West Bend Library Board
Consider this a red alert…
The West Bend Library Board has scheduled a meeting for tomorrow evening. I don’t know the time or place yet. The extremely short notice is troubling. On the agenda is to hire an outside attorney - someone other than the city attorney - to represent the Library Board. The reason is because some of the Library Board members were not happy with Mary Schanning’s advice (West Bend’s City Attorney) that they must disclose their emails regarding the public library’s business. There are significant issues with this:
1) The Library Board is an extension of the city. If they get sued, it is really the City of West Bend getting sued. It is entirely appropriate for the City Attorney to advise them.
2) This meeting is being called on extremely short notice in an apparent effort to exclude the public.
3) The Library Board can only pay for an attorney through Library funds, which would take away from the intended purpose of those funds.
4) The notion that Library Board members should be exempt from public scrutiny is despicable.
Here is the email that the City Attorney sent to the Library Board Members:
Library Board Members,
I am writing to you regarding the Library Board meeting scheduled for Thursday, June 18, 2009 to discuss hiring outside counsel to represent the Library Board. As I already informed Barbara Deters and Patti Geidel, I discourage you from taking such action. As the City Attorney, I have provided legal counsel to the Library Board in the past and can continue to provide legal counsel in the future. Because the Library Board is a committee of the City, the City Attorney provides legal counsel to the Library Board at no charge to the Board. Hiring outside counsel will require the Board to use library funds to pay the legal fees of the attorney hired.
I discourage you from hiring outside counsel due to the fact that the Library Board is not considered to be a separate and distinct legal entity under the Wisconsin Statutes. This means that the Library Board does not have the capacity to sue or be sued. Should someone file a lawsuit against the Library Board, that lawsuit is actually against the City pursuant to Section 43.58(3) of the Wisconsin Statutes. This would force me, as the City Attorney, to defend actions that the Library Board took on the advice of outside counsel rather than advice given by me. The Library Board does not have the authority to allow its outside attorney to defend the claim against the City. Because your action of hiring outside counsel could have a detrimental effect on future lawsuits against the City, I am compelled to notify the Mayor and Common Council members of my opinion regarding the action you may take at the June 18 meeting.
Finally, it is my understanding that the reason the Board is considering this action is due to the fact that some members of the Library Board disagreed with my interpretation of a recent public records request and were unhappy that they had to provide copies of their emails to Ginny Maziarka. The records request in question is already complete and the records, including copies of emails of Library Board members, have already been released. Therefore, obtaining a “second opinion” on my interpretation of the records request is a moot point. Please be advised that under the Wisconsin Statutes all members of City boards and committees must comply with the state’s public record law and open meeting laws. These laws are supposed to be interpreted on the side of openness rather than in a manner to keep things out of the public eye (see Section 19.31, Wis. Stats.). It is because of these laws that any emails, correspondence or other documents you receive or send in your capacity as a Library Board member are subject to disclosure to the public (with some minor exceptions).
I think this is a good time to remind the members of the Library Board (and to inform our newly appointed members) of the requirements of the public records law and the open meetings law. For your assistance on these laws, please review the manuals put out by the Wisconsin Attorney General’s Office which can be found at the following internet links:
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/AWP/2007OMCG-PRO/2007_OML_Compliance_Guide.pdf (Open Meetings Compliance Guide)
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dls/2008-PRCO/2008_Pub_Rec_Outline.pdf (Public Records Compliance Outline)
Please remember that Library Board members cannot discuss Library Board business with other Board members except in a properly noticed meeting of the Library Board. As stated in Library Trustee Essentials 25 (http://dpi.wi.gov/pld/te25.html), “In the case of open meetings law violations, an individual board member who is found to be in violation of the law may be fined and must pay the fine personally, without reimbursement from the library or municipality.” It is for your own protection that I encourage you to refrain from talking to each other or emailing each other regarding issues that may come before the Library Board.
Thank you.
Mary Schanning
City Attorney
1115 S. Main Street
West Bend, WI 53095
Phone: (262) 335-5105
Fax: (262) 306-3107
Email: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
West Bend’s Library Board is getting too big for its britches. It’s time to remind them who’s in charge.
“The notion that Library Board members should be exempt from public scrutiny is despicable.”
I completly agree. There is no way they would be exempt from a freedom of information request. It’s a waste of money to hire an outside attorney to fight the requests, because they will lose. (there’s some free legal advice).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 17, 2009 at 2129 hrs
How is the library funded? Can the city withhold funding?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 17, 2009 at 2209 hrs
:::paging through ORR::::
:zpopcorn:
Posted by GAMazy on June 17, 2009 at 2225 hrs
When have you ever heard so much commotion about a small town library board?
What could possibly be those emails?
If you are serving on the library board - I’m hoping you are there with the mindset to serve the public, and not for some personal agenda.
This is an awful lot of drama for such a trivial situation. Board members should take a chill pill and realize what their role is.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2009 at 0623 hrs
Are we seeing a pattern here?
First, they antagonize people opposed to adult material in children’s sections and now the city administration.
Could someone tell them that Obama election did not give them the right or power to do anything they please?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2009 at 0850 hrs
Those e-mails must contain some interesting information or they wouldn’t be so hell-bent on keeping them locked up. This should be interesting…to say the least. Stay tuned.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2009 at 1227 hrs
oooh :zpopcorn:
Where is my stool?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2009 at 1258 hrs
It is my understanding that the open records request was regarding any email or communication exchange between the board that Deborah Caldwell - Stone.
I have a question. If one does not live in the city but rather the township would their taxpayer dollars also go pay wha could be mounting legal fees for the library? If not they have got nothing to loose becuase it’s not their money or taxes involved. So the argument of anything goes could aply there too.
Maybe certain places are raising the cost for copies of these records to not only make up for the cost of getting the lists together but also to bring in funding in case lawsuits are filed. Just a maybe here.
It’s just a question. I don’t know the answer but I thought it an interesting topic to explore..
Respectfully,
KristinaPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2009 at 1318 hrs
The library board should have been made aware long before now that their official communications are covered under FOIA and are not private. Is the issue that their personal emails are being made public? If so, is there any reason the library couldn’t set up accounts for them under the library’s email domain, so their personal emails weren’t being put out there for the public? Seems simple enough….
This is really not the way to get things back to normal in West Bend! Good luck to the new board members.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2009 at 1607 hrs
Um, no, Kristina, that was not the ORR that was made, so that is incorrect.
Also, I paid cash for the ORR, just like anyone else. ORR’s can be submitted by city or town residents. Makes no difference.
Posted by GAMazy on June 18, 2009 at 1607 hrs
What does/did the ORR ask for, specifically?
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on June 18, 2009 at 1709 hrs
Ginny,
Thanks for the clarification. I just said it was my understanding I don’t say it was fact.
However, my question still remains unanswered. I am being serious not a smart a**. I don’t know the answer and was wondering if anyone did. Not a hypothosis the real answer.If one does not live in the city but rather the township would their taxpayer dollars also go pay what could be mounting legal fees for the library?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2009 at 1950 hrs
First, they antagonize people opposed to adult material in children’s sections and now the city administration.
I would post anonymously, too, if I was here to only make false, sensational claims like a troll.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2009 at 2051 hrs
Good lord, there really must not be a whole lot to do up there in your spare time.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2009 at 2057 hrs
Calling people trolls…sheesh.
I think protecting children is a pretty good thing to do in our “spare time”. We could be watching reality t.v. instead.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2009 at 2233 hrs
Owen, does the letter you posted from the attorney say “attorney-client privileged” on it anywhere?
Posted by Dan Kleinman on June 19, 2009 at 0610 hrs
We’ll certainly have to find out why the library board thinks it needs separate legal council—I don’t suppose it occurred to you to simply ask any of them, did it?
But did you really type: “Consider this a red alert…”?
Seriously? What’s the matter with you.
Red alert!!
“Inbound Russian missiles!”
“Tornadoes!”
“Library board holding a meeting that satisfies the state open records law!!”Duck and cover everybody.
And all because a bunch of your neighbors who, just a week or so ago, gave the taxpayers a beautifully lucid civics lesson in Constitutional law thought they might need some different legal advice? —or, well, we don’t really know, do we.
Be sure to tell us when we can come out from under our desks.
Posted by Mpeterson on June 19, 2009 at 1005 hrs
Owen,
You got a lot of stuff wrong.(Or your commentators did) No one on the Library Board opposed the ORR or refused to cooperate. All e-mails were duly turned over on time. And the notice of the special meeting complied with the time limits set by the Open Meetings law. I also note that the new aldermanic representative to the Library Board, Mr. Lindbeck—who voted against the renewal of the four board members—agreed with and voted for the motion to hire outside counsel. Ms. Maziarka was at the meeting—and when she and others were asked if the public had any questions or comments—said nothing and just left. She had an opportunity to make a direct comment to the board—- but just as the Board complained about—she prefers to conduct her business only in blogs. The Board members are all honest people who do their business in the public eye. Not so for Ms. Maziarka—or you, Mr. Robinson. Also, if you so much into transparency, open records, and honest dissemination of information—then please name the person who posted the city attorney’s letter. It most certainly was one of the Alderman. It would be even more honest if he had the courage, honesty, and integrity to admit he did it.
It was absolutely a legitimate gripe to say that city business belongs in the open and in public meetings—and not done in a cowardly fashion in an anonymous posting. Yes, Mr. Alderman, whoever you are, I am calling you a coward.P. S. What are those goofy outfits the guys in the picture on your blog are wearing? Do they wear jodhpurs in Iraq? Is someone auditioning for a role in the Village People? Perhaps there will be a renewal of the movie,“Blues Brothers” and someone is auditioning for the Henry Gibson role.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 2134 hrs
Bob Deters said, “The Board members are all honest people who do their business in the public eye. Not so for Ms. Maziarka—or you, Mr. Robinson. .... Yes, Mr. Alderman, whoever you are, I am calling you a coward.”
Lovely. Do the personal attacks ever stop? Really, it’s getting very tiresome. I suppose now I’m next on the hit parade.
Posted by Dan Kleinman on June 19, 2009 at 2144 hrs
Ooooooo, I smell a good, old-fashioned fiskin’ coming on.
Not so much “smell” as “see-rapid-typing-across-the-room-which-is-usually-a-sign-of”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 2150 hrs
Bob,
You got a lot of stuff wrong.(Or your commentators did)
Be specific. Make up your mind.
No one on the Library Board opposed the ORR or refused to cooperate. All e-mails were duly turned over on time.
No one said otherwise.
And the notice of the special meeting complied with the time limits set by the Open Meetings law.
Yes, but completely violated the spirit of the law. Notice of two days with no publication (including on the city’s website) is pathetic.
I also note that the new aldermanic representative to the Library Board, Mr. Lindbeck—who voted against the renewal of the four board members—agreed with and voted for the motion to hire outside counsel.
So? Is that validation for a bad decision?
Ms. Maziarka was at the meeting—and when she and others were asked if the public had any questions or comments—said nothing and just left. She had an opportunity to make a direct comment to the board—- but just as the Board complained about—she prefers to conduct her business only in blogs.
Again… so? What’s the point of talking to people who have made it clear that they don’t want to listen? And what’s the problem with blogs? Do you, like your wife, have a problem with citizens discussing things outside of your control?
The Board members are all honest people who do their business in the public eye. Not so for Ms. Maziarka—or you, Mr. Robinson.
Newsflash… neither Ginny or I are public officials. We’re private citizens. Funny how you insist that I, a private citizen, operate in the public eye when the Library Board, a public entity, strives to do the opposite.
Also, if you so much into transparency, open records, and honest dissemination of information—then please name the person who posted the city attorney’s letter. It most certainly was one of the Alderman. It would be even more honest if he had the courage, honesty, and integrity to admit he did it.
It was absolutely a legitimate gripe to say that city business belongs in the open and in public meetings—and not done in a cowardly fashion in an anonymous posting. Yes, Mr. Alderman, whoever you are, I am calling you a coward.You have no idea who disclosed the letter, but even bringing it up is an effort to distract. It’s public record and your faux bravado is rather pathetic.
P. S. What are those goofy outfits the guys in the picture on your blog are wearing? Do they wear jodhpurs in Iraq? Is someone auditioning for a role in the Village People? Perhaps there will be a renewal of the movie,“Blues Brothers” and someone is auditioning for the Henry Gibson role.
Grow up and expand your horizons. If that’s your best shot, you have a lot of life to live.
Posted by Owen on June 19, 2009 at 2151 hrs
my question still remains unanswered. I am being serious not a smart a**. I don’t know the answer and was wondering if anyone did. Not a hypothosis the real answer.
If one does not live in the city but rather the township would their taxpayer dollars also go pay what could be mounting legal fees for the library?I am still waiting for an answer to this. Someone out there has to know the answer. Please
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 2341 hrs
Mark,
But did you really type: “Consider this a red alert…”?
Seriously? What’s the matter with you.
Red alert!!
“Inbound Russian missiles!”
“Tornadoes!”
“Library board holding a meeting that satisfies the state open records law!!”
Duck and cover everybody.Be sure to tell us when we can come out from under our desks.
I am still laughing. Oh man TOO FUNNY!
Respectfully,
KristinaPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 2345 hrs
Owen,
OK, this time I am not being sarcastic or joking, just ordinarily curious. Is that you and Jed in the picture? Really, seriously, what are those outfits? Jed is in the military and you are not and yet you appear to be dressed the same. And I doubt that the uniform pictured would be worn by Jed in court. Is it some sort of ceremonial cavalry gear?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 21, 2009 at 0000 hrs
Bob,
Yes, that is Jed and me standing in the middle of Kyle Field - home of the Fightin’ Texas Aggies. We were in the Cadet Corps at Texas A&M and that is the senior uniform modeled on a WWII cavalry uniform.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_A&M_Corps_of_Cadets
Posted by Owen on June 21, 2009 at 0726 hrs
Total Entries: 20002
Total Comments: 134062
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 07:41 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 08:20 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 111
Total anonymous users: 3
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 08:28 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).