John Foust - JCEDC Refusals
|
Jefferson Banner - Opinion John Foust - JCEDC Refusals |
JCEDC Refusals by John Foust Introduction The letter below was sent by Corporation Counsel Phil Ristow in reply to a letter from the JCEDC's attorney. ----------- May 29, 2001 Robert L. Gordon Re Jefferson County Economic Development Corporation records Dear Mr. Gordon: By copy of the County Administrator's response to John Foust's prior record request for certain JCEDC records, it was requested that the Corporation supply certain documents in electronic form to Mr. Foust. Please advise what, if any, records were transmitted as a result of the County's request. In addition, I have had the opportunity to review your prior response to Foust's request in depth, including the relevant Wisconsin case law. As a result, I ask the Corporation and you to review the May 3, 2001, response previously submitted by you on the Corporation's behalf. I make that request for several reasons. First and foremost, the language of the contract would seem straightforward. The contract is not, as your letter suggests, for only quarterly and annual reports of the Corporation's economic development activities. It is for "economic development services as defined in the memorandum of JCEDC Director Marilyn Haroldson to the Budget Committee dated January 31, 2001." It is an unreasonable construction of the contract to argue that the County is purchasing reports of services, but not the services themselves, given its plain language. To argue that the Corporation would be in compliance with the contract if it ceased to perform the activities outlined in the memorandum but continued to report promptly to the County Budget Committee is illogical at best. In reviewing its position, the Corporation should consider whether it makes information referred to in the first section or other parts of the memorandum available upon request to members of the public or interested businesses. If it does so, would it not make such information available to the County upon request? And clearly, if it does, the County would be under an obligation to disclose such information to a public records requester. I believe the majority of the information described in Section 1 of the Memorandum is compiled from public records of governmental entities, or information available to the public concerning private businesses. As such, it is unclear why such information would be made available upon request to a real estate broker representing an unknown business prospect, and not to a governmental entity which is providing funds for the assembly and dissemination of such information to such a requester. Clearly, some portions of the records request are beyond the reach of the County or a records requester. Those would include, without limitation by enumeration, payroll records. Obviously records that don't exist are not subject to the request, either. As to the balance, the Court in Machotka v. Village of West Salem, 607 NW2d 319, 233 W2d 106 at 111, states
Based on the foregoing, I would ask the Corporation to review its position. If the Corporation is inclined to alter its position, I would ask you to identify first, which records from the request do not exist; second, among those that do exist, those which you believe fall within the zone of privacy sanctioned in the relevant cases; and, those which would be available to the County or a business prospect upon request. Please respond by June 11, 2001. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, Philip C. Ristow PCRcjf |