Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council

December: City leads the way on openness

E-mail Print PDF

Steve Lovejoy

Recently the City of Burlington made some changes to its website, adding a feature it calls a “performance dashboard.”

The online tool gives city residents a better look – much of it in real time – about what their government is doing. As the site explains, “Users can review monthly and yearly revenue, expenditures, per capita spending and performance measurements across several departments.”

In unveiling the site, Burlington Mayor Robert Miller said, “It has been one of my goals that we make city government as transparent as possible.”

That’s the kind of thing that makes advocates of open government want to stand up and clap.

City and state officials and politicians sometimes take the jaundiced view that what they do is their business – and resist sharing the information that forms the path for their actions with citizens and taxpayers.

But it’s not “their” business, it’s the public’s business. The public has every right – within established guidelines and reason – to know the details of government operations. Clearly within this realm is information about how much government costs, how well its decisions stack up against other communities, and what alternatives might be available.

Transparency in government is more than a buzzword, it’s an effective way of communicating with constituents and taxpayers and building trust. Responsible government officials want to make sure their decisions can be fully scrutinized and the people making them can be held accountable.

Too often citizens and media representatives around the state have to leap over hurdles to get information on government actions that should be routinely made available for inspection. That means filing formal information requests and sometimes having to go to court before the requested records are finally made public.

Going to court is never a preferred option. It’s a cumbersome and expensive process that could often be sidestepped if government officials would simply recognize that Wisconsin’s Open Records and Open Meetings laws require that government should operate as openly as possible.

In some cases, public officials and politicians block access to information knowing that by the time the information finally comes out it will be long past the time it is relevant to the issue that made its public release important.

That’s hardly good governance.

Mayor Miller and the city of Burlington’s online initiative stand in stark contrast to those efforts to keep the public in the dark. The city’s new performance dashboard lets Burlington residents (and anyone else) get monthly updates of the city’s general fund revenues and expenditures, for both the current and prior year. Taxpayers can compare the cost of city operations to those of other communities and find details on operation spending.

According to Miller, city department heads and the city council use these same online tools to gauge their spending, develop budgets, monitor performance and make policy choices.

Future plans call for the city of Burlington to stream city council meetings on its website live – and create archives of previous meetings.

All these things should provide Burlington residents with a better window into what their government is doing, the choices and reasons for policies and a more open community discussion of the path the city should take.

That’s opening the window for better government and more community understanding. And it’s something that communities around the state may want to emulate.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, a non-profit group dedicated to open government. Steve Lovejoy, a council member, is editor emeritus at the Racine Journal Times.

 
 

Investigative reporter Umhoefer to receive Wisconsin Watchdog Award

E-mail Print PDF

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel investigative reporter Dave Umhoefer, winner of a Pulitzer Prize for his 2008 investigation into pension padding in Milwaukee County, has been named the 2014 recipient of the Distinguished Wisconsin Watchdog Award.

The award is a highlight of the fourth annual Wisconsin Watchdog Awards reception and dinner, presented jointly by the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council and the Madison Pro Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists.

The April 23 event, a celebration of open government and investigative journalism, is open to the public, with proceeds supporting the nonprofit and nonpartisan Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism.

"For more than 25 years, Dave Umhoefer has held the powerful accountable for their actions and provided insights into key issues facing Wisconsin communities," said Andy Hall, executive director of the investigative center.

"When we created this award four years ago to recognize an individual’s contributions to open government or investigative journalism, all of us knew that Dave someday would receive it."

Past winners of the award are Dave Zweifel, editor emeritus of The Capital Times and a founder of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council; the late Dick Wheeler, founder of the Wheeler Report newsletter; and U.S. District Court Judge Lynn Adelman, chief author of the state's open records law.

Umhoefer, a La Crosse native and University of Wisconsin-Madison graduate, received the School of Journalism and Mass Communication’s Distinguished Service Award in 2009.

Umhoefer is a member of the Journal Sentinel’s Watchdog Team, where his work includes PolitiFact Wisconsin. He also is an instructor at Marquette University, where he teaches an investigative reporting class.

“His investigation into pension padding by Milwaukee County officials was so thorough and meticulous that county officials reported themselves to the IRS before the story even ran,” Greg Borowski, the Journal Sentinel’s assistant managing editor for projects and investigations, noted in nominating Umhoefer for the Distinguished Wisconsin Watchdog Award.

“That is emblematic of the work Dave has done. It often tackles complex and arcane subjects or involves reams of paper documents or millions of electronic ones. He is able to get past the spin, sort out the truth and then write with unquestioned authority.”

The Wisconsin Watchdog Awards event also will honor winners of the Freedom of Information Council’s annual Opee Awards for their work promoting open government. The Madison SPJ chapter will review the year in journalism.

The event at The Madison Club, 5 E. Wilson St., begins with a reception at 5 p.m., followed by dinner at 6.

Tickets are available for $55. Discounts are available for purchases of tables. Register online.

Lead sponsorship of the event is provided by the Wisconsin Newspaper Association Foundation. Additional support is provided by the Wisconsin Broadcasters Association and two law firms -- McGillivray Westerberg & Bender and Schott Bublitz & Engel.

Additional sponsors are being sought. Sponsorship information is available online.

Attendance is limited to 120 people.

 

Action alert on bill to gut information on WCCA (CCAP)

E-mail Print PDF

SB 526, the bill that would purge the state's online records system of information about criminal cases that do not lead to convictions, or are overturned on appeal, passed a Senate committee yesterday on a 5-0 vote. The bill is now available for a full Senate vote.

This is the most serious attempt to date to deprive the public of full and accurate information about the state's court system through WCCA, or what everyone calls CCAP. It is on the fast track to passage despite opposition from state media and the Freedom of Information Council, state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, Director of State Courts John Voelker, individual clerks of court, and representatives of property owners.

Now is the time to make the case that the people of Wisconsin can be trusted to make appropriate use of the information on this system; that they don't need lawmakers stepping in to prevent them from knowing what is happening in the court system they pay for.

Without a doubt, some employers and others use the information on this system to unfairly deny opportunities to applicants. But there is no evidence this practice is as widespread as the site's critics claim. Representatives of business groups and landlord associations have offered credible testimony attesting to their commitment to following the law and using this information in appropriate ways. Some employers and landlords post job openings and put up "For rent" signs because they
actually need workers and want tenants, not simply so they can turn people away due to a dismissed charge from long ago.

The Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council fundamentally opposes the idea at the heart of this bill, that the way to deal with a perceived problem regarding the use of public information is to make it harder to obtain that information. More harm than good will come from this approach.

SB 526 would greatly restrict what records are available on WCCA and thus dramatically undercut the site's usefulness. Records showing that charges against an individual were dismissed or led to a finding of not guilty would no longer appear. Information would also have to be removed for convictions overturned on appeal.

Passage of this bill would be a boon for private providers of court records data, those companies that offer to run background checks on people for, say, $10 a pop or $30 for full access each year. And those private operators do not have the same checks on accuracy as does the state's system.

In fact, under this bill, WCCA would go from being a tool for tracking what happens in our state court system into being a registry of known offenders. Only the names of those found guilty would appear.

If this bill were to pass, WCCA would henceforth give a distorted view of what happens in our courts. For instance, every prosecutor would have a 100 percent conviction rate on every charge, because charges that were dismissed would not appear.

It would mean that most of the charges brought against former members of the Legislature, like Brian Burke and Chuck Chvala, would disappear from view.

The idea driving this bill is that ordinary citizens lack the intelligence or decency to make rational judgments about cases in which charges are dismissed or a defendant has been found not guilty. The people of Wisconsin deserve more credit than that.

 

April: AG’s office could do more on openness

E-mail Print PDF

Should enforcement of Wisconsin’s open records and open meetings laws depend on individual citizens having to file often costly and protracted lawsuits?

That is one option prescribed under these laws, and those who prevail in such cases can recover attorney’s fees.

But the laws also contain provisions intended to help people resolve disputes in a cheaper and less complicated way: Citizens can ask the state attorney general or county district attorney to sue a government authority, and any person can seek advice from the attorney general.

Yet, more than three decades after the Legislature enacted these provisions, questions about their effectiveness remain.

Gannett Wisconsin Media recently highlighted the cases of citizens who, after being brushed off by prosecutors, successfully sued public officials for violating open-government laws. Gannett’s stories also noted that Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen has not filed a single lawsuit to enforce compliance with these laws, while his predecessor, Peg Lautenschlager, had filed just a few such cases.

The stories shed much-needed light on how difficult it can be to fight improper government secrecy. They also touched on a broader problem: Hard data on disputes brought to the attorney general and district attorneys is almost nonexistent.

I’m writing this column to help fix that.

Recently, I completed a master’s thesis in media studies at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee on how the attorney general’s office has handled complaints about the public records law. I analyzed documents from more than 300 public records disputes during a six-year period. I also interviewed 17 people involved in those disputes.

Here is what I found:

  • The attorney general’s office denied every request for legal action, but such requests accounted for just a quarter of cases. Most of the time, requesters sought advice.
  • Nearly half of the cases directly concerned whether a requester had a right to a record. Other common issues included response times, fees and definitions in the law.
  • Cases overwhelmingly involved local authorities as opposed to state government.
  • The office was relatively timely, responding to nearly three-quarters of requests within 30 business days. Still, the range of response times varied widely — from within a week to nearly a year.
  • The office at times actively worked with parties to mediate disputes, though the degree of that engagement was inconsistent.

Ultimately, the findings confirm that the attorney general can play a meaningful role in helping citizens use the public records law and challenge improper government secrecy without litigation. At the same time, the study revealed complaints about and drawbacks to how the attorney general handles disputes.

For one thing, the study highlighted how difficult it is to track what kinds of complaints are being received and what is being done about them. In Gannett’s reports, a spokesperson for Van Hollen said the attorney general’s office does not track open-government complaints. That should change.

The office should regularly report caseload statistics about requests for assistance on the public records and open meetings laws, as do other states, including Pennsylvania and Indiana.

The office should also actively publish open-government correspondence containing noteworthy advice. It has not done so recently or on a routine basis.

Such action would enable citizens to monitor developments in the public records and open meetings laws, and to assess how the attorney general is handling disclosure disputes.

That is information everyone has a right to know.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (www.wisfoic.org), a nonprofit group dedicated to open government. Jonathan Anderson is a reporter for The Lakeland Times in Minocqua. His thesis is available online.

 
  • «
  •  Start 
  •  Prev 
  •  1 
  •  2 
  •  3 
  •  4 
  •  5 
  •  6 
  •  7 
  •  8 
  •  9 
  •  Next 
  •  End 
  • »


Page 1 of 9