Your right to know: Records fees mean records denials

Sheila Plotkin

By SHEILA PLOTKIN
As founder of We the Irrelevant, a website that tracks how well (or poorly) the actions of legislators match up with what the public has asked them to do, I have sent multiple open records requests to Wisconsin legislators on a variety of controversial initiatives. Each time, I’ve asked them for related citizen correspondence. 

I included Gov. Tony Evers in my most recent request. He has been criticized for a lack of openness, but I’m pleased to report that I promptly received relevant electronic records from his office in response to my November 11, 2019, open records request related to the special session on gun law reform. To date, 124 legislators have also provided records. Only one has asked me to pay a fee.

Rep. Jim Steineke (R-Kaukauna) demanded $139.45 for the electronic records in his custody. I asked him to waive the fees, as every one of his colleagues had done. He refused to do so. I refused to pay. 

In my email to Rep. Steineke, I told him: “I am not a law firm or a media outlet or a corporation. I am a senior citizen on a fixed income asking for public records in the public interest. I am not able to pay for my access to those records.” He was not moved. My access was denied.

I queried members of the Joint Finance Committee regarding Gov. Evers’ education budget in May 2019. Committee co-chair Rep. John Nygren (R-Marinette) wanted $100.41 for the electronic records in his custody. No other member of the committee asked for money to fulfill this request. I refused to pay. The records remain in his custody.

In 1981, the Legislature wrote location and retrieval fees into the open records law, saying that costs over $50 could be assigned to the requestor. According to this inflation calculator, that $50 is now $140.56. Lawmakers need to raise this $50 cap, just as they have evolved from using paper to using electronic records. They also need to make choices that serve the public interest.

This sentence appears on page 69 of the 2018 Open Records Law Compliance Manual, produced by the Wisconsin Justice Department: “An authority has discretion to provide requested records for free or at a reduced charge.” From my perspective, “discretion” is the key word here.

Since We the Irrelevant was born in December 2015, most legislators I’ve queried have chosen not to levy charges, even when hundreds of pages had to be printed. Now that the Court of Appeals has ruled that electronic records must be provided upon request, costs have been significantly reduced. Yet Steineke and Nygren still choose to charge. Why?

The Declaration of Purpose, which begins the state’s public records law, could hardly be clearer:

“It is declared to be the public policy of this state that all persons are entitled to the greatest possible information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those officers and employees who represent them,” it states. “To that end, (this statute) shall be construed in every instance with a presumption of complete public access ….”

Unreasonable and undocumented charges don’t promote complete public access. They obstruct it. I wonder at the motivation of those public officials whose choices price the public out of the open records market.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a group dedicated to open government. Sheila Plotkin is a retired Milwaukee teacher of the deaf and hard of hearing who now lives in Madison.

Comments are closed.

  • Letter to the editor: N-O-W should run a referendum for more funding

    February 26th, 2020
    by

    On Feb. 17, the Norwalk-Ontario-Wilton School Board met to discuss the very real possibility of not replacing teachers who are retiring.


    Letter to the editor: Impeachment and Black History Month highlight Republican sexism and racism

    February 13th, 2020
    by

    Aside from the corruption of the Republican Party, the impeachment proceedings of President Donald Trump highlighted the party’s racism and sexism, with one notable exception.


    Letter to the editor: Thirty pieces of silver

    February 13th, 2020
    by

    Truth reflects fact and reality. Lasting relationships depend on truth. Persons of faith should recognize truth as the cornerstone of their belief system.


    Editorial cartoon

    February 13th, 2020
    by

    Editorial cartoon

    January 20th, 2020
    by

  • Letter to the editor: We should be proud, but what’s changed?

    January 16th, 2020
    by

    I am very proud of the good people of our community who care for the needy.


    Your right to know: Pollution records must be open

    January 9th, 2020
    by

    Just shy of two years ago, this column explored the heightened importance of open government when public health is at risk.


    Twomey: Purchasing flood insurance has many benefits

    January 9th, 2020
    by

    Matt Gabrielson, writing in the La Farge Episcope, advised that it was “never too early to be thinking about flooding.” His weather and climate page are essential reading in that newspaper.


    Letter to the editor: Looking for new people on the Norwalk Village Board

    January 9th, 2020
    by

    Here we are; it is caucus time already. Where did the year go? It would be great to see another good turnout like last year.


    Letter to the editor: Trump starts war to save his presidency

    January 9th, 2020
    by

    In November 2017, I sent a letter to the County Line predicting that if President Donald Trump was threatened with impeachment, he would start a war with North Korea to distract Americans.


    Letter to the editor: Texas shooting has stirred up gun debate

    January 9th, 2020
    by

    The recent shooting in a Texas church has stirred up the gun debate.


  • Archives