867 N.W.2d 825
Wis. Ct. App.2015Background
- The Voice of Wisconsin Rapids and its publisher sought district records created during a school-district investigation, including interview notes taken by district employees.
- The district withheld certain documents claiming they were "notes prepared for the originator's personal use" and thus excluded from the statutory definition of "record" under Wis. Stat. § 19.32(2).
- The circuit court conducted an in camera review (only the judge viewed the documents) and found the materials to be personal notes (handwritten, fragmentary, with doodles and task reminders) retained by individual originators.
- The newspaper argued the notes related to government functions and therefore should be public; it alternatively argued the notes were distributed, or retained to memorialize agency action.
- The circuit court denied the petition for writ of mandamus; the newspaper appealed.
- The court of appeals affirmed, applying the plain language of § 19.32(2) and relying on a 1988 Wisconsin Attorney General opinion and State v. Panknin as persuasive authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the withheld interview materials are "records" under Wis. Stat. § 19.32(2) or excluded as "notes prepared for the originator's personal use" | Notes created in connection with government work are records when they relate to a governmental function; content relevance to government purpose defeats the personal-use exclusion | Notes here are informal, individually created and retained to refresh memory and were not distributed or used to memorialize agency action, so they fall within the personal-use exception | Notes are "notes" and fall within the personal-use exception; not "records" required to be disclosed |
| Whether retention or later consultation of notes converts them into public records | Mere retention for later personal review or consulting notes in discussions makes them public | Retention or consulting alone does not remove personal-use character absent distribution or intent to memorialize agency action | Retention or later consultation does not by itself convert personal notes into public records |
| Whether use of notes to aid in preparing formal documents (e.g., discipline) makes them public | Notes that serve as raw material for formal agency action are public because they memorialize agency activity | Notes used only to refresh memory and that do not themselves establish formal agency positions remain personal | Notes that merely contributed to later formal documents but do not themselves memorialize agency action remain excluded |
| Whether further factfinding (credibility/evidentiary hearing) was required | Circuit court deprived requester of opportunity to probe originators' credibility and intent; remand for evidentiary hearing needed | Record (depositions, testimony, in camera review) was sufficient; no reversible procedural error | No remand; appellate court affirmed because record supported finding that notes were personal-use and not distributed or used to memorialize agency action |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Panknin, 217 Wis. 2d 200, 579 N.W.2d 52 (Ct. App. 1998) (holding work-related judicial notes may be excluded from public-records disclosure when created for the judge's convenience)
- Fox v. Bock, 149 Wis. 2d 403, 438 N.W.2d 589 (1989) (public-records exceptions must be narrowly construed; court discussed "drafts" and sharing as factors)
- Schill v. Wisconsin Rapids Sch. Dist., 327 Wis. 2d 572, 786 N.W.2d 177 (2010) (discussing historical statutory amendments and attorney general opinions on the definition of "record")
- State v. Beaver Dam Area Dev. Corp., 312 Wis. 2d 84, 752 N.W.2d 295 (2008) (attorney general opinions are persuasive authority on public-records issues)
- International Union v. Gooding, 251 Wis. 362, 29 N.W.2d 730 (1947) (older precedent on public records generally cited for context)