THE LAFAYETTE
COUNTY
BOARD
% DEBATED A PROPOSAL THAT
% THREATENED
PROSECUTION
FOR
% JOURNALISTS
REPORTING
ON
WATER
% QUALITY ISSUES.
% THE
PROPOSAL
WAS
ULTIMATELY
% AMENDED
BUT
NOT
BEFORE
IT
DREW
% NATIONAL
ATTENTION.
% JOINING US
NOW
IS BILL
LUEDERS,
% PRESIDENT OF
THE
WISCONSIN% FREEDOM OF INFORMATION C
OUNCIL.
% THANKS FOR
JOINING
US.
% >>
SURE.
% >>
THE
PROPOSAL
WARNED
% JOURNALISTS THEY SHOULD QUOTE
% DIRECTLY
FROM A
PRESS
RELEASE
OR
% VIOLATORS WOULD BE PROSECUTED.%
WHAT
WERE
THEY
TRYING
TO
% PREVENT?%WHAT
WAS
THE
INTENT
THERE?
% >>
I
GUESS
THERE
HAD
BEEN
WHAT
% THEY
PERCEIVED TO
BE
ERRORS
IN
% THE
REPORTING
OF AN
EARLIER
% REPORT
AND THIS
WAS
THE HIS
!
% HYSTERICAL
OVERRAKS
!
OVERREACTION.
% THERE'S NO
LEGAL
BASIS
FOR
THE
% THREAT.
% ADDITIONALLY,
THREATENED
MEMBERS% OF THE
COUNTY
BOARD
IN LAFAYETTE
% COUNTY
AND
PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES
WITH
% CONSEQUENCES IF THEY
WERE
TO
% TALK AT
ALL
ABOUT
THIS
UPCOMING
% GROUNDWATER
QUALITY REPORT.
% THEY
HAD
TO
TOE
THE
COMPANY LINE
% OR THEY WOULD
BE
IN
BIG
TROUBLE.
% AGAIN,
HUGE
CONSTITUTIONAL% PROBLEMS.
% THAT'S
NOT
WHY WE
HAVE
% INDEPENDENTLY-ELECTED PUBLIC
% OFFICIALS,
SO
THEY CAN BE
TOLD
% TO SIT
DOWN
AND
SHUT
UP.
% BOTH PRONGS
OF
THIS
PROPOSAL
% WERE
REMOVED.
% FIRST
THE
ONE AGAINST
MEDIA.
% THEN LATER IN
THE
DAY
ON
TUESDAY
% THE
PRONG
THAT
DEALT
WITH
PUBLIC
% OFFICIALS
ELECTED
AND
PUBLIC
% EMPLOYEES IN LAFAYETTE
COUNTY.% >>
NOW,
THE
COUNTY
BOARD
% CHAIRMAN
WON'T
ADMIT
WHO
WROTE
% IT.
% IS
IT
POSSIBLE
THE
AUTHOR
DIDN'T
% KNOW IT
WAS
BLATANTLY
% UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
% OR
WAS
THERE A
DIRECT
CHILLING
% EFFECT?
% >>
WELL,
WHOEVER
WROTE
THIS
% INTENDED TO
HAVE A
CHILLING
% EFFECT,
INTENDED
TO
CHILL
% SPEECH,
INTENDED
TO
FRIGHTEN
% PEOPLE
INTO
COMPLIANCE.
% IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE
THAT
THE
% PERSON
THOUGHT
THAT THIS
WAS
% OKAY, BUT
APPARENTLY
THE
PERSON
% DID OR THEY
WOULDN'T
HAVE
% PROPOSED THIS.
% AND IT
WAS
SO
OUTLANDISH,
AS
YOU
% NOTED,
IT
GENERATED NATIONAL
% ATTENTION,
THE WASHINGTON POST
% AND
THE NEW YORK TIMES
AND
I
% PRESUME
MANY
OTHER
PAPERS AROUND
% THE
COUNTRY
RAN AN
ASSOCIATED
% PRESS
STORY
ABOUT
THIS.
% IT'S
JUST
SO,
YOU
KNOW,
CRAZY
% THAT IT'S THE
TYPE
OF
THING
THAT
% DRAWS NATIONAL
ATTENTION.
% I THINK
AT
THE
HEARING
THAT
TOOK
% PLACE
ON
THIS
ON
TUESDAY THERE
% WAS A FAIR AMOUNT
OF
EXPRESSION% BY CITIZENS
THAT THEY
WERE
% EMBARRASSED BY THE
CONDUCT
OF
% THEIR
PUBLIC
OFFICIALS,
THAT% THEY WOULD
PUT
OUT
SOMETHING
% LIKE
THIS
THAT
WOULD
BRING
% DISREPUTE TO THE
COUNTY.% >>
WE'VE
HEARD
SIMILAR
STORIES
% OR
ROUGHLY
SIMILAR
VERSIONS
OF
% THIS
HAPPENING IN
OTHER
PLACES.
% IS
THAT
BECAUSE
WE'RE
HEARING
% MORE
NEWS,
THIS
GETS A NATIONAL
% REPEAT WHEN IT
HAPPENS,
OR IS
IT
% HAPPENING MORE
OFTEN?
% >> I DON'T KNOW.
% I THINK
IT'S AN
ANOMALY.
% I HOPE IT
IS.
% BUT
WHAT'S
DISSPIRITTING
ABOUT
% THIS EPISODE
IS
THAT
IT
HAPPENED
% TO BEGIN
WITH,
THAT
PEOPLE I
N
% POSITIONS OF
AUTHORITY
AT A
% COUNTY
GOVERNMENT
LEVEL
WHO
% DIDN'T KNOW
BETTER
THAN
TO
PUT
% SOMETHING
LIKE
THIS
FORWARD.% >>
BUT
QUESTIONS
LIKE
THIS
% EXIST.%GOVERNOR EVERS
HAD
ISSUES
ABOUT
% WHAT INFORMATION HE WAS
GOING
TO
% RELEASE TO
REPORTERS.% >> YEAH.
% THAT
WAS
THE
SECOND
% DISSPIRITTING THING THAT
WE
% HAPPENED
THAT
WE
CALLED
% ATTENTION TO
THIS
WEEK,
IS
THAT% A
MILWAUKEE
TELEVISION
STATION,
% FOX
6,
REPORTED
THAT
IT
HAD
% REQUESTED
INITIALLY A MONTH
% WORTH
OF
EMAILS TO
AND
FROM% GOVERNOR
EVERS, ONE OF
HIS
KEY
% STAFF
PEOPLE,
AND
WAS
TOLD THAT
% WAS TOO
BROAD A
REQUEST,
THEY
% COULDN'T COMPLY.
% SO IT
ASKED
FOR A
WEEK'S
WORTH
% OF
EMAILS.
% THEY WERE TOLD THAT WAS TOO
% BROAD AN
ABOUT,
THEY
COULDN'T
% COMPLY.
% THEY
SAID
GIVE
US ONE
DAY'S
% WORTH
OF
EMAILS.
% THEY WERE
TOLD
THAT
WAS
TOO
% BROAD A
REQUEST
AND
THEY
WEREN'T
% GOING TO GET ANY
RECORDS.
% BEGIN,
!
AGAIN,
THE
MIRROR
FACT
THAT
THE
% GOVERNOR
DID
THAT
GENERATED NEWS
% STORIES.
% I THINK
THE
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
IS
% WRONG TO HAVE
DENIED
THE
% REQUEST.
% THAT'S
NOT
UNMANAGEABLE.
% THAT'S NOT TOO MUCH.
% OUR OPEN
RECORDS
LAW,
LIKE
OUR
% OPEN
MEETINGS
LAW,
HAS
BAKED
% RIGHT INTO
IT
THE
PRESUMPTION
OF
% MAXIMUM
OPENNESS.
% PUBLIC
OFFICIALS ARE
SUPPOSED TO
% ERR ON THE
SIDE
OF
BEING TOO
% OPEN,
NOT
TOO
SECRETIVE.
% IN THIS
CASE
IT
LOOKS
AS
THOUGH
% THE
GOVERNOR'S
OFFICE
WAS DOING
% EVERYTHING IT COULD
TO
TRY
TO
% FIND SOME REASON
TO
SAY NO
TO A
% REQUEST
FROM
THIS
TELEVISION
% STATION, WHEN UNDER
THE
LAW
AND
% UNDER
GOOD
PUBLIC
POLICY
IT
% SHOULD HAVE BEEN
DOING
% EVERYTHING I
T
COULD
TO
FIND
SOME
% REASON
TO
SAY
YES,
HERE
ARE
YOUR
% RECORDS.%>>
SO
THE
CHILLING
EFFECT
QUIETS
% PEOPLE, BUT ALL
THE
ATTENTION,
% DOES
THAT
HAVE
THE
OPPOSITE
% EFFECT, OF
MAYBE
KEEPING
THIS
% FROM
HAPPENING
SOMEWHERE
AGAIN?
% >>
I HOPE SO.
% I
HOPE WHAT
HAPPENED
IN% LAFAYETTE COUNTY AND WHAT
% HAPPENED WITH
THE
GOVERNOR
SENDS% A
SIGNAL
TO
PUBLIC
OFFICIALS
% THAT THERE ARE
CERTAIN
THINGS
% THEY
CAN'T GET
AWAY
WITH
AND
% SHOULDN'T TRY.
% IT
MAY
COME DOWN
TO
LITIGATION
% IN
THE
CASE
INVOLVING
THE
% TELEVISION STATION,
THE
% GOVERNOR'S OFFICE.
% IF THE
STATION
WERE
TO
SUE
UNDER
% OUR OPEN
RECORDS
LAW
AND
SAY
% THAT
THE
DENIAL
WAS
IMPROPER, I
% THINK THE
COURTS
WOULD
AGREE
% WITH THAT.
% THAT WOULD BE
VERY
UNFORTUNATE
% BECAUSE GOVERNOR EVERS
DOESN'T
% NEED A
BLACK
EYE
OVER
THIS
% ISSUE.
% HE SHOULD BE
SEIZING EVERY
% OPPORTUNITY
HE
CAN
TO
USE
% TRANSPARENCY AS A
WAY
TO
BUILD
% TRUST WITH THE
PEOPLE
THAT
HE
% REPRESENTS AND SECOND
OF
ALL
TO
% MAKE
POSITIVE
ADVANCES
IN
AN
% AREA WHERE THE
PUBLIC
IS
% ONBOARD.
% THE
PUBLIC
LIKES
WHEN
PUBLIC
% OFFICIALS DO
THINGS
TO
MAKE
% GOVERNMENT MORE OPEN AND
HE% SHOULD BE DOING
THAT.% >> ALL
RIGHT.
% BILL