Response by J.B. Van Hollen

1. Do you believe Wisconsin's open records and open meetings laws provide sufficient public access to governmental activities? What new steps, if any, will you take to improve the state's commitment in this regard?

A: As attorney general, my job will be to enforce the laws on the books - including open records and ethics laws. Any violation of those laws will be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent.

2. Are the penalties for violating Wisconsin's open records and open meetings laws sufficiently stringent to deter violations?

A: I believe so, however, I think the process to obtain information should be faster and more efficient. It is the job of the Legislature, not the AG, to make changes to Wisconsin's open records laws. However, most records are now kept in electronic format, but the system is often stuck in old paper-based technology. Just as electronic discovery is coming of age in our civil system, government should catch up and achieve savings through better use of electronic document search and production.

3. Do you agree that draft versions of legislation bills ought to be exempt from disclosure even when they are distributed to special interest groups and others outside of the Legislature?

A: Again, it is the state Legislature's job to address the issue of disclosure through changes in statutory language. In my opinion and according to Wisconsin law, draft legislation is just that; a "draft" and not considered a public document until it no longer has draft status. This is an issue made much more complex by the inherent constitutional/separation of powers issues involved. The Legislature is a co-equal branch, and has inherent abilities to make decisions about its own internal operations. It is directly accountable to the voters, just as the AG. That does not mean the Legislature can violate the law, but it does mean that an effective and judicious AG should recognize its status as a co-equal branch.

4. In your opinion, is it ever appropriate for the Attorney General to bring a lawsuit against a member of the state Legislature regarding an open records or open meetings issue? If so, explain what circumstances might warrant this.

A: Yes, if they clearly violated state law.

5. To what extent should government documents relating to the performance of public employees be available to the public? Is there a level of responsibility and authority at which public employees should expect greater public review?

A: I believe taxpayers have the right to obtain government documents regarding the performance of public employees, period.

6. Will you continue the periodic seminars and other outreach programs that the Department of Justice has sponsored to help local communities understand the state's commitment to open government?

A: Yes. Understanding and fulfilling the role government plays in relation to open records requirements is important to clean, ethical representation.

7. Experience suggests that the greatest of violations of the open records and open meetings laws occur at the local level. What can the Attorney General do, in addition to periodic workshops, to reduce the potential for violations?

A: The relationship between local government and the DOJ must be improved. The DOJ is essentially the state's "law firm" and a working relationship must exist to foster better cooperation. In the past, municipal legal counsels used the DOJ for opinions to help direct legal actions or proceedings. But under the direction of attorneys general Doyle and Lautenschlager this has not been a priority. Greater cooperation on many levels will allow the DOJ to be more effective on issues such as open records and meetings laws.

8. Should the open records/meetings law be amended? If so, what changes would you support?

A: I support efforts to ensure clean, open government but the job of the Attorney General is to enforce the law. It is the job of the Legislature to draft statutory language to address perceived shortcomings of current law.