Title: Robert Zellner v. Cedarburg School District

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2007 WI 53 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2006AP1143-AC 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
Robert Zellner, 
          Plaintiff-Appellant, 
     v. 
Cedarburg School District and Daryl Herrick, 
          Defendants-Respondents, 
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Katharine 
Goodloe, 
          Intervenors-Respondents. 
 
 
 
 
ON CERTIFICATION FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 15, 2007   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
March 6, 2007   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Ozaukee   
 
JUDGE: 
Paul V. Malloy   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the plaintiff-appellant there were briefs by Jina L. 
Jonen and the Wisconsin Education Association Council, Madison, 
and oral argument by Jina L. Jonen. 
 
For the intervenors-respondents there were briefs by Robert 
J. Dreps, Jennifer L. Peterson, and LaFollette Godfrey & Kahn, 
Madison, and oral argument by Jennifer L. Peterson. 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Eric Barber and Heller 
Ehrman LLP, Madison, and Loren A. Cochran, and Lucy A. Dalglish, 
Arlington, VA, on behalf of The Reporters Committee for Freedom 
of the Press. 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Lester A. Pines, Jordan 
C. Loeb, and Cullen Weston Pines & Bach LLP, Madison, on behalf 
of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association, Inc. 
 
 
 
2 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Bruce F. Ehlke and 
Hawks Quindel Ehlke & Perry, S.C., Madison, on behalf of AFSCME 
District Council 40. 
 
 
2007 WI 53
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2006AP1143-AC  
(L.C. No. 
2006CV117) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Robert Zellner, 
 
          Plaintiff-Appellant, 
 
     v. 
 
Cedarburg School District and Daryl Herrick, 
 
          Defendants-Respondents, 
 
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Katharine 
Goodloe, 
 
          Intervenors-Respondents. 
 
 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 15, 2007 
 
David R. Schanker 
 Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
APPEAL from a decision of the Circuit Court for Ozaukee 
County, Paul V. Malloy, Judge.  Affirmed.   
 
¶1 
N. PATRICK CROOKS, J.   This appeal is before the 
court on certification from the court of appeals, pursuant to 
Wis. Stat. § 809.61 (2005-06).1  Robert Zellner (Zellner), a high 
school science teacher, appeals from the decision of the Ozaukee 
                                                 
1 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 2005-06 version unless otherwise indicated. 
No. 
2006AP1143-AC   
 
2 
 
County Circuit Court, Judge Paul V. Malloy presiding.  The 
circuit court denied Zellner's request for an injunction 
prohibiting the Cedarburg School District (District) from 
releasing a memorandum (memo) and a compact disc (CD) containing 
adult images and internet searches that Zellner allegedly viewed 
and conducted on his school computer.  The circuit court ordered 
release of the memo and the CD and dismissed the action, but 
stayed the release of the memo and the CD pending appeal.  The 
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and one of its reporters, Katharine 
Goodloe (collectively Journal), had requested access to the memo 
and 
CD 
pursuant 
to 
Wisconsin's 
Open 
Records 
Law, 
Wis. Stat. §§ 19.31-19.39, after a public hearing resulting in 
Zellner's termination by the Cedarburg School Board (District 
Board), and after a grievance had been filed challenging that 
termination. 
¶2 
Zellner appealed the circuit court's dismissal and 
release order, and the court of appeals certified the case to 
this court, presenting several  questions, including whether a 
public employee who views copyrighted images on a work computer 
has standing to raise the copyright exception to Wisconsin's 
Open Records Law, and if so, what is the scope of such 
exception?2  The court of appeals also certified the issue of 
whether, under Wis. Stat. § 19.36(10)(b), the holding of Local 
                                                 
2 This issue could also be stated as follows: Does Zellner 
have standing to assert that the materials should not be 
released because they are not "records" under the statutory 
definition in Wis. Stat. § 19.32(2)? 
No. 
2006AP1143-AC   
 
3 
 
2489, AFSCME v. Rock County, 2004 WI App 210, 277 Wis. 2d 208, 
689 N.W.2d 644, applies to records generated through further 
investigation 
after 
disposition, when discipline had been 
imposed and then a grievance procedure had been initiated on 
behalf of Zellner.  Zellner raises the additional issue of 
whether the public's interest in protecting a citizen's privacy 
interests outweighs the public's interest in release of the CD 
and memo.   
¶3 
We hold that a person aggrieved by a request made 
under the Open Records Law has standing to raise a challenge 
that the requested materials are not "records" because they are 
copyrighted.  We further hold that the language of the statute, 
when viewed in light of the "fair use" exception to copyright 
infringement, applies so that the CD and the memo are "records" 
within the statutory definition of Wis. Stat. § 19.32(2).3   
¶4 
Additionally, we hold that the CD and the memo do not 
fall within the statutory exception for pending disciplinary 
records "prior to disposition of the investigation" under 
Wis. Stat. § 19.36(10)(b) and Rock County, 277 Wis. 2d 208, 
¶¶19-20.  We are satisfied that the District's investigation of 
                                                 
3 Wisconsin Stat. § 19.32(2) defines a "record" as  
any material on which written, drawn, printed, spoken, 
visual or electromagnetic information is recorded or 
preserved, 
regardless 
of 
physical 
form 
or 
characteristics, which has been created or is being 
kept 
by 
an 
authority. 
 . . . "Record" 
does 
not 
include . . . materials to which access is limited by 
copyright, patent, or bequest. . . .  
No. 
2006AP1143-AC   
 
4 
 
Zellner's conduct was concluded for purposes of the Open Records 
Law when the District Board terminated Zellner's employment and 
that, therefore, the CD and the memo are not exempt from 
disclosure.   
¶5 
Finally, although we recognize the importance of 
protecting 
privacy 
and reputation interests, applying the 
common-law balancing test articulated by this court in Linzmeyer 
v. Forcey, 2002 WI 84, ¶12, 254 Wis. 2d 306, 646 N.W.2d 811, we 
hold that the presumption of complete public access, based on a 
public policy determination that records should usually be open 
for review, outweighs the public's interest in protecting the 
privacy and reputation interests of a citizen such as Zellner in 
this case.   
¶6 
The decision of the circuit court is, therefore, 
affirmed. 
I 
¶7 
Zellner was employed by the District as a science 
teacher for nearly 11 years.  On January 17, 2006, following a 
public evidentiary 
hearing, the District Board terminated 
Zellner for allegedly viewing images from adult websites on his 
work computer.  No students were present at the time the images 
allegedly were viewed.  The Journal and the Ozaukee News Graphic 
made a request for all exhibits presented at the hearing.  
Zellner did not oppose the release of the records.   
¶8 
On 
February 
20, 
2006, 
Zellner 
and 
District 
representatives met privately to discuss settlement.  At that 
meeting, the District's attorney presented Zellner with the 
No. 
2006AP1143-AC   
 
5 
 
memo, which was dated February 20, 2006, and had been prepared 
by the District’s attorney.  The memo was addressed to the 
District Board.  The District's attorney also presented Zellner 
with a CD containing copyrighted digital images, which  Zellner 
had allegedly viewed over the internet from his work computer.  
The memo contained a summary of Google search terms and website 
addresses that resulted in the adult images contained on the CD.  
Both the CD and the memo were created as a result of a forensic 
analysis of Zellner's work computer that was conducted by the 
District after the evidentiary hearing resulting in Zellner's 
termination.  It is significant to note that Zellner's computer 
was purchased new, and that it was assigned exclusively to 
Zellner throughout its use. 
¶9 
The Cedarburg Education Association (Association) met 
with the District Board on February 21, 2006, in a closed 
meeting, to discuss its grievance on behalf of Zellner, 
regarding his termination.  On February 22, 2006, the Journal 
sent a letter to the District seeking release of the memo and 
the CD under the Open Records Law.  The District notified 
Zellner that it had decided to release the requested records.   
¶10 Zellner filed an action in the Ozaukee County Circuit 
Court, seeking de novo review of the District's decision to 
release the memo and the CD.  Zellner argued that, under 
Wis. Stat. § 19.36(10)(b), the requested items should not be 
released, because they were not "records" subject to release 
under the Open Records Law, since they were part of a current 
"investigation."  Zellner further argued that the CD and the 
No. 
2006AP1143-AC   
 
6 
 
memo contained inaccurate and unauthenticated data that would be 
prejudicial to Zellner's reputation and his privacy interests.  
The Journal was permitted to intervene in the case.   
¶11 After holding a hearing, the Ozaukee County Circuit 
Court, Judge Paul V. Malloy presiding, denied Zellner's request 
for an injunction prohibiting release, ordered release of the 
memo and the CD, and dismissed the action, but stayed the 
release pending appeal.   
¶12 Zellner appealed the circuit court's decision in 
regard to release of the memo and the CD.  The court of appeals 
granted a motion filed by the Journal to expedite the appeal 
pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 19.356(8).  The court of appeals then 
certified 
the 
case 
to this court, and we accepted the 
certification. 
¶13 While the appeal regarding the release of the memo and 
CD was pending, an arbitrator issued a decision in the 
arbitration between the District Board and the Association.  The 
arbitrator determined that the District Board violated its 
collective 
bargaining 
agreement 
with 
the 
Association 
by 
terminating Zellner without just cause, and thus, ordered that 
Zellner be reinstated.  Since the District Board did not comply 
with the arbitration award, the Association brought an action to 
enforce the arbitration award.  Ozaukee County Circuit Court 
Judge Joseph D. McCormack did not confirm the arbitrator's 
decision, concluding that the District Board's decision was not 
arbitrary, and that there was a rational basis for terminating 
Zellner's employment for viewing pornography. 
No. 
2006AP1143-AC   
 
7 
 
 
II 
¶14 This case requires us to determine whether a public 
employee who views copyrighted images on a work computer has 
standing to raise the copyright exception to Wisconsin's Open 
Records Law.  The determination of standing involves a question 
of law, which we review de novo.  State v. Wisumierski, 106 Wis. 
2d 722, 733, 317 N.W.2d 484 (1982);4 Zehetner v. Chrysler 
Financial Co., LLC, 2004 WI App 80, ¶12, 272 Wis. 2d 628, 679 
N.W.2d 919.  
¶15 This case also requires us to determine whether the CD 
and memo at issue are records under Wis. Stat. § 19.32, in light 
of the statutory exception relating to copyright in § 19.32(2).  
In addition, we must determine whether the "fair use" exception 
to copyright infringement in 17 U.S.C. § 107 applies.  Fair use 
is a mixed question of law and fact.  Harper & Row, Publishers, 
Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 560 (1985).  Therefore, if 
the lower court has made factual findings sufficient to evaluate 
the fair use factors, an appellate court need not remand for 
further fact-finding.  Id.    
¶16 We must also determine whether the investigation 
limitation in Wis. Stat. § 19.36(10)(b) applies in this case.  
                                                 
4 In State v. Wisumierski, 106 Wis. 2d 722, 732, 317 N.W.2d 
484 (1982), this court held that the defendant lacked standing 
to challenge a search because he did not have a legitimate 
expectation of privacy.  Although Wisumierski is a criminal 
case, we find it helpful in determining the proper standard of 
review for the issue of standing. 
No. 
2006AP1143-AC   
 
8 
 
These questions involve statutory interpretation and, therefore, 
are subject to de novo review.  State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit 
Court, 2004 WI 58, ¶¶44-51, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110.  
Under the plain meaning rule of statutory interpretation, 
extrinsic sources need not be and are not consulted except to 
resolve an ambiguity in the statutory language.  Id.  
¶17 The application of the Open Records Law to undisputed 
facts is a question of law that this court reviews de novo.  
Hempel v. City of Baraboo, 2005 WI 120, ¶21, 284 Wis. 2d 162, 
699 N.W.2d 551.  This case requires us to analyze the common-law 
balancing test set forth in Linzmeyer, 254 Wis. 2d 306, ¶12, to 
undisputed facts.  More specifically, whether the public's 
interest 
in 
protecting 
Zellner's 
privacy 
and 
reputation 
interests outweighs the presumption of complete public access, 
based on the public policy determinations of the legislature, is 
a question of law which we decide without deference to the 
circuit court's decision.   Id., ¶24, Kailin v. Rainwater, 226 
Wis. 2d 134, 146, 593 N.W.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1999). 
III 
¶18 A threshold issue in this case is whether Zellner has 
standing to assert the copyright exception to the Open Records 
No. 
2006AP1143-AC   
 
9 
 
Law, Wis. Stat. § 19.32(2).  The CD5 at issue, which the District 
created after a forensic analysis of Zellner's computer, 
contains copyrighted adult images and websites.     
¶19 The Journal argues that the copyright exception was 
intended to protect the rights of authors, not to shield the 
misconduct of public employees.6 The Journal asserts that the 
District, not Zellner, would be liable for any copyright 
infringement, and thus, Zellner should not be permitted to 
assert copyright infringement as a bar to disclosure of the memo 
and CD.  
¶20 Zellner argues that, as a public employee who will be 
affected by the release of the copyrighted materials, he has 
standing to object to their release.  He relies on Mutual 
Services Casualty Ins. Co. v. Koenigs, 110 Wis. 2d 522, 329 
N.W.2d 157 (1983), in support of his argument.  In Mutual 
                                                 
5 Although Zellner argued in his brief to the circuit court 
that the memo is not a public record, he does not raise that 
argument before this court.  Instead, he argues that, even if 
the memo is a public record, it should not be released because 
the public's interest in protecting the privacy and reputation 
rights of its citizens outweighs the public's interest in 
disclosure.  The Journal argues that neither the CD, nor the 
memo, fall within the copyright exception, and that, therefore, 
both are records covered by the Open Records Law. 
6 In their amicus brief in support of the intervenors-
respondents, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 
American Society of Newspaper Editors, the Associated Press, the 
E.W. Scripps Company, Gannett Co., the Newspaper Association of 
America, the Newspaper Guild-CWA, and the Radio-Television News 
Directors Association, also argue that Zellner does not have 
standing to raise the copyright exception to the Open Records 
Law. 
No. 
2006AP1143-AC   
 
10 
 
Services, the parents of a child injured in an automobile 
accident, and their automobile insurer, were parties aggrieved 
by a judgment dismissing the parents' homeowners' insurer, 
Prudential Insurance Company (Prudential), from the action.  Id.  
The judgment dismissing Prudential meant that the parents could 
not be indemnified by Prudential under their homeowners' 
liability insurance policy, to the extent they were not 
protected by their automobile liability insurer.  This court 
held that the parents and their automobile insurer had standing 
to appeal the circuit court's dismissal, even though they had 
never asserted a claim against the homeowner's insurer, because 
they were aggrieved by the judgment entered in the action, in 
that their interests were adversely affected.   Id. at 527. 
¶21 We agree with Zellner that he has standing, in accord 
with Mutual Services, to raise the copyright exception to the 
Open Records Law, as a basis for his objection to the release of 
the CD.  Although Mutual Services involved the issue of standing 
to appeal, whereas the present case involves the issue of 
standing to challenge the release of copyrighted materials under 
the Open Records Law in his appeal of the circuit court's 
decision, Mutual Services is helpful in our analysis.  Zellner 
will be impacted personally by this court's holding in regard to 
the requested release, and his interests were adversely affected 
by the circuit court decision.  He has standing, therefore, to 
raise the copyright exception as part of his appeal in this 
case. 
No. 
2006AP1143-AC   
 
11 
 
¶22 Zellner asserts that the CD is not a record under Wis. 
Stat., chapter 19, because it contains websites and images that 
are protected by United States copyright law.  Zellner argues 
that the materials and images from the CD may not be reproduced, 
copied, published, or distributed without the copyright holder's 
express permission.  17 U.S.C. § 106(1) (2006).7  He asserts 
that, since the District does not own the copyright to the 
images and websites contained in the CD, the District may not 
distribute the images to the public without infringing the 
copyright holder's distribution rights.   
¶23 The Journal argues that the CD and the memo are 
records, 
and 
that 
the 
copyright 
exception 
in 
Wis. Stat. § 19.32(2) does not apply.  The Journal states that, 
in order to interpret the phrase "materials to which access is 
limited by copyright" in § 19.32(2), the court must look to 
federal copyright law.  The Journal asserts that, although 
federal copyright law protects "original works of authorship 
fixed in any tangible medium of expression," 17 U.S.C. § 102(a), 
§ 19.32(2) applies only when access to records would constitute 
copyright infringement in violation of the exclusive rights of 
the copyright holder. 
¶24 The Journal argues that Zellner's interpretation of 
what constitutes a record under Wis. Stat. § 19.32(2) is too 
broad.  The Journal argues that, if the court were to adopt 
                                                 
7 All subsequent references to the United States Code are to 
the 2006 version unless otherwise indicated. 
No. 
2006AP1143-AC   
 
12 
 
Zellner's 
interpretation of § 19.32(2), nearly every open 
records request in Wisconsin would be denied because the 
materials requested under the Open Records Law are almost always 
original works of authorship set forth in a "tangible medium of 
expression," such as a writing.  According to the Journal, such 
a reading would render meaningless the presumption of complete 
public access stated in Wis. Stat. § 19.31. 
¶25 The Journal also argues that allowing public access to 
the CD and the memo constitutes a "fair use of a copyrighted 
work" under 17 U.S.C. § 107 and, therefore, does not violate 
copyright law.  BMG Music v. Gonzalez, 430 F.3d 888, 889 (7th 
Cir. 2005)("A 'fair use' of copyrighted material is not 
infringement.").  See also State ex rel. Rea v. Ohio Dep’t of 
Educ., 692 N.E.2d 596, 601-02 (Ohio 1998).  The Journal argues 
that the fair use doctrine applies to the CD and memo in this 
case, because there is no other way for the public to access the 
information contained therein, because the copyrighted work (the 
images and websites) is not commercial in nature, because the 
images were already published and freely distributed to the 
public, and because the CD and memo will in no way supplant the 
market.  Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 577-
78 (1994).  
¶26 We 
are 
satisfied 
that, 
despite 
the 
copyright 
exception, 
the 
CD 
and 
the 
memo 
are 
records 
under 
Wis. Stat. § 19.32(2).  Statutory interpretation begins with the 
language of the statute; if the meaning is plain, the inquiry 
ordinarily ends.  Teschendorf v. State Farm Ins. Cos., 2006 WI 
No. 
2006AP1143-AC   
 
13 
 
89, ¶12, 293 Wis. 2d 123, 717 N.W.2d 258.  Section 19.32(2) 
broadly defines a record as "any material on which written, 
drawn, printed, spoken, visual or electromagnetic information is 
recorded 
or 
preserved, 
regardless 
of 
physical 
form 
or 
characteristics, which has been created or is being kept by an 
authority." 
 
 
The 
definition 
of 
a 
record 
"does 
not 
include . . . materials to which access is limited by copyright, 
patent, or bequest. . . ."  We are satisfied that the phrase 
"limited by copyright" is not, itself, ambiguous; however, we 
must determine whether the copyright exception applies based on 
the facts presented in this case.  It is helpful in that regard 
to look to federal copyright law.   
¶27 Under 
federal 
law, 
"[c]opyright 
protection 
subsists . . . in original works of authorship fixed in any 
tangible 
medium 
of 
expression, 
now 
known 
or 
later 
developed. . . ."  17 U.S.C. § 102(a).  "Works of authorship" 
include 
literary 
works; 
musical 
works, 
including 
any 
accompanying words; dramatic works, including any accompanying 
music; pantomimes and choreographic works; pictorial, graphic, 
and sculptural works; motion pictures and other audiovisual 
works; 
sound 
recordings; 
and 
architectural 
works. 
 
Id.  
Ordinarily, use and reproduction of copyrighted material is one 
of many rights granted only to the copyright holder. 17 U.S.C. § 
106.   
¶28 However, federal law recognizes a "fair use" exception 
to copyright infringement.  In 17 U.S.C. § 107 four factors are 
listed that shall be considered in determining whether the use 
No. 
2006AP1143-AC   
 
14 
 
made of a copyrighted work in any particular case is a "fair 
use."  Those factors include: (1) the purpose and character of 
the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or 
is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the 
copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the 
portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for, or 
value of, the copyrighted work.  17 U.S.C. § 107.   
¶29 Applying the "fair use" factors outlined in 17 U.S.C. 
§ 107 in this case, we are satisfied that the CD and the memo do 
not 
fall 
within 
the 
copyright 
exception 
under 
Wis. Stat. § 19.32(2).  While we look at all four factors listed 
in 17 U.S.C. § 107, the following factors are most significant 
in this case: the nature of the copyrighted work, and the effect 
of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the 
copyrighted work.  Under the circumstances presented in this 
case, the images and websites listed and recorded in the memo 
and the CD are not commercial in nature, because they can be 
accessed free of charge via the internet, and because the 
District will not profit from the distribution of the images.  
Additionally, allowing public access to the CD and the memo for 
purposes of adhering to the Open Records Law will not affect the 
potential marketability of the images, nor is it likely to 
relate to their value. 
¶30 As we noted previously, fair use is a mixed question 
of law and fact.  Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 471 U.S. at 
560.  If the lower court has made factual findings sufficient to 
No. 
2006AP1143-AC   
 
15 
 
evaluate the fair use factors, an appellate court need not 
remand for further fact-finding.  In the present case, the 
circuit court heard arguments concerning "fair use" and the 
copyright exception to the Open Records Law.  The circuit court 
held that the CD and memo were public records and should be 
released.  Although the circuit court did not explicitly state 
that the records fell under the "fair use" exception, such a 
finding was implicit in the court's conclusion that the CD and 
memo were public records, and, therefore, not subject to the 
copyright exception.  There is no need under such circumstances 
to remand for any further fact-finding.  
¶31 Additionally, this court stated in Fox v. Bock, 149 
Wis. 2d 403, 411, 428 N.W.2d 589 (1989), that statutory 
exceptions "should be recognized for what they are, instances in 
derogation of the general legislative intent, and should, 
therefore, be narrowly construed. . . ."  See also Hempel, 284 
Wis. 2d 162, ¶29.  Wisconsin Stat. § 19.31 expressly states, in 
relevant part, the legislative intent behind Wisconsin's Open 
Records Law: "[Sections] 19.32 to 19.37 shall be construed in 
every 
instance 
with 
a 
presumption 
of 
complete 
public 
access. . . .  The denial of public access generally is contrary 
to the public interest, and only in an exceptional case may 
access be denied."  This presumption of complete public access 
is consistent with our conclusion that the copyright exception 
does not apply to the CD and the memo in this case, because 
public access to those records constitutes a "fair use" of the 
copyrighted images contained in the CD and discussed in the memo 
No. 
2006AP1143-AC   
 
16 
 
and, 
therefore, 
access 
is 
not 
"limited 
by 
copyright."  
Wis. Stat. § 19.32(2).  
¶32 The court of appeals certified the additional question 
of whether Wis. Stat. § 19.36(10)(b)8 excludes the memo and the 
CD from disclosure under the Open Records Law, where the records 
were generated through further investigation after a grievance 
procedure had been initiated on behalf of Zellner.  Zellner 
argues that the circuit court misinterpreted § 19.36(10)(b) and 
Rock County, 277 Wis. 2d 208, when it ordered the release of 
Zellner’s 
records 
before 
arbitration 
had 
been 
completed.  
Zellner asserts that § 19.36(10)(b) precludes the disclosure of 
employee 
records 
before 
the 
employer 
has 
concluded 
its 
investigation.  Zellner asserts that, after his employment was 
terminated, the District continued its investigation of him, in 
preparation for the arbitration hearing based on the grievance 
filed.9  He argues that the memo and CD are part of a pending 
investigation relating to "possible misconduct connected with 
employment[,]" and that the records, therefore, should not be 
                                                 
8 Wisconsin Stat. § 19.36(10)(b) states that an authority 
shall 
not 
provide 
public 
access 
to 
records 
containing 
"[i]nformation relating to the current investigation of a 
possible criminal offense or possible misconduct connected with 
employment 
by 
an 
employee 
prior 
to 
disposition 
of 
the 
investigation." 
9 The Wisconsin Council of County and Municipal Employees 
and the Wisconsin Professional Police Association, Inc., amici 
curiae, also take the position that "investigation" under Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 19.36(10)(b) 
contemplates 
the 
entire 
grievance 
resolution process, and not just the initial investigation 
conducted by an employer. 
No. 
2006AP1143-AC   
 
17 
 
released until that investigation has arrived at a final 
disposition.  Wis. Stat. § 19.36(10)(b).   
¶33 Zellner recognizes that, in Rock County, the court of 
appeals 
held 
that 
"investigation" 
under 
Wis. Stat. § 19.36(10)(b) included only records collected by the 
employer as a prelude to possible employee disciplinary action.  
Rock County, 277 Wis. 2d 208, ¶15.  However, Zellner asserts 
that if an employer collected additional information to defend 
the disciplinary action, as was the case here, then public 
access must be prohibited.  See Id., ¶20. 
¶34 In Rock County, 277 Wis. 2d 208, ¶5, employees of the 
Rock County Sheriff's Department were disciplined for viewing 
inappropriate internet images on their work computers.  The 
employees and their union filed a grievance pursuant to their 
collective bargaining agreement with the county.  The Janesville 
Gazette sent an open records request to the sheriff's department 
seeking reports generated in the sheriff's investigation of the 
employees.  The union opposed release of the reports, arguing 
that, although the sheriff's own investigation of the employees' 
conduct had concluded, the grievance proceeding was ongoing.  
Id., ¶9.  The union argued that there had not yet been a 
"disposition of the investigation" of the employees.  Id.; 
Wis. Stat. § 19.36(10)(b).  The court of appeals rejected the 
union's argument, interpreting "investigation" in § 19.36(10)(b) 
to mean the investigation conducted by the public employer, the 
sheriff's department.  Rock County, 277 Wis. 2d 208, ¶12.  The 
court 
of 
appeals 
further 
concluded 
that 
the 
sheriff's 
No. 
2006AP1143-AC   
 
18 
 
department's 
investigation 
of 
its 
employees 
had 
reached 
"disposition" within the meaning of § 19.36(10)(b), when the 
sheriff's department took action to impose discipline on the 
employees as a result of the investigation.  Id., ¶15.  The 
court of appeals held that, because the union did not establish 
any genuine public interest in nondisclosure of the records 
which would override the public interest in their disclosure, 
the records should be released.  Id., ¶¶31-32. 
¶35 Zellner argues that the District collected additional 
information on Zellner in preparation for its defense of its 
disciplinary action, which resulted in his termination.  Id., 
¶15.  In Rock County, the court of appeals stated, "If, in 
preparing 
for 
defense 
of 
his 
disciplinary 
actions, 
the 
[employer] 
collects 
additional 
information 
or 
generates 
additional records, public access to these new items might 
arguably be prohibited under the exception in question or 
another one."  Id., ¶20.  Zellner relies on this language to 
support his argument that Wis. Stat. § 19.36(10)(b) should apply 
to preclude the CD and the memo from release. 
¶36 The Journal asserts that, according to Rock County, 
277 Wis. 2d 208, ¶15, the records are not precluded from 
disclosure under Wis. Stat. § 19.36(10)(b), because the CD and 
memo were created after the imposition of discipline on Zellner.  
The Journal argues that Zellner’s termination on January 17, 
2006, effectively "disposed of" the investigation.  The Journal 
argues that, at the time it made its open records request for 
No. 
2006AP1143-AC   
 
19 
 
the memo and CD on February 22, 2006, the District was no longer 
investigating Zellner.   
¶37 The Journal asserts that, in Rock County, 277 Wis. 2d 
208, 
¶14, 
the court of appeals reasoned that the term 
"investigation" in Wis. Stat. § 19.36(10)(b) does not include an 
employee's subsequent challenge or grievance.  The court of 
appeals stated: 
Reading Wis. Stat. § 19.36(10)(b) to preclude the 
release of records until any grievance arbitration or 
other review proceedings initiated by the employee 
have run their course would permit the employee to 
create 
prolonged 
delays 
in 
the 
release 
of 
the 
requested records.  . . . [T]he "investigation" and 
"disposition of the investigation" cannot reasonably 
be read to extend to the progress and completion of 
grievance arbitration. . . .  
Id., ¶14 (citation omitted). 
¶38 We hold that, consistent with the decision in Rock 
County, the investigation of Zellner was "disposed of" when he 
was terminated and that, therefore, the CD and the memo were not 
exempt from disclosure under Wis. Stat. § 19.36(10)(b).  As 
noted previously, in Rock County, 277 Wis. 2d 208, ¶15, the 
court of appeals held that that "the term 'investigation' in § 
19.36(10)(b) 
includes 
only 
that 
conducted 
by 
the 
public 
authority itself as a prelude to possible employee disciplinary 
action." 
¶39 The memo and the CD that the District's attorney 
presented to Zellner at the meeting held on February 20, 2006, 
to discuss settlement of the grievance, were not records 
"connected with employment by an employee prior to disposition 
No. 
2006AP1143-AC   
 
20 
 
of the investigation[,]" and thus may be disclosed without 
violating  Wis. Stat. § 19.36(10)(b). 
¶40 Zellner further argues that his due process rights 
were violated because, as an employee subject to discharge, he 
was entitled to timely and adequate notice of the reasons for 
his discharge, an impartial decisionmaker, and the opportunity 
to confront and cross-examine witnesses.  See Milwaukee Dist. 
Council 48 v. Milwaukee County, 2001 WI 65, ¶51, 244 Wis. 2d 
333, 627 N.W.2d 866.  He asserts that the District created the 
requested records, after the evidentiary hearing where the 
District Board voted to terminate his employment.  Zellner 
argues that, because the requested records were not presented at 
the evidentiary hearing prior to his termination, he did not 
have an opportunity to examine the records or question witnesses 
about them. 
¶41 The Journal argues that Zellner, by not raising due 
process in the circuit court, waived the issue.  In support of 
its argument, the Journal cites Jensen v. School District of 
Rhinelander, 2002 WI App 78, 251 Wis. 2d 676, 642 N.W.2d 638, in 
which the court of appeals rejected a school superintendent's 
argument that his due process rights were violated because he 
did 
not 
have 
an 
opportunity 
to 
examine 
his 
performance 
evaluation 
before 
his 
employer 
decided 
to 
disclose 
the 
evaluation to the public.  Additionally, the Journal asserts 
that Zellner did have an opportunity, at the deposition of the 
District's computer expert, to conduct an examination regarding 
No. 
2006AP1143-AC   
 
21 
 
the origin and the compilation of the information in the CD and 
the memo. 
¶42 Regarding Zellner's claim of violation of his due 
process rights, it is important to consider this court's holding 
in Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association v. Milwaukee Board 
of School Directors, 227 Wis. 2d 779, 787, 596 N.W.2d 403 
(1999).  There, we held that a public employee, such as a 
teacher, whose privacy or reputation interests would be impacted 
by disclosure of information requested under the Open Records 
Law has a right to a de novo judicial review of the custodian's 
decision to disclose the information.10  In this case, Zellner 
was entitled to, and received, such a de novo review of the 
District's decision to release the CD and the memo to the 
Journal.  As we have discussed, the District's decision to 
release the records was reviewed by the Ozaukee County Circuit 
Court, and that decision was appealed to the court of appeals, 
and is now being reviewed here on certification.  As the Journal 
points out, Zellner deposed the District's computer expert and, 
at that deposition, had the opportunity to question him 
regarding where the images and websites contained in the CD and 
the memo originated and how they were compiled.  We are 
satisfied, under the circumstances, that Zellner's due process 
                                                 
10 Justice William A. Bablitch, in his concurrence, stated, 
"Although 
the 
majority 
does 
not 
raise 
the 
issue 
to 
a 
constitutional dimension, I believe the lack of fundamental 
fairness raises due process issues."  Milwaukee Teachers' Ed. 
Ass'n v. Milwaukee Bd. of Sch. Dirs., 227 Wis. 2d 779, 800, 596 
N.W.2d 403 (1999)(Bablitch, J., concurring). 
No. 
2006AP1143-AC   
 
22 
 
rights were not violated, because of the review of the 
custodian's decision in the circuit court, as well as the 
deposition of the computer expert. 
¶43 Zellner argues that, even if the CD and memo are 
records under Wis. Stat. § 19.32(2), disclosure should still be 
barred since, under Wisconsin’s common-law balancing test, the 
public interest in protecting the privacy and reputation rights 
of its citizens outweighs the public interest in disclosing the 
requested materials.  Woznicki v. Erikson, 202 Wis. 2d 178, 192-
93, 549 N.W.2d 699 (1996).  Zellner argues that this court has 
held that significant consideration should be given to the 
privacy and reputation rights of Wisconsin citizens.  He points 
out that, in State ex rel. Youmans v. Owens, 28 Wis. 2d 672, 
685, 137 N.W.2d 470, 476 (1965), this court recognized the 
significant legislative policy of "not disclosing data which may 
unduly 
damage 
reputations 
carries 
over 
to 
the 
field 
of 
inspection of public records and documents."   
¶44 Zellner argues that this court should consider the 
"extent of harm to individual reputations by release of certain 
records. . . ."  Newspapers, Inc. v. Breier, 89 Wis. 2d 417, 
432, 279 N.W.2d 179 (1979).  He asserts that the requested 
records contain inflammatory information, that will harm his 
reputation and privacy if released.  According to Zellner, this 
harm, when weighed against the small amount of public value that 
release of the CD and memo would offer, tips the balance against 
allowing the public to access them.  See Morke v. Record 
Custodian, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., 159 Wis. 2d 722, 725-
No. 
2006AP1143-AC   
 
23 
 
726, 465 N.W. 2d 235 (1990).  Zellner claims that, in this case, 
the public would derive little value from the CD and the memo 
because it already has more than sufficient information to 
evaluate Zellner and the District.   
¶45 Zellner further argues that the requested records 
should not be disclosed because they are inaccurate and 
misleading. Linzmeyer, 254 Wis. 2d 306, ¶38.  Zellner asserts 
that since the CD and memo contain pornographic images and 
website addresses and that, if disclosure is allowed under the 
Open Records Law, the District could be forced to distribute 
such 
pornographic 
materials 
in 
response 
to 
open 
records 
requests.   
¶46 The Journal argues that the public's interest in 
oversight 
of 
government 
employees 
outweighs 
any 
personal 
embarrassment that Zellner might suffer upon release of the CD 
and memo.  The Journal asserts that only in exceptional cases 
may 
the 
"presumption 
of 
complete 
public 
access" 
under 
Wis. Stat. § 19.31 be overcome by an even stronger public policy 
in favor of limited access or nondisclosure.  Hempel, 284 Wis. 
2d 162, ¶28.  The Journal maintains that this is not an 
exceptional case, where access to the records should be denied.  
The Journal argues that the public has a significant interest in 
being informed of how Zellner, a public school teacher, 
conducted himself on the job, and how he utilized his work 
computer, which belonged to the District.  The Journal argues 
that the public also has an interest in being informed of how 
No. 
2006AP1143-AC   
 
24 
 
the District handled the investigation and discipline of 
Zellner.   
¶47 Zellner 
also 
asserts 
that, 
under 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 
19.85(1)(b), public bodies may be convened in closed session, in 
order to consider "dismissal, demotion, licensing or discipline 
of any public employee or person licensed by a board or 
commission 
or 
the 
investigation 
of 
charges 
against 
such 
person. . . ."  According to Zellner, the meeting between 
Zellner and the District Board was a closed session for purposes 
of discussing settlement.  He argues that allowing the public to 
have access to materials presented at that meeting would have a 
chilling effect on the ability of parties to settle labor 
disputes.  Zellner argues that closed sessions allow parties to 
engage in candid discussion without concern that what is 
discussed will be disclosed.  See N.L.R.B. v. Sears, Roebuck & 
Co., 421 U.S. 132, 150-52 (1975). 
¶48 The Journal argues that, although the settlement 
meeting between Zellner and the District was closed to the 
public, it does not follow that records which were compiled in 
conjunction with that meeting are automatically exempt from 
release under the Open Records Law.  See Wis. State Journal v. 
Univ. of Wisconsin-Platteville, 160 Wis. 2d 31, 38, 465 N.W.2d 
266 (Ct. App. 1990).  The Journal argues that the circuit court 
was correct in concluding that Wis. Stat. § 904.085(3) does not 
apply in this case.  Section 904.085(3) exempts from public 
disclosure under the Open Records Law any "oral or written 
communication relating to a dispute in mediation made or 
No. 
2006AP1143-AC   
 
25 
 
presented in mediation by the mediator or a party. . . ."  The 
Journal asserts that the explicit legislative purpose behind the 
statute is "to encourage the candor and cooperation of disputing 
parties, to the end that disputes may be quickly, fairly and 
voluntarily settled."  Wis. Stat. § 904.085(1).  The Journal 
argues that the CD and memo were not created for the purpose of 
mediation and that, therefore, § 904.085(3) is inapplicable, and 
we agree.           
¶49 We are satisfied that the strong public policy, 
evidenced by the presumption of complete public access that 
records should be open for review, outweighs the public's  
interest 
in 
protecting 
Zellner's 
privacy 
and 
reputation 
interests here, in regard to the release of the CD and memo.  
Wisconsin Stat. § 19.31 states in relevant part, "[I]t is 
declared to be the public policy of this state that all persons 
are entitled to the greatest possible information regarding the 
affairs of government and the official acts of those officers 
and employees who represent them."  This statement of public 
policy in § 19.31 is one of the strongest declarations of policy 
to be found in the Wisconsin statutes.  Munroe v. Braatz, 201 
Wis. 2d 442, 549 N.W.2d 451 (Ct. App. 1996).   
¶50 We recognize, however, that the public policy in favor 
of openness, although strong, is not absolute.  This court has 
also held that the public interest in the protection of the 
reputation and privacy of citizens may be a factor that favors 
nonrelease.  Woznicki, 202 Wis. 2d at 187.  In Linzmeyer, 254 
Wis. 2d 306, ¶31, we stated, "This public interest is not 
No. 
2006AP1143-AC   
 
26 
 
equivalent to an individual's personal interest in protecting 
his or her own character and reputation."  (Emphasis in 
original.)  We must weigh any public interest stopping release 
against the strong public policy that public records should be 
open for review.  Id.  As we stated in Linzmeyer, "[T]he public 
interest in protecting individuals' privacy and reputation 
arises from the public effects of the failure to honor the 
individual's privacy interests, and not the individual's concern 
about embarrassment."  Id. 
¶51 Linzmeyer concerned a report created by the Neenah 
Police Department  as a result of its investigation of a high 
school mathematics teacher, who allegedly had made inappropriate 
statements to female students.  We held that there was no public 
policy concern in that case that outweighed the presumption of 
complete access, and thus openness, under the Open Records Law.  
Id., ¶42.   
¶52 In this case, the CD and the memo contain internet 
searches, websites, and images allegedly conducted and viewed by 
Zellner on his work computer.  Release of the CD and the memo 
could cause embarrassment to Zellner and could damage his 
reputation. 
 
We 
recognize 
the 
sensitive 
nature 
of 
the 
information contained in the memo and CD.  However, in applying 
the common-law balancing test, the concern is not personal 
embarrassment and damage to reputation, but whether disclosure 
would affect any public interest.  Zellner fails to show how his 
personal interest in protecting his own privacy, character, and 
reputation, and his interest in avoiding embarrassment, would 
No. 
2006AP1143-AC   
 
27 
 
give rise to a public interest in the protection of the privacy 
and reputation of citizens generally.  Id., ¶36.  He has also 
failed to establish that the CD and memo contain inaccurate, 
misleading, and unauthenticated data and, accordingly, that they 
should not be released.  Even if Zellner could establish that 
the CD and memo contain such data, he has an avenue of recourse 
available to him to address such concerns.  See Jensen, 251 Wis. 
2d 676, ¶16.  For example, Zellner has a statutory right under 
Wis. Stat. § 103.13(4)11 to file a response when the evaluation 
is released.  Id. 
¶53 On the other hand, the public has a significant 
interest in favor of releasing the memo and the CD.  Public 
school teachers like Zellner are in a significant position of 
                                                 
11 Wisconsin Stat. § 103.13(4) states: 
(4) Personnel record correction. If the employee 
disagrees 
with 
any information contained in the 
personnel records, a removal or correction of that 
information may be mutually agreed upon by the 
employer and the employee. If an agreement cannot be 
reached, the employee may submit a written statement 
explaining the employee's position. The employer shall 
attach the employee's statement to the disputed 
portion of the personnel record. The employee's 
statement shall be included whenever that disputed 
portion of the personnel record is released to a 3rd 
party as long as the disputed record is a part of the 
file. 
We are satisfied that the term "personnel record" in 
§ 103.13(4), under the circumstances presented in this case, is 
broad enough to allow Zellner to provide a written statement 
explaining his position.   
 
 
No. 
2006AP1143-AC   
 
28 
 
responsibility and visibility.  See Id., ¶28.  They are 
entrusted with the responsibility of teaching children, and the 
public has an interest in knowing about such allegations of 
teacher misconduct and how they are handled.  The public also 
has 
an 
interest 
in 
knowing 
how 
the 
government 
handles 
disciplinary actions of public employees.  As we stated in 
Linzmeyer, 254 Wis. 2d 306, ¶28, "'All officers and employees of 
government are, ultimately, responsible to the citizens, and 
those citizens have a right to hold their employees accountable 
for the job they do.'"  (Citation omitted.)   
¶54 Regarding Zellner's argument that the meeting on 
February 20, 2006, between himself and the District was a 
"closed meeting" under Wis. Stat. § 19.85(1)(b), and that any 
records created for the purpose of that meeting should not be 
disclosed, we look to the language of the statute itself for 
guidance.  Wisconsin Stat. §§ 19.85(1) and (1)(b) state that a 
"closed session may be held" for the purpose of "[c]onsidering 
dismissal, demotion, licensing or discipline of any public 
employee. . . ."  However, Wis. Stat. § 19.35 states in relevant 
part: 
The exemptions to the requirement of a governmental 
body to meet in open session under § 19.85 are 
indicative of public policy, but may be used as 
grounds for denying public access to a record only if 
the authority or legal custodian under § 19.33 makes a 
specific demonstration that there is a need to 
restrict public access at the time that the request to 
inspect or copy the record is made.  
No. 
2006AP1143-AC   
 
29 
 
(Emphasis added.)  Generally, in construing statutes, the word 
"may" is construed as permissive.  Wauwatosa v. Milwaukee 
County, 22 Wis. 2d 184, 191, 125 N.W.2d 386, 389 (1963).  
Section 19.35(1) does not mandate that, when a meeting is closed 
under § 19.85, all records created for or presented at the 
meeting are exempt from disclosure.12  We must still apply the 
balancing test articulated in Linzmeyer.   
¶55 In sum, we hold that the strong presumption of 
complete openness with regard to public records overrides any 
public policy against disclosure of the CD and the memo in this 
case.  It is important to note, however, that the District need 
not, by itself, bear the financial burden of producing copies of 
the CD and the memo in response to open records requests.  Under 
Wis. Stat. § 19.35(3), the District may impose a fee upon the 
Journal, or any others who request the records, for the 
reproduction of the records, but the fee may not exceed the 
actual, necessary, and direct cost of complying with the open 
records request.  Osborn v. Bd. of Regents, 2002 WI 83, ¶46, 254 
Wis. 2d 266, 647 N.W.2d 158.   
                                                 
12 Wisconsin Stat. § 19.35 
also 
identifies 
other 
circumstances when a document may not be subject to release 
under the Open Records Law.  See Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(am)1-2.  
However, none of those circumstances appears to be applicable in 
this case.  As noted previously, the "investigation" of Zellner 
was concluded for purposes of the Open Records Law when the 
District Board terminated Zellner's employment. 
No. 
2006AP1143-AC   
 
30 
 
IV 
¶56 We hold that a person aggrieved by a request made 
under the Open Records Law has standing to raise a challenge 
that the requested materials are not "records" because they are 
copyrighted.  We further hold that the language of the statute, 
when viewed in light of the "fair use" exception to copyright 
infringement, applies so that the CD and the memo are "records" 
within the statutory definition of Wis. Stat. § 19.32(2).    
¶57 Additionally, we hold that the CD and the memo do not 
fall within the statutory exception for pending disciplinary 
records "prior to disposition of the investigation" under 
Wis. Stat. § 19.36(10)(b).  We are satisfied that the District's 
investigation of Zellner's conduct was concluded for purposes of 
the Open Records Law when the District Board terminated 
Zellner's employment and that, therefore, the CD and the memo 
are not exempt from disclosure.   
¶58 Finally, although we recognize the importance of 
protecting 
privacy 
and reputation interests, applying the 
common-law 
balancing 
test 
articulated 
by 
this 
court 
in 
Linzmeyer, 254 Wis. 2d 306, ¶12, we hold that the presumption of 
complete public access, based on a public policy determination 
that records should usually be open for review, outweighs the 
public's interest in protecting privacy and reputation interests 
of a citizen such as Zellner in this case.   
By the Court.—The decision of the circuit court is 
affirmed. 
 
No. 
2006AP1143-AC   
 
 
 
1