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.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

In any community, the role of the medical examiner is vital. 

Medical examiners — or coroners, in the nearly half of Wisconsin’s 72 counties that have them as an alternative — determine the cause and manner of death, support the criminal justice system and track data to identify trends that can impact public health and safety.

For me and other Milwaukee-area journalists, the insights provided by the Milwaukee County Medical Examiner’s Office are integral to our coverage, providing crucial details and important context. Among the recent examples where the level of openness has played a key role are the COVID-19 pandemic, the tragic deaths of three men due to extreme cold last January and the high-profile case of D’Vontaye Mitchell last June.

Traditionally, the office has supplied “demographic reports” as well as “narrative reports.” Demographic reports include information such as the name of the deceased, where the death occurred, and the name of a family member who was notified. Narrative reports, in contrast, delve into the circumstances surrounding each case. 

“Narrative reports are particularly illustrative when compared to other available public information,” wrote David Clarey in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in March. “Contextual information, such as whether a driver ran a red light or if a homicide resulted from a heated argument, is often missing (from demographic reports) and requires time-consuming requests from media and families alike.”

The media in Milwaukee were pleased with the level of openness we experienced from Karen Domagalski, the longtime operations manager for the Milwaukee County Medical Examiner’s Office. But when Domagalski retired on Feb. 19, the county’s medical examiner, Dr. Wieslawa Tlomak, announced a change in policy. Henceforth, she said, the office would stop sharing narrative reports until investigations were concluded and cases closed. She acknowledged that this shift represented a significant change in past practices.

Concerned by the change in policy, several news executives, including me, sent Tlomak a letter on April 4. It read, in part:

“The decision to curtail access to these preliminary findings poses a troubling scenario for our news organizations and, more importantly, for the residents of Milwaukee County. Withholding this essential information may leave the public waiting weeks, months, or even longer for basic insights into the circumstances surrounding the deaths of community members. This delay not only hampers our ability to keep the public informed but also undermines trust in the transparency of governmental processes.”

The letter noted that having access to narrative reports helps “clarify the circumstances” surrounding deaths and fosters “a better understanding among citizens about the events that impact their safety.”

Tlomak replied to our letter nearly three weeks later on April 23. Her response read, in part:

“I recognize that this shift in operational policies and procedures is new to members of the media that cover death investigations and public safety matters in Milwaukee County. After an internal review of operational policies and procedures, it became apparent that it is not within the ME’s Office mission and purpose to provide inaccurate and/or incomplete information to the public, as the disclosure of these draft details have the potential to cause significant harm to family members most affected by a death.”

Here’s my response to that: Dr. Tlomak, if your concern is releasing inaccurate information, the appropriate next step would be to correct the information rather than stopping its release altogether. I urge you to work with the journalists who rely on the reports provided by your office to develop a solution that ensures timely access to vital information without compromising the integrity of ongoing investigations. 

Transparency is crucial for maintaining public trust.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a group dedicated to open government. Tim Vetscher, a council member, is news director at TMJ4 in Milwaukee. 

Your Right to Know: When people die, openness matters 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

Wisconsin’s municipal courts can have a significant and devastating impact on the lives of people who can’t afford to pay a citation due to poverty. Without critical legal protections, unpaid municipal citations can lead to warrants, arrests and incarceration.

There is no right to counsel in Wisconsin’s municipal courts, meaning people unable to afford an attorney face court alone, compounding the cycle of poverty and punishment. These courts risk operating in ways that undermine constitutional standards and disproportionately harm vulnerable communities. Hence, there is a heightened need for transparency and accountability.

Public access to accurate court records and data is essential to upholding constitutional and statutory requirements. In December, a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge ordered the Milwaukee Municipal Court and its judges to comply with statutory requirements mandating electronic recordings of all hearings on motions to reopen because of a defendant’s inability to pay a judgment due to poverty. Judge David Borowski found that the court and its judges “have violated and very likely will continue to act in violation of their plain duties” to record these hearings. 

These hearings can determine whether an individual faces severe sanctions, including arrest warrants, writs of commitment, or driver’s license suspensions. They also establish whether a judge is required to abide by certain poverty protections, like community service in lieu of payment for a defendant who faces incarceration due to poverty. 

The ACLU of Wisconsin, for which I work, released a report last fall that underscores both the scope and the severe consequences of municipal court practices. The data used in this report was gathered from open records requests sent to each of Wisconsin’s 219 municipal courts and 73 county jails. 

Each court and jail operates independently, with differing policies, procedures and levels of transparency. Many courts and jails either failed to respond to our open records requests or provided incomplete data. Some jails claimed they could not separate out municipal warrants or commitments, while others demanded exorbitant fees to locate records. 

Municipal courts face minimal oversight and reporting requirements. They are encouraged, but not required, to submit an annual voluntary questionnaire. 

The only statewide municipal court data published consists of the total number of cases by state, county and year, but these statistics are self-reported, unauthenticated and often incomplete. The result is an unreliable, outdated and incomplete data set that fails to provide the transparency necessary for meaningful review. 

We can’t rely only on open records as the primary tool for oversight. Governments must implement systems for collecting, vetting and reporting court data. Basic information, such as the number of warrants and commitments issued annually, how many people are jailed for failure to pay, and for how long, should be readily available. If a court or jail cannot provide this information, it should not have the ability to impose or enforce these sanctions.

Transparency is not an abstract ideal; it is a safeguard against unconstitutional practices and a tool for ensuring justice. When courts operate without transparency, individuals, especially those who are economically disadvantaged, are at a heightened risk of having their rights violated. 

Courts and carceral institutions must have standardized, reliable systems for recording, analyzing and reporting data. Wisconsin’s municipal courts must be held to higher standards of transparency, and the state must implement policies that ensure courts are accountable to the communities they serve. 

Without meaningful change, without appropriate oversight, many municipal courts will continue to punish poverty, making it difficult to ensure that community members receive the constitutional and statutory protections to which they are entitled.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a group dedicated to open government. Emma Shakeshaft is a senior staff attorney and researcher for the ACLU of Wisconsin Foundation.

Your Right to Know: Improve access to municipal court records 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.