My Northern Wisconsin

Covering Ashland, Iron, Lincoln, Oneida, Price, Rusk, Sawyer, Taylor, and Vilas Counties


JUDGE FINDS TOWN OF WORCESTER IN VIOLATION OF OPEN RECORDS LAW


   

On Tuesday, September 20, 2022, a decision was filed in the civil case of Anthony Sleck versus Town of Worcester, which was originally filed in October 2020.

Under Wis. Stat. § 19.31, “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.”  The statute further
provides that “[t]he denial of public access generally is contrary to the public interest, and only in an exceptional case may access be denied,” establishing “a presumption of complete public access to government records, consistent with the conduct of governmental business.”

Anthony Sleck began the lawsuit because he wanted town officials to be accountable to the public.  He stated the Town of Worcester had violated the Open Records Law, citing eleven violations.  Attorney Tom Kamenick, of the Wisconsin Transparency Project, represented Sleck in the case.

Some of the alleged problems were with a former town clerk.  Those problems were given to her and also listed in the The Petition for Writ of Mandamus, provided to My Price County / My Northern Wisconsin by Attorney Kamenick, as follows:

"1. In October, Mr. Sleck asked you for records and you told him you didn’t have to do it and threatened to throw his request in the garbage.

2. As an ongoing problem, residents have been leaving you voicemail messages on the Town’s answering machine and you never respond.

3. In December, in response to a record request, you demanded $50 up front to pay for copies even though that was far in excess of what would be necessary for the number of records Mr. Sleck was seeking.  State law permits you to charge only for the “actual, necessary and direct cost of reproduction.  Wis. Stat. §19.35(3)(a)."

4. In response to that request, you unlawfully demanded that Mr. Sleck bring other people with him because you did not want to be alone with him.

5. On December 30th, Mr. Sleck requested you provide copies of emails people had sent you regarding his previous request (which had been CC’d to several other people).  The next day you refused that request without lawful reason.  Those emails are public records and must be provided.

6. In that same email, Mr. Sleck requested a date and time to come view the records, which you had indicated were ready to be viewed . On New Year’s Eve, you told him he had to come on January 2nd – not even 48 hours’ notice and over a holiday.

7. Mr. Sleck was finally allowed to get the records on January 8th, although not all of the records were made available.

8. Mr. Sleck made another request on January 16th, and that request was again only partially fulfilled.

9. Mr. Sleck made his most recent request (which incorporated the incomplete portions of previous requests) on February 2nd, giving you a full week’s notice (state law requires only 48 hours, see Wis. Stat. § 19.34(2)(a)1.) to have the records available on February 10th, at whatever time was convenient for you.

10. You stated you were unavailable on that day, but did not suggest any alternative days.

11. Finally you agreed on February 12th, but you left without explanation immediately after Mr. Sleck arrived.  That left him in an awkward position and he eventually had to leave and try to call the sheriff’s department to come and lock the building up.  You had mysteriously returned while he was gone.

12. He had not finished inspecting and copying the records he requested, so he tried to set up another time to come in and you once again were not helpful, simply saying you were not available the next day and maybe you could do it next week.

13. Despite that, you still have not offered any time for Mr. Sleck to come in."

After the suit was filed, the Town of Worcester turned over a number of records, and Sleck had three remaining claims in his lawsuit.

Judge Kevin Klein, a Price County judge, recused himself from the case.  Judge Ann Knox-Bauer, a judge in Taylor County, presided over the case.

Per the Decision on Motions for Summary Judgment from the court, "The petitioner moves for summary judgment on claims I, II and VIII of his complaint.  Counts I and II allege that the Town unlawfully withheld records from the petitioner’s March 16 and June 19 requests.  Count VIII alleges that the Town is charging an excessive fee for reproduction of the records requested by petitioner.  At issue is whether the Town’s fee of .50 per page reflects the actual, necessary and direct cost of reproduction."

(Article continues after promotional message)
   
SUPPORT LOCAL BUSINESSES - SHOP PRICE COUNTY FIRST:  With many face cords of maple and red oak on hand and ready, there is plenty of firewood for your needs at Daryl's Firewood.  Get your firewood early so you will be all set for Winter 2022.  If you need quality, dry wood for your campfire, Daryl has that, too.  Visit Daryl's Firewood's website or call Daryl at 715-339-6885 or 312-968-9261 for pick-up or delivery in Price County.  Follow Daryl's Firewood's Facebook page.

One portion of the case was in regard to requests to view job applications.  A former town chairman stated the applications were "confidential," but Sleck explained that the town's denial of the records was illegal.  At that time, town board members asked the applicants to request that their applications be made confidential.  A former town clerk then denied Sleck's request again, stating the documents were now confidential.  Another reponse for the applications by town officials was that another former town chairman had them.  That led to a former town clerk not adequately looking for the records, assuming the former town chairman had them in his possession, which was not the case.

Judge Ann Knox-Bauer ruled, "The court concludes the Town also violated Sleck’s request for June applications.  At the time that he requested the applications, there was no exemption that would have allowed the Town to withhold the applications.  The clerk simply asserted that they were not yet part of the public record.  The board then went into closed session, and created an exemption by having applicants sign the confidentiality request, knowing that Sleck had requested the applications."

It was also alleged, upon information and belief, that the Town of Worcester received ten applications for two job postings and that three applicants were interviewed.  It was believed that the son-in-law of a friend of a town board member was one of the applicants hired.

An interim town chairman told Sleck that the town had shredded all the applications that Sleck was requesting except for the one person who was hired.  However, “No authority may destroy any record at any time after the receipt of a request for inspection or copying of the record under sub. (1) until after the request is granted or until at least 60 days after the date that the request is denied,” according to Wis. Stat. § 19.35(5).

It was alleged that when Sleck asked to inspect payroll stubs and time cards in person, and he stated he would bring his own photocopying equipment, he was told, via email, "As per the policy adopted 7/29/2020, there are no more inspections."

Regarding the cost of photocopying fees, it was alleged that the Town of Worcester was charging excessive fees.  According to the League of Wisconsin Municipalities, "107. c. Amount.  The Wisconsin Department of Justice public records guidelines state that photocopy fees should be around $0.15 cents per page, and that anything in eexcess of $0.25 cents may be suspect."

In summary, the final findings were that the Town of Worcester did not adequately search for records that were requested, refused to give job applications that were requested, and charged excessively high for photocopies.

The judge's decision concluded by stating, "....the Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment is granted in part, with instructions for the Town to conduct a search for the applications; in addition the Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of costs is granted in part, with a declaration that the amount charged by the Town did not represent actual, necessary and direct costs of reproduction."

Before this ruling was made, the two town chairmen and town clerk, who were involved in these actions, left their duties and are no longer in those positions with the Town of Worcester.

   
JOHN BRYLSKI IS RUNNING AS AN INDEPENDENT, WRITE-IN CANDIDATE FOR PRICE COUNTY SHERIFF IN NOVEMBER 2022:  Visit John Brylski's website to learn about John, his philosophies on law enforcement, his endorsements, and more.  Follow John's Facebook page to receive updates and more information about his candidacy.

Want to see more free news stories, events, help wanted ads, and more?  "Like" the My Price County Facebook page and the My Northern Wisconsin Facebook page.  You can also register to see free news in Price County and beyond.  To sign up to our "News Highlights" e-mail, send your e-mail address with "Subscribe" in the subject line to contact@mypricecounty.com.
(This post was last modified: 09-23-2022, 04:51 PM by My Northern Wisconsin.)