Madison Teachers, Inc. v. Scott
| Decision Date | 06 February 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 2016AP2214,2016AP2214 |
| Citation | 379 Wis.2d 439,2018 WI 11,906 N.W.2d 436 |
| Parties | MADISON TEACHERS, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. James R. SCOTT, Chairman and Records Custodian, Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
For the defendant-appellant, there were briefs (in the court of appeals) filed by Steven C. Kilpatrick, assistant attorney general, and Brad D. Schimel, attorney general. There was an oral argument by Steven C. Kilpatrick.
For the plaintiff-respondent, there was a brief (in the court of appeals) filed by Susan M. Crawford and Pines Bach LLP, Madison. There was an oral argument by Susan M. Crawford.
An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, the Wisconsin Newspaper Association, and the Wisconsin Broadcasters Association by Dustin B. Brown, James A. Friedman, and Godfrey & Kahn, S.C., Madison.
¶ 1 This case comes before us on a bypass petition filed by the records custodian and chairman of the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission ("WERC"), James R. Scott. Scott appeals a decision of the circuit court1 that granted summary judgment to Madison Teachers, Inc. ("MTI") on its claim that the public records law was violated.2 The circuit court also awarded MTI statutory damages, attorneys fees and costs.
¶ 2 MTI had made repeated requests, at various times during the 2015 certification elections, for names of Madison Metropolitan School District (the "School District") employees who had voted as of those dates. WERC denied MTI's requests based on Scott's determination that while this election was ongoing, the public interest that elections remain free from voter intimidation and coercion outweighed the public interest in favor of openness of public records.
¶ 3 One issue is presented in this appeal: whether the public interest that elections remain free from voter intimidation and coercion in this certification election is sufficient to outweigh the public interest in favor of openness of public records. Because we conclude that Scott lawfully performed the balancing test in concluding that the public interest in elections free from voter intimidation and coercion outweighs the public interest in favor of openness of public records, we reverse the circuit court. Accordingly, no attorneys fees are due MTI under the provisions of Wis. Stat. § 19.37(2).
¶ 4 From November 4 through November 24, 2015, WERC conducted the annual certification election for collective bargaining representatives of the School District's employees pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 111.70(4)(d) 3.b.3 WERC contracted with the American Arbitration Association (the "Association") to provide technological services necessary to conduct the election.4 With the Association's support, voting occurred via telephone and internet for 20 days, and the Association electronically maintained data for votes that were cast. According to the contract between WERC and the Association, the Association was required to email election results to WERC no later than one business day after the election concluded.
¶ 5 Notably, under Wis. Stat. § 111.70(4)(d) 3.b., in order to be certified as the elected representative of the bargaining unit, a labor organization must receive the votes of at least 51 percent of the total number of employees in the bargaining unit. Therefore, a non-vote in the election is for all intents and purposes a "no" vote. Pursuant to § 111.70(1)(e), certification elections are conducted by secret ballot.
¶ 6 One week prior to the start of the certification election, MTI wrote to Scott stating that it intended to submit requests pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1) for records of the names of the School District's employees who had voted at specific points during the election. MTI wrote that it
¶ 7 On November 10, 2015, MTI submitted the first of its requests, seeking names of employees, by bargaining unit, who had voted as of that date. MTI requested that the records be delivered "as soon as possible, but not later than 5:00 p.m., November 16." On November 16, 2015, Scott advised MTI in writing that its request was denied for three reasons: first, because WERC utilized the Association, a third-party vendor to collect votes, the Commission did not possess the requested documents; second, because the annual certification election is conducted by secret ballot, disclosure of the names of employees who had voted would violate the secrecy of the ballot; and third, because the common law balancing test weighed in favor of "maintaining the secrecy of the ballot and of avoiding the potential for voter coercion while balloting is ongoing...." Scott was aware of a complaint submitted to WERC by the Racine Unified School District, alleging that voters had been coerced and harassed into voting during the 2014 annual certification elections.5
¶ 8 MTI submitted a second request on November 17, 2015, for names of employees, by bargaining unit, who had voted as of that date. MTI requested that Scott respond "as soon as possible, but not later than 5:00 p.m., November 20." This request was also denied in writing on November 30, 2015.
¶ 9 The election ended at noon on November 24, 2015. At 3:26 p.m. on that day, MTI submitted a third request to WERC, requesting names of all employees who had voted in the certification election. WERC provided those names, by bargaining unit, at 12:37 p.m. the following day, November 25. Scott concluded that the public interest in maintaining openness of public records was satisfied by disclosing the requested lists immediately after the elections were over.
¶ 10 On November 30, 2015, MTI filed a complaint pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 19.37(1)(a),6 seeking an order for mandamus, punitive damages, attorneys fees and costs, based on Scott's refusal to release voting records in response to MTI's November 10 and November 17 requests. On December 1, 2015, MTI filed an ex parte motion, citing Wis. Stat. § 801.02(5), for an order shortening the time for filing an answer or other responsive pleadings from 45 days to 20 days. The circuit court granted the ex parte motion on December 3.7 On December 4, 2015, MTI served the complaint, its ex parte motion and the resulting order on Scott.
¶ 11 On December 11, 2015, Scott filed a motion and supporting brief to reconsider and vacate the court's December 3 order. A hearing was conducted on December 15, at which the court granted Scott 45 days to answer. Scott timely answered.
¶ 12 On December 22, 2015, WERC's legal counsel, Peter Davis, emailed the Association, stating: The Association provided those records to WERC, which WERC provided to MTI during discovery.
¶ 13 MTI and Scott filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Scott argued, among other things, that the public interest in non-disclosure of the names of those who had voted when the election was ongoing outweighed the public interest in disclosure at that time and therefore, MTI did not have a legal right to the records it sought. Meanwhile, MTI argued that Scott failed to overcome the strong presumption in favor of openness of public records. Upon completion of briefing, the court granted MTI's motion and denied Scott's.
¶ 14 At the hearing on summary judgment, MTI also sought punitive damages, costs, and attorneys fees. A second hearing was held on these issues, and the court modified its previous order denying punitive damages and granting MTI $100.00 statutory damages, $41,462.50 attorney fees and $301.35 costs.
¶ 15 Scott appealed and, following initial briefing, Scott petitioned for bypass, which we granted. We now reverse the circuit court.
¶ 16 We review a record custodian's decision to deny a public records request independently. It is the duty of the records custodian to specify the reasons for not disclosing a public record, and we decide whether those reasons outweigh the public interest in disclosure as a matter of law. See Democratic Party of Wis. v. DOJ, 2016 WI 100, ¶ 9, 372 Wis. 2d 460, 888 N.W.2d 584. When a records custodian employs a balancing test, it is the custodian's burden to show that the public interest favoring denial of the requested record outweighs the public interest favoring disclosure. Id. (citing John K. MacIver Inst. for Pub. Policy, Inc. v. Erpenbach, 2014 WI App 49, ¶ 14, 354 Wis. 2d 61, 848 N.W.2d 862 ).
¶ 17 Wisconsin's public records law is set forth in Wis. Stat. § 19.31, et seq. Wisconsin's public records law requires that, absent a statutory, common law or overriding public interest in denying access, the public has the right "to inspect certain documents within the possession of a state entity." Voces De La Frontera v. Clarke, 2017 WI 16, ¶ 17, 373 Wis. 2d 348, 891 N.W.2d 803. The public records law "serves one of the basic tenets of our democratic system by providing an opportunity for public oversight of the workings of government." Nichols v. Bennett, 199 Wis. 2d 268, 273, 544 N.W.2d 428 (1996) (citing Newspapers, Inc. v. Breier, 89 Wis. 2d 417, 433-34, 279 N.W.2d 179 (1979) ). When evaluating a public records request, we keep in mind that Wisconsin has a "presumption of open access to public records." Osborn v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wis. Sys., 2002 WI 83, ¶ 13, 254 Wis. 2d 266, 647 N.W.2d 158 (citing Hathaway v. Green Bay Sch. Dist., 116 Wis. 2d 388, 397, 342 N.W.2d 682 (1984) ); see also Wis. Stat. §...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Van Ert v. Blank
...argues that my analysis "should change" in light of the Wisconsin Supreme Court's recent decision in Madison Teachers Inc. v. Scott (MTI), 2018 WI 11, 379 Wis. 2d 439, 906 N.W.2d 436. MTI, like Zellner and Erpenbach, concerns disclosure of information in public records under Wisconsin's ope......