Limitations on Imposing Fees for Redaction under Wisconsin Public Records Law

Introduction

The case of Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Ben Poston and Gina Marie Barton v. City of Milwaukee, City of Milwaukee Police Department and Edward A. Flynn (341 Wis. 2d 607) before the Supreme Court of Wisconsin addressed a pivotal issue regarding the Wisconsin Public Records Law (Wis. Stat. §§ 19.31–.39). This case scrutinizes whether a governmental authority can levy fees on public records requesters for redacting nondisclosable information from the records. The plaintiffs, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and its reporters, challenged the City of Milwaukee's imposition of such fees, leading to a landmark decision that shapes the landscape of public access to governmental records in Wisconsin.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin reversed the Circuit Court's decision, which had granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Milwaukee. The Circuit Court had allowed the City to charge the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel for the actual costs associated with staff time required to redact confidential information from the requested records. However, the Supreme Court ruled that under the Wisconsin Public Records Law, authorities cannot impose fees for redacting information. The Court emphasized that the statute does not explicitly allow for such fees and that interpreting it to include redaction costs would be against the legislature's clear intent to promote complete public access to governmental records.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively analyzed prior cases and interpretations, particularly:

Schill v. Wisconsin Rapids School District (2010 Wisconsin 86): Highlighted the presumption of complete public access under the Public Records Law.
OSBORN v. BOARD OF REGENTS of the University of Wisconsin System (2002 Wisconsin 83): Addressed the imposition of fees for record compliance but did not explicitly permit fees for redaction.
WIREdata, Inc. v. Village of Sussex (2008 Wisconsin 69): Clarified that fees must align with statutory provisions and cannot be broadly interpreted beyond the law's specific tasks.

Additionally, the Court referenced an official Attorney General opinion from 1983, which unequivocally stated that authorities cannot charge requesters for redaction costs.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning hinged on the strict interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 19.35(3), which enumerates specific tasks for which authorities may impose fees:

Reproduction and transcription of records.
Photographing and photographic processing.
Locating records.
Mailing or shipping copies.

The Court determined that redaction does not fall within any of these categories. Redaction is fundamentally an alteration of the document, not merely a reproduction or locating effort. The Court emphasized that allowing fees for redaction would extend beyond the legislature’s outlined scopes, thus contravening the intent to ensure maximum public access.

Key Point: The Court maintained that statutory interpretation should honor the specific tasks listed for fee imposition, rejecting any broad or creative expansions that are not explicitly supported by the text.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for public access to government records in Wisconsin:

Enhanced Public Access: By disallowing fees for redaction, the decision reinforces the principle of unfettered access to public records, ensuring that financial barriers do not hinder transparency.
Financial Implications for Authorities: Government agencies cannot offset the costs of redaction through fees, potentially increasing the financial burden on public institutions.
Legislative Action: The decision signals a need for the legislature to revisit and possibly amend the Public Records Law to address the financial viability of handling extensive or complex record requests.
Precedent for Future Cases: Sets a clear limitation on the scope of permissible fees, guiding future disputes related to public records and associated costs.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Redaction

Redaction refers to the process of editing a document to remove or obscure sensitive information before making it publicly available. This can include blacking out names, social security numbers, or other confidential data to protect privacy.

Wisconsin Public Records Law

The Wisconsin Public Records Law mandates that all governmental records be accessible to the public, promoting transparency and accountability. However, it also allows for certain exemptions and specifies conditions under which fees can be charged for accessing these records.

Statutory Interpretation

Statutory Interpretation involves analyzing and determining the meaning of laws and statutes. Courts often interpret the language of the law based on the text, legislative intent, and existing legal precedents.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin’s decision in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel v. City of Milwaukee underscores the paramount importance of maintaining unrestricted public access to governmental records. By ruling that authorities cannot impose fees for redaction, the Court fortified the legislature’s mandate for transparency while simultaneously highlighting the need for legislative intervention to manage the financial burdens associated with extensive record requests. This judgment not only clarifies the application of the Wisconsin Public Records Law but also sets a precedent that will influence the handling of public records requests across the state, ensuring that financial constraints do not impede the public's right to access vital governmental information.