JCEDC Refusals

by

This is a work in progress, but because so many documents have assembled regarding the Jefferson County Economic Development Corporation's refusals to supply the items describes in its contract with Jefferson County, I will first publish at least these letters, and add more commentary later.

- John

The text of the contract between the JCEDC and County, dated February 28, 2001.  The contract has two parts: an introduction and a memorandum that describes the services and records that the JCEDC agrees to provide to the County in exchange for $71,000 a year.

On April 19, 2001 I made an open records request to County Administrator Bill Hausen, asking for many of the items associated with the JCEDC's contract with the County.

At the end of April, the JCEDC received its next quarter's funding.  There was no mention of my open records request in their presentation to the Budget Committee.

In this letter dated May 3, 2001, JCEDC attorney Robert L. Gordon refused to supply records.

In this May 4 letter, County Administrator Willard D. Hausen supplied an interim response to me.

Martine Koeppel wrote this May 14 letter to the County Board regarding this issue.

In response to a request for an opinion from County Supervisor Stephen Nass, District Attorney David Wambach wrote this May 14 letter, explaining why the JCEDC as presently established is not subject to open records or open meetings law.  However, our District Attorney completely ignores the fact that the JCEDC had signed a contract with the County, thereby making it subject to the "contractor clause" which would mean that at least those records resulting from the fulfillment of those services would be subject to open records requests.

In this letter dated May 29, 2001, Phil Ristow responded to JCEDC attorney Robert L. Gordon, asking for a clarification.

In this e-mail from Gaylin Morgan to the Board of the Jefferson Development Corporation, dated July 16, he urges the JDC to approve the payment of $6,000 dues for the City of Jefferson's participation in the JCEDC.  My e-mail response the next day points out the many flaws in his argument, but I refrained from correcting the spelling errors and grammatical mistakes.

Dated July 17, this letter from JCEDC President Sheldon Mielke is yet another refusal to supply any records.

Here is my July 23 letter explaining how the JCEDC ignored my request.

My own district's County Board Supervisor Sharon Schmeling wrote this July 25 letter to Corporation Counsel Phil Ristow.

Here is the July 26 letter from Ristow to Marilyn Haroldson, asking for a clarification of exactly what they intend to supply, and why or why not.

On August 17, JCEDC president Sheldon Mielke submitted a new refusal to the County.

My September 4 statement to the County Board.

In mid-September, William Reichertz, a former JCEDC Board member, made an open records request for the Tourism Council meeting minutes and the JCEDC's list of businesses.  Here is the September 17, 2001 letter from Willard Hausen to the JCEDC regarding this request.  In this September 25, 2001 letter from Hausen to William Reichertz, Hausen explains he can't supply the records that Reichertz has requested because the JCEDC hasn't supplied them.

A response from the Special Prosecutor - He Punts!

Finally, District Attorney Paul Bucher's December 19 response to my complaints.  With tortured and confusing logic, he claims "At this point in time I believe all of the records that were collected or produced under the contract with Jefferson County had been made available to you in one form or another."  That's funny - the County doesn't agree.

It's clear Mr. Bucher did not devote much attention to my complaints.  Without accurate facts in hand, he can't make a wise decision.

For my request for Commerce and Industry Association (CIA) phone records, Bucher invented a number of facts in an attempt to shoehorn this situation into one where the courts have previously ruled that subcontractor records are not open to inspection.

Bucher claims the CIA is a contractor for the City of Jefferson.  It is not. There is no contract. The CIA was created by and funded solely by the City. On its own, the CIA declared that it was subject to open records law.

Bucher then further claims the CIA subcontracted for phone service from the Chamber of Commerce. There is no record of that. He said that because the Chamber paid the phone bill, the CIA and JDC phone calls could remain hidden. By the same logic, the Governor could conduct official business on a typewriter owned by a lobbyist and hide whatever he was doing.

Bucher completely failed to respond to my request for detailed records of the Chamber's finances. He ignored the heart of my question. The City was paying for an employee of a private organization. I'd like to know which records become public in that situation. 

All this is especially interesting in light of the recent revelation that there was a $30,000 slush fund at the Chamber that even the Chamber Board wasn't told about.

As for the records the JCEDC refuses to supply, Bucher contradicts himself. He admits he didn't bother to examine exactly which records were actually supplied by the JCEDC and whether this fulfilled my request. He admits he didn't bother to determine which records would logically be part of the contract. I expected an item-by-item opinion of whether each of my requests were valid or not.  

Regardless, he states confidently that all the records from the contract were made available to me. I don't know how he could claim this. The County's own Administrator and its Corporation Counsel have stated many times that the JCEDC had not supplied all the records described in the contract, much less all the items I requested, which were only a subset of the contract. Similarly, even the JCEDC admitted that it had not supplied all the contracted items. 

Bucher also claims that if a contracted item was created before the contract was signed, they need not supply it. The Open Records Law makes no such distinction.

In essence, Bucher's opinion has invalidated the contract between the JCEDC and County.  he's saying they need not turn over the deliverables listed in the contract.

Due to Bucher's inattentive response, I will either file an appeal with the State Attorney General's office, or with a local judge to reconsider the question in an adequate way.

My objections to the Prosecutor's opinion

On December 26, I sent Bucher two separate objections - one to the JCEDC opinion, and one to the CIA opinion.  I also made a statement to the local press about his opinions.

On December 28, Bucher responded to my objections in this letter.  I responded again to him in this January 7 letter, outlining what I believe is his basic misunderstanding of the facts.

[Ed. Updated November 2002: The Wisconsin Attorney General's office responds to Bucher's opinion, reversing it.]

The JCEDC Wants to Change the Contract!

On January 9, the JCEDC sent a letter to the County with a proposed revision of the contract.  In it, they want the County to refuse any open records requests, and they don't want to provide any records to document what they've supposedly done under the contract beyond the quarterly and annual reports.  How can the contract deliverables list "reports" they'll produce, but contradict itself and say they don't have to produce them?

I think this is grossly illegal.  You can't write a contract that negates the Open Records Law statutes, or that ties the County's hands when it is asked to comply with the statutes.

A new request for proof

On January 25, 2002, I submitted a new open records request to the County, asking for records produced in the second through fourth quarters of 2001.  With this request, I intend to show the County Board that the JCEDC refuses to surrender any records that would show that it has completed any of the items in its contract.

You may wonder why I made a new request on the heels of District Attorney Paul Bucher's written opinion from December 2001.  It is not a court ruling. Opinions stemming from open records complaints are merely advisory. As described in the statutes, the only definitive answer happens if I were to file a "writ of mandamus" action in court. Then, a judge would be asked to examine all the evidence and make a binding decision. I have not done this yet. I am considering such legal action, due to Bucher's inadequate consideration of my complaints.

The County must continue to examine and respond to each of my open records requests, regardless.  I'd love to see the County state why they support Bucher's opinion.  I believe they don't.