Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 19.81 (2026)
Declaration of policy
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
19.81(1)(1) In recognition of the fact that a representative government of the American type is dependent upon an informed electorate, it is declared to be the policy of this state that the public is entitled to the fullest and most complete information regarding the affairs of government as is compatible with the conduct of governmental business.
19.81(2)(2) To implement and ensure the public policy herein expressed, all meetings of all state and local governmental bodies shall be publicly held in places reasonably accessible to members of the public and shall be open to all citizens at all times unless otherwise expressly provided by law.
19.81(3)(3) In conformance with article IV, section 10, of the constitution, which states that the doors of each house shall remain open, except when the public welfare requires secrecy, it is declared to be the intent of the legislature to comply to the fullest extent with this subchapter.
19.81(4)(4) This subchapter shall be liberally construed to achieve the purposes set forth in this section, and the rule that penal statutes must be strictly construed shall be limited to the enforcement of forfeitures and shall not otherwise apply to actions brought under this subchapter or to interpretations thereof.
19.81 NoteNOTE: The following annotations relate to s. 66.77, which was repealed by Chapter 426, laws of 1975.
19.81 AnnotationSubsequent to the presentation of evidence by the taxpayer, a board of review’s consideration of testimony by the village assessor at an executive session was contrary to the open meeting law. Although it was permissible for the board to convene a closed session for the purpose of deliberating after a quasi-judicial hearing, the proceedings did not constitute mere deliberations but were a continuation of the quasi-judicial hearing without the presence of or notice to the objecting taxpayer. Dolphin v. Board of Review, 70 Wis. 2d 403, 234 N.W.2d 277 (1975).
19.81 AnnotationThe open meeting law is not applicable to the Wisconsin Judicial Commission. State ex rel. Lynch v. Dancey, 71 Wis. 2d 287, 238 N.W.2d 81 (1976).
19.81 AnnotationA regular open meeting, held subsequent to a closed meeting on another subject, does not constitute a reconvened open meeting when there was no prior open meeting on that day. 58 Atty. Gen. 41.
19.81 AnnotationConsideration of a resolution is a formal action of an administrative or minor governing body and, when taken in proper closed session, the resolution and result of the vote must be made available for public inspection, pursuant to s. 19.21, absent a specific showing that the public interest would be adversely affected. 60 Atty. Gen. 9.
19.81 AnnotationJoint apprenticeship committees, appointed pursuant to Wis. Adm. Code provisions, are governmental bodies and subject to the requirements of the open meeting law. 63 Atty. Gen. 363.
19.81 AnnotationVoting procedures employed by worker’s compensation and unemployment advisory councils that utilized adjournment of public meeting for purposes of having members representing employers and members representing employees or workers to separately meet in closed caucuses and to vote as a block on reconvening was contrary to the open records law. 63 Atty. Gen. 414.
19.81 AnnotationA governmental body can call closed sessions for proper purposes without giving notice to members of the news media who have filed written requests. 63 Atty. Gen. 470.
19.81 AnnotationDiscussing the meaning of “communication” with reference to giving the public and news media members adequate notice. 63 Atty. Gen. 509.
19.81 AnnotationThe posting in the governor’s office of agenda of future investment board meetings is not sufficient communication to the public or the news media who have filed a written request for notice. 63 Atty. Gen. 549.
19.81 AnnotationA county board may not utilize an unidentified paper ballot in voting to appoint a county highway commissioner but may vote by ayes and nays or show of hands at an open session if some member does not require the vote to be taken in such manner that the vote of each member may be ascertained and recorded. 63 Atty. Gen. 569.
19.81 NoteNOTE: The following annotations refer to ss. 19.81 to 19.98.
19.81 AnnotationWhen the city of Milwaukee and a private non-profit festival organization incorporated the open meetings law into a contract, the contract allowed public enforcement of the contractual provisions concerning open meetings. State ex rel. Journal/Sentinel, Inc. v. Pleva, 155 Wis. 2d 704, 456 N.W.2d 359 (1990).
19.81 AnnotationSub. (2) requires that a meeting be held in a facility that gives reasonable public access, not total access. No person may be systematically excluded or arbitrarily refused admittance. State ex rel. Badke v. Village Board, 173 Wis. 2d 553, 494 N.W.2d 408 (1993).
19.81 AnnotationDiscussing this subchapter. 65 Atty. Gen. preface.
19.81 AnnotationDiscussing public notice requirements for meetings of a city district school board under this subchapter and former s. 120.48, 1983 stats. 66 Atty. Gen. 93.
19.81 AnnotationA volunteer fire department organized as a nonprofit corporation under s. 213.05 is not subject to the open meeting law. 66 Atty. Gen. 113.
19.81 AnnotationAnyone has the right to tape-record an open meeting of a governmental body provided the meeting is not thereby physically disrupted. 66 Atty. Gen. 318.
19.81 AnnotationThe open meeting law does not apply to a coroner’s inquest. 67 Atty. Gen. 250.
19.81 AnnotationThe open meeting law does not apply if the common council hears a grievance under a collective bargaining agreement. 67 Atty. Gen. 276.
19.81 AnnotationDiscussing the application of the open meeting law to the duties of WERC. 68 Atty. Gen. 171.
19.81 AnnotationA senate committee meeting was probably held in violation of the open meetings law although there was never any intention prior to the gathering to attempt to debate any matter of policy, to reach agreement on differences, to make any decisions on any bill or part thereof, to take any votes, or to resolve substantive differences. Quorum gatherings should be presumed to be in violation of the law, due to a quorum’s ability to thereafter call, compose, and control by vote a formal meeting of a governmental body. 71 Atty. Gen. 63.
19.81 AnnotationNonstock corporations created by statute as bodies politic clearly fall within the term “governmental body” as defined in the open meetings law and are subject to the provisions of the open meetings law. Nonstock corporations that are not created by the legislature or by rule, but are created by private citizens, are not bodies politic and not governmental bodies. 73 Atty. Gen. 53.
19.81 AnnotationUnderstanding Wisconsin’s Open Meeting Law. Harvey. WBB Sept. 1980.
19.81 AnnotationGetting the Best of Both Worlds: Open Government and Economic Development. Westerberg. Wis. Law. Feb. 2009.
19.81 AnnotationAn Intro to Understanding Wisconsin’s Open Meetings Law. Block. Wis. Law. Dec. 2015.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Buswell v. Tomah Area Sch. Dist., 2007 WI 71 (Wis. 2007).
State Ex Rel. Buswell v. Tomah Area Sch. Dist., 2007 WI 71 (Wis. 2007). “84 (2) because they were not reasonably likely to apprise members of the public of the subject matter of the meetings and that the notices are inconsistent with the policies for the open meetings law as set forth in Wis. Stat. §§ 19.81 (1) and (4). In essence, Buswell contends…”
The Journal Times v. City of Racine Bd. of Police & Fire Commissioners, 2015 WI 56 (Wis. 2015). “7 The Newspaper argues that it filed to the requester if the requester prevails in whole or in substantial part in any action filed under sub.”
Sands v. Whitnall Sch. Dist., 2008 WI 89 (Wis. 2008). “" Wis. Stat. § 19.81 (2). ¶ 36. This declaration of policy underscores the general tenor of the open meetings statute: a recognition that meetings of governmental bodies must be more open to the public than meetings of nongovernmental bodies.”
State Ex Rel. Auchinleck v. Town of LaGrange, 547 N.W.2d 587 (Wis. 1996). “See Wis. Stat. §§ 19.81 -.98 and 19.31-.37. The circuit court dismissed the actions based on Auchinleck's failure to comply with the governmental notice provisions of Wis.”
State ex rel. Ozanne v. Fitzgerald, 2011 WI 43 (Wis. 2011). “The petition for leave to appeal a non-final order and motion arise out of a Dane County Circuit Court case in which Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne *74 alleged violations of the Open Meetings Law, Wis. Stat. § 19.81 , et. seq., in connection with the enactment of…”
State Ex Rel. Badke v. Vill. Bd. of the Vill. of Greendale, 494 N.W.2d 408 (Wis. 1993). “" Section 19.81(1), Stats. 1989-90. Thus the governmental unit must strive for reasonable accessibility.”
State v. Beaver Dam Area Dev. Corp., 2008 WI 90 (Wis. 2008). “Wis. Stat. § 19.81 (1X2005-06). See also Wis.”
State Ex Rel. Citizens for Responsible Dev. v. City of Milton, 2007 WI App 114 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). “81(1) states the public policy of Wisconsin's Open Meetings Law as follows: In recognition of the fact that a representative government of the American type is dependent upon an informed electorate, it is declared to be the policy of this state that the public is entitled to the…”
Priorities USA v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2024 WI 32 (Wis. 2024). “§ 19.81 (4) does both within a single statute.”
State Ex Rel. H.D. Enter. II, LLC v. City of Stoughton, 602 N.W.2d 72 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “Section 19.81(1) and (4), STATS., provide as follows: Declaration of policy.”
State Ex Rel. Journal/Sentinel, Inc. v. Pleva, 456 N.W.2d 359 (Wis. 1990). “Section 19.81. Public notice of open meetings shall be given pursuant to Wis.”
Susan Ulichny v. Merton Cmty. Sch. Dist., Mark Flynn, Timothy F. O'Neill, 249 F.3d 686 (7th Cir. 2001). “When Jeffrey Musche, a parent of a child in the School District, learned that the Board had voted to extend Ulichny a twoyear contract, he complained (apparently to the police) that the Board violated Wisconsin’s Open Meetings Law, Wis. Stat. § 19.81 et seq. (1999), by not…”
— Wis. Stat. § 19.81(1) — 8 cases
State Ex Rel. Buswell v. Tomah Area Sch. Dist., 2007 WI 71 (Wis. 2007). “84 (2) because they were not reasonably likely to apprise members of the public of the subject matter of the meetings and that the notices are inconsistent with the policies for the open meetings law as set forth in Wis. Stat. §§ 19.81 (1) and (4). In essence, Buswell contends…”
State Ex Rel. Badke v. Vill. Bd. of the Vill. of Greendale, 494 N.W.2d 408 (Wis. 1993). “" Section 19.81(1), Stats. 1989-90. Thus the governmental unit must strive for reasonable accessibility.”
Journal/Sentinel, Inc. v. Sch. Bd. of the Sch. Dist., 521 N.W.2d 165 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).
State Ex Rel. H.D. Enter. II, LLC v. City of Stoughton, 602 N.W.2d 72 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “Section 19.81(1) and (4), STATS., provide as follows: Declaration of policy.”
State Ex Rel. Citizens for Responsible Dev. v. City of Milton, 2007 WI App 114 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). “81(1) states the public policy of Wisconsin's Open Meetings Law as follows: In recognition of the fact that a representative government of the American type is dependent upon an informed electorate, it is declared to be the policy of this state that the public is entitled to the…”
— Wis. Stat. § 19.81(2) — 3 cases
State Ex Rel. Badke v. Vill. Bd. of the Vill. of Greendale, 494 N.W.2d 408 (Wis. 1993). “" Section 19.81(1), Stats. 1989-90. Thus the governmental unit must strive for reasonable accessibility.”
State Ex Rel. H.D. Enter. II, LLC v. City of Stoughton, 602 N.W.2d 72 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “Section 19.81(1) and (4), STATS., provide as follows: Declaration of policy.”
Douglas Oitzinger v. City of Marinette (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wis. Stat. § 19.81(3) — 2 cases
Sands v. Whitnall Sch. Dist., 2008 WI 89 (Wis. 2008). “" Wis. Stat. § 19.81 (2). ¶ 36. This declaration of policy underscores the general tenor of the open meetings statute: a recognition that meetings of governmental bodies must be more open to the public than meetings of nongovernmental bodies.”
State ex rel. Ozanne v. Fitzgerald, 2011 WI 43 (Wis. 2011). “The petition for leave to appeal a non-final order and motion arise out of a Dane County Circuit Court case in which Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne *74 alleged violations of the Open Meetings Law, Wis. Stat. § 19.81 , et. seq., in connection with the enactment of…”
— Wis. Stat. § 19.81(4) — 7 cases
State Ex Rel. Buswell v. Tomah Area Sch. Dist., 2007 WI 71 (Wis. 2007). “84 (2) because they were not reasonably likely to apprise members of the public of the subject matter of the meetings and that the notices are inconsistent with the policies for the open meetings law as set forth in Wis. Stat. §§ 19.81 (1) and (4). In essence, Buswell contends…”
Priorities USA v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2024 WI 32 (Wis. 2024). “§ 19.81 (4) does both within a single statute.”
In Interest of Angel Lace M., 516 N.W.2d 678 (Wis. 1994).
State Ex Rel. Citizens for Responsible Dev. v. City of Milton, 2007 WI App 114 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). “81(1) states the public policy of Wisconsin's Open Meetings Law as follows: In recognition of the fact that a representative government of the American type is dependent upon an informed electorate, it is declared to be the policy of this state that the public is entitled to the…”
Campana v. City of Greenfield, 38 F. Supp. 2d 1043 (E.D. Wis. 1999).
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.