Generally, local governmental bodies respond quickly and properly to requests made by The Monroe Times for public records. We often wonder, though, how they react when it's not a known member of the news media making a request.
The Times last month participated in a statewide audit that helps answer that question. We're happy to report that our local agencies performed reasonably well then, too. But the reaction we've received after the results were published has been even more encouraging.
The statewide audit showed that local governments statewide denied, ignored or did not properly fill 3 out of every 10 requests made during the audit, which was conducted by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council and the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Journalism and Mass Communications. One 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 Times used a news correspondent who was unrecognizable to the records custodians of the 10 local government offices in Green and Lafayette counties she visited. Of the 10, two offices did not respond to her records request by the time the audit was completed. However, both agencies did comply and provide the requested information soon after the audit was completed.
All of the agencies did ask the correspondent for her name, and reason for requesting the records. By law, citizens are not required to provide either pieces of information to gain access to public records. That government personnel would ask for the name isn't necessarily unusual or alarming - often the name is necessary if there is a bill for a copying fee, or if the request will take some time to fill and the agency needs to get back in touch with the requester when the records are ready.
It is a concern that all 10 of the agencies asked why the correspondent was seeking the information. And it is important for citizens to know that they do not have to answer that question. None of the 10 local offices audited required an answer to gain access to the records.
After information about the audit appeared in the Times in a news story last Thursday, one official called the Times to ask if there was anything he needed to do to improve his department's policies regarding access to public records. The answer was no, but it was encouraging that the question was asked.
Another department sent a memo to the Times office that was sent to all of its personnel, reminding them of the policies and open records laws. Incidentally, this was an agency that passed our audit with no problems.
"It will be our agency's goal to err on the side of openness with regard to accessing records by members of the public," the memo said.
It is important for all local governmental bodies to continue to update public records custodians of the policies and laws, so they can adhere to them. Most local offices seem to do a good job of doing so. Audits like the one conducted recently and publicized serve as a reminder to governmental bodies, and the public, of the importance of properly and promptly providing public records when requested.
The Times last month participated in a statewide audit that helps answer that question. We're happy to report that our local agencies performed reasonably well then, too. But the reaction we've received after the results were published has been even more encouraging.
The statewide audit showed that local governments statewide denied, ignored or did not properly fill 3 out of every 10 requests made during the audit, which was conducted by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council and the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Journalism and Mass Communications. One 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 Times used a news correspondent who was unrecognizable to the records custodians of the 10 local government offices in Green and Lafayette counties she visited. Of the 10, two offices did not respond to her records request by the time the audit was completed. However, both agencies did comply and provide the requested information soon after the audit was completed.
All of the agencies did ask the correspondent for her name, and reason for requesting the records. By law, citizens are not required to provide either pieces of information to gain access to public records. That government personnel would ask for the name isn't necessarily unusual or alarming - often the name is necessary if there is a bill for a copying fee, or if the request will take some time to fill and the agency needs to get back in touch with the requester when the records are ready.
It is a concern that all 10 of the agencies asked why the correspondent was seeking the information. And it is important for citizens to know that they do not have to answer that question. None of the 10 local offices audited required an answer to gain access to the records.
After information about the audit appeared in the Times in a news story last Thursday, one official called the Times to ask if there was anything he needed to do to improve his department's policies regarding access to public records. The answer was no, but it was encouraging that the question was asked.
Another department sent a memo to the Times office that was sent to all of its personnel, reminding them of the policies and open records laws. Incidentally, this was an agency that passed our audit with no problems.
"It will be our agency's goal to err on the side of openness with regard to accessing records by members of the public," the memo said.
It is important for all local governmental bodies to continue to update public records custodians of the policies and laws, so they can adhere to them. Most local offices seem to do a good job of doing so. Audits like the one conducted recently and publicized serve as a reminder to governmental bodies, and the public, of the importance of properly and promptly providing public records when requested.
