Two days ago, the Joint Finance Committee inserted language into the proposed state budget that would have substantially - actually almost completely - immunized the legislature from the state's open records law. It's a very bad idea and it was greeted by spontaneous opposition from groups across the political spectrum, including my organization, the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty who released a joint statement with the John K. MacIver Institute for Public Policy.
There is a reason we issued the statement in collaboration with our friends at MacIver. This time, it is Republicans who want to restrict government transparency. Four years ago, it was Democratic legislators who stonewalled MacIver's request for information. We represented MacIver in a lawsuit against Sen. Jon Erpenbach (D- Middleton). In defending against our suit, Sen. Erpenbach, at great public expense, argued, in part, for a view of the open records law that was just as bad - just as protective of the legislature's desire to keep things secret - as what the JFC attempted on July 2.
We won. Sen. Erpenbach's attempt to largely immunize the legislature from the open records law failed. The JFC's effort will fail as well. I predict that it will be pronounced dead, dead dead before noon on Monday. If it ever did get passed, my guess is that the Governor would veto it.
I understand that people in government don't much like the open records law. Compliance is time-consuming. The law was passed before the digital age - before things like e-mail exponentially increased the number of "documents" that individuals and organizations generate. In a world of simple-minded social media and hash tag philosophers, any effort to be candid in writing is likely to be turned into distorted attacks by partisans who either are incapable of understanding - or have no interest in - context.
Perhaps the law can be improved. But, as I said in our statement, transparency is the price you pay when you get to spend taxpayer dollars.
Cross posted at Purple Wisconsin
11 comments:
I call false equivalency. Comparing one senator's desire to protect his constituent's privacy with an institutionalized attempt to circumvent open record laws just isn't the same and you know it.
You're wrong. Because my colleagues and I wrote the briefs and I argued the case, I know what Senator Erpenbach argued. He did argue that the open records "balancing test" allowed him to protect "constituents." A balancing test that is that broad could be applied to anything. But he also made a constitutional argument (note the words "in part") that would have essentially made legislative compliance with the open records law voluntary.
Esenberg is right - any politician from either party OR a non-partisan holder of local office is equally likely to want to conduct their planning and as much of the execution of their projects in private. Golf course and country club chats, backroom deals, secret emails, discreet chats, mutual friends, deep party loyalties all play a strong part in our government processes in spite of open records laws. It's a constant fight and a hard fight. It's just infantile and dishonest in the extreme to take the stand that The Other Party does this, but not my own. Small towns up north are just as much hot beds of political drama as anything Milwaukee comes up with, the dollar amounts are just lower, the participants less well-known. But believe me, Mayberry dwellers are just as serious about it all. Where RE gets this "wrong" IMO is the part where he seems to swallow this whole and gets into the usual party v. party wrestling match. Mr. E, this whole farce was way too facile, too obvious. Mystery Republicans "drop a bomb" (who does that around here?) which pits the state into an uproar then (cue heroic music) Scott Walker Candidate rides up on a horse and saves the day. This was a set-up. A created problem, leveraged emotions, a planned pseudo-crisis. A dropped bomb that obliterates a Sacred WI Cultural Institution (Scott's signature move). And why? So Scott could play Hero. For his campaign. It was bogus. The only thing that obscures the obviousness of it all is the way everyone is programmed in the most Pavlovian manner to respond INSTANTLY with the usual between party WORTHLESS bickering kneejerk wild-eyed support for one's own. Walker is a cynic and he clearly understands people more than they understand themselves. Do you enjoy being used like Tools? This fits Walker's M.O. to a T, and it fits his plans. It also assumes we're all dumb. Which we too often are. Even so, the arrogance and manipulation of everyone, even the intelligent ones, in our state is offensive and repulsive. So is Walker's clear acceptance of the "necessity" of collateral damage. Anyone can be used up by him, when they happen to be in the vicinity of one of his bombs when they drop. WHY won't the Reps on JFC say who handed them this legislation? You know 'em, so ask 'em. Then decide if you wanna stick your neck out for what is most likely a Theater Production. Maybe there's some reward in it for ya, but just remember, not all of us are fooled. Scott thinks he has us all. But there's an old expression - The higher the monkey climbs the pole, the more you see of his butt. And I think it's time we all openly recognize Scott's butt now when he decides to moon the entire state.
Bullshit.
You do a disservice to Sen. Erpenbach by not noting that he vehemently objected to the provision being included in Motion 999 and offered a motion to have these provisions voted upon separately last Thursday evening.
You're very amusing. You censored my comment again. That must mean I'm right, and you're okay with it all. So much for the big ethical stance on the EC suit. I guess ethics are situational for everyone. When they're a weapon to fit the purposes of your own side hellz yeah we be so ethical. Otherwise high principles get in the way. I won't bother you again. Trust me on that. You'll lose EC, again. fyi. And on appeal.
I'm not censoring your comment but I don't guarantee turn around time either. As for your "false flag" theory on the open records thing, it's patently silly.
As for the eloquent comments of Anon 12:23, don't take my word for it. Read the filings. As for Anon 12:49, Senator Erpenbach is fully capable of explaining why he was against full application of the open records law to the legislature before he was for it. My point is only that politicians of both parties - sometimes with good reason - prefer to keep things out of the public eye. It's not evil, but its bad policy.
So when are you joining the suit against Scott's office? After all it's the "bipartisan" thing do. It seems your mention g of the balancing test in the Erpanbach suit fits here also per this Milwaukee JS article
"In their arguments to the Journal Sentinel and others, attorneys for Walker didn't cite any state court cases to back their contention when they could withhold such records. Instead, they said they could hold back the records under a long-standing balancing test that allows them to determine whether the public benefit of withholding records outweighs the public benefit of releasing them."
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/walker-office-operating-as-if-proposed-open-records-exemptions-are-law-b99532581z1-311737471.html
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
Did you read the article you linked to? It cites my published criticism of the position taken by the Governor at the time WCD - who already has a lawyer - filed suit. Snark works better when you do your homework.
Post a Comment