Oshkosh Northwestern, July 15, 2001
When the big dog barks, I pay attention.
In this case, the big dog is District Attorney Joseph Paulus. Being a law-abiding citizen, I definitely pay attention when the DA offers advice.
It would be wise for the Oshkosh Common Council do likewise.
After concluding an investigation into an open meeting complaint lodged against the Common Council, Paulus determined the Council had not broken the law but suggested it do a better job of taking minutes of its closed sessions.
UW-Oshkosh professor Tony Palmeri, who moonlights as a political gadfly, asked Paulus to investigate the legality of closed deliberations and the decision to accept an office building proposal for the 100 block of North Main St.
While Paulus found the Council meeting was legal, he did raise questions about how the council reached its decision. The council could not produce a record of motions and roll call votes - indeed, most of the members said they did not vote on the proposal. While leaves the public to wonder what sort of psychic or telepathic powers the council is blessed with.
Ruling out paranormal influences,Paulus suggested that future decisions be recorded.
While there has been some debate among members of the council on what type of record keeping is appropriate when in executive session, the state law only requires that "motions and roll call votes" be kept for future inspection.
The law recognizes that public scrutiny of verbatim minutes from executive (or closed) session could discourage the robust and candid discussion of issues by public officials.
The law also provides a balancing test to be used to determine when a record may become public. Generally, the law assumes that when the need for secrecy has elapsed, the record of motions and roll call votes should be should be open.
If nothing else comes out of Paulus's investigation, at the very least the council should pledge to be more precise in its deliberations and record the results of roll call votes.
The investigation proved two other points.
First, Wisconsin's open meetings and open records laws are not just a tool for newspapers. It's true the Northwestern staff knows and uses the law to keep government open and responsive. Palmeri proved that citizens also can use the law and be taken seriously by the DA.
Second, most violations or near violations of the open meeting law are almost always inadvertent slips. They generally arise from confusion or uncertainty of the law and not devious attempts to transact public policy in secret.
When the newspaper challenges open meeting/records violations, our goal is to educate, not punish, local officials by acting as a watchdog. The watchdog function is one we take seriously. And we're glad the big dog is just as committed to open government as we are.
Stewart Rieckman is executive editor of the Northwestern. He may be reached at 426-6691 or e-mail srieckman@smgpo.gannett.com