pit state regulatory authority against individual residents. That’s why I was interested in reading them in my role as an investigative reporter. But I learned vital information in these and other cases, nearly always the parties’ names and places of work, is missing. 

Wisconsin’s Division of Hearings and Appeals, the agency that oversees administrative hearings for several state departments, has taken to posting only heavily redacted records on its website. That means readers will often see black bars drawn through the names of people and businesses, state employees who evaluate permits and licenses, attorneys who represent parties and even newspapers that publish notices related to the cases.

Division Administrator Brian Hayes told me that last year’s passage of a state law prompted the DHA to evaluate how it posts personally identifying information on its website. That law enables judges to request that their personal information, including addresses and telephone numbers, be removed from public view. 

The DHA, Hayes said, extended this protection to witnesses and petitioners, saying disclosing this information “needlessly opens up litigants to scams and stalkers.”

Hayes noted, however, that personally identifying information likely would have to be released to someone who submitted a records request for unaltered documents.

So I submitted one.

It took two months and the assistance of an attorney to wrestle the name of Gimpy’s owner from the agency. (Gimpy, however, was named.) The employees I encountered in this process offered a moving target of justifications.

First, DHA’s records custodian said she can provide unredacted documents only to parties to a case and suggested that I request the redacted version. I pointed out that the law requires her to either release the requested record or offer a legal justification for withholding it.

Another employee cited Wisconsin’s 1980 victims’ rights law, which provides a bill of rights for witnesses and victims of crime. The problem with this excuse is that the protections are situated in Wisconsin criminal code, not licensing.

In the end, I received unredacted records in the raccoon case and an apology from DHA for the difficulties I encountered in obtaining this information. But I still am moved to question the will to secrecy at the heart of this matter.

In fact, many of these cases involve public hearings. Anyone who attended could presumably observe witnesses and evidence — or see the names of parties on public notices state agencies post to announce hearing schedules.

When protective laws are zealously applied to contexts for which they were not intended, it can cause its own form of harm. The public is circuitously deprived of information related to potentially unscrupulous activity on the part of both individuals and government.

It shouldn’t take an attorney to pry open the gates for administrative decisions, even if the state means well.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a nonprofit, nonpartisan group dedicated to open government. Bennet Goldstein is an investigative reporter with Wisconsin Watch.

Your Right to Know: The problem with the will to secrecy 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.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

All too often, secrecy and confidentiality carry the day in proceedings of state and local government. 

In one recent case, the name “Microsoft” on a state Public Service Commission filing was redacted – blocked from public view – along with pages and pages of other information. The redactions served no purpose, as the company’s role in the former Racine County site formerly known as Foxconn had been announced publicly in 2024 by then-President Joe Biden and widely reported.

PSC statutes indicate that utilities can keep only certain items from the public and for very discrete reasons – for instance, to protect competitive information or trade secrets. But in practice, secrecy is extended to a wide range of records. 

This is something I encountered in my reporting on utilities for the Green Bay Press-Gazette and Milwaukee Journal Sentinel from the late 1990s to 2017. And the number of confidential filings continued to be a concern in my current role at the Citizens Utility Board of Wisconsin, the consumer advocate watchdog for utility customers.

The problem is more urgent now, in an era of rapidly rising costs for utility customers and proposals for the building of huge, energy-gulping data centers now being proposed throughout the state. The stakes are getting higher.

Wisconsin’s utility system is undergoing a rapid-fire and massive transformation, arguably the biggest since the advent of widespread use of air conditioning 75 years ago, or even since Thomas Edison and Nicola Tesla were lighting cities for the first time using electricity.

Two such data center projects in eastern Wisconsin – Microsoft in Racine and OpenAI Oracle Vantage in Port Washington – would use as much power by themselves as all of We Energies customers used last year. You read that right: Two such data center projects in eastern Wisconsin – Microsoft in Racine and OpenAI Oracle Vantage in Port Washington – would use as much power by themselves as all of We Energies customers used last year. You read that right: These two centers combined would require as much electricity as all 1.1 million industrial, commercial and residential customers used last year, including the entire cities of Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha, Port Washington, Waukesha and Appleton.

So it’s no wonder there’s more attention being placed, here and across the country, on the decisions being made by the three PSC commissioners in Madison and their counterparts across the country. This is especially true given that a new Marquette Law School poll found that a majority of state residents, Democrats and Republicans alike, believe that the costs of data centers outweigh the benefits.

In the case of the Port Washington data center, city leaders signed a development agreement that contains a very broad definition of  “confidential information” and then binds the city to assist the data center developer in defending any lawsuit seeking to release anything it considers confidential. 

Recently, the nonprofit law center Midwest Environmental Advocates had to sue the city of Racine to get water records for the Microsoft development. Peg Scheaffer, the group’s spokesperson, said “it’s more important than ever that technology companies like Microsoft be transparent about the environmental impacts these huge data centers will have.”

Fortunately, Wisconsin’s PSC is paying heed to these concerns. At a training session for the energy legal community in Madison earlier this year, the PSC put utilities and their law firms on notice that the agency will be taking a closer look at confidential filings and scrutinizing more closely the requests filed by utilities to keep information from public view.

That transparency initiative is overdue, and welcome.

Local and state government leaders enticed by the lure of economic development should take heed. Going forward, let us err on the side of more transparency, not less.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a nonprofit, nonpartisan group dedicated to open government. Tom Content is executive director of the Citizens Utility Board of Wisconsin and vice president of the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates. 

Your Right to Know: Data center secrecy is unacceptable 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.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

In a 2007 ruling known as Zellner v. Cedarburg School District, the Wisconsin Supreme Court declared that because public school teachers “are entrusted with the responsibility of teaching children,” the public has a clear right to know about allegations of misconduct against educators.

I wonder what the justices would think of a school district trying to charge $5,600 for this information. Or $40,000. Or $245,000.

Those were among the actual cost estimates that Wisconsin school districts provided when my paper, the Cap Times, asked for public records about teachers accused of sexual misconduct.

Such misconduct is a more pervasive problem in schools than you might think. An estimated one in 10 students experiences sexual harassment or assault from an educator during their K-12 schooling, according to one comprehensive case study in 2004. In Wisconsin, that rate would amount to more than 93,000 school children based on last year’s private and public school statewide enrollment.

But there is no statewide comprehensive data tracking of such allegations, so the Cap Times set out to determine how often educators are investigated for sexual misconduct toward students, and how allegations to this effect are handled.

For a report to be published later this month, the Cap Times sought employee investigation records, reprimands and resignation agreements over the last eight years from districts across Wisconsin.

The responses took the newspaper by surprise. I’m not referring to the actual records — which, when the Cap Times eventually received them, were shocking in other ways. What first stunned us were the amounts the districts demanded just to look for these documents.

The Middleton-Cross Plains Area School District outside of Madison put the upfront cost of locating these records at $40,000. Sheboygan wanted $18,000, Oshkosh wanted $6,600, Appleton wanted $5,600, and Madison wanted $4,500.

Leading the pack was the Janesville School District, which asked for $245,000. The district has 9,400 students and roughly 1,500 employees, making it the ninth largest district in the state. Milwaukee Public Schools, the largest school district in the state at 66,000 students, quoted the Cap Times about $1,100 for the exact same records request. MPS also has six times more employees, meaning more records to search.

After a Cap Times reporter spoke on the phone with Janesville assistant superintendent Scott Garner, this charge disappeared. For some of the districts, the newspaper had to identify names of specific teachers and narrow the scope of its requests to get a reasonable cost estimate. For others, including Madison, we still have not received records despite our attempts to make their searches easier.

The suspicion remains that the initial price tags from some of these districts were not based on the “actual, necessary and direct cost” of locating these records, as the Open Records Law allows, but on a desire to make these requests go away.

Then there were school districts, including Racine and Waukesha, where officials said they couldn’t fulfill the request at all because it would be too burdensome.

Refusing to provide this information, or charging prohibitive fees for such records, is antithetical to school districts’ legal duty — and moral obligation — of transparency. 

Educators have unique access to children and an enormous amount of responsibility for their safety at school. By far the majority can be trusted with those responsibilities. But in some cases that trust is violated — as in the state Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling, involving an educator who was viewing adult websites on his school computer.

As the court said in its decision, “The public has an interest in knowing about such allegations of teacher misconduct and how they are handled.”

And, I would add, members of the public shouldn’t have to take out a loan to get this information.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a nonprofit, nonpartisan group dedicated to open government. Council secretary Mark Treinen (mtreinen@captimes.com) is editor of the Cap Times in Madison.

Your Right to Know: Costs shouldn’t be used to deter records requests 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.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

As homelessness grows across Wisconsin, social service agencies are feeling a crunch. The federal government is slashing funding for tackling the problem, and state lawmakers aren’t helping much either. 

Reporters for Wisconsin Watch, the nonprofit news organization for which I work, unpacked those challenges in a mid-July story. They noted the Legislature’s budget writing committee rejected a $24 million proposal by Gov. Tony Evers to boost funding for homelessness support services and shelter operations. 

The reason? Committee leaders won’t say. 

The 2,358-word story included perspectives of multiple service providers and policy experts, but the lawmakers were conspicuously absent. My colleagues sent multiple requests for comment to four members of the committee, including its two co-chairs. One declined an interview request. The others did not reply.

The silence leaves the public guessing. 

Do the lawmakers disagree on the scope of the problem? Do they think money can be better spent on other issues? How much is just politics between a Republican-controlled committee and a Democratic governor? 

We don’t know because they won’t tell us.

It’s hard to address homelessness — or any complex challenge —  if we don’t even know where leaders stand.

Unfortunately, independent journalists are growing accustomed to being ignored. In a trend spanning multiple levels of government and political parties, public officials are increasingly avoiding answering inconvenient questions about matters of public concern. They’re sending generic statements instead of agreeing to interviews that are more likely to yield clarity. That’s if they respond at all. 

It’s happening in Wisconsin and beyond.

“Patterns of media evasion and selective engagement have become the norm for many newsmakers. They may work with media that are friendly to or aligned with the source’s views, resulting in little to no accountability questions or pushback,” states a 2024 Poynter Institute report. “Many sources who once engaged with reporters, even if grudgingly, have become masters of media avoidance.” 

Such tactics are less harmful to journalists than they are to constituents. We ask questions on behalf of the public — not to satisfy our own curiosities. Ignoring us is ignoring the public. 

In Wisconsin, the silence means less information on everything from state prison staffing shortages to the politics behind state conservation funding or dormant city initiatives in Milwaukee. 

Earlier this year, a McFarland man who arrived three years ago from Cuba attended what he thought would be the first hearing in his asylum case —  after following steps laid out by the federal government. Instead, a judge dismissed Miguel Jerez Robles’ case and agents with Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested him.

“He had everything in order, and he was arbitrarily arrested and placed in expedited removal when he doesn’t qualify to be in expedited removal,” his attorney told the Capital Times and Wisconsin Watch. 

The news outlets reached out to ICE for comment. It did not respond. A month after his arrest, the man was released, still with no explanation. 

Thankfully, such stonewalling is not universal. Some officials still value transparency, agreeing to interviews that help the public understand their actions. It’s probably not always easy. Engaging with journalists takes time and energy, and requests may flow in with tight deadlines.

But their constituents are better off for it.

While writing this column, I emailed the four lawmakers who did not comment during Wisconsin Watch’s homelessness reporting in July: Rep. Mark Born, R-Beaver Dam; Sen. Howard Marklein, R-Spring Green; Sen. Romaine Robert Quinn, R-Birchwood; and Sen. Eric Wimberger, R-Oconto. I offered a fresh chance to discuss their vote and share their perspectives on receiving media requests. 

None of them responded. 

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 Jim Malewitz is managing editor of Wisconsin Watch.

Your Right to Know: ‘No comment’ is no help to the public 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.

Reading Time: 2 minutes

This month, for the first time in 30 years, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is without Justice Ann Walsh Bradley. It is also without one of its most consistent advocates for transparency in government. 

Bradley served three 10-year terms on the court, the last of which expired July 31. During this time, she wrote nearly 600 opinions, including quite a few that contained important interpretations of Wisconsin’s open records and meetings laws.

In a 1996 opinion, Bradley rejected the argument that open records and meetings lawsuits had to be preceded by 120 days notice. Bradley, writing for a unanimous court, said the laws require “timely access to the affairs of government.” 

In 2007, Bradley’s majority opinion in Buswell v. Tomah Area School District strengthened the public notice requirements of the state’s open meetings law. That case required meeting notices to be more specific about the subject matter of topics to be discussed, to better inform the public. 

In another majority opinion in 2008, Bradley provided some clarity as to when “quasi-governmental corporations” are subject to the open meetings law. In that case, the Beaver Dam city economic development office had closed, then was immediately replaced by a private corporation that continued to use city offices and receive tax dollars. Bradley’s opinion concluded that because the corporation still resembled the government in function, purpose and effect, it had to follow the laws.

Not every opinion written by Bradley was for the majority. In 2017, she dissented from a decision to exempt from disclosure unredacted immigration detainer forms sent by the Milwaukee County jail to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Her opinion methodically rejected the county’s arguments in favor of redaction, arguing that “continuous ‘chipping away’ has substantially gutted Wisconsin’s commitment to open government.” 

Just one year later, Bradley dissented again, this time from an opinion that denied a public union’s request for certification forms. “The unfounded speculation that the records might be used for improper purposes,” she wrote, “does not outweigh the strong public interest in opening the records to inspection.”

Regardless of whether Bradley wrote a majority, dissenting or concurring opinion, she always emphasized the strong public policy in favor of open government set forth in Wisconsin’s open records and open meetings laws. And she condemned decisions that paid only “lip service” to these principles, calling them “all hat and no cattle.” 

Bradley even had occasion to apply open government principles to the Wisconsin Supreme Court itself. In 2012, she opposed its 4-3 decision to close some of the court’s rules and operations conferences to the public. As reported by Wisconsin Watch at the time, Bradley questioned the change, asking, “What is the good public policy reason to exclude the public from this process? I can’t think of any.” 

In 2017, Bradley was one of two justices who voted against closing all such conferences. (Fortunately, in 2023, a newly constituted court decided to reopen its conferences, with Bradley in the majority.)

Bradley told Wisconsin Lawyer magazine that she intends to stay engaged with organizations that support law and civics education. Her dedication to open government in these endeavors should serve her well, as it has the citizens of Wisconsin for three decades.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a nonprofit, nonpartisan group dedicated to open government. Christa Westerberg is the council’s vice president and a partner at the Pines Bach law firm in Madison. Heather Kuebel contributed research to this column.

Your Right to Know: Ann Walsh Bradley and the cause of openness 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.