Opinion ID: 1798661
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Applicability of Sec. 18.01.

Text: Subs. (1) and (2) of sec. 18.01, Stats., provide: (1) Each and every officer of the state, or of any county, town, city, village, school district, or other municipality or district, is the legal custodian of and shall safely keep and preserve all property and things received from his predecessor or other persons and required by law to be filed, deposited, or kept in his office, or which are in the lawful possession or control of himself or his deputies, or to the possession or control of which he or they may be lawfully entitled, as such officers. (2) Except as expressly provided otherwise, any person may with proper care, during office hours and subject to such orders or regulations as the custodian thereof may prescribe, examine or copy any of the property or things mentioned in subsection (1). While technically it may be inaccurate to refer to the papers filed by City Attorney Buckley with defendant mayor as a report we do so in the interest of brevity. Defendant contends that the afore-quoted statutory provisions do not extend to this report because it was not required by law to be filed with the mayor. However, the statutory words of sub. (1) or which are in the lawful possession or control of himself extend the applicability of the statute to some papers and documents not required by law to be filed, deposited, or kept in the mayor's office. The leading case dealing with inspection of public records and documents pursuant to sec. 18.01, Stats., is International Union v. Gooding. [3] In that case plaintiff union requested an alternative writ of mandamus to compel defendant and others, representing the Wisconsin employment relations board, to make available a petition on file with the board. There was no statutory provision authorizing the filing of this petition because it sought to invoke a jurisdiction which the board did not possess. Plaintiff asserted it was entitled to look at the petition under sec. 18.01 (1) and (2). In considering what papers and records the statute applied to, the court said: Sec. 18.01 (1), Stats., in supplanting all the existing legislation heretofore mentioned, deals with three specific types of papers that must be kept by an officer and delivered to a successor in office: (1) Such books, papers, records, etc., as are required by law to be filed, deposited, or kept in his office; (2) books, papers, etc., in his possession as such officer; (3) books, papers, etc., to the possession of which he is entitled as such officer.  [4] (Emphasis supplied.) In determining that the trial court had correctly denied the motion to quash the writ, the court emphasized its position by stating: It is clear enough that it was supposed by the legislature that numerous papers other than those required by specific statute or rule to be kept should remain in the files as a part of the records of an office. . . . It is the rule independently of statute that public records include not only papers specifically required to be kept by a public officer but all written memorials made by a public officer within his authority where such writings constitute a convenient, appropriate, or customary method of discharging the duties of the office. [5] This overruled sub silento the dictum appearing in the final paragraph of the opinion in State ex rel. Spencer v. Freedy [6] in which the conclusion was expressed that sec. 18.01, Stats., only allowed inspection of anything required by law to be filed, deposited, or kept in a public office. Defendant mayor as head of the . . . police departments [7] is entitled to a report of any investigation of the police department made by the city attorney. We deem it wholly immaterial, on the issue of whether defendant was in legal custody of the papers sought to be inspected, that here the city attorney did not submit a formal report stating the conclusions he had reached as a result of his investigation, but instead merely filed with the mayor the statements of persons interviewed and interdepartmental memoranda. We conclude that sec. 18.01 (1) and (2), Stats., is applicable to the documents with respect to which petitioner seeks to compel inspection.