Court Opinion

ID: 9572845
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:45:05.807353+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:34:28.470366
License: Public Domain

Wilkie, C. J.
(concurring). The open meetings law expressly declares that it is the public policy of Wisconsin *701that “the public is entitled to the fullest and most complete information regarding the affairs of government as is compatible with the conduct of governmental affairs and the transaction of governmental business.”1 The prevention of secrecy in government is thus a matter of basic public interest in Wisconsin. Under these circumstances I think that the open meetings law should be liberally construed so as to effectuate this broad public policy. This is the position taken by the Florida courts, which have held that that state’s “Sunshine Law” was enacted for the benefit of the public and should be construed most favorably to the public despite its penal nature.2 This is also the position taken by Sutherland, who recommends that the rule of strict construction should be relaxed when the public and social interests in penal legislation are very great, as they are here. A more liberal construction is especially appropriate where, as here, the maximum possible penalty does not threaten the personal liberty of offenders, but at most exposes them to a forfeiture of $200.3
Nevertheless, even construing this statute liberally, I agree with the majority that, on the basis of the facts stipulated by both the respondents and the district attorney, the conclusion must be that the open meetings law in its present form did not require these two meetings to be open. This court cannot create open government by fiat, however desiráble a public policy open government may be. This court is limited to interpreting and declaring the intent of the legislature when it enacted the open meetings law. It is clear from the stipulated facts that the legislature, in enacting the present open meetings law, with its various exceptions and *702qualifications, intended to permit conferences like the two in question here.
I have been authorized to state that Mr. Justice Beilfuss joins in this concurrence.

 Sec. 66.77 (1), Stats.

 Board of Public Instruction of Broward County v. Doran (Fla. 1969), 224 So. 2d 693.

 Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory Construction (4th ed. 1972), see. 59.05.