Jonathan Anderson may be reached at [email protected]. RESOLVING PUBLIC RECORDS DISPUTES IN WISCONSIN: THE ROLE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE by Jonathan Anderson A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Media Studies at The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee December 2013 ABSTRACT RESOLVING PUBLIC RECORDS DISPUTES IN WISCONSIN: THE ROLE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE by Jonathan Anderson The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 2013 Under the Supervision of Professor David Pritchard This study investigated how the Wisconsin attorney general reviews and sometimes intervenes in access disputes over the state’s public records law. The study posed three primary questions: How do the attorney general’s administrative review mechanisms operate in practice? To what extent are the mechanisms effective at resolving disclosure disputes? And do the mechanisms help people unable to hire a lawyer to litigate? The study analyzed correspondence in 304 cases over six years to generate data on the quantity and nature of the attorney general’s caseload in that time period. The study also interviewed 17 requesters to understand their disputes, their perceptions of the attorney general, and the outcomes of their cases. In short, the study revealed a wide range of data about who uses the attorney general’s mechanisms, the authorities involved in disputes, the main issues underlying disputes, and the types of action the attorney general’s office took in disputes. The study also found that the attorney general’s administrative review mechanisms have the capacity to help resolve disclosure disputes, though in some cases requesters reported that the attorney general was not helpful. The study further found that when the attorney general’s office intervenes, it often works with parties to informally resolve disputes and almost never takes formal legal action to enforce the public records law. ii © 2013 Jonathan Anderson All rights reserved. ii i TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND .................................................................................................... 7 I. Public access to government information: theory, history, and democracy ...................... 7 A. Global roots of freedom of information ................................................................. 9 B. Freedom of information in the United States ....................................................... 11 II. Wisconsin’s public records law ....................................................................................... 19 A. Senate bill 250 and the open records board ......................................................... 22 B. Subsequent amendments to the public records law ............................................. 24 C. Basic elements of the public records law ............................................................. 26 D. Enforcement provisions ....................................................................................... 30 E. Administrative review mechanisms ..................................................................... 32 III. Administrative review mechanisms in the United States ................................................ 47 A. Types of administrative review mechanisms ....................................................... 50 IV. Standards for assessing the effectiveness of administrative review mechanisms at resolving disclosure disputes ................................................................... 57 A. Factors evaluated by mechanism design .............................................................. 58 B. Factors evaluated by assessment of mechanism operation in practice ............................................................................................. 60 C. Factors evaluated by a hybrid approach ............................................................... 62 V. Research questions .......................................................................................................... 71 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS ..................................................................................... 73 I. Analysis of requests to and responses from the attorney general .................................... 73 II. Semi-structured interviews with mechanism users .......................................................... 76 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS ........................................................................................................... 78 I. Summary of major findings ............................................................................................. 78 II. Analysis of correspondence ............................................................................................. 80 A. Quantity of cases, requests, and requesters .......................................................... 80 B. Types of requests ................................................................................................. 81 C. Issues presented in cases ...................................................................................... 83 D. Types of requesters .............................................................................................. 85 E. Single-case requesters vs. multiple-case requesters ............................................. 86 F. Few requesters were lawyers ............................................................................... 88 G. Requester county .................................................................................................. 90 H. Authorities: state vs. local .................................................................................... 91 I. Authority types ..................................................................................................... 92 J. Authority county for local authorities .................................................................. 94 K. Attorney general responses were fairly timely .................................................... 97 L. Cases in which authority was involved in before AG response ........................... 98 M. Cases attorney general copied authority in response letter .................................. 99 N. Attorney general response author ...................................................................... 100 iv O. Summary of correspondence analysis ................................................................ 101 III. Interviews ....................................................................................................................... 103 A. Table of interviewees ......................................................................................... 104 B. Attorney general intervention can help resolve disputes ................................... 104 C. Requesters also reported instances when attorney general review did not resolve disputes. ............................................................ 111 D. Requesters reported seeking attorney general help even when they did not expect any action ......................................................... 113 E. Requesters often cited low cost of using attorney general ................................. 116 F. Litigation as last resort ....................................................................................... 118 G. Requesters generally articulated respect for attorney general’s office .................................................................................... 119 H. Numerous requesters complained about lack of definitiveness of AG’s responses .................................................................. 122 I. Requesters reported that the AG often takes informal action to resolve disputes .................................................................... 124 J. Summary of interview findings ......................................................................... 127 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 128 I. Application of assessment standards ............................................................................. 128 II. Findings are consistent with legislative intent ............................................................... 135 III. The attorney general’s office overwhelmingly uses informal means to resolve public records disputes over formal legal action ........................................... 136 IV. Complaints about the attorney general’s lack of definitiveness are understandable and warranted, but there is also a compelling counter argument ................................... 137 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 138 I. Recitation of principal findings ..................................................................................... 138 II. Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 140 A. The attorney general should adopt, and make publicly available, written procedures for how it will respond to administrative review requests. ............. 140 B. The attorney general should regularly report caseload statistics ....................... 141 C. The attorney general should make a publicly available database of correspondence. ............................................................... 142 III. Limitations of research .................................................................................................. 143 IV. Opportunities for future research ................................................................................... 144 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................... 146 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................... 158 I. Appendix A: Definition of issues .................................................................................. 158 II. Appendix B: Definition of requesters ............................................................................ 160 III. Appendix C: Interview questions ................................................................................... 161 IV. Appendix D: Table of cases ........................................................................................... 163 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Quantity of cases in time period under study .......................................80 Table 2: Types of requests to the attorney general ............................................82 Table 3: Issues raised in cases ............................................................................83 Table 4: Types of requesters in caseload ...........................................................85 Table 5(a): Single-case requesters vs. multiple-case requesters by individuals .......................................................................................86 Table 5(b): Entities that triggered multiple cases ...................................................87 Table 6(a): Lawyer-requesters vs. non-lawyer requesters ......................................87 Table 6(b): Lawyer-requesters based on requester type .........................................88 Table 7: County origin of cases .........................................................................90 Table 8: State authorities vs. local authorities ...................................................91 Table 9: Types of authorities present in cases ...................................................93 Table 10: Counties where authorities were located .............................................96 Table 11(a): Response time in 30-day intervals .......................................................97 Table 11(b): Accrued response time .........................................................................97 Table 11(c): Weekdays between request dates and response dates ..........................98 Table 12: Cases in which authority was involved in case prior to AG issuing response ................................................................99 Table 13: Cases in which attorney general’s office copied authority in response letter .....................................................100 Table 14: Attorney general response author ......................................................101 Table 15: Table of interviewees .........................................................................103 Table 16: Table of cases .....................................................................................163 v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I have many people to thank. First, I am forever grateful to my thesis adviser, Professor Dave Pritchard. This project would not have been possible without his guidance, encouragement, and patience. I have had the good fortune to be a student, research assistant, and teaching assistant under his direction, and his mentorship has made an indelible mark on me. To the other members of my committee, Professor David Allen and attorney Robert Dreps: Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and expert insight; your contributions were invaluable. I cannot think of a committee better suited for this project. While this thesis benefited from the sharp eye of all of my committee members, I am solely liable for whatever errors remain. Thanks also to my peers and colleagues in the Department of Journalism, Advertising, and Media Studies. I am particularly grateful to the late Donna Decker, whom I served as a teaching assistant for and learned so much from. I miss her wit and candor. I thank Else Ankel, who welcomed me into her home during my graduate studies, for her edifying wisdom in the course of this research. Most importantly, I am deeply indebted to my parents, Bill and Peg, and my siblings, Chad and Alisa, and their families. I could not have done this work without their unwavering support and love. Thank you.! vi i 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Before the Wisconsin legislature overhauled the state’s public records law in 1981, record requesters had only one formal way to enforce their right of access to a record: litigation.1 That is, requesters could ask a judge to order a government authority to comply with the public records law.2 If the government authority had not responded to the records request with a sufficiently specific reason for denial, the court could order release of the record without further inquiry.3 If the authority had articulated a specific reason for denial, the court was required to assess that reason, independently weighing the presumption of public access to the record against any harm that might flow from permitting access.4 Put another way: record requesters could pay a substantial sum of money to an attorney, wait awhile, and endure the complexities and hassles of litigation – all, of course, without any guarantee of success. Then-State Senator Lynn Adelman thought that was a problem. 5 “In the past, you could only go out and hire a lawyer and sue,” Adelman told the Associated Press in the early 1980s.6 “To the average person, that is no remedy at all.”7 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 Linda de la Mora, The Wisconsin Public Records Law, 67 MARQ. L. REV. 65, 82 (1983). See also Beckon v. Emery, 36 Wis. 2d 510 (1967) and State ex rel. Youmans v. Owens, 28 Wis. 2d 672 (1965). 2 de la Mora, supra note 1, at 82. 3 Beckon v. Emery, supra note 1, at 517-518. 4 de la Mora, supra note 1, at 82. 5 Adelman wasn’t the only legislator to hold the view that litigation was often an ill-fitting enforcement mechanism for the common person. See, e.g., Reid Beveridge, Bill to change open records law revived, then killed – for now, WIS. ST. J., Feb. 15, 1978, at page 4, section 1 (“[Rep. Sharon Metz] urged the Assembly to differentiate between the public and the news media. She said it is individual citizens who have had trouble obtaining records from state agencies, not the news media, which have access to lawyers to force their demands.”). 6 Associated Press, Open records law in effect Jan. 1, THE CAPITAL TIMES, Dec. 28, 1982, at 15. 7 Id. 2 So Adelman, the principal author of the 1981 bill to revise the public records law,8 added processes that he thought would allow citizens to enforce a right of access to a record in a cheaper and less complicated way. The first process enabled record requesters to ask the attorney general or a district attorney to sue the government authority on their behalf.9 The second process gave any person the right to ask the Wisconsin attorney general to give advice as to the applicability of the public records law under any circumstances. 10 The legislature ultimately added these two processes, referred to in this study as “administrative review mechanisms,” into the revised public records law. They represent the manifestation of Adelman’s and the legislature’s intent to make the public records law more accessible to everyday citizens. Paraphrasing Adelman, the Associated Press described the revised law as “a means of reducing government secrecy without having to hire a lawyer.”11 Indeed, Adelman told the AP that the law “will be of more help to the average citizen than to the press,” given the news media’s deep pockets and concentrated efforts to fund public records litigation at the time.12 Yet in the nearly three decades since the legislature added the administrative review mechanisms to the public records law, the extent to which these mechanisms have actually helped the average citizen is far from clear. There is reason to believe that the attorney general and district attorneys rarely exercise their authority to enforce the public !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8 See Associated Press, Senate OKs new state open records law, THE CAPITAL TIMES, Oct. 7, 1981, at 27 and John Nichols, Adelman's legacy will be tough to match, THE CAPITAL TIMES, January 8, 1998, at 8A. 9 Wis. Stat. § 19.37(1)(b). 10 Wis. Stat. § 19.39. 11 Associated Press, supra note 6, at 15. 12 Open Records Law will help citizens, Adelman tells journalist group, MILWAUKEE JOURNAL, Jan. 19, 1983, at 10 (Adelman said “[t]he press is generally aggressive enough, sophisticated enough, intimidating enough, and well-financed enough, that generally the press can get what it wants – not always, but generally – and the larger media more than the smaller media.”).