Court Opinion

ID: 9524020
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:49:14.924868+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:08:44.648126
License: Public Domain

*528NETTESHEIM, J.
(concurring). I concur with the majority opinion. I write separately to express my opinion that the language of Coalition for a Clean Gov't v. Larsen, 166 Wis. 2d 159, 479 N.W.2d 576 (Ct. App. 1991), sweeps too broadly. Fortunately, the 1991 change in § 19.35(l)(b), STATS., although apparently not in response to the Coalition holding, affords the opportunity to avoid the application of Coalition to this and future similar cases. See 1991 Wis. Act 269, § 26sm.
As the majority observes, Coalition holds that a record custodian has the option to either: (1) provide the requester with a readable copy of the record, or (2) allow the requester to photocopy the record. Coalition, 166 Wis. 2d at 165, 479 N.W.2d at 578. Stated differently, the custodian has no obligation to mail or ship the record to the requester.1
I disagree with the breadth of the Coalition language. Unlike the requester in Coalition, here, Borzych is incarcerated. As such, he obviously has no present means of personally appearing before the custodian to obtain the public record. Thus, absent the assistance of a third party, Borzych's only means of obtaining the record is via the mails or other form of shipping by the custodian — an option which the custodian may withhold under Coalition.
Thus, the Coalition rule would deny many prisoners access to public records under the open records law. This might not dismay public records custodians who are often required to respond to frivolous open records requests from prisoners; nor *529would it dismay those lawyers and judges who are called upon to litigate these requests. But the Coalition language is so broad that it also covers other persons who are physically unable to appear before the custodian and cannot obtain the assistance of third parties to make such an appearance. That approach flies directly in the face of the declared policy of the open records law. See § 19.31, STATS.
As noted, we see many abuses of the open records law by prisoners (a matter the legislature should perhaps address). However, I do not agree with the substantial curtailment of the open records law allowed by the broad Coalition language, whether or not consciously framed.
As noted by the majority opinion, the legislative change to § 19.35(l)(b), STATS., now limits the Coalition rule to only those instances in which the requester appears personally before the custodian. The legislative history regarding this amendment does not reveal whether it was prompted by the Coalition decision. Nonetheless, the amendment fortunately eliminates the potential damage of the Coalition holding.

As the majority correctly observes, under the current statute these same options exist, but the statute applies only when the "requester appears personally to request a copy of a record." Section 19.35(l)(b), Stats.