Thank you for your letter of December 28. Again I ask you to reconsider your opinion regarding my two complaints. You have done a grave injustice in this situation. I urge you to repair it.

I'll address your final statement first. Yes, I did send a press release to the Watertown Daily Times and the Fort Atkinson Daily Union soon after I received your response. My open records requests have been front-page, banner-headline news in Jefferson County long before you were assigned to be Special Prosecutor for these two complaints. They have been covered in detail in these newspapers and local radio, as well as the Wisconsin State Journal.

As it says in the preamble of the Open Records law, "a representative government is dependent upon an informed electorate." I am glad the media and citizens are interested in this story.

We are now in a situation where, in essence, your December 19 letter has invalidated the County's contract with the JCEDC. In my opinion, the JCEDC now believes that it need not answer any future requests for the items listed in its contract. Neither I nor the County will receive any records associated with the items in the contract. Indeed, this was the JCEDC's initial position as stated by its attorney at the beginning of this conflict.

You said "Many of the records you are requesting, in my opinion, were outside the contract that was entered into between the Jefferson County Economic Development Corporation and Jefferson County." Unfortunately, your written opinion gave the County Board and the JCEDC the impression that all of my requests were invalid. Did you mean to say that some were valid, but others were not?

In my opinion, it was your duty to examine my requests, one by one, and determine if *any* were valid. If in your opinion you found 24 of my requests were invalid but one was valid, I would hope that you would see it as your duty, as embodied in the open records law, to confirm that one valid request.

On the contrary, I believe it is easy to see that my requests match items in the contract, one for one. For example, in the contract under "Organizational Development Activities" item 1, it describes a database. I requested that database in electronic format. It was produced in that format. It should be fair game for a request. I did not receive it. My request could not have been more literal or any more identical to the item produced under the contract.

In the contract under "Business Retention Assistance", item 9, it says "Administer and oversee Tourism Council. Schedule monthly meetings, track activities." I asked for "Any records regarding the Tourism Council, including minutes of meetings." The JCEDC has refused to supply anything. What exactly would be a more valid request for a record "produced or collected" in pursuit of this item in the contract?

Similarly, in the contract under "Business Retention Assistance", item 10, it says "Administer/oversee production of Jefferson County Area Visitor's Guide (in cooperation with Chambers)". I asked for "Any records regarding the Jefferson County Area Visitor's Guide, its production, costs, contractors, and funds relating to it." The JCEDC has refused to supply any of this other than a copy of the Guide itself.

If the contract states they agree to do "X" shouldn't I be able to request the most basic description of records "produced or collected" when they perform "X" as promised? Isn't that exactly what Wis. Stat. 19.36(3) says? How can any of my requests be considered "outside the contract" if they so closely match what is in the contract?

As you said in your December 19 opinion, "In my opinion 19.36(3) must be narrowly construed in order to achieve the purpose for which it exists." My requests were quite narrow. However, Wis. Stat. 19.32(2) defines "records" to include letters, memos, faxes, receipts, bills, e-mails, etc. Can you give me some idea of what you would consider to be valid requests, given the length and the detail of the JCEDC contract? Surely in a page and half of services and tasks, there must be something that achieves the purpose of 19.36(3).

I could go on and on with each of my requests. I will not. I requested at least 25 items that match one-for-one many of the bulleted items in the contract. My letter to the County dated July 23, 2001 explains exactly what the JCEDC supplied, what they ignored, and as well as the items they supplied that I had not requested.

As for my request for the Chamber's Quickbooks financial record as part of the CIA requests, you said "I do not recall that specific request being made [...]". My October 8, 2001 complaint to District Attorney David Wambach contains that request in the third paragraph in the very same sentence as my request for the telephone records.

I cannot imagine any law or statute that would allow you to twist the CIA into resembling a contractor and the Chamber into its subcontractor. The CIA has always been an arm of the City of Jefferson. It was subject to open meetings law and open records law. It was created by and funded 100% by the City Council. All these facts are easily verified with the City of Jefferson. Similarly, Wambach had previously established that the JDC was quasi-governmental and therefore subject to open meetings law and open records law. Both the CIA and JDC made phone calls and created telephone bill records.

Why didn't you treat the CIA like any other governmental records authority, and apply the Open Records Law accordingly? On what legal basis can you brush aside its history of open records status and contort it into the position of a contractor?

All the records I requested were produced by the same single CIA employee, in the same office, at the same desk, at the same phone, and at the same computer. The same person performed duties for the CIA, JDC and Chamber all day long. These are all simple, easily-verified facts of this situation.

You have repeatedly stated there was a contract between the CIA and the City of Jefferson. No such contract exists. Your December 19 opinion states there was no contract between the CIA and Chamber. I agree - but if there was no contract, how could be the Chamber be acting as a sub-contractor?

Indeed, if there had been a contract between the CIA and the Chamber, wouldn't the CIA have been in the role of the government, and the Chamber as contractor, and therefore the telephone records would have been open under Wis. Stat. 19.36(3)?

You tell me that I "do not have the right to make accusations or allegations that are not supported by the facts or the law." I will do my best to state the facts and to provide evidence to substantiate them.

If you do not wish to study each of my open records requests, then please recommend my complaints to the Attorney General's office for further study. I have been in contact with Alan Lee. Pass it to him.