Chapter 19

19.851(3)(a) (a) To consider whether there is a reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that a violation of the law occurred or is occurring based on a complaint and, if received, a response to that complaint.

19.851(3)(b) (b) To receive reports concerning audit findings and consider whether there is a reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that a violation of the law occurred or is occurring.

19.851 History History: 2007 a. 1; 2015 a. 118; 2023 a. 120.

19.86 19.86 Notice of collective bargaining negotiations. Notwithstanding s. 19.82 (1), where notice has been given by either party to a collective bargaining agreement under subch. I, IV, or V of ch. 111 to reopen such agreement at its expiration date, the employer shall give notice of such contract reopening as provided in s. 19.84 (1) (b). If the employer is not a governmental body, notice shall be given by the employer’s chief officer or such person’s designee.

19.86 History History: 1975 c. 426; 1987 a. 305; 1993 a. 215; 1995 a. 27; 2007 a. 20; 2009 a. 28; 2011 a. 10.

19.87 19.87 Legislative meetings. This subchapter shall apply to all meetings of the senate and assembly and the committees, subcommittees and other subunits thereof, except that:

19.87(1) (1) Section 19.84 shall not apply to any meeting of the legislature or a subunit thereof called solely for the purpose of scheduling business before the legislative body; or adopting resolutions of which the sole purpose is scheduling business before the senate or the assembly.

19.87(2) (2) No provision of this subchapter which conflicts with a rule of the senate or assembly or joint rule of the legislature shall apply to a meeting conducted in compliance with such rule.

19.87(3) (3) No provision of this subchapter shall apply to any partisan caucus of the senate or any partisan caucus of the assembly, except as provided by legislative rule.

19.87(4) (4) Meetings of the senate or assembly committee on organization under s. 71.78 (4) (c) or 77.61 (5) (b) 3. shall be closed to the public.

19.87 History History: 1975 c. 426; 1977 c. 418; 1987 a. 312 s. 17.

19.87 Annotation Former open meetings law, s. 66.74 (4) (g), 1973 stats., that excepted “partisan caucuses of the members” of the state legislature from coverage of the law applied to a closed meeting of the members of one political party on a legislative committee to discuss a bill. The contention that this exception was only intended to apply to the partisan caucuses of the whole houses would have been supportable if the exception were simply for “partisan caucuses of the state legislature” rather than partisan caucuses of members of the state legislature. State ex rel. Lynch v. Conta, 71 Wis. 2d 662, 239 N.W.2d 313 (1976).

19.87 Annotation In contrast to former s. 66.74 (4) (g), 1973 stats., sub. (3) applies to partisan caucuses of the houses, rather than to caucuses of members of the houses. State ex rel. Newspapers Inc. v. Showers, 135 Wis. 2d 77, 398 N.W.2d 154 (1987).

19.88 19.88 Ballots, votes and records.

19.88(1) (1) Unless otherwise specifically provided by statute, no secret ballot may be utilized to determine any election or other decision of a governmental body except the election of the officers of such body in any meeting.

19.88(2) (2) Except as provided in sub. (1) in the case of officers, any member of a governmental body may require that a vote be taken at any meeting in such manner that the vote of each member is ascertained and recorded.

19.88(3) (3) The motions and roll call votes of each meeting of a governmental body shall be recorded, preserved and open to public inspection to the extent prescribed in subch. II of ch. 19.

19.88 History History: 1975 c. 426; 1981 c. 335 s. 26.

19.88 Annotation The plaintiff newspaper argued that sub. (3), which requires “the motions and roll call votes of each meeting of a governmental body shall be recorded, preserved and open to public inspection,” in turn, required the defendant commission to record and disclose the information the newspaper requested under the open records law. The newspaper could not seek relief under the public records law for the commission’s alleged violation of the open meetings law and could not recover reasonable attorney fees, damages, and other actual costs under s. 19.37 (2) for an alleged violation of the open meetings law. Journal Times v. City of Racine Board of Police & Fire Commissioners, 2015 WI 56, 362 Wis. 2d 577, 866 N.W.2d 563, 13-1715.

19.88 Annotation Under sub. (1), a common council may not vote to fill a vacancy on the common council by secret ballot. 65 Atty. Gen. 131.

19.89 19.89 Exclusion of members. No duly elected or appointed member of a governmental body may be excluded from any meeting of such body. Unless the rules of a governmental body provide to the contrary, no member of the body may be excluded from any meeting of a subunit of that governmental body.

19.89 History History: 1975 c. 426.

19.90 19.90 Use of equipment in open session. Whenever a governmental body holds a meeting in open session, the body shall make a reasonable effort to accommodate any person desiring to record, film or photograph the meeting. This section does not permit recording, filming or photographing such a meeting in a manner that interferes with the conduct of the meeting or the rights of the participants.

19.90 History History: 1977 c. 322.

19.96 19.96 Penalty. Any member of a governmental body who knowingly attends a meeting of such body held in violation of this subchapter, or who, in his or her official capacity, otherwise violates this subchapter by some act or omission shall forfeit without reimbursement not less than $25 nor more than $300 for each such violation. No member of a governmental body is liable under this subchapter on account of his or her attendance at a meeting held in violation of this subchapter if he or she makes or votes in favor of a motion to prevent the violation from occurring, or if, before the violation occurs, his or her votes on all relevant motions were inconsistent with all those circumstances which cause the violation.

19.96 History History: 1975 c. 426.

19.96 Annotation The state need not prove specific intent to violate the open meetings law. State v. Swanson, 92 Wis. 2d 310, 284 N.W.2d 655 (1979).

19.97 19.97 Enforcement.

19.97(1) (1) This subchapter shall be enforced in the name and on behalf of the state by the attorney general or, upon the verified complaint of any person, by the district attorney of any county wherein a violation may occur. 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.

19.97(2) (2) In addition and supplementary to the remedy provided in s. 19.96, the attorney general or the district attorney may commence an action, separately or in conjunction with an action brought under s. 19.96, to obtain such other legal or equitable relief, including but not limited to mandamus, injunction or declaratory judgment, as may be appropriate under the circumstances.

19.97(3) (3) Any action taken at a meeting of a governmental body held in violation of this subchapter is voidable, upon action brought by the attorney general or the district attorney of the county wherein the violation occurred. However, any judgment declaring such action void shall not be entered unless the court finds, under the facts of the particular case, that the public interest in the enforcement of this subchapter outweighs any public interest which there may be in sustaining the validity of the action taken.

19.97(4) (4) If the district attorney refuses or otherwise fails to commence an action to enforce this subchapter within 20 days after receiving a verified complaint, the person making such complaint may bring an action under subs. (1) to (3) on his or her relation in the name, and on behalf, of the state. In such actions, the court may award actual and necessary costs of prosecution, including reasonable attorney fees to the relator if he or she prevails, but any forfeiture recovered shall be paid to the state.

19.97(5) (5) Sections 893.80 and 893.82 do not apply to actions commenced under this section.

19.97 History History: 1975 c. 426; 1981 c. 289; 1995 a. 158.

19.97 Note Judicial Council Note, 1981: Reference in sub. (2) to a “writ” of mandamus has been removed because that remedy is now available in an ordinary action. See s. 781.01, stats., and the note thereto. [Bill 613-A]

19.97 Annotation Awards of attorney fees are to be at a rate applicable to private attorneys. A court may review the reasonableness of the hours and hourly rate charged, including the rates for similar services in the area, and may in addition consider the peculiar facts of the case and the responsible party’s ability to pay. State ex rel. Hodge v. Town of Turtle Lake, 190 Wis. 2d 181, 526 N.W.2d 784 (Ct. App. 1994).

19.97 Annotation Actions brought under the open meetings and open records laws are exempt from the notice provisions of s. 893.80. State ex rel. Auchinleck v. Town of LaGrange, 200 Wis. 2d 585, 547 N.W.2d 587 (1996), 94-2809.

19.97 Annotation Failure to bring an action under this section on behalf of the state is fatal and deprives the court of competency to proceed. Fabyan v. Achtenhagen, 2002 WI App 214, 257 Wis. 2d 310, 652 N.W.2d 649, 01-3298.

19.97 Annotation Complaints under the open meetings law are not brought in the individual capacity of the plaintiff but on behalf of the state, subject to the two-year statute of limitations under s. 893.93 (2). State ex rel. Leung v. City of Lake Geneva, 2003 WI App 129, 265 Wis. 2d 674, 666 N.W.2d 104, 02-2747.

19.97 Annotation When a town board’s action was voided by the court due to lack of statutory authority, an action for enforcement under sub. (4) by an individual as a private attorney general on behalf of the state against individual board members for a violation of the open meetings law that would subject the individual board members to civil forfeitures was not rendered moot. State ex rel. Lawton v. Town of Barton, 2005 WI App 16, 278 Wis. 2d 388, 692 N.W.2d 304, 04-0659.

19.98 19.98 Interpretation by attorney general. Any person may request advice from the attorney general as to the applicability of this subchapter under any circumstances.

19.98 History History: 1975 c. 426.