State ex rel. Auchinleck v. Town of LaGrange

• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Appeal from orders of the Circuit Court for Walworth County, John R. Race; BRADLEY
• Citation: State ex rel. Auchinleck v. Town of LaGrange, 547 N.W.2d 587, 200 Wis.2d 585 (Wis. 1996)
• 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.

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.

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

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 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 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 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.

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 laws, the notice of claim provision of § 893.80(1)(b) delays the filing of potential claims in order to afford the municipality an opportunity to settle the claim without litigation. DNR, 184 Wis.2d at 195, 515 N.W.2d 888 (quoted sources omitted). Section 893.80(1)(b) prohibits an individual from bringing an action against a municipality, or its officials, for acts done in their official capacity, unless a notice of claim is first presented and the claim is disallowed. The municipality has 120 days to disallow any claim presented. § 893.80(1)(b).

In addition to these separate enforcement mechanisms premised on prompt enforcement, other provisions of the open records and open meetings laws conflict with § 893.80(1). Wisconsin Stat. § 19.35(1)(i) provides that a person may file an open records request anonymously, ⁸ while § 893.80(1)(b) requires disclosure of the claimant's identity and address. Wisconsin Stat. § 893.80(2) imposes costs on a claimant who fails to recover as much as the municipality's pre-suit offer, yet Wis.Stat. §§ 19.37(2) and 19.97(4) permit prevailing claimants costs and fees irrespective of a municipality's pre-suit determination.

Based on all of the above, we conclude that § 893.80(1) is inconsistent on its face with the open records and open meetings laws. When confronted with inconsistent legislation, this court's goal is to ascertain the intent of the legislature and construe the law accordingly. See Cross v. Soderbeck, 94 Wis.2d 331, 343, 288 N.W.2d 779 (1980).

Wisconsin Stat. § 19.31 of the open records law declares the legislature's intent in relevant part as follows:

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 employes who represent them.... To that end, ss. 19.32 to 19.37 shall be construed in every instance with a presumption of complete public access, consistent with the conduct of governmental business. The denial of public access generally is contrary to the public interest, and only in an exceptional case may access be denied.

Similarly, Wis.Stat. § 19.81 of the open meetings law declares the policy behind the law to be that "the public is entitled to the fullest and most complete information regarding the affairs of government as is compatible with the conduct of governmental business." Wis.Stat. § 19.81(1). The open meetings law "shall be liberally construed to achieve [its] purposes." Wis.Stat. § 19.81(4).

Based on this language, the unmistakable intent of the legislature was to ensure public access to the affairs of government. Imposing a potential 120-day delay for a citizen to obtain public records or to compel a meeting to be open necessarily results in an added layer of delay and frustration in a citizen's attempt to ensure compliance with the open government laws.

For example, if the notice provisions of § 893.80(1) applied to an open records request, access to public...