State ex rel. Auchinleck v. Town of LaGrange

• Citation: 200 Wis.2d 585,547 N.W.2d 587
• Decision Date: 08 May 1996
• Docket Number: Nos. 94-2809 and 94-2887,s. 94-2809 and 94-2887
• Parties: STATE of Wisconsin ex rel., Robert J. AUCHINLECK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWN OF LaGRANGE and Elizabeth Sukala, Defendants-Respondents. STATE of Wisconsin ex rel., Robert J. AUCHINLECK, Plaintiff-Appellant, State of Wisconsin ex rel., Abe J. Goldsmith, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF LaGRANGE, Town of LaGrange Ad Hoc Committee Pertaining to Law Enforcement and/or Boating and Safety Patrol, Denise Pierce, David Heilmeier, Frank Taylor, Jon Jacobsen, Charles Herbert Sharpless and James Shannon, Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin

Page 587

547 N.W.2d 587 200 Wis.2d 585 STATE of Wisconsin ex rel., Robert J. AUCHINLECK, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TOWN OF LaGRANGE and Elizabeth Sukala, Defendants-Respondents.
STATE of Wisconsin ex rel., Robert J. AUCHINLECK, Plaintiff-Appellant,
State of Wisconsin ex rel., Abe J. Goldsmith, Plaintiff,
v.
TOWN OF LaGRANGE, Town of LaGrange Ad Hoc Committee
Pertaining to Law Enforcement and/or Boating and Safety
Patrol, Denise Pierce, David Heilmeier, Frank Taylor, Jon
Jacobsen, Charles Herbert Sharpless and James Shannon,
Defendants-Respondents. Nos. 94-2809 and 94-2887. Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Argued Jan. 9, 1996.
Decided May 8, 1996.

Page 588

[200 Wis.2d 587] Appeal from orders of the Circuit Court for Walworth County, John R. Race, Judge.

For the plaintiff-appellant there were briefs by Patrick J. Hudec, Jean-Marie Reilly and Hudec Law [200 Wis.2d 588] Offices, S.C., East Troy and oral argument by Patrick J. Hudec.

For the defendants-respondents there was a brief by Michael J. Cieslewicz, Kevin A. Christensen and Kasdorf, Lewis & Swietlik, S.C., Milwaukee and oral argument by Kevin A. Christensen.

Amicus curiae brief was filed by Linda M. Clifford, and LaFollette & Sinykin, Madison for the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council.

Amicus curiae brief was filed by Bruce Meredith, and Chris Galinat, counsel, Madison, for the Wisconsin Education Association Council.

BRADLEY, Justice.

These cases are before the court on certification by the court of appeals, pursuant to Wis.Stat. § 809.61 (1993-94). ¹ Robert Auchinleck appeals two orders which dismissed his separate actions against the Town of LaGrange (Town) and other Town officials for alleged violations of Wisconsin's open meetings and open records laws. See Wis.Stat. §§ 19.81-.98 and 19.31-.37. The circuit court dismissed the actions based on Auchinleck's failure to comply with the governmental notice provisions of Wis.Stat. § 893.80(1). We conclude that both the open meetings and open records laws are exempt from the notice provisions of § 893.80(1) because the policy of public access to governmental affairs which underlies those laws would otherwise be undermined. ² Accordingly, we [200 Wis.2d 589] reverse the circuit court's orders and remand for further proceedings.

The facts for purposes of this appeal are not in dispute. The Town formed an "Ad Hoc Committee Pertaining to Law Enforcement and/or Boating and Safety Patrol." This committee served at the direction of the Town Board to consider the expenditure of monies and the enforcement of Town ordinances with respect to Lauderdale Lakes.

The committee often held meetings that were closed to the public. On one such occasion the committee met in closed session to review a public survey concerning the level of law enforcement that was desired on Lauderdale Lakes. Auchinleck, the acting police chief for the Town, filed an action on behalf of the State pursuant to Wis.Stat. § 19.97(1), (4), ³ alleging that this meeting

Page 589

was closed in violation of Wis.Stat. § 19.83. ⁴ (Walworth County Circuit Court Case No. 94-CV-396.)

[200 Wis.2d 590] Auchinleck also submitted two requests for certain records related to the committee's activities. He first requested a copy of a letter sent to a Town supervisor, which purportedly alleged that Auchinleck was improperly influenced by a friend when reporting the facts of a boating accident to state and federal authorities. He also sought the minutes of the meeting at which the letter was discussed and the names of the persons who received the letter.

Auchinleck's second request renewed his first demand and requested the minutes of other meetings that had been closed. After receiving no response from the Town on either request, Auchinleck filed an action against the Town under Wis.Stat. § 19.37(1) of the open records law seeking release of the records. ⁵ (Walworth County Circuit Court Case No. 94-CV-397.)

The Town moved for summary judgment on the ground that Auchinleck had failed in both cases to comply with the notice provisions of Wis.Stat. § 893.80(1). ⁶ [200 Wis.2d 591] Relying on DNR v. City of Waukesha, 184 Wis.2d 178, 191, 515 N.W.2d 888 (1994), the circuit court concluded that § 893.80(1) applies to "all actions," including those brought under the open records and open meetings laws. Accordingly, the circuit court granted the Town's motion for summary judgment in both cases. ⁷ The court of appeals subsequently consolidated the two actions and certified the cases to this court.

When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, this court follows the same methodology as the circuit [200 Wis.2d 592] court, which is set forth in Wis.Stat. § 802.08(2). Jeske v. Mount Sinai Medical Ctr., 183 Wis.2d 667, 672, 515 N.W.2d 705 (1994). Where there are no material facts in dispute, as here, we must determine whether the movant is entitled

Page 590

to summary judgment under the law. Id. Whether the notice provisions of § 893.80(1) apply to actions initiated under the open records or open meetings law involves statutory interpretation. This is a question of law that we review independently without deference to the circuit court's resolution of the issue. State ex rel. Hodge v. Turtle Lake, 180 Wis.2d 62, 70, 508 N.W.2d 603 (1993).

The Town argues that the circuit court was correct in concluding that the notice provisions of § 893.80(1) apply to all actions. Auchinleck contends that the application of § 893.80(1) to open records and open meetings claims would thwart the legislature's declared policy of open government which underlies those laws. In order to determine whether § 893.80(1) applies to open records and open meetings claims, we must first examine the plain language of the relevant statutes. Kellner v. Christian, 197 Wis.2d 183, 190, 539 N.W.2d 685 (1995).

Both the open records and open meetings laws set forth specific enforcement mechanisms to force governmental entities to comply with those laws. Under the open records law, a municipality is required to fill any request for records or notify the requester of the reasons for denial "as soon as practicable and without delay." Wis.Stat. § 19.35(4). If a municipality withholds a record or delays granting access, the requester may immediately bring an action for mandamus seeking release of the record. Wis.Stat. § 19.37.

[200 Wis.2d 593] Similarly, the open meetings law contains a specific enforcement scheme intended to provide prompt relief for a violation of the statute. A complainant must first bring a verified complaint to the district attorney. Wis.Stat. § 19.97(1). If the district attorney fails to bring an enforcement action within 20 days after receiving the verified complaint, the complainant may immediately commence an action for declaratory judgment or other relief as may be appropriate pursuant to Wis.Stat. §§ 19.97(1) to (3). See Wis.Stat. § 19.97(4).

In contrast to the procedures for immediate relief set forth in both the open records and open meetings...