While politicians across the country and in the region debate away as the Nov. 4 election nears, a debate of a different kind was going on Monday in Madison.
State Rep. Marlin Schneider, D-Wisconsin Rapids, squared off with Bill Lueders, editor of Madison's Isthmus weekly newspaper and president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council. They debated the fate of the state's online court records system, the Wisconsin Circuit Court Access site commonly known as CCAP.
It's an important subject, one that threatens to spark a movement to restrict public access to sensitive public records. The debate was part of the Freedom of Information Council's 30th anniversary celebration.
The CCAP Web site includes county-by-county criminal and civil court records from as far back as 30 years ago. The site (http://wcca.wicourts.gov), started in April 1999, now gets between 3.4 million and 3.9 million hits a day, according to the Associated Press. CCAP is free and accessible the public.
Schneider was the architect of a bad bill last year that would have limited CCAP access to police, judges, prosecutors and reporters. Schneider believes CCAP is used inappropriately by citizens and businesses to snoop on others or to discriminate against job applicants.
"It convicts people in other people's minds even if they have done nothing wrong," Schneider said.
Schneider's right, of course. There are people who visit CCAP purely for nosy reasons, or worse. And, no doubt, there are citizens and employers who misuse the information they can glean from CCAP.
Lueders admitted as much Monday, but correctly pointed out that the solution to that cannot be to deprive public access to public records. He said the greatest power of the state is to charge people with crimes, and that should not be kept secret.
He also spoke out against another bill that would purge records in CCAP for people whose charges are dismissed or are found not guilty. Again, such a bill would serve to hide from the public parts of the state's public courts system and its processes. This simply cannot be accepted.
Because once one set of restrictions on public access to public records is in place, others will follow. Public records no longer will be public.
Lueders clearly was on the right side of that debate. His willingness to fight that fight is appreciated.
State Rep. Marlin Schneider, D-Wisconsin Rapids, squared off with Bill Lueders, editor of Madison's Isthmus weekly newspaper and president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council. They debated the fate of the state's online court records system, the Wisconsin Circuit Court Access site commonly known as CCAP.
It's an important subject, one that threatens to spark a movement to restrict public access to sensitive public records. The debate was part of the Freedom of Information Council's 30th anniversary celebration.
The CCAP Web site includes county-by-county criminal and civil court records from as far back as 30 years ago. The site (http://wcca.wicourts.gov), started in April 1999, now gets between 3.4 million and 3.9 million hits a day, according to the Associated Press. CCAP is free and accessible the public.
Schneider was the architect of a bad bill last year that would have limited CCAP access to police, judges, prosecutors and reporters. Schneider believes CCAP is used inappropriately by citizens and businesses to snoop on others or to discriminate against job applicants.
"It convicts people in other people's minds even if they have done nothing wrong," Schneider said.
Schneider's right, of course. There are people who visit CCAP purely for nosy reasons, or worse. And, no doubt, there are citizens and employers who misuse the information they can glean from CCAP.
Lueders admitted as much Monday, but correctly pointed out that the solution to that cannot be to deprive public access to public records. He said the greatest power of the state is to charge people with crimes, and that should not be kept secret.
He also spoke out against another bill that would purge records in CCAP for people whose charges are dismissed or are found not guilty. Again, such a bill would serve to hide from the public parts of the state's public courts system and its processes. This simply cannot be accepted.
Because once one set of restrictions on public access to public records is in place, others will follow. Public records no longer will be public.
Lueders clearly was on the right side of that debate. His willingness to fight that fight is appreciated.
