Source: http://slidegur.com/doc/10153134/thomas-woznicki-vs.-jeff-moberg--new-richmond--wisconsin-..
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:15:32+00:00

Document:
State ex rel. Ardell v. Milwaukee Board of School Directors, 2014 WI App 66, 354 Wis.
Wisc. State Journal v. Univ. of Wisc.-Platteville, 160 Wis. 2d 31, 465 N.W.2d 266 (Ct.
results of an investigation into disciplinary matters.
under Wisconsin's Open Records Law, Wisconsin Statutes Sections 19 .31-19 .3 9.
has not responded to the District's offer to view his redacted personnel file to date. (R.
its discretion upholds the defendant School District's decision" to release the records. (R.
Court reviews de novo, "benefitting from the analys[i]s" of the lower court. Hempel v.
City ofBaraboo, 2005 Wl 120, ii 21, 284 Wis. 2d 162, 699 N.W.2d 551 (citing Osborn v.
Bd. ofRegents, 2002 WI 83, ii 12, 254 Wis.2d 266, 647 N.W.2d 158); see also Schill v.
v. Rock Cty., 2004 WI App 210, ii 25, 277 Wis. 2d 208, 689 N.W.2d 644.
District's decision, which was made under the correct balancing test. Appellant Br. at 8; Appellant App.
the District respectfully requests that this Court deny the appeal.
the appeal should be denied and the circuit court affirmed.
government and the official acts of those officers and employees who represent them."
District's decision to release the records should be upheld.
contest the release of the records] to rebut the strong presumption to the contrary." C.L.
v. Edson, 140 Wis. 2d 168, 182, 409 N.W.2d 417 (Ct. App. 1987).
information not subject to disclosure from record prior to release).
the public interest in nondisclosure. See id; see also Hathaway, 116 Wis. 2d at 397.
Woznicki's purported future injuries are at once purely speculative and a red herring.
matter that are equally applicable to the legislative revisions in 2003 WI Act 47).
v. Wisc. Dep 't ofAdmin., 2009 WI 79, 162, 319 Wis. 2d 439, 768 N.W.2d 700.
rights and are subject to a degree of public scrutiny." Local 2489, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v.
yields to the greater weight of the latter interest." Id. at 131.
public officials than to the possible harm to a particular official's reputation." Wisc.
dismissed as unfounded, see University of Wisconsin-Platteville, 160 Wis. 2d at 42.
consistently found that there is an overwhelming public interest in releasing such records.
572, 786 N.W.2d 177 (holding that an issue is forfeited when not raised before lower court).
performance related to the investigation into the past allegations of misconduct related to Woznicki.
employee involved. 226 Wis. 2d at 153-54.
the public employees, the public is entitled to that information... ") (emphasis added).
Complaint and Appellate Briefto allegations relating to a man named John Batchelor.
District on numerous occasions, the records requester is CRG Network, not Mr.
change to the balancing test. To support this request, he relies on State ex rel. Ardell v.
access to public records for safety reasons, that is, committed and incarcerated persons."
request[ed]." Id. at 'I] 13.
the harassment at issue in Ardell, as explained above.
Court and District's decision to release Woznicki's personnel file.
for relief pursuant to the District's records retention policy. See Appellant Br. at 1, 1013, 21; Appellant App. to Br. at 13-16.
should be kept for longer than the designated minimums.
board ... ") (emphasis added).
accusation that the District maliciously kept his personnel file in an effort to harass him.
Statutes Sections 19.21(6) and 16.63(3)(e).
the District's decision to maintain such records or its reasoning underlying that decision.
whether the record is within or outside the recommended minimum retention time. Wis.
legally obligated to produce such existing records. Wis. Stat.§ 19.35(l)(a).
brief filed as of this date.
with the court and served on all opposing parties.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

v. 

v. 
 v.

 v.