MATC Board Voted Against Germantown Secession  |   Home  |   Civics Test

Denying Open Records Requests

This is outrageous.

Three in 10 requests made under the state’s public records law were not properly fulfilled, according to a statewide audit released today by open records advocates.

Citizens have a right to see what their government is doing.

Posted by Owen at 2215 hrs
Law + Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

1. From my experience, 8 of 10 open records requests are made by cranks who have a burr over nothing and probably don’t understand what they get. 1.5 are made by law firms. The other .5 are legit.

   I’m just sayin’. Imagine if people got documents about your industry. Would they understand it?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2008 at 2300 hrs
   
   
   

2. From my experience, I know exactly what I am looking for, asked for it correctly, needed to restate my requests by altering the language, was accused of requesting too much because of the redundancy of the aforementioned restated requests, was quoted an outrageously unaffordable cost, was made to wait for months, denied requests for questionable reasons, and more. 

   I’m just sayin’.  Imagine if people got documents that they DID understand….

   Posted by GAMazy on November 19, 2008 at 2327 hrs
   
   
   

3. I don’t pay taxes to keep a private industry afloat ( YET ).  I do however for government.  But even at that, what will you do with it.  If it’s a problem that causes controversy legislators don’t want to hear about it.  Look at the VA in Milwaukee, you can ring the bell but none of the legislators will stick their neck out.  Heaven forbid they should hurt some secreateries feelings.  You can plaster the internet full of evidence and records from State VA operations and the nepotisum and no one wants to hold the board or Sec. accountable.  You may as well repeal that law for all the good it does.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2008 at 2334 hrs
   
   
   

4. In some respects, you are correct.  One hand will wash the other.  On the other hand, there have been instances where exposing information has allowed the public to make informed decisions when voting for elected officials.  One simply does the best they can with the information they receive.  Do we expect miracles?  Sometimes… but not always.

   Posted by GAMazy on November 20, 2008 at 0759 hrs
   
   
   

5. Of course, if citizens voted for them, they have the right to ask for a report of the current situation so they can follow with them in the process of making a change on the system.

   Posted by Mac @ Motorcycle Fairings on November 20, 2008 at 0903 hrs
   
   
   

6. GAMazy,

   Sorry you’ve had bad experiences. I didn’t mean to suggest you shouldn’t get what you want, I’m just putting in my 2 cents as a records custodian.

   Were your experiences primarily with the State?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2008 at 1025 hrs
   
   
   

7. I have no problem with the concept of open records.  But ATV is right to point out that a lot of requests that come in initially are overly broad fishing requests that sometimes seem to have little purpose.  Specific requests are often easy to honor and finished quickly.  Broad requests (e.g. “please send me the names of every constituent who has contacted you about such-and-such in the last five years”) are rainy-day projects.

   Government offices are also allowed to bill for the cost of locating requested records if that cost is greater than $50.  So yes, if you insisted, I would look through that haystack for your needle.  I would also have informed you up front that if took me more than an hour to find it, you’d likely be getting a bill.  As I recall, we were told once upon a time to bill extended requests at around $40/hour.  And when you consider the median salary/benefits of an agency employee, that’s not outrageous at all.  If your request involves someone sitting in a back room for hours upon hours, there’s no reason other taxpayers should be subsidizing your request.

   Finally, there is also a price to transparency in the form of lost productivity.  Every man-hour that a state employee spends scouring years-old emails and binders that haven’t been touched in ages is a man-hour that could be spent doing something that would be more cost-effective for taxpayers.

   So yes, yay for open records.  But yay also for requesters who are specific and clear and make it easy for people on the other end to fulfill their requests - for they are the people who get what they’re looking for right away.

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on November 20, 2008 at 1103 hrs
   
   
   

8. RS is correct.  Not everything is open for public scrutiny and if a requestor is unable to make a reasonable request, it can be denied. 

   Any government entity is afforded a balancing test under the law to determine if a request should or should not be honored.  That test is used to address safety and privacy concerns, such as identity protection. Of course, the entity must provided a sufficient reason for denial, but it is allowed.

   I do believe in transperancy in government, but it’s a two-way street.  Open records requests should be honored as much as possible, but only if the request is valid and reasonable.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2008 at 1136 hrs
   
   
   

9. I agree with reasonable and valid requests.  My issues lie with the local/school level.  I have learned about being overly broad, and found that what Mr. P. is saying to be true.  I have also learned that the balancing test is not always used fairly and with “sufficient reason for denial.”

   Posted by GAMazy on November 20, 2008 at 1939 hrs
   
   
   

10. We have a bozo in our community who makes it a hobby to file open records requests on a weekly basis. He is obviously a nut case but how do you stop him? Administer a sanity test?

    The productivity costs of his requests are so great we could reduce one staff position if we told him to go to hell. There needs to be a way to identify nuisance requests and either deny them or make them pay up the nose.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2008 at 2308 hrs
    
    
    

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.