By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
Mixed results in local audit of records requests
Placeholder Image
MONROE - It is unlawful for public records custodians to require people seeking information to provide their name and reason for request. Yet a Monroe Times correspondent participating in a statewide public records audit was asked for her name and why she was seeking the documents in all 10 local government offices she visited.

Two of the 10 offices did not reply to the request before the audit was completed.

Times correspondent Marian Viney visited governmental offices in Monroe and Darlington last month as part of a 2008 Wisconsin Public Records Audit conducted by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council and the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Journalism and Mass Communication. Results of the statewide audit were released Wednesday.

In 65 of the state's 72 counties, newspapers sent representatives, usually reporters, to government offices seeking specific public records during September and October. The audit was modeled after one done in 1999 that prompted the Wisconsin Sheriffs and Deputy Sheriffs Association to pledge to do better after more than half of it 72 county offices failed to comply with the law when asked for the names of citizens who were jailed in the prior week.

In this year's audit, 1-in-10 requests were denied or ignored and another 2-in-10 were filled only after records custodians required the requesters to identify themselves or explain why they wanted the documents, which violates state law.

The law requires authorities to grant requests for public information or explain why they are being denied "as soon as practicable and without delay."

In Green County, the Monroe Police Department was the only office to not comply with the request. The department was asked for "documents, such as a list of police calls, that show when and why police were called to one given high school ... between Jan. 1, 2008, and July 1, 2008." Viney was asked to fill out a records request form, but had not heard back from the department before the audit was completed. She did receive the requested information about a week later.

The Green County Sheriff's Department was listed in the audit as in compliance "but with some problem," for needing to fill out a request and then having to wait to receive a jail booking log from the past 48 hours.

The School District of Monroe, City of Monroe and Town of Monroe complied with their requests with relative ease.

In Lafayette County, the City of Darlington did not respond before the audit was completed to a request for "all e-mails sent by the chief municipal officer on Sept. 2, 2008." Viney was required to write down her name and telephone number when she made the request. She received the information about a week later.

The Darlington school district, Lafayette County Sheriff's Department, Darlington Police Department and Darlington township complied with relative ease.

"While it's encouraging that government bodies complied with Marian's request with little or no hassle, the fact that she was asked in each and every office to provide her name and reason for asking is disturbing," Monroe Times Editor Jeff Rogers said. "Citizens have a right to ask for public information without having to identify themselves or be quizzed about why they are asking."

Viney, a regional correspondent, was selected to conduct the Times' portion of the audit rather than a Times reporter because she was not recognizable to any of the public records custodians in the offices she was to visit. She was instructed to provide her name when asked, and to answer only that she was interested in seeing the records if asked why she was requesting them.