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.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Last month, the Wisconsin town of Hazelhurst postponed discussion of a proposed ordinance due to a typo. The meeting agenda had incorrectly listed “wake board” instead of the intended “wake boat.” Said town chairman Ted Cushing, “I’m not going to violate the Open Meetings Law.”

It was the right call, one that affirms my belief that public officials in Wisconsin are, by and large, intent on complying with the state’s openness laws. But, sadly, this is not always the case.

Recent weeks have brought forth two of the most egregious violations of the public’s right to know that I have seen in more than three decades of tracking openness issues on the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council. 

The first happened in the village of St. Francis, south of Milwaukee, on June 2. Megan Lee, a reporter for television station TMJ4, and photographer Dan Selan tried to attend a meeting of the St. Francis school board. The district superintendent, Deb Kerr, confronted Lee, in an exchange that Selan captured on video.

“You are not allowed to come to our meetings because you did not give us any notice or tell us why you were here,” declared Kerr, saying she had just spoken with the district’s lawyer. “Like you said, it’s an open board meeting, but you’re not filming.”

When Lee pressed for an explanation, Kerr replied, “I’m going to ask you to leave now, and if you don’t leave, I’ve already told you, I will call the police.” Thankfully, this did not occur. 

For the record, no one is required to give advance notice before attending a public meeting. And the state’s Open Meetings Law, at 19.90, expressly directs all public bodies to “make a reasonable effort to accommodate any person desiring to record, film or photograph the meeting,” so long as it is not disruptive.

Kerr, a one-time candidate for state school superintendent, did apologize, sort of, saying “I wish I had handled it differently.” TMJ4 has filed a verified complaint against the school district with Milwaukee County’s corporation counsel, the first step toward possible legal action.

The second transgression involves Steven H. Gibbs, a circuit court judge in Chippewa County. Gibbs recently issued an order that not only barred the media from recording witness testimony at pretrial evidentiary hearings but also instructed that they “may not directly quote the testimony of the witnesses, and may only summarize the content of the testimony,” or else face contempt proceedings.

“Wow, this is quite the court order,” said Robert Drechsel, a UW-Madison professor emeritus of journalism and mass communication and expert on media law and the First Amendment, when I asked for his thoughts. He cited a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, which limited judges’ ability to impose constraints on media, requiring that they consider less restrictive alternatives and ponder whether the order would be effective.

That was not done here. And, in fact, requiring summation over quotation “would be more likely to introduce a risk of error and possible prejudice,” Drechsel said. “So no, I do not think the judge can prohibit the media from directly quoting what they hear during an open court proceeding. And I don’t think it’s a close call.”

Judge Gibbs, asked under what authority he was forbidding direct quotation, cited a Wisconsin Supreme Court rule that allows judges to “control the conduct of proceedings” before them. Gibbs said he believes in the First Amendment and freedom of the press but “my concern is a fair jury pool in this matter not tainted by any media reports” about evidence that may or may not be introduced. He did not explain how threatening the media for trying to be as accurate as possible would achieve this end. (Here are links to Gibbs’ and Drechsel’s full responses.)

The truth is that public officials, even if they’re well intentioned, sometimes broadly overstep. Let’s just be grateful that this is the exception and not the rule. You can quote me on that.

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 group’s president.

Your Right to Know: When transparency is disregarded 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

Probably the most commonly used — and, in my opinion, abused — exemption in our state’s Open Meetings Law is the one that lets governmental bodies meet behind closed doors “whenever competitive or bargaining reasons require a closed session.”

The exemption, 19.85(1)(e) in Wisconsin state statutes, is used by all manner of public bodies, from city councils to school boards. It is supposed to be used sparingly, when needed to protect ongoing negotiations. But many bodies use this exemption to conceal everything about a potential deal or development, keeping the public in the dark until it is too late for their input.

Thankfully, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals issued a recent opinion, in a case known as Oitzinger v. City of Marinette, that should significantly curtail such abuses. The court ruled that the city’s attempts to use this exemption on two occasions violated the law. 

The first involved an agreement (negotiated for months behind the scenes and presented to the common council for the first and only time in that closed session) that released a PFAS polluter from liability in exchange for a “donation” toward equipment to help address the pollution it caused. The second involved an engineering analysis of methods to provide safe drinking water for people whose well water had been contaminated.

Both closed sessions were illegal, the appeals court ruled, because neither included discussions of negotiation strategies that needed to be kept secret. The court’s ruling does three very important things.

First, the court held Marinette officials accountable for their illegal behavior. The plaintiff, Douglas Oitzinger, was a city council member who thought his colleagues had abused this exemption. He was willing to stand up to his colleagues, endure their scorn and not give up until he won. (His efforts earned him an award from the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council in 2022.)

Second, the case reaffirms an important principle: The law’s exemption protects bargaining tactics, not all discussions about a possible deal. It exists so that government boards don’t have to negotiate at a disadvantage by divulging their strategies, such as the most it is willing to pay to buy a piece of land. But those kinds of discussions are the only thing that is supposed to happen in closed session. Other discussions — particularly debates about the merits of a course of action — need to be held publicly.

Third, the court emphasized that a board’s members need to cast an informed vote to go into closed session. That means it needs to be explained to them — on the record in open session — what kind of information is going to be discussed and why secrecy is necessary. Too often the process for going into a closed session is just a formulaic reading of a vague agenda item and a vote with no explanation or discussion. The court of appeals concluded that more is necessary, not just in this case but whenever this exemption is invoked.

I believe this is the part of the court’s decision that has the most impact. Government board members usually do this work on a part-time basis for little or no pay. They’re frequently happy to follow the lead of full-time government administrators or experienced board members. Administrators or presiding officers now must take the time to explain why they want to go into closed session. That will not only provide more information to the public, it will help board members think about and answer the question of whether secrecy is really necessary.

As an advocate for government openness, my hopes are high. I’ve seen reports from around the state that government attorneys are advising their clients about this case and explaining these requirements. I’m hopeful that abuse of this exemption will significantly decline.

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

Your Right to Know: Want a closed session? Explain yourself! 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.