Hathaway v. Joint School Dist. No. 1, City of Green Bay
| Decision Date | 31 January 1984 |
| Docket Number | C,No. 81-2298,No. 1,1,81-2298 |
| Citation | 342 N.W.2d 682,116 Wis. 2d 388 |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 15 Ed. Law Rep. 924 Larry HATHAWAY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, CITY OF GREEN BAY, et al; Board of Education of Joint School Districtity of Green Bay, et al; and Timothy G. Quinn, Superintendent of Joint School Districtity of Green Bay, et al, Respondents-Petitioners. |
J.D. McKay(argued), Green Bay, for respondents-petitioners; Parins, McKay & Mohr, S.C., Green Bay, on brief.
Stephen G. Katz(argued), Madison, for petitioner-appellant; John Halla and Kelly, Haus and Katz, Madison, on brief.
This is a review of a published decision of the court of appeals, dated December 7, 1982, which reversed a judgment of the circuit court for Brown county, Robert J. Parins, Circuit Judge, which denied Larry Hathaway's petition for writ of mandamus to compel the Green Bay Board of Education of Joint School DistrictNo. 1 to permit him access to a computer-generated list of the names and addresses of parents of pupils enrolled in the school district.1We affirm the court of appeals and direct that the cause be remanded to the circuit court with directions to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the Green Bay Board of Education to make available for inspection the list of parents' names and addresses.
On June 4, 1981, Hathaway requested access to a computer-generated list of the names and addresses of all the parents of school children in the Green Bay school district.Hathaway, as executive director of the Green Bay Education Association(Association), requested the list so that the Association could contact the children's parents in regard to its position on matters being discussed in the collective bargaining agreement between it and the Joint School District of Green Bay.The Association is the certified collective bargaining representative for the professional teachers employed by the Joint School District of Green Bay(School District), one of the respondents.
The computer-generated list, requested by Hathaway, consists of the names and addresses of all parents who have one or more children in the Green Bay public school district, created by the School District for its use in mailing information to the parents of the school system's students.Through the means of a computer, the list of names is transferred onto mailing-address labels, which are then individually placed on whatever mailing the School District desires to reach the attention of the parents.
The School District, through its attorneys, on July 15, 1981, denied Hathaway's request for the list, stating:
"[T]he District takes the position that the parent name labels to which you refer do not constitute public records as defined by Wisconsin law."
Hathaway, on August 24, 1981, filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking the circuit court to compel the School District to provide access to the list of parents' names and addresses.In the School District's return to petition for writ of mandamus, it reiterated its position that the list "is not a public record within the meaning of sec. 19.21 of the Wisconsin Statutes and is therefore not available ...."
A hearing on the petition for writ of mandamus was held on November 6, 1981, before Circuit Judge Robert J. Parins of Brown county.On that date, the circuit court noted that the School District's position was predicated upon a reading of the pupil record statute, sec. 118.125, Stats., which prohibits the disclosure of pupil records.The court acknowledged that a pupil record may not include director information concerning parents.It noted, however, that the list of names and addresses was gleaned from the records maintained by the School District for the individual pupil.Consequently, the list of parents' names and addresses constituted a pupil record within the purview of sec. 118.125(1) and (2).The circuit court further recognized that the purpose of both the state and corollary federal statute, 20 U.S.C. sec. 1232g(Supp.1976), is to safeguard the privacy of the student.It was satisfied that disclosure of the parents' names and addresses, derived from the pupil records, defeated the purpose of the legislation.The circuit court denied Hathaway's petition for writ of mandamus to order the School District to provide him access to the list.
The basis upon which the court of appeals reversed the circuit court is that the plain language of sec. 118.125, Stats., demonstrates the legislature's intent to protect certain personal information about pupils, nothing of which is correlated with the pupil's parents' names and addresses.It stated, "The mere fact that the information is gleaned from a pupil record does not make it a pupil record."110 Wis.2d at 255, 329 N.W.2d 217.
An analysis of the public records statute, sec. 19.21, Stats.(1979-80), as well as the pupil records statute, sec. 118.125(1) and (2), 1979-80, leads us to conclude that sec. 118.125 does not create an exception to sec. 19.21 which includes a list of parents' names and addresses.Public policy and public interest favor the public's right to inspect public records.Without an exception based upon statute, common law, or an overriding public interest in nondisclosure, there is a presumption that the public has the right to inspect public records.The mere fact that information is gleaned from a pupil record does not make a public record a pupil record to which confidentiality is afforded.Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals.
It is conceded by the litigants before this court that the list of names and addresses of parents of children in the Green Bay School District constitutes a public record within the purview of sec. 19.21,Stats. 1979-80.Section 19.21(1) provides that:
This statute, which governs the examination or inspection of public records, was created by ch. 178, Laws of 1917, and was formerly numbered 18.01.Prior to that time statutes authorized inspection in certain circumstances.Otherwise, the public's right to inspection of public records was governed by the common law.International Union v. Gooding, 251 Wis. 362, 371, 29 N.W.2d 730(1947);State ex rel. Youmans v. Owens, 28 Wis.2d 672, 137 N.W.2d 470, 139 N.W.2d 241(1965);Newspapers, Inc., v. Breier, 89 Wis.2d 417, 279 N.W.2d 179(1979).
In Gooding, supra, this court deemed that sec. 18.01, Stats., currently sec. 19.21(1), dealt with three specific types of papers that must be kept by an office and delivered to a successor in office.Those three types of papers are:
"(1) Such books, papers, records, etc., as are required by law to be filed, deposited, or kept in his office; (2) books, papers, etc., in his possession as such officer; (3) books, papers, etc., to the possession of which he is entitled as such officer."Id.251 Wis. at 369, 29 N.W.2d 730.
The term, "public record," included not only those documents specifically required to be filed by the custodian of records, but all written papers made by an officer within his authority.Id. at 371, 29 N.W.2d 730;Youmans, supra.Thus, sec. 19.21 controls reports "required by law," as well as those "which are in the lawful possession or control" of the school district.These reports are denominated public records.
The list of names and addresses of parents who have children in the Green Bay School District is maintained, used, and updated by the School District for the purpose of communicating directly with the parents of its students regarding issues and concerns.The list of parents' names and addresses is generated by a computer on address labels which are in the care and custody of the School District.It is apparent that the list was not maintained by the School District because it was required to do so by law.Clearly, the list was in the possession of the School District in its capacity as a school district, and as a school district it was entitled to the list.Thus, the list was in the "lawful possession and control" of the School District.We conclude, therefore, as did the parties, that the list in question is a public record as contemplated by sec. 19.21(1),Stats. 1979-80.
The general rule is that any person may inspect a public record.The fact that the list is a public record within the purview of sec. 19.21(1),Stats. 1979-80, and a request for its inspection was properly made, does not mean that the list must be produced for inspection.Section 19.21(2), 1979-80, provides:
. 2
On its face, because the list is a public record, it is subject to inspection by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hibma v. Odegaard
...rather than substantive, in which case the statute is generally given retroactive effect." Hathaway v. Joint School Dist. No. 1, 116 Wis.2d 388, 400 n. 4, 342 N.W.2d 682, 688 n. 4 (1984) (citing Gutter v. Seamandel, 103 Wis.2d 1, 17, 308 N.W.2d 403, 411 (1981)). See also Boggs v. Morden, 11......
-
State v. Beaver Dam Area Development Corp.
...who refused the demand of inspection to "state specifically the reasons for this refusal." Hathaway [v. Joint School Dist. No. 1, City of Green Bay], 116 Wis.2d [388,] 396[, 342 N.W.2d 682 (1984)] (citation omitted). A custodian's denial of access to a public record must be accompanied by a......
-
Woznicki v. Erickson
...alone serves as the foundation for the majority's holding, notwithstanding the admonition of the court in Hathaway v. Green Bay Sch. Dist., 116 Wis.2d 388, 397, 342 N.W.2d 682 (1984): "It would be contrary to general well established principles of freedom-of-information statutes to hold tha......
-
Voces De La Frontera, Inc. v. Clarke
...Nat. Res. , 2006 WI App 227, ¶13, 297 Wis.2d 254, 725 N.W.2d 286 (citation omitted); see also Hathaway v. Joint Sch. Dist. No. 1, City of Green Bay , 116 Wis.2d 388, 397, 342 N.W.2d 682 (1984) ("Thus, the general presumption of our law is that public records shall be open to the public unle......