Our Tight-Lipped Hypocrite Award Goes To The Bloggers @ www On The Border Line For Their Analysis on "Ethics"
Earlier this week, the always-alert bloggers over at www.ontheborderline.net gave Teddy Kennedy one of their highly coveted Awards for his recent comments on the "ethics" training classes President Bush is requiring the entire White House staff to attend.
On the Tim Russert Show, Kenndy said that "Ethics is about more than just a class." OTBL poster child Dr. Ruthless showed his quick wit -- I'm probably over stating the "wit" part by 50 percent -- associated with OTBL bloggers -- they are all doctors, afterall-- and concluded his post with "Gee, tell that to Mary Jo's parents."
Being that OTBL bloggers are such big number crunchers, I'd have thought they would have hauled out the voo-doo math spreadsheets and figured out what Bush ethics course will cost the taxpayers.
Since they didn't, I did.
The average annual salary for a Wisconsin public school teacher in 2003 was $42,775. Since there are 52 weeks in a year with five days a week and eight working hours per day, the total hours are 2080. $42,775/2080 = $20.56/hour. We will use this for our hourly wage standard.
The ethics classes are being taught by Harriet Miers and Andy Card. Each class lasts an hour and there are 3,000 staff members going through the course. $20.56 X (2 instructors + 3,000 staff members) = $61,680. Of course, we know Miers and Card get paid more than $20.56 hour, but we have to use something for a standard.
So now we are shelling out $61,680 of taxpayers money for President Bush to run his staff through an ethics class. This is the same President who campaigned in 2000 to bring ethics back into government. Now wouldn't you think Bush would have staffed his White House with people who already knew about ethics? I suppose that's like expecting the head of FEMA to know something about diasasters...
Running these staffers through a refresher course on ethics doesn't bother me. It makes good government sense and probably should have been done no later than January of 2001.
Failing to do the math here isn't what bothers me about the know-it-all "intellectuals" over at the OTBL blogsite. Their hypocrisy comes into play when they ridiculed the New Richmond school board members for hiring a psychologist to come in an work with the board on team building. Of course, the concept of a "team" is very similar to "community" and that clearly would leave the board open to OTBL ridicule. Those are foreign concepts to OTBL'ers. If I would have said "gang" and "pack," they would have understood immediately.
The exception the OTBL'ers made in their ridicule of the NR school board was Bill Brennan, the board member who didn't participate in the "psychological drama" that involved this "shrink." In a letter to the editor in the New Richmond News, Brennan, a previous OTBL "Ray of Hope" award winner, provided this highly sophisticated analysis of the broad's sessions with the psychologist: they "hired a touch-feely psycho-therapist to counsel the School Board members on how to get along with each other at $300 per hour."
Let's look at what makes up the New Richmond school board. There's a lawyer, a housewife, a factory worker, etc. There's a variety of citizens from a wide range of occuptions and experience. There is nobody on the board with decades of board experience. The idea of bringing in an outside professional to help board members work together on the issues and better understand the communication process does not seem to be a foreign concept. It goes on and on in corporate America every day. Educating a school board that oversees education also doesn't seem like a foreign concept.
If Mr. Brennan ever joins the OTBL blog site, I suggest he use the name "Dr. No." That pretty much covers his input at these meetings. If it's not too late, I think there are enough poeple in the community who would donate private funds to have Dr. No sit down with the psychologist. Maybe he would "do it for the kids."
Of course, the typical OTBL blogger's idea of a constructive school board meeting would be akin to a pack of shit-eating dogs thrown into a cock fight during a tornado. Fortunately, the majority of citizens see things differently. Hence the award...duct tape not included.
3 comments:
JPN Your imagery is so colorful yet so accurate."Of course, the typical OTBL blogger's idea of a constructive school board meeting would be akin to a pack of shit-eating dogs thrown into a cock fight during a tornado."
Don't forget our favorite, and soon to be perennial school board candidate in Hudson, C. Weese.When asked at last spring's candidate forum what he would do to bring concensus to the board, his reply was that "there was too much concensus" (I might add to that and not enough shit-eating dogfights).
Watch for Curt's upcoming series of lectures to the public in HSO in preperation for his re-run for the roses.
I read Mr. Weese's last to letters to the editor in the Hudson paper. I was confused by the one in the 11/10 edition where he complained about the new superintendent, the requests for information from the school district and the need from new candidates in the spring election. When I went back to this letter on 11/03, it appears that he is confused. In that letter he aired his laundry list of requests for information from the school district and the school district's reply.
It appears that the school district is willing to provide that information, but the requestor will have to cover the administrative cost of assembling that info. I believe this charge is within the legal rights of the district. Isn't interesting how the OTBL'ers paint any expenditures they are against as waste, fraud and larceny and then anytime they are a charged with the cost of doing business it is a violation of some constitutional right. It is a no win situation with them.
It appears that the district will gladly complain with the requests, but the free marketeers also want a free lunch. I don't oppose their right to request information and am quite instep with their cry for openess in the meetings. If I were an OTBL'er, I would challenge the Star-Observer to request the same information and see what they get charged. It should be approximately the same amount or there's a problem...
Below is a copy of Wisconsin's Open Meeting Law:
Section One - Coverage of Law
1.1 Relevant Statutes
19.81 Declaration of policy.
(1) In recognition of the fact that a representative government of the American type is dependent upon an informed electorate, it is declared to be the policy of this state 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.
19.82 Definitions. As used in this subchapter:
(1) "Governmental body" means a state or local agency, board, commission, committee, council, department or public body corporate and politic created by constitution, statute, ordinance, rule or order; a governmental or quasi-governmental corporation except for the Bradley center sports and entertainment corporation; a local exposition district under subch. II of ch. 229; any public purpose corporation, as defined in s. 181.79 (1); a nonprofit corporation operating the Olympic ice training center under s. 42.11 (3); or a formally constituted subunit of any of the foregoing, but excludes any such body or committee or subunit of such body which is formed for or meeting for the purpose of collective bargaining under subch. I, IV or V of ch. 111.
19.83 Meetings of governmental bodies. Every meeting of a governmental body shall be preceded by public notice as provided in s. 19.84, and shall be held in open session. At any meeting of a governmental body, all discussion shall be held and all action of any kind, formal or informal, shall be initiated, deliberated upon and acted upon only in open session except as provided in s. 19.85.
1.2 Coverage of Law
The open meetings law, secs. 19.81-19.98, Stats., applies only to those bodies or groups of members considered to be a "governmental body," as that term is defined in sec. 19.82(1), Stats.
1.3 Bodies Covered
1.3.1. State or Local Agencies, Boards and Commissions. The definition of "governmental body" includes a "state or local agency, board, commission, committee, council, department or public body corporate and politic created by constitution, statute, ordinance, rule or order." Sec. 19.82(1), Stats. This provision focuses on the manner is which a body was created, rather than on the type of authority the body possesses.
The definition includes state or local agencies, boards, commissions and bodies created by the constitution and statutes of the State of Wisconsin, as well as local bodies created by county, city, village or town ordinance. It does not include bodies created solely by federal constitution, statute or rule.
State or local bodies created by "rule or order" are also included in the definition of "governmental body." The phrase "rule or order" has been liberally construed by the Wisconsin Attorney General to include any directive, formal or informal, creating a body and assigning it duties. 78 Op. Att'y Gen. 67, 68-69 (1989). This includes resolutions and motions adopted by governing bodies and directives from presiding officers of governmental bodies, or certain governmental officials, such as county executives, mayors, or heads of a state or local agency or department. See 78 Op. Att'y Gen. 67 (1989).
The courts and the Attorney General have concluded that the following bodies are subject to the law:
A purely advisory body created by "rule or order" of an existing governmental body. State v. Swanson, 92 Wis.2d 310, 284 N.W.2d 655 (1979).
Advisory committees to the Department of Natural Resources whether created by the board, the secretary, district directors, bureau directors or property managers. 78 Op. Att'y Gen. 67 (1989).
Town board. 66 Op. Att'y Gen. 237 (1977).
Departments or formally constituted subunits of the University of Wisconsin system or campus. 66 Op. Att'y Gen. 60 (1977).
Municipal public utility managing a city owned public electric utility. 65 Op. Att'y Gen. 243 (1976).
A consortium of school districts created by contract under sec. 66.30, Stats. Informal Opinion of Wis. Att'y Gen. To Paul Bucher, District Attroney (I-10-93, Oct. 15, 1993).
A school district's strategic planning team whose creation was authorized and whose duties were assigned to it by the school board. Informal Opinion of Wis. Att'y Gen. to Clarence Sherrod, Legal Counsel, Madison Metropolitan School District (I-29-91, October 17, 1991).
A covenant (deed restriction) committee created by resolution of a common council. Informal Opinion of Wis. Att'y Gen. to John McNamee, Attorney (I-34-90, May 25, 1990).
An industrial agency created by resolution of a county board under sec. 59.071, Stats. Informal Opinion of Wis. Att'y Gen. to Marc Parenteau, Washburn County Register (I-22-90, April 4, 1990).
1.3.2. Governmental or Quasi-Governmental Corporations. The definition of "governmental body" in sec. 19.82(1), Stats., also includes a "governmental or quasi-governmental corporation." This phrase is not expressly defined in the open meetings law. There are no reported Wisconsin court decisions which have interpreted the phrase. The Attorney General has, however, issued a number of opinions interpreting what constitutes "governmental or quasi-governmental organizations." The Attorney General has concluded that the phrase includes a corporation created directly by the state Legislature or by some other governmental body pursuant to statutory authorization or direction, such as a volunteer fire department created by town ordinance. 66 Op. Att'y Gen. 113,115 (1977). Conversely, a volunteer fire department created by private citizens under Ch. 213, Stats., is not a "governmental body" subject to the open meetings law. Id.
The term "quasi governmental" has also been interpreted by the Attorney General to include a corporation that closely resembles a governmental corporation in function, effect or status, even though the corporation was not created directly by a governmental body. 80 Op. Att'y Gen. 129 (1991). For example, the Attorney General concluded that the Milwaukee Economic Development Corporation, a chapter 181 nonstock, nonprofit corporation, created by two private citizens and one city employee, constituted a "quasi-governmental corporation." Id. The factors the Attorney General considered in reaching that conclusion included: (1) that the corporation's bylaws reserved four of nine directors' positions for specified city officials, (2) that all of the corporation's officers were appointed by the city and (3) that the corporation was housed in city offices, used city equipment and was staffed by city employees. Id., at 130-131.
In contrast, the Attorney General concluded in an earlier informal opinion that the Grant County Economic Development Corporation, also a ch. 181 nonstock, nonprofit corporation created by private individuals, was not a "quasi-governmental corporation" subject to the open meetings law even though the corporation served a public purpose and received more than 50% of its funding from public sources.
1.3.3. Local Exposition Districts. The definition of "governmental body" includes a local exposition district under subch. II of ch. 229, Stats.
1.3.4. Public Purpose Corporations. The definition of "governmental body" also includes any public purpose corporation as defined in sec. 181.79(1), Stats. Under that section, a public purpose corporation is a corporation organized under chapter 181, Stats., to provide for a guaranteed student loan program.
1.3.5. Nonprofit Corporation Operating the Olympic Ice Training Center. The definition of "governmental body" in sec. 19.82(1), Stats., also explicitly includes a nonprofit corporation operating the Olympic ice training center under sec. 42.11(3), Stats.
1.3.6. Subunits. A "formally constituted subunit" of a governmental body is itself a "governmental body" within the definition in sec. 19.82(), Stats. A subunit is a separate, smaller body created by a parent body and composed exclusively of members of the parent body. 74 Op. Att'y Gen. 38, 40 (1985). For example, a standing committee of a common council comprised solely of members of that body would be a subunit subject to the open meetings law.
Groups consisting of both members and nonmembers of parent body are not "subunits" of the parent body. Such groups may nonetheless fall within the definition of "governmental body" under the open meetings law.
1.3.7. State Legislature. In General the open meetings law applies to the state Legislature. Sec. 19.87, Stats. The law does not apply to any partisan caucus of the senate or assembly. Sec. 19.87(3), Stats. The open meetings law also does not apply where it conflicts with a rule of the Legislature, senate or assembly. Sec. 19.87(2), Stats.
1.4 Bodies Not Covered by Open Meetings Law
1.4.1. Bradley Center Sports and Entertainment Corporation. The definition of "governmental body" in sec. 19.82(1), Stats., explicitly excludes the Bradley center sports and entertainment corporation created under ch. 232, Stats.
1.4.2. Bodies Meeting For Collective Bargaining. The definition of "governmental body" in sec. 19.82(1), Stats., also explicitly excludes bodies formed for or meeting for the purpose of collective bargaining with municipal or state employees under subch. I, IV or V. of ch. 111, Stats. Under this exemption, a multi-purpose body meeting exclusively for bargaining purposes need not give notice of its sessions or otherwise comply with the requirements of the open meetings law.
The Attorney General has advised multi-purpose bodies to comply with the open meetings law, including the requirements for convening in closed session, when meeting for the purpose of forming negotiating strategies to be used in collective bargaining. 66 Op. Att'y Gen. 93, 96 (1977). The collective bargaining exclusion does not allow a body to consider the final ratification or approval of a collective bargaining agreement in closed session. Sec. 19.85(3), Stats., requires that a governmental body conduct its discussions and deliberations regarding final ratification of a collective bargaining agreement in open session. 81 Op. Att'y Gen. 139. (1994).
1.4.3. Governmental Offices Held by a Single Individual. The Attorney General has concluded that since the term "body" connotes a group of individuals, a governmental office held by a single individual is not a "governmental body" as that term is defined under sec. 19.82(1), Stats. 67 Op. Att'y Gen. 250 (1978) (office of coroner not a governmental body).
1.4.4. Bodies Created by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that bodies created by the court are not governed by the open meetings law. State ex rel. Lynch v. Dancey, 71 Wis. 2d 287, 238 N.W.2d 81 (1976) (holding that the open meetings law did not apply to the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, which is responsible for handling misconduct complaints against judges.) The Attorney General has concluded that the open meetings law does not apply to the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility. OAG 67-79 (July 31, 1979) (unpublished opinion).
Back to Top
Section Two - Definition of Meeting
2.1 Statute
19.82 Definitions. As used in this subchapter:
(2) "Meeting" means the convening of members of a governmental body for the purpose of exercising the responsibilities, authority, power or duties delegated to or vested in the body. If one-half or more of the members of a governmental body are present, the meeting is rebuttably presumed to be for the purpose of exercising the responsibilities, authority, power or duties delegated to or vested in the body. The term does not include any social or chance gathering or conference which is not intended to avoid this subchapter, any gathering of the members of a town board for the purpose specified in s. 60.50 (6), any gathering of the commissioners of a town sanitary district for the purpose specified in s. 60.77 (5) (k) or any gathering of the members of a drainage board created under s. 88.16, 1991 stats., or under s. 88.17, for a purpose specified in s. 88.065 (5) (a).
2.2 Triggering Application of the Law
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that the open meetings law applies whenever a gathering of members of a governmental body satisfies two requirements: (1) there is a purpose to engage in governmental business and (2) the number of members present is sufficient to determine the governmental body's course of action. State ex rel. Newspapers v. Showers, 135 Wis. 2d 77, 102, 398 N.W.2d 154 (1987).
2.2.1. The Purpose Test. Under the first prong of the Showers test, the gathering of members of a governmental body must be for the purpose of engaging in government business, be it discussion, decision, or information gathering. In State ex rel. Badke v. Village Board of the Village of Greendale, 173 Wis.2d 553, 494 N.W.2d 408 (1993), the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the village board conducted a "meeting," as defined in the open meetings law, when a quorum of the board attended a plan commission meeting to observe the commission's proceedings on a development plan that was subject to the board's approval. The court stressed that a governmental body is engaged in governmental business when its members gather to simply hear information on a matter within the body's realm of authority. The members need not actually discuss the matter or otherwise interact with one another to be engaged in governmental business.
If members of a governmental body are gathered but do not conduct business within the jurisdiction of the body, their gathering does not constitute a "meeting." See Paulton v. Volkmann, 141 Wis.2d 370, 415 N.W.2d 528 (Ct. App. 1987) (holding that a quorum of a school board attending a gathering of town residents was not a meeting of the board on grounds that the members had not engaged in school board business because they did not receive information or otherwise exercise board duties).
2.2.2. The Numbers Test. The second part of the Showers test requires that the number of members present be sufficient to determine the governmental body's course of action on the business under consideration. The potential of a gathering to determine the outcome of a proposal can be either the affirmative power to pass or the negative power to defeat. Under sec. 19.82(2), Stats., a meeting is rebuttably presumed to take place if at least one-half of the body is present.
2.2.2.1. Negative Quorum. The Wisconsin Supreme Court in Showers held a gathering of less than one-half the members of a body may be a meeting if the number of members present constitutes a "negative quorum," i.e., a sufficient number to block action by the body on a particular matter. For example, in Showers, 4 members out of an 11 member body met to work out a compromise on a budget change. The budget change required a two-thirds vote of the parent body (i.e., the vote of eight members) to pass. The court held that the meeting was illegal because four members could determine the outcome by voting as a block against the budget change and therefore constituted a "negative quorum."
2.2.3. Burden of Proof as to Existence of a Meeting. The presence of members of a governmental body does not, in itself, establish the existence of a "meeting" subject to the open meetings law. The law provides, however, that if one-half or more of the members of a body are present, the gathering is presumed to be a "meeting." Sec. 19.82(2), Stats. Members of a governmental body may overcome the presumption of a meeting by establishing that they did not gather information, discuss or act on business within the governmental body's authority
Where a person alleges that a gathering of less than one-half the members of a governmental body was held in violation of the open meetings law, that person has the burden of proving that the gathering constituted a "meeting" subject to the law. Showers, 135 Wis. 2d at 102. That burden may be satisfied by proving: (1) that the members gathered to conduct governmental business and (2) that there was a sufficient number of members present to determine the body's course of action.
2.3 Special Situations
2.3.1. Walking Quorums. The requirements of the open meetings law also extend to walking quorums. A "walking quorum" is a series of gatherings among separate groups of members of a governmental body, each less than quorum size, who agree, tacitly or explicitly, to act uniformly in sufficient number to reach a quorum. Showers, 135 Wis. 2d at 92, quoting State ex ref. Lynch v. Conta, 71 Wis. 2d 662, 687, 239 N.W.2d 313 (1976). In Conta, the supreme court recognized the danger that a walking quorum may produce a predetermined outcome and thus render the publicly held meeting a mere formality. Conta, 71 Wis. 2d at 685-88. The court commented that any attempt to avoid the appearance of a ''meeting" through use of a walking quorum is subject to prosecution under the open meetings law. Conta, 71 Wis. 2d at 687.
2.3.2. Telephone Conference Calls. Telephone conference calls among members of a governmental body fit within the definition of "meeting" subject to the open meetings law. 69 Op. Att'y Gen. 143 (1980). Under the Showers test, therefore, the open meetings law applies to any conference call that: (1) is for the purpose of conducting governmental business and (2) involves a sufficient number of members of the body to determine the body's course of action on the business under consideration. To comply with the law, a governmental body conducting a meeting by telephone conference call must provide the public with an effective means to monitor the conference. This may be accomplished by broadcasting the conference through speakers located at one or more sites open to the public. 69 Op. Att'y Gen. at 145. Also, a series of telephone calls between a limited number of members, i.e., a "walking quorum" may constitute a meeting.
2.4 Exceptions
The term "meeting" does not include "any social or chance gathering or conference which is not intended to avoid" the open meetings law. Sec. 19.82(2), Stats. In Badke, supra, the Wisconsin Supreme Court interpreted the "chance gatherings" exception within the context of members of one governmental body attending the meetings of another governmental body. In Badke, a quorum of the village board regularly attended meetings of the plan commission. The trustees alleged, in affidavits, that they attended as interested citizens, and that their attendance was spontaneous and independent. The court stated that if this evidence were uncontradicted, it might have concluded that these were chance gatherings and therefore exempt from the open meetings law. However, the court concluded that the village board's attendance at the plan commission meetings did not fall within the chance gathering exception because board members regularly attended the plan commission meetings and had the expectation that at least half the board would attend. Thus, their attendance, was not sporadic or spontaneous.
Section Three - Accessibility and Openness
3.1 Statute
19.82 Definitions. As used in this subchapter:
(3) "Open session" means a meeting which is held in a place reasonably accessible to members of the public and open to all citizens at all times. In the case of a state governmental body, it means a meeting which is held in a building and room thereof which enables access by persons with functional limitations, as defined in s. 101.13 (1).
3.2 Reasonable Public Access
"Open session" is defined as a meeting "which is held in a place reasonably accessible to members of the public and open to all citizens at all times." The Wisconsin Supreme Court has interpreted this term to mean " that a governmental body must meet in a facility which gives reasonable access, not total access, and that it may not systematically exclude or arbitrarily refuse admittance to any individual." State ex rel. Badke v. Village Board of Greendale, 173 Wis.2d 553, 494 N.W.2d 408, 418 (1993). In Badke, the court held that a meeting place was reasonably accessible and open even though some citizens could not get into the meeting and had to stand in the foyer because of an overflow crowd.
3.3 Accessible to Persons with Functional Limiations
"Open session" also means, in the case of a state governmental body, "a meeting which is held in a building and room thereof which enables access by persons with functional limitations, as defined in s. 101.13(1)." Section 101.13(1), Stats., defines "access" as follows: "The physical characteristics of a place which allow persons with functional limitations caused by impairments of sight, hearing, coordination or perception or persons with semiambulatory or nonambulatory disabilities to enter, circulate within and leave a place of employment or public building and to use the public toilet facilities and passenger elevators in the place of employment or public building without assistance."
The language in sec. 19.82(3), Stats., relating to accessibility for the disabled does not apply to local bodies. This provision has been interpreted by the Wisconsin Attorney General to allow local governmental bodies to use meeting places reasonably accessible, with assistance, to persons with disabilities. 69 Op. Att'y Gen. 251 (1980).
Section 19.82(3), Stats., and its interpretations pre-date the enactment of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Title II of the ADA prohibits public entities from discriminating against persons with disabilities in the delivery of government services, programs and activities. 29 CFR Part 35.
Section Four - Public Notice Requirements
4.1 Relevant Statutes
19.83 Meetings of governmental bodies. Every meeting of a governmental body shall be preceded by public notice as provided in s. 19.84, and shall be held in open session. At any meeting of a governmental body, all discussion shall be held and all action of any kind, formal or informal, shall be initiated, deliberated upon and acted upon only in open session except as provided in s. 19.85.
19.84 Public Notice. (1) Public notice of all meetings of a governmental body shall be given in the following manner: (a)
As required by any other statutes; and
(b) By communication from the chief presiding officer of a governmental body or such person's designee to the public, to those news media who have filed a written request for such notice, and to the official newspaper designated under ss. 985.04, 985.05 and 985.06 or, if none exists, to a news medium likely to give notice in the area.
(5) Departments and their subunits in any university of Wisconsin system institution or campus and a nonprofit corporation operating the Olympic ice training center under s. 42.11 (3) are exempt from the requirements of subs. (1) to (4) but shall provide meeting notice which is reasonably likely to apprise interested persons, and news media who have filed written requests for such notice.
4.2 Notice Requirements
Section 19.84 of the Wisconsin statutes, which sets forth the public notice requirements, specifies when, how and to whom notice must be given, as well as what information a notice must contain. 4.2.1.
University Notices. Section 19.84(5), Stats., provides an exception to the notice requirements for meetings of University of Wisconsin Departments and subunits and a corporation operating a state-owned ice rink. These bodies need not follow the requirements in sec. 19.84(1) to (4), Stats., concerning the manner of giving notice, notice content, timing of notices, and separate notice for each meeting. However, such bodies must provide meeting notices that are reasonably likely to apprise interested persons and must provide meeting notices to the news media that have filed written requests for such notices. These exempt bodies must also give notice as provided in sec. 19.85(1), Stats., before convening in closed session.
4.3 To Whom and How Notice Must Be Given
The chief presiding officer of a governmental body, or the officer's designee, must give notice of each meeting of the body to: (1) the public, (2) any members of the news media who have submitted a written request for notice and (3) the official newspaper, designated pursuant to state statute, or if none exists, to a news medium likely to give notice in the area. Sec. 19.84(2), Stats.
4.3.1. To The Public. The chief presiding officer may give notice of a meeting to the public by posting the notice in one or more places likely to be seen by the general public. 66 Op. Att'y Gen. 93, 95 (1977). As a general rule, the Attorney General has advised posting notices at three different locations within the jurisdiction that the governmental body serves. 66 Op. Att'y Gen. at 95. Alternatively, the chief presiding officer may give notice to the public by paid publication in a news medium likely to give notice in the jurisdiction area the body serves. 63 Op. Atty Gen. 509, 510-11 (1974). If the presiding officer gives notice in this manner, he or she must ensure that the notice is actually published
4.3.2 To The News Media. The chief presiding officer must also give notice of each meeting to members of the news media who have submitted a written request for notice. This notice may be given in writing or by telephone. 65 Op. Att'y Gen. Preface (1976).
In addition, the chief presiding officer must give notice to the officially designated newspaper or, if none exists, to a news medium likely to give notice in the area. The governmental body is not required to pay for and the newspaper is not required to publish such notice. 66 Op. Att'y Gen. 230, 231 (1977). See also Martin v. Wray, 473 F. Supp. 1131 (E.D. Wis. 1979) Note, however, that the requirement to provide notice to the officially designated newspaper is distinct from the requirement to provide notice to the public. If the chief presiding officer chooses to provide notice to the public by paid publication in a news medium, the officer must ensure that the notice is in fact published.
Governmental bodies cannot charge news media fees for providing statutorily required notices of public meetings to the media. 77 Op. Att'y Gen. 312 (1988).
Section Five - Notice Contents
5.1 Statute
19.84(2) Every public notice of a meeting of a governmental body shall set forth the time, date, place and subject matter of the meeting, including that intended for consideration at any contemplated closed session, in such form as is reasonably likely to apprise members of the public and the news media thereof. 19.84(3).
5.2 Notice Contents
Every public notice of a meeting must give the "time, date, place and subject matter of the meeting, including that intended for consideration at any contemplated closed session, in such form as is reasonably likely to apprise members of the public and the news media thereof." Sec. 19.84(2), Stats. The notice need not contain a detailed agenda, but it should be specific in light of the overriding policy of the law. 66 Op. Att'y Gen. 143, 144 (1977). When a member of the governmental body knows in advance of the time notice is given that a matter may come before the body, that matter must be described in the meeting notice. 66 Op. Att'y Gen. 143, 144 (1977). The chief presiding officer of the governmental body is responsible for providing notice, and when he or she is aware of matters which may come before the body, those matters must be included in the meeting notice. 66 Op. Att'y Gen. 69, 70 (1977).
The standard by which a court will judge whether a meeting notice is adequate is whether it reasonably apprises members of the public and the news media of the time, date, place and subject matter of the meeting. State ex rel. Schaeve v. Van Lare, 125 Wis.2d 40, 370 N.W.2d 271, 275 (Ct. App. 1985). In Schaeve, the court of appeals ruled that certain fairly abbreviated notices of an evidentiary hearing for the termination of a teacher were adequate as measured by the requirements of sec. 19.84(2), Stats. The court specifically held:
Each public notice given prior to the hearings set forth the time, date and place for the meeting. In addition, each notice indicated that once the meeting was called to order, the chief presiding officer would announce the Board's intention to convene in closed session under sec. 19.85(1)(b), Stats., 'to conduct a hearing to consider the possible discipline of a public employe.' This information was specific enough to apprise members of the public as to the subject matter of the hearing. We find no requirement in this statute that the subject matter of a hearing must be explained with any more specificity.
370 N.W.2d at 275.
5.2.1. Notice of Closed Session. Section 19.84(2), Stats., requires that notice of each contemplated closed session must be included in the meeting notice. If the chief presiding officer or the officer's designee knows at the time he or she gives notice of a meeting that a closed session is contemplated, the notice must contain the subject matter to be considered in closed session. The notice must contain the specific nature of the business, as well as the exemption(s) under which the chief presiding officer believes a closed session is authorized. 66 Op. Atty Gen. 93, 98. (1977). Merely reciting the language of an exemption verbatim is not sufficiently specific. As noted above, in Schaeve the court of appeals held that a notice to convene in closed session under section 19.85(1)(b), Stats., "'to conduct a hearing to consider the possible discipline of a public employee'"' was sufficient.
5.2.2. "Miscellaneous Business." And "Citizen Participation" Clauses. The Attorney General has concluded that -- under limited circumstances -- general subject matter designations such as "miscellaneous business," "agenda revisions", or "such other matters as are authorized by law" are adequate to notify the public that the governmental body may consider items not specifically listed in the meeting notice. General subject matter designations are, however, minimal compliance with the open meetings law and may not be used to circumvent the requirement of giving more specific notice where possible. 66 Op. Atty Gen. 68, 69 (1977). The Attorney General has advised that a governmental body should not conduct business under a general subject matter designation (1) where a member of the governmental body was aware, prior to the time notice was given, that the matter might come before the body or (2) where the matter is of importance or great public concern. In either case, any discussion of or action on the matter should be held over to another meeting for which more specific notice can be given. 66 Op. Att'y Gen. 93, 96 (1977).
The Attorney General has also in the past sanctioned the use of agenda items such as "citizen participation" or "citizens and delegations." See 66 Op. Att'y Gen. 68, 70 (1977) and 66 Op. Att'y Gen. 195 (1977).
A more recent informal Attorney General opinion (I-5-93, addressed to Elizabeth Adelman and dated April 26, 1993), however, takes a more restrictive view on the use of general subject matter designations. In that informal opinion the Attorney General stated:
[T]he only way to strictly comply with the letter and spirit of the open meetings law is to adopt a policy under which [the governmental body's] members and citizens wishing to bring up items for discussion at a meeting must contact the chairperson in advance in order to have the specific subject included on the public notice of the meeting. If the meeting notice contains a general subject matter designation and a subject that was not specifically noticed comes up at the meeting, a governmental body should refrain from engaging in any information gathering or discussion or from taking any action that would deprive the public of information about the conduct of governmental business. More specifically, the governmental body should limit itself to answering basic questions from the public that do not require [its] discussion or deliberation (questions, for example, regarding when the body will consider the matter raised; how long a particular policy has been in place; when committees meet, etc.) and to placing the matter on a future agenda or referring it to an official or a committee.
Section Six - Timing of Notice
6.1 Relevant Statutes
19.84(3) Public notice of every meeting of a governmental body shall be given at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of such meeting unless for good cause such notice is impossible or impractical, in which case shorter notice may be given, but in no case may the notice be provided less than 2 hours in advance of the meeting.
19.84(4) Separate public notice shall be given for each meeting of a governmental body at a time and date reasonably proximate to the time and date of the meeting.
6.2 Timing of Notice
Section 19.84(3), Stats, requires that every public notice of a meeting be given at least twenty-four hours in advance of the meeting, unless "for good cause" such notice is "impossible or impractical." If "good cause exists, the notice should be given as soon as possible and must be given at least two hours in advance of the meeting. Sec. 19.83(3), Stats.
6.2.1. Good Cause. No Wisconsin court decisions or Attorney General opinions discuss what constitutes "good cause" to provide less than twenty-four hour notice of a meeting.
6.3 Separate Notice for Each Meeting
Section 19.84(4), Stats., provides that separate notice for each meeting of a governmental body must be given at a date and time reasonably close to the meeting date. A single notice that lists all the meetings that a governmental body plans to hold over a given week, month or year does not comply with the notice requirements of the open meetings law. See 63 Op. Att'y Gen. 509, 513 (1974).
Section Seven - Notice of Subunit Meetings
7.1 Statute
19.84(6) Notwithstanding the requirements of s. 19.83 and the requirements of this section, a governmental body which is a formally constituted subunit of a parent governmental body may conduct a meeting without public notice as required by this section during a lawful meeting of the parent governmental body, during a recess in such meeting or immediately after such meeting for the purpose of discussing or acting upon a matter which was the subject of that meeting of the parent governmental body. The presiding officer of the parent governmental body shall publicly announce the time, place and subject matter of the meeting of the subunit in advance at the meeting of the parent body.
7.2 Exception for Noticing Certain Subunit Meetings
Section 19.84(6), Stats., allows formally constituted subunits of a parent body to avoid complying with the advance notice requirement under sec. 19.84(3), Stats., for the purpose of meeting during a recess or after a meeting of the parent body, provided that they meet to discuss or act upon a subject which was a subject of that meeting of the parent body. The chief presiding officer must make public announcement of the time, place and subject matter of the meeting of the subunit at the meeting of the parent body. The Attorney General has concluded that such an announcement would have to include notice of a contemplated closed session of the subunit and the members of the subunit would have to convene in open session and vote to go into closed session with additional public announcement. 65 Op. Att'y Gen. Preface vi (1976).
Post a Comment