LT Editorial: WI Supreme Court Ruling about Open Government

Closed Session Meetings are not exempt from Open Government Laws.
Maria

Updated: 7/20/2008 11:37:01 PM
High court stands up for government openness

The Wisconsin Supreme Court struck two blows for open government this month, knocking down some of the barriers that stand between the public and those who seek to make government decisions outside of public view.

We join other advocates of open government in hailing these decisions. As Peter Fox, executive director of the Wisconsin Newspaper Association, told The Associated Press, the rulings were "Absolute victories for the citizens of this state." Fox, whose group filed briefs in both cases, added that "It's really about citizens and ... the ability of local governments to operate fully in public view."

While the subjects of the rulings may seem obscure for most Wisconsinites, they are nonetheless vital. Our nation's democratic principles - as well as state law - demand maximum government openness. Those of us who pay the bills and deal with the consequences of government decisions - whether they are made by federal lawmakers or local school boards - deserve to know as much as possible about what's going on behind closed doors.

In the first case, Sands v. Whitnall, the court ruled that what happens in closed-door meetings of governmental bodies can't be withheld from disclosure in lawsuits. The case dealt with an employee of the Whitnall school district in suburban Milwaukee whose contract wasn't renewed. She sued the district to find out what was said in a closed-session board meeting about her contract. An appeals court ruled against her in 2006, saying an exemption to the state open meetings law allowed the board to keep quiet about discussions of employment matters. However, in the majority decision, Justice Louis Butler wrote that state law "does not describe the contents of closed meetings as either secret or exempt from discovery."

The Supreme Court decision is important because the appeals court ruling had a potentially chilling effect on access to information about closed meetings: Earlier this year, Mike O'Brien - then Eau Claire school board president - cited the appeals court ruling to justify denying the Leader-Telegram information about former Superintendent Bill Klaus' contract. When reporter Julian Emerson asked about what happened in closed meetings in which the backdating of Klaus' contract was discussed, O'Brien wrote that "If the information cannot be disclosed in a court case, it stands to reason it cannot be disclosed to the press." The Supreme Court ruling invalidates such arguments and reaffirms public oversight.

In the second case, State v. Beaver Dam Area Development Corp., the court ruled 4-2 that quasi-governmental bodies that resemble government entities in "function, effect or status" are subject to open meetings and records laws. While economic development decisions may require confidentiality, that doesn't justify exempting publicly funded development agencies from public scrutiny, the court said.

To paraphrase state law, both rulings highlight the public's entitlement to full and complete information about its government.

- Tom Giffey, editorial page editor