By Alissa Smith Wisconsin Reporter
MADISON — Wisconsinites may have a harder time accessing public records as lawmakers and government agencies add hurdles that could cost anyone accessing public records extra money and time.An amendment to the state budget that is working its way through the General Assembly could mean some information about business-owning lawmakers would be barred from public purview.
That came as the Wisconsin State Journal recently filed a lawsuit against the Madison School District, after the schools refused to release more than 1,000 sick notes from the “sick-out” in February.
In the lawsuit filed by the Isthmus Newspaper and the Associated Press against Gov. Scott Walker, the news organizations argued that by withholding emails regarding collective bargaining, the governor violated that state’s open records law.
Their lawsuit ended with Walker being compelled to release the emails.
The governor’s office said they try to respond to open records requests as fast and as practical as possible, and they look forward to doing so in the future. When asked, Walker’s spokesman, Cullen Werwie, said there has been no backlash from the lawsuit because they did give the emails up.
The Madison School District did not return calls seeking comment.
Bill Lueders, editor of the Isthmus and president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, said open records lawsuits happen frequently – especially involving the media.
“I don’t think it’s anything extraordinary where a newspaper has to sue to get public records,” Lueders said. “The media have a greater ability and a greater responsibility to fight certain kind of things.”
He said lawsuits involving denied access to public records could cost from $30,000 to $70,000, depending on how far the lawsuit advances.
“The notion of having to sue to get records is nothing new,” Joshua Meyer, said editor of WikiFOIA. “The government has taken the position that it’s easier to say, ‘So sue me’ than to give out incriminating records.”
WikiFOIA is part of Sunshine Review, which works to keep transparency in government and open records available to the public.
Meyer argued that government refusing to give public records to the public is not just a Wisconsin problem. It hurts everyone, he said, because the taxpayers ultimately pay for the government’s defense.
A proposed budget amendment Rep. Robin Vos, R-Burlington, would limit the access to legislators’ statements on economic interest in laws they pass.
“Essentially it is a statement to disclose the financial income, assets, debts, and gifts of a public official,” Mike Haas, a staff attorney for the Government Accountability Board, said.
“My understanding is that it’s making it harder for the public to get access to our statement of economic interests,” said Rep. Peter Barca, D-Kenosha.
Barca said he didn’t particularly understand the reasoning behind the amendment, particularly given the tradition of open government in Wisconsin. But he also said it was one that his caucus was seriously looking at.
Kit Beyer, spokeswoman for Vos said the exclusion was made to protect legislators who own small businesses.
“We always think as these people inside the Capitol as just lawmakers but he’s (Vos) also a business owner,” Beyer said.
She argued that allowing the public access to statements of economic interest is like “divulging all your customers” to all competitors.
According to Beyer, Vos and other lawmakers are willing to give up the information, but it puts them at a disadvantage in the business world, because other business owners are not required to publicly divulge their financial holdings.
She said in the budget debate Wednesday lawmakers agreed to increase the limit of money that come in from partners or corporations from $1,000 to $10,000. This, Beyer said, was not exactly what Vos wanted but that it was an improvement.
Lueders, however, strongly disagreed with the idea that the proposed law is protecting small business owners.
“The legislators who have done this are abusing their power to avoid accountability,” Lueders said. “It’s an abuse of process from the legislation to put this into the budget bill.”
He said anything could happen with the amendment right now, “it could pass unnoticed, it could be clarified, it could be limited, or it could be removed.”
This kind of “revisionary” bureaucracy is how governments become secret and more powerful, and freedom for individuals disappears. Sounds like Gulag practices to me.
Just notice in your daily life how hard it is becoming to get any information about yourself or your family members, including medical records, credit records, school records, on and on and on. Even phone calls to find people who are in the know are rerouted or sent to recorded voice mailboxes and the representatives you do manage to find are clueless.
This change is not designed to protect us, the American public. It’s intended to protect the powerful and hide from view what they want to do or have done that is either negative or shameful or even unlawful. Stonewalling is the best way in the world to hide what you’re really doing behind closed doors.