Wis. Stat. § 19.31
Declaration of policy
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
19.3119.31 Declaration of policy. In recognition of the fact that a representative government is dependent upon an informed electorate, it is declared to be the public policy of this state that all persons are entitled to the greatest possible information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those officers and employees who represent them. Further, providing persons with such information is declared to be an essential function of a representative government and an integral part of the routine duties of officers and employees whose responsibility it is to provide such information. To that end, ss. 19.32 to 19.37 shall be construed in every instance with a presumption of complete public access, consistent with the conduct of governmental business. The denial of public access generally is contrary to the public interest, and only in an exceptional case may access be denied.
19.31 AnnotationAn agency cannot promulgate an administrative rule that creates an exception to the open records law. Chvala v. Bubolz, 204 Wis. 2d 82, 552 N.W.2d 892 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-3120.
19.31 AnnotationAlthough the requester referred to the federal Freedom of Information Act, a letter that clearly described open records and had all the earmarkings of an open records request was in fact an open records request and triggered, at minimum, a duty to respond. ECO, Inc. v. City of Elkhorn, 2002 WI App 302, 259 Wis. 2d 276, 655 N.W.2d 510, 02-0216.
19.31 AnnotationThe public records law addresses the duty to disclose records; it does not address the duty to retain records. An agency’s alleged failure to keep sought-after records may not be attacked under the public records law. Section 19.21 relates to records retention and is not a part of the public records law. State ex rel. Gehl v. Connors, 2007 WI App 238, 306 Wis. 2d 247, 742 N.W.2d 530, 06-2455.
19.31 AnnotationAbsent a clear statutory exception, a limitation under the common law, or an overriding public interest in keeping a public record confidential, the public records law shall be construed in every instance with a presumption of complete public access. As the denial of public access generally is contrary to the public interest, access may be denied only in an exceptional case. An exceptional case exists when the facts are such that the public policy interests favoring nondisclosure outweigh the public policy interests favoring disclosure, notwithstanding the strong presumption favoring disclosure. Hagen v. Board of Regents, 2018 WI App 43, 383 Wis. 2d 567, 916 N.W.2d 198, 17-2058.
19.31 AnnotationWhen a school district, a government entity, uses government resources to collect email addresses of school district parents and then uses those email addresses to promote and advance selected matters of interest to school district personnel, the email addresses relate to the affairs of government and the official acts of those officers and employees who represent them. Gierl v. Mequon-Thiensville School District, 2023 WI App 5, 405 Wis. 2d 757, 985 N.W.2d 116, 21-2190.
19.31 AnnotationThe Wisconsin Public Records Law. De la Mora. 67 MLR 65 (1983).
19.31 AnnotationToward a More Open and Accountable Government: A Call for Optimal Disclosure Under the Wisconsin Open Records Law. Roang. 1994 WLR 719.
19.31 AnnotationWisconsin’s Public-Records Law: Preserving the Presumption of Complete Public Access in the Age of Electronic Records. Holcomb & Isaac. 2008 WLR 515.
19.31 AnnotationMunicipal responsibility under the Wisconsin revised public records law. Maloney. WBB Jan. 1983.
19.31 AnnotationThe public records law and the Wisconsin Department of Revenue. Boykoff. WBB Dec. 1983.
19.31 AnnotationThe Wisconsin Open Records Act: An update on issues. Trubek & Foley. WBB Aug. 1986.
19.31 AnnotationGetting the Best of Both Worlds: Open Government and Economic Development. Westerberg. Wis. Law. Feb. 2009.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 120
cases (26 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: Schill v. Wisconsin Rapids School District
Schill v. Wisconsin Rapids School District (2010)
“¶ 16 More specifically, this case poses the question of whether the contents of the Teachers' personal e-mails are records available to a requester under the Public Records Law, Wis. Stat. §§ 19.31 -.39, where the e-mails are sent or received on government e-mail accounts and…”
The Journal Times v. City of Racine Board of Police and Fire Commissioners (2015)
“4 See Wis. Stat. §§ 19.31 through 19.39. The public records law is also known as the open records law.”
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel v. Wisconsin Department of Administration (2009)
“[2] *705 ¶ 2 The court of appeals posed these questions in order to determine whether a provision in a ratified collective bargaining agreement, Article 2/4/4, between the WSEU and the State, which purported to prohibit the disclosure to the press of the names of…”
Hempel v. City of Baraboo (2005)
“19.32 to 19.37 shall be construed in every instance with a presumption of complete public access, consistent with the conduct of governmental business.”
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel v. City of Milwaukee (2012)
“Once again this court is asked to interpret the Wisconsin Public Records Law, Wis. Stat. §§ 19.31 -.39 (2009-10). 1 The issue presented is whether an authority 2 may impose a fee on a requester of a public record for the actual, *611 necessary, and direct costs incurred by the…”
Nichols v. Bennett (1996)
“Wis. Stat. § 19.31 . This court has summarized its approach to the open records law in the following manner: [T]he general presumption of our law is that public records shall be open to the public unless there is a clear statutory exception, unless there exists a limitation…”
Democratic Party of Wisconsin v. Wisconsin Department of Justice (2016)
“This is a review of an unpublished court of appeals' opinion and order,1 which affirmed the circuit court's order2 granting a writ of mandamus compelling the Wisconsin Department of Justice to disclose two video recordings requested by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin under…”
Friends of Frame Park, U.A. v. City of Waukesha (2022)
“Wis. Stat. § 19.31 . A declaration of policy is a permissible indicator of a statute's plain meaning——but only to a degree.”
Albert D. Moustakis v. State of Wisconsin Department of Justice (2016)
“¶49 We agree with the Department of Justice that the plain language, context, structure, and the interrelated provisions of the public records law all show that Moustakis is employed by an "authority" and that he is not an employee under Wis. Stat. § 19.31 (1bg). D ¶50 Moustakis…”
Voces de la Frontera, Inc. v. David A. Clarke, Jr. (2017)
“2d 266, ¶13 ; see also Wis. Stat. § 19.31 (providing "it is . . .”
Milwaukee Teachers' Education Ass'n v. Milwaukee Board of School Directors (1999)
“2d 699 (1996), when a records custodian who is not a district attorney decides to release information from the employees' personnel records in response to a request made under Wisconsin's *782 open records law, Wis. Stat. §§ 19.31 -.39 (1995-96). [1] We hold that the de novo…”
Zellner v. Cedarburg School District (2007)
“According to the Journal, such a reading would render meaningless the presumption of complete public access stated in Wis. Stat. § 19.31 . ¶ 25. The Journal also argues that allowing public access to the CD and the memo constitutes a "fair use of a copyrighted work" under 17 U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.