Dear Readers,
This link was posted in one of the LT comment section and it was way too good not to share with everybody. This guy (from Jefferson, WI) has the ECASD BOE (at least Mike O'Brien and the Weld, Riley firm) and Administration perfectly drawn with this tongue-in-cheek guide to the Open Records statutes. For those individuals making these requests they pulled ALL OF THESE STUNTS to avoid complying with the law. It was certainly a concentrated effort among Klaus, Olson, Mr. Weld, Mr. O'Brien, Dr. Leary, and Mr. Kling to pull this all together for so many months. The only thing that was missed was Klaus' stunt toward me: Threaten to sue them for asking questions!
Enjoy. Pray that things will change under Dr. Craig's and Dr. Heilmann's leadership.
Maria
A Guide To Hiding Records:
How to Avoid Complying with Wisconsin's Open Records Law
by John Foust
In my experience with Wisconsin's Open Records Law and making requests of bureaucrats of all shapes and sizes, I've learned a few tricks that might help other government workers avoid complying with the requests of Open Records fanatics.
Why Avoid Surrendering Records?
Reason number one: You have nothing to hide. Literally. If you haven't accomplished much, you're probably working very hard to insure no one learns that. It's hard enough hiding it from the boss. It's just as important to hide it from the public. Assure the record-seeker that you have nothing to hide and that you'd be glad to help them with their request, as long as it's allowed by the law.
Reason number two: It's none of their business. No doubt there are plenty of facts that would make your job more difficult if they were printed in the newspaper. Every fact can be made to look bad if twisted by someone with an agenda. You want to hand out as few pieces of the puzzle as possible. If you need inspiration to avoid dispensing information, imagine what would happen if everything on your desk was printed in tomorrow's newspaper. Only you know what's best for the public when it comes to your job and whether you're doing it right.
Reason number three: We can't do our job if we had to tell everyone what we're were doing. Gain the sympathy of your superiors by whining about the incredible burden of supplying all the information requested by record-seekers. Claim that revealing this information will make it more difficult for you to do the job you're supposed to be doing. By taking as much time as possible to fulfill requests, you'll hit two birds with one stone. One, you'll have less real work to do. Two, you'll accomplish just as little by delaying the fulfillment of the open records requests.
Keep the above three reasons in mind while you practice the other craft of avoiding requests, as follows:
Deny the record exists. The very fact that someone wants to see a record should give you a nice big hint that it might contain something juicy that you don't want to reveal. This gives you a good opportunity to destroy the record. Take it home, hide it in a filing cabinet, or better yet, file it somewhere where only your successor will rediscover it. The shredder is your friend. If you can't find it, they can't get it.
The law also says you need not hand over intermediate or personal notes. Therefore, if in doubt, claim something is a note. For example, raw data is almost always a note. After all, this is the raw material that you spin as part of your job. You only present cooked, digested and properly spun information. If someone else got the raw data, they could digest the information and draw different conclusions, exposing all the hard work you did to fudge the figures.
Claim the request isn't specific enough. This stall is always good for a few days and often inspires frustration in the requester. After all, you just want them to go away, right?
When they ask what would make the request specific enough, say "I don't know." It's your discretion. "Specific" means different things to different people. For example, if they ask for the first six memos you wrote to person X, it's easy to argue that this is not specific enough. Be creative.
Make them pay for what they really want. Like a parking ticket or a speeding ticket, levy a fine. Claim that finding the record will incur a tremendous amount of time. You can charge for time to find long-buried records. If your budget is tight, urge your superiors to set a higher per-page copying cost to help offset those copier expenses. You're not responsible for reducing costs. You are able by law to charge to help offset the cost of producing some kinds of records.
Charge a burdensome flat fee for anyone who wants to see a record. It's probably illegal, but it'll eliminate a large number of casual requests. It will also add much-needed funds to your budget, especially if you can set a hefty fee for records commonly requested by businesses with deep pockets. They'll regard it as an official sort of bribe, or at least the cost of doing business.
Make haste slowly. The law says records requests must be fulfilled "as soon as practicable and without delay." Don't deliver immediately. If the Attorney General tells you that ten days is a reasonable response time, always be sure to take at least ten business days to respond regardless of the complexity of the request.
Push the limit and take longer than ten days. Claim you're busy assembling their request. If they take it to the District Attorney, that office will wave it off, and you've bought more time.
If someone shows up on your doorstep to make a request, claim you have a meeting to attend in ten minutes and that you must leave immediately. Offer to schedule an appointment, but as far in the future as reasonably possible. In this case, "practicable" means your schedule is very full. Who's to say that you're not accommodating the requester? How are they going to prove you are delaying on purpose? You have a busy schedule, don't you? If you know the requester isn't available at a certain time, insist that's the only available slot you have.
Similarly, schedule meetings with your superiors and governing Boards to discuss the issue, but be sure that all decisions are pushed into the next meeting, and that the next meeting is next month. Again, who's to say you're not working on the issue and getting opinions from all involved?
As soon as you've responded to the requester, regardless of whether you refused their request or surrendered the wrong records, be sure to inform all your superiors that all open records requests have been handled properly and there's nothing to worry about.
Drive them nuts. Be sure to repeat this "as soon as practicable and without delay" phrase to the requester as often as possible with a straight face, especially while scheduling other delays. Dare the requester to point out your hypocrisy. Once they do, use the incident to gain more sympathy from your superiors.
At every turn, paint the requester as a lunatic. As you spend more and more time on these requests, your superiors will encourage you to find under-the-table methods of discouraging future requests and be more willing to look the other way when you actually break the law. They'll join in your little game if you can use it as a team-building exercise.
Don't say more than you have to. The law says you need to surrender records, not explanations. Do not respond to any general questions. If they're asking general questions, say that those do not constitute a valid open records request and that there's no need to respond.
Don't look happy if you don't feel like it. You may be a public servant, but always keep in mind the shining example of the clerks at the driver's license desk at the Department of Transportation. If a requester asks a question, give them a blank stare, ten seconds of silence, followed by the words "I don't know."
Make mistakes. You can always ask for forgiveness. Surrender the wrong records. Forget to hand over some of their request. Split up the request into pieces, give out some, forget others. When they complain, say their request was so complicated and that you were so busy, you made a mistake.
Mea culpa! Big deal! "What are you going to do, make a Federal case of it?" It's not as if you're going to be fired for making a mistake.
The best mistake destroys a record. Zap those e-mails, and later claim you didn't know you had to keep them. Don't make backups. Claim you don't have the budget for that.
Erase audio tapes as soon as someone asks for them. These sorts of literal records are the most dangerous to release. After all, everyone knows the minutes of a meeting are the first opportunity to re-write history. One phrase in the minutes like "It was the general consensus that we should move ahead" will clear away the evidence of an hour of dissent on a tape. Losing the tape is an important part of preserving the official record of the minutes.
If someone asks for an electronic record in electronic form, print it out and destroy the computer file. A database on paper is almost worthless for research, but the printed version probably complies with the legal requirements for preservation of the record.
On the other hand, if the requester makes a mistake of any kind, say a lot about it. You'll look smart for pointing it out, and it'll build sympathy with your superiors. Point out that frivolous and repeated requests need not be answered.
Fake ignorance. This excuse can be especially powerful when you want to eliminate access to all the past records, in order to gain a chance to sanitize them for the future. Attempt to flatter the record-seeker and gain sympathy by claiming they know more about the open records law than you do.
By pretending not to understand the fine points of the law, you can demonstrate to your superiors that you're willing to learn. You can spend time researching the law. This could take a long time. Use it as career advancement and a chance for a field trip. You might need to be sent to a seminar.
Meanwhile, the record-seeker will be forced to explain the law in greater detail, researching and citing case law, referring to other authorities, and consulting with the district attorney or state attorney general's offices.
All this causes a wonderful delay. In the end, you can claim that you didn't realize you were doing it all wrong, but that you'll do it right in the future. Armed with your new knowledge of the law, you can cycle again through the reasons above, except this time you can claim the law is on your side.
Invent authority. Telephone calls are your friend. Claim that an authority confirmed that you need not supply a record. There's no recording of your phone call. When you describe the situation to the authority, you can spin the situation any way you want. After all, you already know the answer you want, you're just looking for confirmation.
When you call the League of Municipalities or the Attorney General's office for advice, be sure to spin the facts in your favor. Leave out important details. Give your side of the story. Return with an answer in your favor, and the burden is back on the shoulders of the requester to prove you wrong.
Hire attorneys. This will show your bosses that you are serious about doing the right thing. It's the taxpayer's money and the taxpayer's information, so it's your responsibility to spend their money to keep the records out of their hands.
Find an attorney who will write nasty letters saying whatever you'd like to say. Remind them that their arguments need not be grounded in the law, and that there's more money available where this came from.
Teach the attorney about these rules and tricks of the trade, if they don't know them already. Believe it or not, you may be more experienced in these tricks than a lawyer. After all, the lawyer has to please the client eventually or they don't get paid. As a bureaucrat, there's no need to satisfy the public's request for information.
- John Foust
Showing posts with label Open Meetings Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Open Meetings Law. Show all posts
Friday, May 30, 2008
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Open Records (LT 5-25-08)
In my opinion, there can be no doubt that the provisions of the Open Meetings Laws and the interpretation of them with the more recent court rulings was used and abused by the ECASD BOE under the Presidency of Mike O'Brien. His decision to withhold the discussions related to the Klaus/Olson backdated document reflected his desire to protect his buddies (Klaus and Olson) and avoid disclosure of their fraudulence. This was further complicated and affirmed by the fact that there WERE NO CONSEQUENCES AT ALL for Klaus for his deception. They just said that he could not get the money early as he was attempting to, Illegally, do.
Maria
Updated: 5/24/2008 11:12:02 PM
Questions raised about open records
By Tom Giffey
Leader-Telegram staff
The controversy surrounding an Eau Claire school administrator's contract has thrown a spotlight on the use of closed meetings by local governments.
In particular, the situation highlights how a recent state appeals court ruling may have a chilling effect on the public's attempts to examine what goes on behind closed doors.
While local government meetings are for the most part open to the public, bodies such as the Eau Claire school board can meet in closed session for specific purposes spelled out in state law. Discussion of personnel matters - including performance evaluations and compensation - are among the exceptions.
And it's under those exceptions that the Eau Claire school board met in closed session several times last year. On Jan. 8, 2007, the board met in closed session to discuss the evaluation of then-Superintendant Bill Klaus. According to minutes of that meeting, the board agreed to allow Klaus to move into another administrative job within the district. At another closed meeting Jan. 22, 2007, the board again discussed the terms of Klaus' contract. Then, at an open session meeting Feb. 5, 2007, the board approved the contract changes, allowing Klaus to become Northstar Middle School principal beginning this school year.
The matter would have ended there except for actions taken last summer by Klaus and Carol Olson, the former school board president. At the behest of Klaus, Olson signed and backdated a document to Feb. 5, stating that the school board had agreed to allow Klaus to begin collecting his retirement stipend payments at age 53, rather than at retirement, as stated in his contract. (Klaus is now under investigation by the school board and police, and was placed on paid leave last month.)
Klaus and Olson have maintained that they were not trying to circumvent the contract; rather, they were clarifying a misunderstanding about when the stipend payments should begin.
In a letter to interim Superintendent James Leary earlier this month, Klaus said the minutes of the Jan. 22, 2007, closed session meeting "do not reflect the issues raised regarding my contract" and "are, at best, incomplete." He also complained that there apparently were no closed session minutes from Feb. 5, 2007, "the very meeting at which the Board addressed and approved the matter of my stipend payments."
However, board members - including current President Carol Craig - have said Klaus' contract wasn't discussed in closed session that evening, an assertion backed up by closed-session minutes obtained by the Leader-Telegram.
Records may be vague
This disagreement highlights one ambiguity in the state's meetings laws: How comprehensive should minutes be? According to an open meetings guidebook published by the state Department of Justice in 2007, the law requires minutes be kept of open and closed session meetings. However, these minutes don't have to be "detailed"; rather, they can merely be records of motions and roll-call votes. In other words, the school board would be operating legally if it talked about Klaus' stipend but didn't write down the discussion's details - as long as proper notification of the closed meeting was given.
But the state attorney general's office said governmental bodies must keep a record of any actions taken in closed meetings, formal or otherwise. The Leader-Telegram requested the opinion, which was written last week by Assistant Attorney General Thomas Bellavia.
"A body must create and preserve an intelligible record of the essential elements of all such decisions regardless of the decision-making method used and regardless of whether a formal motion has been presented to the body," Bellavia wrote.
"Regardless of where the outer limits of the record-keeping requirement ... may lie ... it is clear that every action or determination made by a governmental body on any substantive item of the body's business lies well within those limits," Bellavia wrote.
Eau Claire City Council member Dave Duax worries that the minimal record-keeping requirements of the law could land local governments in trouble if their closed session decisions were questioned in court. He noted that the Department of Justice has stated that government bodies can keep tape recordings of their meetings to satisfy the open records law.
"In Eau Claire, that would be an epiphany," he said. If the school board had recorded its closed-session deliberations about Klaus' contract, "It may have saved the man a job, and saved the Eau Claire school district a significant amount of embarrassment," Duax said.
Coincidentally, the Wisconsin Newspaper Association has begun to press state lawmakers to amend the law to require audio or video recordings of all closed session meetings. In a letter last fall to state Sen. Robert Wirch, D-Pleasant Prairie, WNA Executive Director Peter Fox said the law also should be amended to allow public access to the recordings (and other meeting minutes) after the reasons for the meetings' confidentiality had expired.
Ruling criticized
The WNA effort came on the heels of a 1st District Court of Appeals decision that slammed the door shut on access to closed meeting records in Wisconsin. In December 2006, the appeals court ruled in Sands v. Whitnall, a dispute between the Whitnall school district in Greenfield and a former employee who sought disclosure of what went on in a closed meeting during which her employment was discussed. The court ruled that the meetings law was intended to shield some discussions from the public, and that the law "contains no exceptions to the non-disclosure principle, none for litigation or any other circumstance."
Bill Lueders, president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, called the decision "astoundingly bad." It was appealed, and Lueders hopes the state Supreme Court overturns the ruling. (The high court is expected to announce its decision by the end of June.)
Mike O'Brien - who was Eau Claire school board president until last month - cited Sands v. Whitnall as the reason board members couldn't talk about discussions of Klaus' contract that took place at a closed session meeting Oct. 22. (The board clarified provisions of Klaus' contract in an open session meeting Dec. 17.)
In a Dec. 20 e-mail to the Leader-Telegram, O'Brien wrote that the questions that arose about Klaus' contract involved "information discussed in closed session which I cannot divulge."
In another e-mail, sent April 14, O'Brien wrote that, based on his interpretation of the Sands v. Whitnall ruling, "If the information cannot be disclosed in a court case, it stands to reason it cannot be disclosed to the press."
Lueders, news editor of the Isthmus newspaper in Madison, said the appeals court ruling could be read as a broad prohibition against releasing closed-session information.
"It's an arguably valid interpretation of an astoundingly bad decision," Lueders said. "The fact you could interpret it that way shows what a bad decision it is."
The court ruling notwithstanding, Lueders believes the law allows the release of information from closed session meetings.
"There's no requirement that they treat the (closed session) discussion as part of some top-secret occurrence," he said.
Indeed, earlier this month, the Eau Claire school district responded to a records request from the Leader-Telegram by providing copies of minutes from six closed session meetings last year at which Klaus' contract was discussed. The records weren't completely open, however: Paragraphs were blacked out on three of the documents.
Giffey can be reached at 833-9205, 800-236-7077 or tom.giffey@ecpc.com.
Maria
Updated: 5/24/2008 11:12:02 PM
Questions raised about open records
By Tom Giffey
Leader-Telegram staff
The controversy surrounding an Eau Claire school administrator's contract has thrown a spotlight on the use of closed meetings by local governments.
In particular, the situation highlights how a recent state appeals court ruling may have a chilling effect on the public's attempts to examine what goes on behind closed doors.
While local government meetings are for the most part open to the public, bodies such as the Eau Claire school board can meet in closed session for specific purposes spelled out in state law. Discussion of personnel matters - including performance evaluations and compensation - are among the exceptions.
And it's under those exceptions that the Eau Claire school board met in closed session several times last year. On Jan. 8, 2007, the board met in closed session to discuss the evaluation of then-Superintendant Bill Klaus. According to minutes of that meeting, the board agreed to allow Klaus to move into another administrative job within the district. At another closed meeting Jan. 22, 2007, the board again discussed the terms of Klaus' contract. Then, at an open session meeting Feb. 5, 2007, the board approved the contract changes, allowing Klaus to become Northstar Middle School principal beginning this school year.
The matter would have ended there except for actions taken last summer by Klaus and Carol Olson, the former school board president. At the behest of Klaus, Olson signed and backdated a document to Feb. 5, stating that the school board had agreed to allow Klaus to begin collecting his retirement stipend payments at age 53, rather than at retirement, as stated in his contract. (Klaus is now under investigation by the school board and police, and was placed on paid leave last month.)
Klaus and Olson have maintained that they were not trying to circumvent the contract; rather, they were clarifying a misunderstanding about when the stipend payments should begin.
In a letter to interim Superintendent James Leary earlier this month, Klaus said the minutes of the Jan. 22, 2007, closed session meeting "do not reflect the issues raised regarding my contract" and "are, at best, incomplete." He also complained that there apparently were no closed session minutes from Feb. 5, 2007, "the very meeting at which the Board addressed and approved the matter of my stipend payments."
However, board members - including current President Carol Craig - have said Klaus' contract wasn't discussed in closed session that evening, an assertion backed up by closed-session minutes obtained by the Leader-Telegram.
Records may be vague
This disagreement highlights one ambiguity in the state's meetings laws: How comprehensive should minutes be? According to an open meetings guidebook published by the state Department of Justice in 2007, the law requires minutes be kept of open and closed session meetings. However, these minutes don't have to be "detailed"; rather, they can merely be records of motions and roll-call votes. In other words, the school board would be operating legally if it talked about Klaus' stipend but didn't write down the discussion's details - as long as proper notification of the closed meeting was given.
But the state attorney general's office said governmental bodies must keep a record of any actions taken in closed meetings, formal or otherwise. The Leader-Telegram requested the opinion, which was written last week by Assistant Attorney General Thomas Bellavia.
"A body must create and preserve an intelligible record of the essential elements of all such decisions regardless of the decision-making method used and regardless of whether a formal motion has been presented to the body," Bellavia wrote.
"Regardless of where the outer limits of the record-keeping requirement ... may lie ... it is clear that every action or determination made by a governmental body on any substantive item of the body's business lies well within those limits," Bellavia wrote.
Eau Claire City Council member Dave Duax worries that the minimal record-keeping requirements of the law could land local governments in trouble if their closed session decisions were questioned in court. He noted that the Department of Justice has stated that government bodies can keep tape recordings of their meetings to satisfy the open records law.
"In Eau Claire, that would be an epiphany," he said. If the school board had recorded its closed-session deliberations about Klaus' contract, "It may have saved the man a job, and saved the Eau Claire school district a significant amount of embarrassment," Duax said.
Coincidentally, the Wisconsin Newspaper Association has begun to press state lawmakers to amend the law to require audio or video recordings of all closed session meetings. In a letter last fall to state Sen. Robert Wirch, D-Pleasant Prairie, WNA Executive Director Peter Fox said the law also should be amended to allow public access to the recordings (and other meeting minutes) after the reasons for the meetings' confidentiality had expired.
Ruling criticized
The WNA effort came on the heels of a 1st District Court of Appeals decision that slammed the door shut on access to closed meeting records in Wisconsin. In December 2006, the appeals court ruled in Sands v. Whitnall, a dispute between the Whitnall school district in Greenfield and a former employee who sought disclosure of what went on in a closed meeting during which her employment was discussed. The court ruled that the meetings law was intended to shield some discussions from the public, and that the law "contains no exceptions to the non-disclosure principle, none for litigation or any other circumstance."
Bill Lueders, president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, called the decision "astoundingly bad." It was appealed, and Lueders hopes the state Supreme Court overturns the ruling. (The high court is expected to announce its decision by the end of June.)
Mike O'Brien - who was Eau Claire school board president until last month - cited Sands v. Whitnall as the reason board members couldn't talk about discussions of Klaus' contract that took place at a closed session meeting Oct. 22. (The board clarified provisions of Klaus' contract in an open session meeting Dec. 17.)
In a Dec. 20 e-mail to the Leader-Telegram, O'Brien wrote that the questions that arose about Klaus' contract involved "information discussed in closed session which I cannot divulge."
In another e-mail, sent April 14, O'Brien wrote that, based on his interpretation of the Sands v. Whitnall ruling, "If the information cannot be disclosed in a court case, it stands to reason it cannot be disclosed to the press."
Lueders, news editor of the Isthmus newspaper in Madison, said the appeals court ruling could be read as a broad prohibition against releasing closed-session information.
"It's an arguably valid interpretation of an astoundingly bad decision," Lueders said. "The fact you could interpret it that way shows what a bad decision it is."
The court ruling notwithstanding, Lueders believes the law allows the release of information from closed session meetings.
"There's no requirement that they treat the (closed session) discussion as part of some top-secret occurrence," he said.
Indeed, earlier this month, the Eau Claire school district responded to a records request from the Leader-Telegram by providing copies of minutes from six closed session meetings last year at which Klaus' contract was discussed. The records weren't completely open, however: Paragraphs were blacked out on three of the documents.
Giffey can be reached at 833-9205, 800-236-7077 or tom.giffey@ecpc.com.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA)
From the LT celebrating public access to public records.
Light let in on access to public records
Sunshine Week calls attention to Freedom of Information Act
By Candy Czernicki
Chippewa Falls News Bureau
Sunshine Week couldn't come at a better time, with most Chippewa Valley residents longing for an end to gray skies and snow.
But the annual event has less to do with cheering up winter-weary people and more with shining a bright light on free and open access to public records.
Sunshine Week, sponsored yearly by media, government and education partners, is designed to call attention to the Freedom of Information Act, signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on July 4, 1966. It was amended in 2002.
A variety of public records are available for Chippewa Valley residents to inspect, including property ownership, motor vehicle, voter registration, political contributions and court proceedings. Most record searches involve a trip to the county courthouse.
Court records, including criminal, civil, traffic and probate cases, remain in a state online database for anywhere from five to 100 years, depending on the type of case. It's still not enough to help de-clutter most clerk of courts offices.
"I was just at a meeting on remodeling in conjunction with the jail," said Diana Miller, Eau Claire County clerk of courts. "I was thinking, 'Oh, my, what am I going to do for storage?' I don't think we have enough space in the room for this year's records."
Records of cases long past reside in "dead storage" or are microfilmed, Miller said, but "the wave of the future is scanning records. We would have the ability to do that now - we can even get the equipment free - but we don't have the staff. I did ask two years in a row for the staff to do that, but that's just not been in the budget."
The Wisconsin Supreme Court is expected to approve a petition regarding the use of electronic signatures, which usually involves the acceptance of a person's typed rather than handwritten name, and electronic filing. Once that happens, "electronic filing will be opened up," Miller said.
"It's a great feature and hopefully a time-saver for our office. We do pull records a lot."
Currently those records cost money, from $1.25 per page for copies to $5 for a clerk-assisted records search.
"We're trying to be reasonable about giving people access to information, but at some point you have to pay for it," Miller said.
Scanned records would be available at a public access computer linked to the Wisconsin Circuit Court Access Web site, known as CCAP, for Consolidated Court Automation Programs.
Karen Hepfler, Chippewa County clerk of courts, said that while scanning would help with space issues, "we would like to start scanning as well for certain types of records routinely requested - perhaps not the whole file but a judgment of conviction or final divorce judgment."
Easier access to those records would help county clerk's office staff and residents, Hepfler said.
"Most folks request personal records," she said. "Usually sometime in the future (after a case has been settled) they find out from a new employer or at a job interview that they would like that information, and they don't have their copy any longer.
"A lot of times, different branches of the military come in for that reason as well, to assist folks going into the service in getting all the documents before they go in."
Czernicki can be reached at 723-0303 or candy. czernicki@ecpc.com.
Light let in on access to public records
Sunshine Week calls attention to Freedom of Information Act
By Candy Czernicki
Chippewa Falls News Bureau
Sunshine Week couldn't come at a better time, with most Chippewa Valley residents longing for an end to gray skies and snow.
But the annual event has less to do with cheering up winter-weary people and more with shining a bright light on free and open access to public records.
Sunshine Week, sponsored yearly by media, government and education partners, is designed to call attention to the Freedom of Information Act, signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on July 4, 1966. It was amended in 2002.
A variety of public records are available for Chippewa Valley residents to inspect, including property ownership, motor vehicle, voter registration, political contributions and court proceedings. Most record searches involve a trip to the county courthouse.
Court records, including criminal, civil, traffic and probate cases, remain in a state online database for anywhere from five to 100 years, depending on the type of case. It's still not enough to help de-clutter most clerk of courts offices.
"I was just at a meeting on remodeling in conjunction with the jail," said Diana Miller, Eau Claire County clerk of courts. "I was thinking, 'Oh, my, what am I going to do for storage?' I don't think we have enough space in the room for this year's records."
Records of cases long past reside in "dead storage" or are microfilmed, Miller said, but "the wave of the future is scanning records. We would have the ability to do that now - we can even get the equipment free - but we don't have the staff. I did ask two years in a row for the staff to do that, but that's just not been in the budget."
The Wisconsin Supreme Court is expected to approve a petition regarding the use of electronic signatures, which usually involves the acceptance of a person's typed rather than handwritten name, and electronic filing. Once that happens, "electronic filing will be opened up," Miller said.
"It's a great feature and hopefully a time-saver for our office. We do pull records a lot."
Currently those records cost money, from $1.25 per page for copies to $5 for a clerk-assisted records search.
"We're trying to be reasonable about giving people access to information, but at some point you have to pay for it," Miller said.
Scanned records would be available at a public access computer linked to the Wisconsin Circuit Court Access Web site, known as CCAP, for Consolidated Court Automation Programs.
Karen Hepfler, Chippewa County clerk of courts, said that while scanning would help with space issues, "we would like to start scanning as well for certain types of records routinely requested - perhaps not the whole file but a judgment of conviction or final divorce judgment."
Easier access to those records would help county clerk's office staff and residents, Hepfler said.
"Most folks request personal records," she said. "Usually sometime in the future (after a case has been settled) they find out from a new employer or at a job interview that they would like that information, and they don't have their copy any longer.
"A lot of times, different branches of the military come in for that reason as well, to assist folks going into the service in getting all the documents before they go in."
Czernicki can be reached at 723-0303 or candy. czernicki@ecpc.com.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Promoting Open Government and Transparency
This is an article from the Oshkosh Northwestern that highlights the importance of "transparency" and openness in our local government process. The Wisconsin Attorney General, J.B. Van Hollen is promoting seminars around the state to inform local officials and citizens about the Open Meetings and Public Records laws.
Can we hope that a member of our BOE will choose to attend one of these and promote this process which, I believe, has been forgotten here in the ECASD?
Maria
Editorial: AG continues push for 'Open Government' awareness
September 12, 2007
Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen is doing the right thing in
continuing the office's "Open Government" seminars, open meetings held
around the state to educate local officials and citizens on the ins
and outs of Wisconsin's Open Meetings and Public Records laws.
Van Hollen, the first Republican state attorney general since 1991,
continues a noble tradition that encourages people to get acquainted
with two powerful, citizen-focused laws. He also rejects would could
have been an ugly partisan move: Ditching these Democratic-launched
meetings that date back to the 1990s all-together.
The attorney general's office will host six Open Government seminars
around Wisconsin starting Sept. 18.
There are two things that Van Hollen and his staff can do to improve
their turnout and quality.
First: Get tough and push local government representatives in
attendance, whether they are from school, town, city or county boards,
always "err on the side of openness" when confronted with a decision
to close a public meeting or reject an Open Records request.
If past Open Government seminars have suffered from anything, it has
been repeated questions from galleries packed full of local officials,
grilling AG staff on what suspect tactics could legally pass in
efforts to enter into "executive session" or to reject public requests
for electronic and paper documents.
Trust us – The Northwestern has sent reporters to these seminars in
the past. They've heard the tortured logic from mayors to municipal
attorneys.
The meetings devolve into "How-Can-We-Get-Away-With-This" explorations
as town, village, city and county officials and attorneys raise hands
and scenarios, citing when they or their governments have been
confronted with the decision to keep things open or slam doors in
faces. . The AG's people can always do more to make "err on the side
of openness" a mantra for all.
Hopefully, our state open government experts in the Department of
Justice won't mind adopting a little swagger during these meetings. If
they get lip from public servants angling to warp the law to public's
disadvantage, they shouldn't hesitate to get stern and remind said
public servants who they serve.
Second, Van Hollen and his staff need to make sure everyday citizens
are equally aware of the Open Government seminars and feel equally
welcome to attend.
The seminars are free, so that's a huge bonus. But, as previously
noted, they are often crammed by local government officials.
It's important to make sure our elected leaders and public staff are
up to speed on important transparency laws.
Let's make sure the people who expect open meetings and ask for
records have plenty of awareness and seats to attend, too.
Final Thought: Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen take simples
steps to help further the cause of "Open Government" seminars in
Wisconsin.
Can we hope that a member of our BOE will choose to attend one of these and promote this process which, I believe, has been forgotten here in the ECASD?
Maria
Editorial: AG continues push for 'Open Government' awareness
September 12, 2007
Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen is doing the right thing in
continuing the office's "Open Government" seminars, open meetings held
around the state to educate local officials and citizens on the ins
and outs of Wisconsin's Open Meetings and Public Records laws.
Van Hollen, the first Republican state attorney general since 1991,
continues a noble tradition that encourages people to get acquainted
with two powerful, citizen-focused laws. He also rejects would could
have been an ugly partisan move: Ditching these Democratic-launched
meetings that date back to the 1990s all-together.
The attorney general's office will host six Open Government seminars
around Wisconsin starting Sept. 18.
There are two things that Van Hollen and his staff can do to improve
their turnout and quality.
First: Get tough and push local government representatives in
attendance, whether they are from school, town, city or county boards,
always "err on the side of openness" when confronted with a decision
to close a public meeting or reject an Open Records request.
If past Open Government seminars have suffered from anything, it has
been repeated questions from galleries packed full of local officials,
grilling AG staff on what suspect tactics could legally pass in
efforts to enter into "executive session" or to reject public requests
for electronic and paper documents.
Trust us – The Northwestern has sent reporters to these seminars in
the past. They've heard the tortured logic from mayors to municipal
attorneys.
The meetings devolve into "How-Can-We-Get-Away-With-This" explorations
as town, village, city and county officials and attorneys raise hands
and scenarios, citing when they or their governments have been
confronted with the decision to keep things open or slam doors in
faces. . The AG's people can always do more to make "err on the side
of openness" a mantra for all.
Hopefully, our state open government experts in the Department of
Justice won't mind adopting a little swagger during these meetings. If
they get lip from public servants angling to warp the law to public's
disadvantage, they shouldn't hesitate to get stern and remind said
public servants who they serve.
Second, Van Hollen and his staff need to make sure everyday citizens
are equally aware of the Open Government seminars and feel equally
welcome to attend.
The seminars are free, so that's a huge bonus. But, as previously
noted, they are often crammed by local government officials.
It's important to make sure our elected leaders and public staff are
up to speed on important transparency laws.
Let's make sure the people who expect open meetings and ask for
records have plenty of awareness and seats to attend, too.
Final Thought: Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen take simples
steps to help further the cause of "Open Government" seminars in
Wisconsin.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Let the Sunshine In!
The ECASD BOE is a publicly elected body that is required to function in compliance with the Wisconsin State Open Meetings Law (OML). This is all part of what is considered "Good Government" and it keeps elected officials accountable to the public for their decisions. The Open Meetings Law addresses everything from requiring meetings to be held in Open Session, prohibiting elected officials from meeting privately or creating "Walking Quorums" and notification of meetings so that the public is informed and can participate in the process.
Please go to this link to see the OML Guide that is very informative about what our expectations as the public can and should be for the process: www.doj.state.wi.us/AWP/OpenMeetings/2005-OML-GUIDE.pdf
There was a recent opinion by the WI State Supreme Court that ruled against the Tomah School Board for their failure to properly notify the public about meetings with Agendas that have adequate information. Please go to this link to read about the decision: http://www.tomahjournal.com/articles/2007/06/14/news/01news.txt
Even if the ECASD is in legal compliance with the OML the amount of information disseminated to the public about agenda items is pathetic. I have been asking that all pertinent information about Agenda items be posted on the web in advance of the meeting so public participation can be meaningful.
You could help in the process of letting the light of day fall on more information by writing BOE members and requesting that more information is posted and available to the public in a more timely manner. How can we participate if we don't have any information?
Please go to this link to see the OML Guide that is very informative about what our expectations as the public can and should be for the process: www.doj.state.wi.us/AWP/OpenMeetings/2005-OML-GUIDE.pdf
There was a recent opinion by the WI State Supreme Court that ruled against the Tomah School Board for their failure to properly notify the public about meetings with Agendas that have adequate information. Please go to this link to read about the decision: http://www.tomahjournal.com/articles/2007/06/14/news/01news.txt
Even if the ECASD is in legal compliance with the OML the amount of information disseminated to the public about agenda items is pathetic. I have been asking that all pertinent information about Agenda items be posted on the web in advance of the meeting so public participation can be meaningful.
You could help in the process of letting the light of day fall on more information by writing BOE members and requesting that more information is posted and available to the public in a more timely manner. How can we participate if we don't have any information?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)