This letter is my objection to your opinion regarding my complaint about the records produced by the Commerce and Industry Association (CIA).

My request had two parts. I asked for specific long distance telephone records. I also asked for the Quickbooks financial file for the Jefferson Chamber of Commerce.

Your response addressed the telephone records. Your response completely ignored my request for the financial records of Jefferson Chamber of Commerce.

Regarding the telephone records, you claim the relationship between the City of Jefferson, the CIA and the Chamber is analogous to the relationship between government, a contractor, and a sub-contractor, and therefore was "very similar" to the situation in Building and Construction Trades v. Waunakee School District 221 Wis. 2d, 575.

This is clearly incorrect. Unfortunately there are no contractors and no contracts. There is no need to stretch so far for analogies when the mainstream of Open Records Law should have guided your opinion.

The CIA was not a contractor to the City. The CIA acted as an arm of the City. The CIA was formed by action of the City Council. It was funded completely by action of the City Council. Its office operated rent-free on City property. All parties recognized that the CIA was subject to open records and open meetings law. There was no contract between the CIA and City of Jefferson. The CIA had one employee. That employee's job description, as outlined in the charter of the CIA, was the day-to-day operation of the Jefferson Development Corporation (JDC) and the Jefferson Chamber of Commerce. All of these facts can be easily confirmed by consulting with the City of Jefferson.

Similarly, the Chamber did not resemble a sub-contractor. It did not perform any services or deliver any product to the CIA. The flow of benefits was one-way from the CIA to the Chamber. The Chamber received the substantial benefit of a full-time director. There is no evidence that the CIA sub-contracted for telephone service from the Chamber. The CIA purchased the telephone system and computer in question.

In my opinion, which I believe is supported by dozens of cases and opinions from the Attorney General's office, is that it is the creator and the content of a record that determines whether it falls under the Open Records Law or not.

I believe these telephone records contain the record of official actions conducted by the CIA and JDC, as conducted by their one employee. Both organizations are subject to Open Records Law. You argue that because the Chamber paid the phone bill, the record of the official phone calls made by the CIA and JDC can remain hidden.

By the same logic, the Governor could conduct official Wisconsin business on a typewriter owned by a lobbyist and legally hide whatever he was doing.

You failed to respond at all to my request for the Chamber's financial records. This record doesn't fit into your contractor/sub-contractor analogy. A public employee created and maintained this record as part of his job description, on a computer purchased by the CIA. Why isn't it a public record?

I recognize the Chamber is a private organization. I believe the heart of the problem was that the City of Jefferson used public funds to run a private organization. I'd like to know which records become public in that situation. You never addressed this.

I would like to know if you will reconsider and extend your opinion in order to supply a complete response that makes sense for both of the CIA records I requested, or whether I am now forced to appeal to the State Attorney General's office, or seek a Writ of Mandamus on my own.