Opinion ID: 2809695
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Public Access

Text: 22 No. 2013AP1715 ¶45 The public records law and open meetings law are fundamental concepts in our state's history of transparent government. See State ex rel. Auchinleck v. Town of LaGrange, 200 Wis. 2d 585, 597, 547 N.W.2d 587 (1996); Schill v. Wisconsin Rapids Sch. Dist., 2010 WI 86, ¶¶1-3, 327 Wis. 2d 572, 786 N.W.2d 177. These laws were enacted to promote public access to actions of governmental bodies. See Watton v. Hegerty, 2008 WI 74, ¶¶9-10, 311 Wis. 2d 52, 751 N.W.2d 369. Wisconsin's public records law states that it 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. Wis. Stat. § 19.31. [T]he clearly stated, general presumption of our law is that all public records shall be open to the public. Linzmeyer v. Forcey, 2002 WI 84, ¶15, 254 Wis. 2d 306, 646 N.W.2d 811 (citation omitted). This presumption reflects the basic principle that the people must be informed about the workings of their government and that openness in government is essential to maintain the strength of our democratic society. Id. (citation omitted). Similarly, Wisconsin's open meetings law states that it is declared to be the policy of this state that the public is entitled to the fullest and most complete information regarding the affairs of government as is compatible with the conduct of governmental business. Wis. Stat. § 19.81(1). ¶46 Despite their similar purposes, the public records law and open meetings law have differences and are not without 23 No. 2013AP1715 limits. The legislature enacted different avenues of enforcement for these two laws. The public records law's plain language allows an individual to initiate a lawsuit to enforce a records request but the statute does not similarly authorize an individual to initiate a lawsuit to enforce the open meetings law. Specifically, the public records law provides that, [i]f an authority withholds a record or a part of a record or delays granting access to a record or part of a record after a written request for disclosure is made, [t]he requester may bring an action for mandamus asking a court to order release of the record. Wis. Stat. § 19.37(1)(a). ¶47 By contrast, the open meetings law shall be enforced in the name and on behalf of the state by the attorney general or, upon the verified complaint of any person, by the district attorney of any county wherein a violation may occur. Wis. Stat. § 19.97(1). If the district attorney refuses or otherwise fails to commence an action to enforce this subchapter within 20 days after receiving a verified complaint, the person making such complaint may bring an action under subs. (1) to (3) on his or her relation in the name, and on behalf, of the state. Wis. Stat. § 19.97(4). ¶48 The open meetings and public records laws become somewhat intertwined in this case because the Newspaper argues, in part, that the public records law was violated because the Commission violated the open meetings law. The Newspaper argues that Wis. Stat. § 19.88(3) [of the open meetings law] required the [Commission] to record and disclose the information the 24 No. 2013AP1715 Newspaper requested. Section 19.88(3) states that [t]he motions and roll call votes of each meeting of a governmental body shall be recorded, preserved and open to public inspection to the extent prescribed in subch. II of ch. 19. Wis. Stat. § 19.88(3). Subchapter II includes the public records law. The Newspaper urges this court to hold that the legislature intended the duties imposed by § 19.88(3) to be enforced under the [Public] Records Law. ¶49 The Commission, relying on Zinngrabe, 146 Wis. 2d 629, argues that we cannot consider whether it complied with the open meetings law, because this lawsuit was filed under the public records law. Further, the Commission argues that it did not violate the open meetings law. It argues that it was not required under Wis. Stat. § 19.88(3) of the open meetings law to create a record of the commissioners' individual votes at the February 20, 2012 special meeting. The Commission reasons that § 19.88(3) requires roll call votes to be recorded, but the Commission used voice votes, not roll call votes, at the February 20 special meeting. The Commission also argues that it was not required under § 19.88(3) to record the motion at that meeting. Even if § 19.88(3) required the Commission to record the motion and individual commissioners' votes at the February 20 special meeting, the Commission argues, this [statute] does not obligate a public body to 'immediately' make a record of any such motions or votes. ¶50 We turn to Zinngrabe. Donald Zinngrabe filed a public records request with the Sevastopol School District seeking to 25 No. 2013AP1715 inspect minutes from several school board closed meetings. Zinngrabe, 146 Wis. 2d at 630-31. After being told that the requested records did not exist, he filed a mandamus action, seeking a writ of mandamus, punitive damages, and other costs under the [public] records law . . . . Id. at 630. He argued that he could seek relief under the public records law for the school board's failure to maintain records of its closed meetings as allegedly required by Wis. Stat. §§ 120.11(1) and 120.17(3) (1985-86). Id. at 634. The court of appeals rejected that argument, explaining that: Zinngrabe essentially argues that the board is attempting to defeat the provisions of the [public] records law by not keeping records that it is directed by statute to maintain. Zinngrabe's claim for relief, however, assumes that the board's alleged failure to keep minutes can be attacked under the [public] records law. We disagree with this premise and, accordingly, need not address the issue of whether and to what extent minutes must be maintained by the school board clerk. Id. at 634-35. ¶51 Consistent with Zinngrabe, the Newspaper cannot seek relief under the public records law for the Commission's alleged violation of the open meetings law. It is undisputed that the Newspaper filed this action under the public records law and did not follow the procedures to pursue an action under the open meetings law. Thus, we do not address whether an open meetings law violation occurred. In this public records law mandamus action, the Newspaper cannot recover reasonable attorney fees, damages, and other actual costs under Wis. Stat. § 19.37(2) for 26 No. 2013AP1715 an alleged violation of the open meetings law. See id. at 63435; 118th St. Kenosha, LLC, 359 Wis. 2d 30, ¶33 (Even if damages . . . are compensable under a particular statute, those damages cannot be recovered in a claim brought under the wrong statute.). ¶52 The Newspaper's contrary arguments do not persuade us to hold otherwise. The Newspaper contends that the open meetings law's enforcement provisions are ill-suited to serve the legislature's declared purpose to ensure timely public access to government affairs. However, the legislature mandated significant differences between the two laws' enforcement provisions. See Auchinleck, 200 Wis. 2d at 592-93. If the Newspaper seeks change in the statutory provisions, it must direct those concerns to the legislature. [A]ddressing those concerns is a legislative function, not a function properly undertaken by the courts. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel v. City of Milwaukee, 2012 WI 65, ¶83, 341 Wis. 2d 607, 815 N.W.2d 367 (Roggensack, J., concurring for a majority of the court). We also disagree with the Newspaper's argument that Wis. Stat. § 19.88(3) . . . implicitly incorporates [the public records law's] enforcement measures. Were we to hold otherwise, we would effectively nullify the enforcement provisions that the legislature included in the open meetings law. See Wis. Stat. § 19.97; Auchinleck, 200 Wis. 2d at 592-93.