Friday, March 09, 2007

Yes, The “Open” Part Of the Open Meetings Law Is There For A Reason

Speaking of welcome court rulings...

The City of Milton violated the state’s open meetings law when its City Council, over a period of nine months, secretly negotiated a deal to bring a $70 million ethanol plant that opened this week to the community of 5,500 people just north of Janesville, a state appeals court has ruled.

“We cannot accept the proposition that a governing body’s belief that secret meetings will produce cost savings justifies closing the door to public scrutiny,” judges on the 4th District Court of Appeals wrote in an opinion issued Thursday.

During a nine-month period in 2004 and 2005, the Milton City Council negotiated a development agreement with United Cooperative that called for the city to provide more than $800,000 in subsidies to the company and required the city to borrow $3 million to pay for infrastructure improvements.

The deal didn’t come to light until February 2005, when the City Council approved the agreement without discussion or public input.

Beware of politicians who fear public scutiny.

(8) Comments
Posted by Owen at 2008 hrs
Law + Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

  1. They did the exact same thing here in PA. Our plant opens in June. People still have the no ethanol plant signs in their front yards, not knowing that the plant is 75% built.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2007 at 2113 hrs


  2. I agree with this ruling.  As a local official we must allow our constituents all the information about their government as is possible. 

    But it continues to perplex me how the state’s open meetings and records laws only apply to local units of government and not the state.

    I can’t have a beer with 3 of my colleages because that would be a blocking minority and constitute a violation of the sunshine law, yet in Madistan, they hold caucuses behind closed doors to determine votes with no public scrutiny. 

    How is that right?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2007 at 0858 hrs


  3. I agree, Steve.  I do think that there is a place for “smoky rooms” where politicians can have frank discussions without worrying about how they will be portrayed in the media, but there should always be robust open forums and all of the information should be public.  And, as you say, the rules should apply equally regardless of the level of government.

    Posted by Owen on March 10, 2007 at 0940 hrs


  4. Find it odd that people who cheerily go along with the secrecy of the Bush adminstration would anything to say here?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2007 at 1008 hrs


  5. And sadly, it means nothing. The plant is still there. Admittedly they will go back and approve the whole thing in open session.

    Which mocks the entire process.

    Our state has hundreds of rules and no real consequences. Political paybacks, closed sessions - there are many violations every day in local and state government. Anyone who actually tries to call attention to the problem is called a troublemaker and thrown out of the club.

    Which leaves us to find answers in the courts. Expensive and time consuming, court answers rarely provide actual change. They come so far after the fact that the wrong doing is long forgotten.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2007 at 2257 hrs


  6. Bravo, Owen, you are now saluting a Supreme Court decision which was obtained by one of Linda Clifford’s partners.  This is the sort of lawsuit which Clifford has prosecuted on behalf of her some-time client, the Wisconsin State Journal.

    You step in it yet again, without even knowing it, Owen.  Bravo!

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 12, 2007 at 2113 hrs


  7. “Step in it?”  Why?  Am I supposed to only support things that are accomplished by people whom I generally support, or is it permissible for me to actually support a principle regardless of the advocate’s political affiliation?  Is supporting something that a Dem did when I agree with the principle “stepping in it?” 

    What a shallow sad world you live in.

    Posted by Owen on March 12, 2007 at 2133 hrs


  8. Wisconsin’s Open Records / Open Meetings law gives three remedies for complaints.  One, take it to court to ask a judge to weigh your complaint and perhaps levy a fine.  Two, take it to your local District Attorney.  Three, give it to the state Attorney General.  The DA and the AG might investigate or write a letter of opinion if and when they feel like it. 

    I made a very simple complaint to my Jefferson County DA recently.  One record from one bureaucrat who refused to deliver it.  The DA’s entire written response?  “Your correspondence dated February 28, 2007 does not require formal action on my part.  Therefore, no action will be taken.” I asked for a clarification.  His entire response?  “I stand by my previous response.  I decline your request for clarification. I will not provide any further responses to inquiries from you in this matter.”  Elected officials can be so charming, can’t they?

    As for smoke-filled rooms and other illegal quorums, it’s hard to prove those.  You need an insider with principles and an eagerness to encourage compliance.

    Posted by John Foust on March 13, 2007 at 1218 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.