I am not a lawyer. I am a Madison resident who is curious about how the city spends money and whether it follows its own rules.
A few years ago, I started writing a blog about Madison city government, focusing on things the mainstream media were not covering. A big part of this involves obtaining records under the state’s open records law. When I want to know what is happening, I ask for the documents, and I read them.
The open records law is built for people like me. It begins with a declaration: “In recognition of the fact that a representative government is dependent upon an informed electorate, it is declared to be 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.”
Note what it says: all persons. Not just credentialed journalists or licensed lawyers.
Earlier this year, I asked the Madison Police Department for emails regarding a plan to let the department accept training grants without Common Council approval, a special exception unique to that department and apparently contrary to city policy. I was reporting on the proposal. The records arrived in May. They were useful, but the department had blacked out the work email addresses and work phone numbers of several government employees and a contractor doing business with the city.
That looked wrong to me. The open records law has only two provisions that allow a custodian to withhold contact information: sections 19.36(10) and 19.36(11). You can read both on the Wisconsin Legislature’s website. They cover only four things: a person’s home address, home email address, home phone number, and Social Security number. Neither one covers a work email address or a work phone number. You do not need a law degree to read them and see that an official’s city email is not an home address.
And so I pushed back. I wrote to assistant city attorney Adriana Peguero, whose job includes records compliance. I laid out my request, listed the specific redactions, quoted the two provisions, and explained why neither applied. Putting a request for compliance in writing is important because it puts all the facts and the rationale in front of the higher authority.
A couple of weeks later, Peguero replied. “I have discussed this matter with the MPD records custodians,” she wrote, “and they will be working on a new records set for you that discloses these email addresses and phone numbers.” I received the unredacted records the same day.
The whole thing took one letter and some patience. No lawsuit, no lawyer, no fee. It mattered because the result did not depend on special standing or special knowledge. Instead, it came down to a law being clear and a public official being willing to follow it once this was pointed out. That is how the system is supposed to work.
When a government tells you a record is being withheld, that is not the last word. It is one person’s reading, and sometimes it is wrong. You can read the statute yourself, point to the language, and ask someone with authority to take another look. Often, that is enough.
The information belongs to you. The law says so. Ask and you shall receive.
Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a nonprofit, nonpartisan group dedicated to open government. Madison resident Alex Saloutos is a native of Madison, a licensed real estate agent, and publisher of the blog 77SquareMiles.com.