New Richmond School Board Fails in Attempt to Keep Secret Public Information
By
Board President Lester Jones and candidate for reelection to the Board Deanna Cook-Shannon failed in their conspiratorial attempt to prohibit fellow elected Board members from obtaining public information from the District at last evenings meeting.
Cook-Shannon and Jones had proposed Policy #166, “Board Member Access to Records”. This policy would require all elected Board members to submit in writing to the District Administrator, the Business Manager, the Director of Curriculum or the Board Secretary for any request of information from the District. Once this is done, the District Administrator and the Board President will then “decide whether the data requested will be released, and if so, whether it will be released to the Individual Board member or the entire Board”.
Cook-Shannon fumbled in her attempts to defend the policy and even attempted to place blame on the Board – Administrative Assistant for allegedly distributing a wrong copy of the policy.
Jones and Cook-Shannon actually acknowledged their reasoning behind the proposed policy was to deny certain fellow elected Board members from having access to public information from the District.
Since the policy #166 did not receive unanimous support from the Board, it must be referred back to the policy committee for further review. There is no logical, rational or legal justification for this proposed policy. Its only purpose is political vindictiveness and petty spite.
This proposed policy is clearly in violation of Wisconsin – right to know laws and is a slap in the face to all New Richmond residents who pay taxes, send their kids to school and vote in our elections.
Many percieve their actions as arrogant and condescending and a sad reflection of their frustration that they cannot use the School Board to punish people with whom they disagree.
No related posts.
As they say in New York and Chicago, “They swim with the fishes“
As a witness to the above mentioned action I found it strange that people who agreed with policy #166 constantly referred to WASB to back them up. Since when is WASB the defacto standard when it comes the the publics right to know. It’s like asking a monkey if they like bananas. Of course they do. What type of objective answer is WASB going to offer? Make no bones about it, nothing WASB provided to support Cook-Shannon has ever been adjudicated. This one’s more than likely would be going strait to court It also would cost the tax payers even more money for legal fees. How much we up to in the last year now in legal fees?
I thought Judy Remington stated her case against it very well. To paraphrase her she said, “Any move away from the publics perception of transparency and our actual practices is wrong.” Right on Judy! This board has got to cut down on the hours and hours of closed sessions they have. Anyone got a figure on how many hours they spend behind closed doors compared to open? I understand that there are cases involving personnel issues and confidential items but outside of those, what is the ratio? I know it’s the highest I’ve ever seen.
[...] First she said something about WASB. Admin earlier pointed out that the objectivity aspect of asking WASB their viewpoint on allowing citizens more power, thus less power for them, was akin to wondering if monkeys like bananas. [...]
As I recall Shannon said that WASB told her that many districts including Milwaukee had policies similar to #166. There are 426 districts in the state. How many have this policy? As for Milwaukee, it doesn’t surprise me that they had some such restrictive policy. The city powers that be are the one’s crying about voter ID.
I don’t recall Shannon saying the WASB recommended such a policy. It normally would stay neutral. But it would be easy to quote WASB by sliding over or imply such a fact in a debate.
Her debate is akin to saying “we’ve always done it that way” as justification and is difinitely the “bandwagon effect.”
Good points Bob – don”t be surprised if Cook-Shannon – next policy proposal will be to restrict voting rights to only those card carrying members of the Vote Yes NR crowd.
It would only follow her reasoning with proposed policy #166.
Couple of comments regarding public records, open meetings and official policy statements crafted by governmental bodies.
For whatever it is worth, I have spent a significant amount of time with my nose in the state statutes regarding public meetings and open records.. Furthermore, I successfully filed a complaint with the S.C. County D.A. in a matter regarding illegal meetings in Hudson. The work product of those illegal meetings were essentially deemed null and void, they had to start over in the light of day. That led to the now infamous Long Range Facilities Task Force. So, be careful what you ask for as you just might get it… In my case, it was justified and was not, as some argued at the time, a “gotcha”.
Point being here is that the law is actually very straightforward on what constitutes legitimate grounds for convening in closed session, as well as the type of records that are not open to public scrutiny.
Regarding public records, the law in Wisconsin is clear insofar as the intent of the law is concerned and it is 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. ?ß 19.31.
Furthermore, providing citizens with information on the affairs of government is “An essential function of a representative government and an integral part of the routine duties of officers and employees whose responsibility it is to provide such information. To that end, ss. 19.32 to 19.37 shall be construed in every instance with a presumption of complete public access, consistent with the conduct of governmental business. The denial of public access generally is contrary to the public interest, and only in an exceptional case may access be denied.”
As far as policy statements promulgated by local governmental bodies Wis. Stat. ?ß 19.34(1) lays out the proper guidelines and requirements. The law establishes that a public records policy be established, not to create further restrictions (which a local governmental body cannot do)but to simply comply with the statute in this very specific regard. The purpose of a policy is to provide to the public the following specific items of information:
1.A description of its organization;
2. The established times and places at which the public may obtain information and access to records in its custody, or make requests for records, or obtain copies of records;
3. The costs for obtaining records;
4. The identity of the legal custodian(s);
5. The methods for accessing or obtaining copies of records;
6. For authorities that do not have regular office hours, any notice requirement of intent to inspect or copy records; and
7. Each position that constitutes a local public office or a state public office.
There are further specific matters such as hours of access, etc., that are merely recapitulations of what is proscribed by statute.
My point is that no governmental body in Wisconsin can establish special public records access procedures outside of what is proscribed by law. The law is readily available from the Attorney General’s office (link here)
When it comes to open meetings, the key is what constitutes a “governmental body” and what constitutes a “meeting.” The law is, again, relatively straight forward and “although there are some exemptions to the open session requirement, those exemptions are to be invoked sparingly and only where necessary to protect the public interest. The policy of the open meetings law dictates that governmental bodies convene in closed session only where holding an open session would be incompatible with the conduct of governmental affairs. “Mere government inconvenience is . . . no bar to the requirements of the law.” State ex rel. Lynch v. Conta, 71 Wis. 2d 662, 678, 239 N.W.2d 313 (1976).
The open meetings law explicitly provides that all of its provisions must be liberally construed to achieve its purposes. This rule of liberal construction applies in all situations, except enforcement actions in which forfeitures are sought. Wis. Stat. ?ß 19.81(4). Public officials must be ever mindful of the policy of openness and the rule of liberal construction in order to ensure compliance with both the letter and spirit of the law. Source: Attorney General’s Office Link to AG’s Open Meeting Compliance Guide
Hey Bob, your saying
reminds me a lot of a comment someone made recently criticizing a post centering around a certain Skoglund Oil arrangement.
Does that picket fence of yours need any mending yet?
Update.. If the good folks up in New Richmond would like to see what a complaint to the District Attorney regarding an open meeting violation looks like, as well as the result (finding of violation) feel free to pull this down and make copies.
2004 Open Meeting Complaint with supporting documentation
This complaint resulted in a finding by the District Attorney that the two board members were, in fact, in violation. This document is now available for reproduction.