19.35 Annotation A settlement agreement containing a pledge of confidentiality kept in the possession of a school district's attorney was a public record subject to public access under sub. (3). Journal/Sentinel v. School District of Shorewood, 186 Wis. 2d 443, 521 N.W.2d 165 (Ct. App. 1994).
19.35 Annotation The denial of a prisoner's information request regarding illegal behavior by guards on the grounds that it could compromise the guards' effectiveness and subject them to harassment was insufficient. State ex. rel. Ledford v. Turcotte, 195 Wis. 2d 244, 536 N.W.2d 130 (Ct. App. 1995).
19.35 Annotation The amount of prepayment required for copies may be based on a reasonable estimate. State ex rel. Hill v. Zimmerman, 196 Wis. 2d 419, 538 N.W.2d 608 (Ct. App. 1995).
19.35 Annotation The Foust decision does not automatically exempt all records stored in a closed prosecutorial file. The exemption is limited to material actually pertaining to the prosecution. Nichols v. Bennett, 199 Wis. 2d 268, 544 N.W.2d 428 (1996).
19.35 Annotation Department of Regulation and Licensing test scores were subject to disclosure under the open records law. Munroe v. Braatz, 201 Wis. 2d 442, 549 N.W.2d 452 (Ct. App. 1996).
19.35 Annotation Subs. (1) (i) and (3) (f) did not permit a demand for prepayment of $1.29 in response to a mail request for a record. Borzych v. Paluszcyk, 201 Wis. 2d 523, 549 N.W.2d 253 (Ct. App. 1996).
19.35 Annotation Personal records in the hands of an authority are not exempt from the open records law. The custodian of the records must consider all relevant factors, balancing public and private interests, in determining whether the records should be released. The individual whose personal interests are implicated by the potential release of the records may intervene and seek circuit court review of a decision to release the records. Woznicki v. Erickson, 202 Wis. 2d 178, 549 N.W.2d 699 (1996).
19.35 Annotation An agency cannot promulgate an administrative rule that creates an exception to the open records law. Chavala v. Bubolz, 204 Wis. 2d 82, 552 N.W.2d 892 (Ct. App. 1996).
19.35 Annotation While certain statutes grant explicit exceptions to the open records law, many statutes set out broad categories of records not open to an open records request. A custodian faced with such a broad statute must state with specificity a public policy reason for refusing to release the requested record. Chavala v. Bubolz, 204 Wis. 2d 82, 552 N.W.2d 892 (Ct. App. 1996).
19.35 Annotation The custodian is not authorized to comply with an open records request at some unspecified date in the future. Such a response constitutes a denial of the request. WTMJ, Inc. v. Sullivan, 204 Wis. 2d 452, 555 N.W.2d 125 (Ct. App. 1996).
19.35 Annotation Subject to the redaction of officers' home addresses and supervisors' conclusions and recommendations regarding discipline, police records regarding use of deadly force are subject to public inspection. State ex rel. Journal/Sentinel, Inc. v. Arreola, 207 Wis. 2d 496, 558 N.W.2d 670 (Ct. App. 1996).
19.35 Annotation A public school student's interim grades are pupil records specifically exempted from disclosure under s. 118.125. If records are specifically exempted from disclosure, failure to specifically state reasons for denying an open records request for those records does not compel disclosure of those records. State ex rel. Blum v. Board of Education, 209 Wis. 2d 377, 565 N.W.2d 140 (Ct. App. 1997).
19.35 Annotation Requesting a copy of 180 hours of audiotape of "911" calls, together with a transcription of the tape and log of each transmission received, was a request without "reasonable limitation" and was not a "sufficient request" under sub. (1) (h). Schopper v. Gehring, 210 Wis. 2d 209, 565 N.W.2d 187 (Ct. App. 1997).
19.35 Annotation When access is sought to any records that pertain to an individual, the targeted individual has a right to notification and to seek court review of the decision if the record custodian agrees to release the information. The test outlined in Woznicki applies to personnel records of public sector employees. Klein v. Wisconsin Resource Center, 218 Wis. 2d 487, 582 N.W.2d 44 (Ct. App. 1998).
19.35 Annotation If the requested information is covered by an exempting statute that does not require a balancing of public interests, there is no need for a custodian to conduct such a balancing. Written denial claiming a statutory exception by citing the specific statute or regulation is sufficient. State ex rel. Savinski v. Kimble, 221 Wis. 2d 833, 586 N.W.2d 36 (Ct. App. 1998).
19.35 Annotation Pursuant to Woznicki, the circuit court has a two-pronged role in reviewing a custodian's decision to release records over the record subject's objection. First the court determines if the custodian performed the appropriate balancing test. Then the court performs a de novo independent review in which the taking of additional evidence is permitted. It was proper for the court to review newspaper articles regarding the subject of the records and to consider that the information already available to the public had already lessened the subject's reputation. Kailin v. Rainwater, 226 Wis. 2d 134, 593 N.W.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1999).
19.35 Annotation Protecting persons who supply information or opinions about an inmate to the parole commission is a public interest that may outweigh the public interest in access to documents that could identify those persons. State ex rel. Bergmann v. Faust, 226 Wis. 2d 273, 595 N.W.2d 75 (Ct. App. 1999).
19.35 Annotation An employee's right to de novo judicial review of a decision to release information from personnel records recognized Woznicki applies in all cases in which any record custodian decides to disclose information implicating the privacy or reputational interests of a public employee. Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association v. Milwaukee Board of School Directors, 227 Wis. 2d 779, 596 N.W.2d 403 (1999).
19.35 Annotation Individual employees have a strong privacy interest in their names, particularly when coupled with their occupation, wages and hours, and place of employment, and the public has a strong interest in protecting that privacy. That public interest substantially outweighs the public interest favoring disclosure of the names in a public records request for wage records of private employees performing a government contract subject to s. 66.293. Kraemer Brothers, Inc. v. Dane County, 229 Wis. 2d 86, 599 N.W.2d 75 (Ct. App. 1999).
19.35 Annotation The ultimate purchasers of municipal bonds from the bond's underwriter, whose only obligation was to purchase the bonds, were not "contractor's records under sub. (3). Machotka v. Village of West Salem, 2000 WI App 43, 233 Wis. 2d 106, 607 N.W.2d 319.
19.35 Annotation Examination of birth records cannot be denied simply because the examiner has a commercial purpose. 58 Atty. Gen. 67.
19.35 Annotation Consideration of a resolution is a formal action of an administrative or minor governing body and when taken in a proper closed session, the resolution and result of the vote must be made available for public inspection absent a specific showing that the public interest would be adversely affected. 60 Atty. Gen. 9.
19.35 Annotation Inspection of public records obtained under official pledges of confidentiality may be denied if: (1) a clear pledge has been made in order to obtain the information, (2) the pledge was necessary to obtain the information, and (3) the custodian determines that the harm to the public interest resulting from inspection would outweigh the public interest in full access to public records. The custodian must permit inspection of information submitted under an official pledge of confidentiality if the official or agency had specific statutory authority to require its submission. 60 Atty. Gen. 284.
19.35 Annotation The right to inspection and copying of public records in decentralized offices is discussed. 61 Atty. Gen. 12.
19.35 Annotation Public records subject to inspection and copying by any person would include a list of students awaiting a particular program in a VTAE (technical college) district school. 61 Atty. Gen. 297.
19.35 Annotation The investment board can only deny members of the public from inspecting and copying portions of the minutes relating to the investment of state funds and documents pertaining thereto on a case-by-case basis if valid reasons for denial exist and are specially stated. 61 Atty. Gen. 361.
19.35 Annotation Matters and documents in the possession or control of school district officials containing information concerning the salaries, including fringe benefits, paid to individual teachers are matters of public record. 63 Atty. Gen. 143.
19.35 Annotation The scope of the duty of the governor to allow members of the public to examine and copy public records in his custody is discussed. 63 Atty. Gen. 400.
19.35 Annotation The public's right to inspect land acquisition files of the department of natural resources is discussed. 63 Atty. Gen. 573.
19.35 Annotation Financial statements filed in connection with applications for motor vehicle dealers' and motor vehicle salvage dealers' licenses are public records, subject to limitations. 66 Atty. Gen. 302.
19.35 Annotation Sheriff's radio logs, intradepartmental documents kept by the sheriff and blood test records of deceased automobile drivers in the hands of the sheriff are public records, subject to limitations. 67 Atty. Gen. 12.
19.35 Annotation The right to examine and copy computer-stored information is discussed. 68 Atty. Gen. 231.
19.35 Annotation After the transcript of court proceedings is filed with the clerk of court, any person may examine or copy the transcript. 68 Atty. Gen. 313.
19.35 Annotation A custodian may not require a requester to pay the cost of an unrequested certification. Unless the fee for copies of records is established by law, a custodian may not charge more than the actual and direct cost of reproduction. 72 Atty. Gen. 36.
19.35 Annotation Copying fees, but not location fees, may be imposed on a requester for the cost of a computer run. 72 Atty. Gen. 68.
19.35 AnnotationThe fee for copying public records is discussed. 72 Atty. Gen. 150.
19.35 Annotation Public records relating to employee grievances are not generally exempt from disclosure. Nondisclosure must be justified on a case-by-case basis. 73 Atty. Gen. 20.
19.35 Annotation The disclosure of an employee's birthdate, sex, ethnic heritage and handicapped status is discussed. 73 Atty. Gen. 26.
19.35 Annotation The department of regulation and licensing may refuse to disclose records relating to complaints against health care professionals while the matters are merely "under investigation"; good faith disclosure of the same will not expose the custodian to liability for damages; prospective continuing requests for records are not contemplated by public records law. 73 Atty. Gen. 37.
19.35 AnnotationProsecutors' case files are exempt from disclosure. 74 Atty. Gen. 4.
19.35 Annotation The relationship between the public records law and pledges of confidentiality in settlement agreements is discussed. 74 Atty. Gen. 14.
19.35 Annotation Ambulance records relating to medical history, condition or treatment are confidential while other ambulance call records are subject to disclosure under public records law. 78 Atty. Gen. 71.
19.36 19.36 Limitations upon access and withholding.
19.36(1)(1)Application of other laws. Any record which is specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal law or authorized to be exempted from disclosure by state law is exempt from disclosure under s. 19.35 (1), except that any portion of that record which contains public information is open to public inspection as provided in sub. (6).
19.36(2) (2)Law enforcement records. Except as otherwise provided by law, whenever federal law or regulations require or as a condition to receipt of aids by this state require that any record relating to investigative information obtained for law enforcement purposes be withheld from public access, then that information is exempt from disclosure under s. 19.35 (1).
19.36(3) (3)Contractors' records. Each authority shall make available for inspection and copying under s. 19.35 (1) any record produced or collected under a contract entered into by the authority with a person other than an authority to the same extent as if the record were maintained by the authority. This subsection does not apply to the inspection or copying of a record under s. 19.35 (1) (am).
19.36(4) (4)Computer programs and data. A computer program, as defined in s. 16.971 (4) (c), is not subject to examination or copying under s. 19.35 (1), but the material used as input for a computer program or the material produced as a product of the computer program is subject to the right of examination and copying, except as otherwise provided in s. 19.35 or this section.
19.36(5) (5)Trade secrets. An authority may withhold access to any record or portion of a record containing information qualifying as a trade secret as defined in s. 134.90 (1) (c).
19.36(6) (6)Separation of information. If a record contains information that is subject to disclosure under s. 19.35 (1) (a) or (am) and information that is not subject to such disclosure, the authority having custody of the record shall provide the information that is subject to disclosure and delete the information that is not subject to disclosure from the record before release.
19.36(7) (7)Identities of applicants for public positions.
19.36(7)(a)(a) In this section, "final candidate" means each applicant for a position who is seriously considered for appointment or whose name is certified for appointment and whose name is submitted for final consideration to an authority for appointment to any state position, except a position in the classified service, or to any local public office, as defined in s. 19.42 (7w). "Final candidate" includes, whenever there are at least 5 candidates for an office or position, each of the 5 candidates who are considered most qualified for the office or position by an authority, and whenever there are less than 5 candidates for an office or position, each such candidate. Whenever an appointment is to be made from a group of more than 5 candidates, "final candidate" also includes each candidate in the group.
19.36(7)(b) (b) Every applicant for a position with any authority may indicate in writing to the authority that the applicant does not wish the authority to reveal his or her identity. Except with respect to an applicant whose name is certified for appointment to a position in the state classified service or a final candidate, if an applicant makes such an indication in writing, the authority shall not provide access to any record related to the application that may reveal the identity of the applicant.
19.36(8) (8)Identities of law enforcement informants.
19.36(8)(a)(a) In this subsection:
19.36(8)(a)1. 1. "Informant" means an individual who requests confidentiality from a law enforcement agency in conjunction with providing information to that agency or, pursuant to an express promise of confidentiality by a law enforcement agency or under circumstances in which a promise of confidentiality would reasonably be implied, provides information to a law enforcement agency or, is working with a law enforcement agency to obtain information, related in any case to any of the following:
19.36(8)(a)1.a. a. Another person who the individual or the law enforcement agency suspects has violated, is violating or will violate a federal law, a law of any state or an ordinance of any local government.
19.36(8)(a)1.b. b. Past, present or future activities that the individual or law enforcement agency believes may violate a federal law, a law of any state or an ordinance of any local government.
19.36(8)(a)2. 2. "Law enforcement agency" has the the meaning given in s. 165.83 (1) (b), and includes the department of corrections.
19.36(8)(b) (b) If an authority that is a law enforcement agency receives a request to inspect or copy a record or portion of a record under s. 19.35 (1) (a) that contains specific information including but not limited to a name, address, telephone number, voice recording or handwriting sample which, if disclosed, would identify an informant, the authority shall delete the portion of the record in which the information is contained or, if no portion of the record can be inspected or copied without identifying the informant, shall withhold the record unless the legal custodian of the record, designated under s. 19.33, makes a determination, at the time that the request is made, that the public interest in allowing a person to inspect, copy or receive a copy of such identifying information outweighs the harm done to the public interest by providing such access.
19.36(9) (9)Records of plans or specifications for state buildings. Records containing plans or specifications for any state-owned or state-leased building, structure or facility or any proposed state-owned or state-leased building, structure or facility are not subject to the right of inspection or copying under s. 19.35 (1) except as the department of administration otherwise provides by rule.
19.36 Annotation Sub. (2) does not require providing access to payroll records of subcontractors of a prime contractor of a public construction project. Building and Construction Trades Council v. Waunakee Community School District, 221 Wis. 2d 575, 585 N.W.2d 726 (Ct. App. 1999).
19.36 AnnotationSeparation costs must be borne by the agency. 72 Atty. Gen. 99.
19.36 Annotation A computerized compilation of bibliographic records is discussed in relation to copyright law; a requester is entitled to a copy of computer tape or a printout of information on the tape. 75 Atty. Gen. 133 (1986).
19.36 Annotation An exemption to the federal Freedom of Information Act was not incorporated under sub. (1). 77 Atty. Gen. 20.
19.36 Annotation Sub. (7) is an exception to the public records law and should be narrowly construed. In sub. (7) "applicant" and "candidate" are synonymous. "Final candidates" are the five most qualified unless there are less than five applicants, in which case all are final candidates. 81 Atty. Gen. 37.
19.36 Annotation Public access to law enforcement records. Fitzgerald. 68 MLR 705 (1985).
19.365 19.365 Rights of data subject to challenge; authority corrections.
19.365(1)(1) Except as provided under sub. (2), an individual or person authorized by the individual may challenge the accuracy of a record containing personally identifiable information pertaining to the individual that is maintained by an authority if the individual is authorized to inspect the record under s. 19.35 (1) (a) or (am) and the individual notifies the authority, in writing, of the challenge. After receiving the notice, the authority shall do one of the following:
19.365(1)(a) (a) Concur with the challenge and correct the information.
19.365(1)(b) (b) Deny the challenge, notify the individual or person authorized by the individual of the denial and allow the individual or person authorized by the individual to file a concise statement setting forth the reasons for the individual's disagreement with the disputed portion of the record. A state authority that denies a challenge shall also notify the individual or person authorized by the individual of the reasons for the denial.
19.365(2) (2) This section does not apply to any of the following records:
19.365(2)(a) (a) Any record transferred to an archival depository under s. 16.61 (13).
19.365(2)(b) (b) Any record pertaining to an individual if a specific state statute or federal law governs challenges to the accuracy of the record.
19.365 History History: 1991 a. 269 ss. 27d, 27e, 35am, 37am, 39am.
19.37 19.37 Enforcement and penalties.
19.37(1) (1)Mandamus. If an authority withholds a record or a part of a record or delays granting access to a record or part of a record after a written request for disclosure is made, the requester may pursue either, or both, of the alternatives under pars. (a) and (b).
19.37(1)(a) (a) The requester may bring an action for mandamus asking a court to order release of the record. The court may permit the parties or their attorneys to have access to the requested record under restrictions or protective orders as the court deems appropriate.
19.37(1)(b) (b) The requester may, in writing, request the district attorney of the county where the record is found, or request the attorney general, to bring an action for mandamus asking a court to order release of the record to the requester. The district attorney or attorney general may bring such an action.
19.37(1m) (1m)Time for commencing action. No action for mandamus under sub. (1) to challenge the denial of a request for access to a record or part of a record may be commenced by any committed or incarcerated person later than 90 days after the date that the request is denied by the authority having custody of the record or part of the record.
19.37(1n) (1n)Notice of claim. Sections 893.80 and 893.82 do not apply to actions commenced under this section.
19.37(2) (2)Costs, fees and damages.
19.37(2)(a)(a) Except as provided in this paragraph, the court shall award reasonable attorney fees, damages of not less than $100, and other actual costs to the requester if the requester prevails in whole or in substantial part in any action filed under sub. (1) relating to access to a record or part of a record under s. 19.35 (1) (a). If the requester is a committed or incarcerated person, the requester is not entitled to any minimum amount of damages, but the court may award damages. Costs and fees shall be paid by the authority affected or the unit of government of which it is a part, or by the unit of government by which the legal custodian under s. 19.33 is employed and may not become a personal liability of any public official.
19.37(2)(b) (b) In any action filed under sub. (1) relating to access to a record or part of a record under s. 19.35 (1) (am), if the court finds that the authority acted in a wilful or intentional manner, the court shall award the individual actual damages sustained by the individual as a consequence of the failure.
19.37(3) (3)Punitive damages. If a court finds that an authority or legal custodian under s. 19.33 has arbitrarily and capriciously denied or delayed response to a request or charged excessive fees, the court may award punitive damages to the requester.
19.37(4) (4)Penalty. Any authority which or legal custodian under s. 19.33 who arbitrarily and capriciously denies or delays response to a request or charges excessive fees may be required to forfeit not more than $1,000. Forfeitures under this section shall be enforced by action on behalf of the state by the attorney general or by the district attorney of any county where a violation occurs. In actions brought by the attorney general, the court shall award any forfeiture recovered together with reasonable costs to the state; and in actions brought by the district attorney, the court shall award any forfeiture recovered together with reasonable costs to the county.
19.37 History History: 1981 c. 335, 391; 1991 a. 269 s. 43d; 1995 a. 158; 1997 a. 94.
19.37 Annotation A party seeking fees under sub. (2) must show that the prosecution of an action could reasonably be regarded as necessary to obtain the information and that a "causal nexus" exists between that action and the agency's surrender of the information. State ex rel. Vaughan v. Faust, 143 Wis. 2d 868, 422 N.W.2d 898 (Ct. App. 1988).
19.37 Annotation If an agency exercises due diligence but is unable to respond timely to a records request, the plaintiff must show that a mandamus action was necessary to secure the records release to qualify for award of fees and costs under sub. (2). Racine Ed. Ass'n. v. Bd. of Ed., 145 Wis. 2d 518, 427 N.W.2d 414 (Ct. App. 1988).
Loading...
Loading...
This is an archival version of the Wis. Stats. database for 1999. See Are the Statutes on this Website Official?