Kroeplin v. Dnr
| Decision Date | 12 October 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 2005AP2427.,No. 2005AP1093.,2005AP1093.,2005AP2427. |
| Citation | 725 N.W.2d 286,2006 WI App 227 |
| Parties | Thomas KROEPLIN, Plaintiff-Appellant,<SMALL><SUP>†</SUP></SMALL> v. WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Defendant-Respondent,<SMALL><SUP>†</SUP></SMALL> Gregg Walker and The Lakeland Times, Intervenors-Respondents. The Lakeland Times and Gregg Walker, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and Randy Stark, Defendants-Appellants,<SMALL><SUP>†</SUP></SMALL> Thomas Kroeplin, Intervenor.<SMALL><SUP>†</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
On behalf of the plaintiff-appellant Thomas Kroeplin, the cause was submitted on the briefs of and oral argument by Kurt C. Kobelt of Lawton & Cates of Madison.
On behalf of the defendants-appellants Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and Randy Stark, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Maureen M. Flanagan, assistant attorney general, and Peggy A. Lautenschlager, attorney general. There was oral argument by Maureen M. Flanagan.
On behalf of the defendant-respondent Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the cause was submitted on the brief of Maureen M. Flanagan, assistant attorney general, and Peggy A. Lautenschlager, attorney general. There was oral argument by Maureen M. Flanagan.
On behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents and intervenors-respondents The Lakeland Times and Gregg Walker, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Robert J. Dreps and Jennifer L. Peterson of LaFollette Godfrey & Kahn of Madison. There was oral argument by Robert J. Dreps.
An amicus brief was filed by Kurt C. Kobelt of Lawton & Cates, Madison, for Thomas Kroeplin.
Before VERGERONT, DEININGER and HIGGINBOTHAM, JJ.
This is a consolidation of two appeals arising from the same request by a newspaper, pursuant to Wisconsin's open records law, WIS. STAT. §§ 19.31-19.39 (2003-04),1 for documents related to the misconduct investigation and subsequent disciplinary actions taken against a law enforcement officer. Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Conservation Warden Thomas Kroeplin is the subject of the requested documents and is the appellant in Kroeplin v. DNR, No.2005AP1093. He appeals the circuit court's order and judgment denying his request for an injunction preventing release of the records by the DNR to The Lakeland Times. The DNR is the custodian of Kroeplin's misconduct investigation and disciplinary records and is the appellant in the second case, The Lakeland Times v. DNR, No.2005AP2427, along with Kroeplin's supervisor, DNR Chief Warden Stark. The DNR and Stark (collectively, "the DNR") appeal the court's grant of a writ of mandamus to The Lakeland Times requiring full disclosure of the requested records.
¶ 2 Kroeplin argues that WIS. STAT. § 19.36(10)(d) exempts all records from public disclosure relating to the investigation of his violation of DNR work rules and of the subsequent disciplinary action taken. The DNR argues that § 19.36(10)(d) exempts only certain parts of those records, which it redacted. Subsection (10)(d) creates an exemption from disclosure for "information used in staff management planning." In the alternative, the DNR and Kroeplin both argue that the public interest favoring nondisclosure outweighs the public interest favoring disclosure. We conclude that the Kroeplin records do not fall within the § 19.36(10)(d) exception and that the public interest in disclosing the Kroeplin misconduct investigation and disciplinary records as requested by The Lakeland Times outweighs the public's interest in nondisclosure. We therefore affirm.
¶ 3 The material facts are not in dispute. On September 20, 2004, DNR conservation warden Thomas Kroeplin requested a license plate check from a City of Minocqua police dispatcher. Kroeplin's request came to the attention of a local newspaper, The Lakeland Times, which had obtained a copy of the transcript of Kroeplin's call to the dispatcher. The Lakeland Times subsequently questioned the legality of Kroeplin's license plate check request in a series of articles. The articles noted the suspicious nature of Kroeplin's request resulting from the timing of the request—six minutes after his nephew had tried to obtain the same information from the dispatcher about the same car—in conjunction with the fact that the car belonged to a friend of the victim in a drug-planting case in which Kroeplin's nephew was arrested.
¶ 4 Between December 2004 and January 2005, the DNR conducted an investigation into whether Kroeplin's September 20, 2004 request constituted misconduct in violation of DNR work rules. As a result of the investigation, DNR Conservation Warden Supervisor Thomas Wrasse wrote an interdepartmental disciplinary memorandum and sent Kroeplin a disciplinary letter on January 31, 2005.
¶ 5 On February 3, 2005, Gregg Walker, General Manager of The Lakeland Times, filed an open records request for "all public documents related to" the license plate check request, specifying that such documents should include "the agency's conclusions and findings—as well as supporting documents—reached in an investigation of that incident."
¶ 6 Randy Stark, Director of the Bureau of Law Enforcement at the DNR, responded in a February 22, 2005 letter that the DNR would release portions of the disciplinary letter and disciplinary recommendation memo, but would not release the other information requested for various policy reasons. After citing several specific policy reasons for denying the request, which we describe in more detail in our analysis, the letter also informed Walker of his right to bring an action for mandamus pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 19.37(1) to compel disclosure of the remaining records. In response to the DNR's denial letter, The Lakeland Times and Gregg Walker (collectively, "The Lakeland Times") brought a mandamus action requesting disclosure of those documents.
¶ 7 In accordance with the notice requirements of Wisconsin's open records law, Stark also sent Kroeplin a letter notifying him that the DNR would be releasing portions of the disciplinary letter and memo regarding his misconduct investigation, and notifying him of his right to seek a restraining order under WIS. STAT. § 19.356, preventing the DNR from disclosing the records. In response, Kroeplin filed a court action seeking to enjoin release of those records, alleging that the information was "highly personal and prejudicial if made public, and ... has the potential to cause serious harm to the privacy and reputational interests of [Kroeplin]."
¶ 8 The DNR submitted an affidavit in which Stark explained the reasons he provided in his denial letter. After considering all submissions and oral argument, the circuit court ruled that neither the WIS. STAT. § 19.36(10)(d) exception to Wisconsin's open records law nor the public policy reasons asserted by the DNR in its denial letter justified the DNR's failure to fully comply with the newspaper's open records request. The court consequently denied Kroeplin's request for an injunction and issued a writ of mandamus ordering the release of all documents related to the investigation of Kroeplin's license plate check request and subsequent disciplinary measures taken. The court stayed enforcement of the judgment pending appeal in the two companion cases.
¶ 9 The circuit court reaffirmed its decision upon reconsideration after the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided Hempel v. City of Baraboo, 2005 WI 120, 284 Wis.2d 162, 699 N.W.2d 551. Kroeplin and the DNR each appealed the court's decision; their appeals have been consolidated.
¶ 10 The first issue we must resolve is whether WIS. STAT. § 19.36(10)(d) exempts from disclosure the investigation and disciplinary records The Lakeland Times requested. The resolution of this case turns on our interpretation and application of § 19.36(10)(b) and (d) and other relevant statutes. We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. State v. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71, ¶ 7, 281 Wis.2d 484, 697 N.W.2d 769.
¶ 11 Statutory interpretation begins with the statute's text; we give the text its common, ordinary, and accepted meaning, except that we give technical or specially defined words their technical or special definitions. State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 2004 WI 58, ¶ 45, 271 Wis.2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110. We interpret statutory language in the context within which it is used, "not in isolation but as part of a whole; in relation to the language of surrounding or closely-related statutes; and reasonably, to avoid absurd or unreasonable results." Id., ¶ 46. In construing a statute we are to give deference to the policy choices made by the legislature in enacting the law. Id., ¶ 44. We also consider the scope, context and structure of the statute itself. Id., ¶¶ 46, 48. If this process of analysis yields a plain meaning, then there is no ambiguity and we apply that plain meaning. Id., ¶ 46. If, however, a statute is ambiguous, we may consider certain extrinsic sources, typically the legislative history, to ascertain its meaning. Id., ¶¶ 46, 48, 50-51. "A statute is ambiguous if it is capable of being understood by reasonably well-informed persons in two or more senses." Id., ¶ 47.
¶ 12 We begin our discussion recognizing the strong presumption of openness and liberal access to public records established by WIS. STAT. § 19.31, which describes the open records law's underlying policy of open access to records related to government officers and employees:
In recognition of the fact that a representative government is dependent upon an informed electorate, 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. Further, providing persons with such information is declared to be an essential function of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Voces De La Frontera, Inc. v. Clarke
... ... "The strong presumption of public access may give way to statutory or specified common law exceptions, or if there is an overriding public interest in keeping the public record confidential." Kroeplin v. Wisconsin Dep't of 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 ... ...
-
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel v. Department of Administration
... ... ¶ 65 As a result, accepting WSEU's safety-based arguments as exempting the entire group of WSEU's members here casts too broad a net, given the presumption of ... 768 N.W.2d 721 ... access to public records set out in Wis. Stat. § 19.31. 19 See Kroeplin v. DNR, 2006 WI App 227, ¶ 43, 297 Wis.2d 254, 725 N.W.2d 286 (rejecting the proffered reason for denying access to public records because it was not a reason "specific to the particular documents in th[e] case" and instead appeared to "apply generally to all disciplinary records") ... ...
-
Times v. Lakeland Union High Sch.
... ... 26 Further, it would be absurd to hold that a record relates to an employee only if it contains verifiably accurate information about that employee. Lakeland Times fails to propose a workable standard for determining whether a record is truthful and honest. See Kroeplin v. DNR, 2006 WI App 227, 35, 297 Wis.2d 254, 725 N.W.2d 286 (rejecting DNR's argument that Wis. Stat. 19.36(10)(d) protects evaluative judgments but not factual information in part because of the absence of a workable standard for distinguishing between the two). Instead, Lakeland Times contends ... ...
-
Provenza v. Town of Canaan
... ... 106, 113, 872 A.2d 1006 (2005) (noting that purpose of Right-to-Know Law is to ensure that government's activities be open to the sharp eye of public 175 N.H. 131 scrutiny, not that information about private citizens that happens to be in the warehouse of the government be so disclosed); Kroeplin v. Wis. Dep't of Natural Resources, 297 Wis.2d 254, 725 N.W.2d 286, 301 (App. 2006) (stating that when an individual "becomes a law enforcement officer, that individual should expect that his or her conduct will be subject to greater scrutiny. That is the nature of the job."). With respect to the ... ...