Releasing Milwaukee County & AB 85 Related Records

In March I posted my first blog item on the proposed legislation to undermine the Milwaukee County Board.  At that time I said that the issue was important enough that it deserved a much closer and fully open examination.  Since that time I've been looking into many aspects of the proposed legislation.  I've tried to identify and document where it was really devised, who exactly is pushing it, how are they pushing it and why.  I'm not sure that I've adequately answered all of those questions to my own satisfaction but I do think that we know a lot more now than we knew then.

During this process I've compiled tens of thousands of pages of county, state and other publicly available documents and pieces of information.  I've also started compiling profile information on some of the key players and special interests that have been pushing this issue the most. So I've decided, in keeping with the spirit of my original blog posting, to fully release all of those documents to anyone and everyone that may be interested in them.  Individuals, organizations, activists, public officials, traditional media, bloggers and anyone else.  This is an important public policy issue with long-term ramifications and the public deserves to know as much as possible about its origin and its potential impact.

CLICK HERE to gain full access to nearly all of my files on this topic.

Since my own research is not yet complete, I will continue to update this public file when I obtain new and relevant information.  When I do update it I might not blog about it but I will try to at least tweet it @cjliebmann.

If you have documents, information or other items that might substantively add to this collection of records, you can contact me at the email address in the column to the right.

Open Records Concerns in Milwaukee County

As part of my job I've filed quite a few open records requests to a variety of public officials over the years.  I've not yet perfected the art but I believe that I have a fairly good understanding of the major parameters.  That is why I was concerned to read that the Milwaukee County Executive's office was requesting a $1,000 fee to simply search for records requested by the Milwaukee-based newspaper the Shepherd Express.  As I thought about this issue, I recalled seeing an internal Milwaukee County email that equally concerned me in the area of open records.

In a March 2012 email chain various Chris Abele Administration officials are discussing a draft response to Supervisor Jursik on an issue.  In a March 2, 2012 reply to that email chain Milwaukee County Corporation Counsel Kimberly Walker makes the following comment (scroll to bottom of doc to see it):

"Please see the following below... my two-cents worth.  FYI - trying to play this forward in my mind.  With the exception of my email, this email string will not be exempt from open records requests.  Should you wish to preclude its disclosure, please send additional comments, revisions etc., only to me with the names of others who should see it, and I can forward. Just a thought."

This comment struck me as being odd and it almost seemed like she was suggesting a way to conduct public business in a way that would get around open records requirements.  I don't know if the administration ever implemented this policy or how many open records requests weren't truly fulfilled because of it.  But it is my understanding that communications to the corp counsel are not covered by attorney client privilege simply because they are sent to or from her inbox.

I'm not an attorney and I certainly could have been misunderstanding something so I sent an email seeking clarification from the Corp Counsel on exactly what she meant by her emailed statement.  Unfortunately her response didn't really clear up anything at all.  Here is the primary portion of her response to my inquiry:

"Specifically, I was addressing a question related to the privilege of communications directed from or to Corp Counsel, in contrast to group communications between clients that merely include Corp Counsel, or group communications between clients."   

I didn't understand that answer and it didn't really tell me anything about the real meaning of her March 2012 guidance.  So I contacted Bill Lueders, President of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council.  He confirmed that the Corp Counsel's initial comments also caused him some concern.  He further observed that her follow-up comments were "more confusing than enlightening."  He went on to make the following statement:

"I am troubled by her response. Communications to and from corp counsel are not automatically protected. The public is entitled to know what her office does and to whom it communicates as much as for any other office. Attorney client privilege pertains to those communications in which the office is providing or being asked to provide legal advice, not anything that comes its way or whenever it feels like. I don't see that she is making those distinctions in these communications; I do hope her office is making them in practice."

It seems to me that if both Bill and I are concerned about these potential open records policies, then perhaps someone with the ability and the influence should closely examine the matter.  If the methods described in the March 2012 email are/were in fact being used, the Milwaukee County Corp Counsel should provide a complete and thorough explanation and justification for it.  If she can't then perhaps she should seek some specific guidance from the Attorney General's office on this subject. The idea of open government and open records is far too important to do anything less.  The public has the right to know that their county government is being fully and totally transparent with them.

When John Doe Ends, Will Civil Remedies Begin?

The John Doe investigation has already produced criminal charges and convictions against multiple Scott Walker operatives and close associates. In addition the investigation has produced a rather high level of Republican operatives that have been granted immunity. Where will this end? I would be lying if I pretended to know to any degree of certainty.  But after the prosecutors finish their work, I certainly hope that they fully disclose what they perhaps couldn't during the course of the investigation itself.

For example, the various criminal complaints and other filings make it clear that there were multiple levels of open record obstruction within Scott Walker's Milwaukee County administration.  We know that there were things like secret routers and the frequent use of private emails for official business.  We know that these practices were "...never disclosed to county employees outside a closely held group within the Walker administration."

These shady practices weren't even disclosed to the acting director of the Information Management Services Division.  That county official was personally responsible for gathering emails that were responsive to open records requests.  She also served on an open records committee with Kelly Rindfleisch and Tim Russell, yet they apparently never took the opportunity to advise her of the secret router and email network.    

It seems very clear that John Doe prosecutors have identified open records requests that were successfully thwarted based on this shady setup inside the Walker administration. Take for example the following comment from Kelly Rindfleisch's criminal complaint.

"In fact, even though the secret e-mail system was used for business purposes which could have and which did include communications within the scope of Open Records requests, the existence of the system was never disclosed to Laurie Panella, the Acting Director of the Information Management Services Division."

If this statement means what it appears to mean, then the DA knows of specific records requests that were obstructed at least in part.  To the extent that prosecutors have positively identified specific requesters that were thwarted, they should be specifically notified of that fact.  This is especially true if criminal charges are not going to be filed regarding this specific issue. To the extent that the law allows, those obstructed record requesters should be made aware and thus be afforded the opportunity to seek civil remedies if they so choose.

Opposition Research AND Open Records Oversight?

On Tuesday longtime Walker crony, Tim Russell is scheduled for a sentencing hearing.  Last week, in preparation for the hearing, the prosecution filed a sentencing memo.  One part of the memo that stood out to me is that Russell was working for Walker's Milwaukee County administration while at the same time working in a formal capacity to benefit Scott Walker's campaign for governor.  Jake and Capper have both highlighted this point already but I have a few very specific questions about it.

The sentencing memo specifically says that Tim Russell started an entity named Strategic Outsourcing and Research Center Inc. (Source).  It also specifically states that this Russell operation was doing opposition research to benefit Friends of Scott Walker.  It goes on to list three people that Russell brought on to help him conduct this research.

I have many questions about this but I'll just focus on one thread for now:

• Did any of  Tim Russell's research include the filing of open records requests with Scott Walker's county office? 
• If Russell and/or his operatives did file such a request(s) was it done under their own names?
• Tim Russell was on a committee to oversee open records requests sent to Walker's office. Did that committee ever take up a request sent from Russell and/or his research operation? 
• If so did he disclose that potential conflict to the open records committee? (Mostly rhetorical since he apparently didn't disclose the secret router or the private email usage to the committee)

Tim Russell's criminal complaint listed domain names that he apparently purchased.  Several of those listed are related to an infamous Walker shill blog. The blog was eventually deleted after Darlene Wink was first caught doing campaign work on county time. Given that Tim Russell apparently paid for the domains, it is perfectly reasonable to ask how far his involvement might have gone with the blog.  Was he personally writing for it? Were his hired researchers writing for it?

As I've pointed out in the past, someone from that blog submitted what was essentially an anonymous open records request to Scott Walker's office. The request was turned around for free and with lightning fast speed.  But that was not the only request because at least one author at that blog later touted other open records requests.  For example this item (scroll down to "Neumann slithering around for dirt") shows us one such later example.  It is even more relevant given that Tim Russell's operation mostly focused on Mark Neumann research.  

On the Scott Walker shill blog, they took a shot at me for past open records requests that I've made.  Admittedly I've filed some open records requests in the past that were fairly broad but then again I wasn't being paid by a campaign to file them WHILE being paid by the taxpayers to respond to them.   Was this the normal dynamic in Scott Walker's Milwaukee County administration?  The fact that I could reasonably ask that question is an absolute disgrace.  Then again that seems to be a theme of Scott Walker's ethically/legally challenged Milwaukee County administration.

Afterthought: I suppose I could better tolerate a county employee having a side political job that sometimes intersected directly with their official duties. But in this case it seemed to be a practice to infuse official duties and those that were strictly political. In addition, it is not as if we are starting with a blank slate here where everyone gets the benefit of the doubt. We have actual criminal complaints detailing alleged open record game playing among other things.

Revisiting ScottforGov and its Open Records Request

Readers might recall that I have a long history with Scott Walker's Milwaukee County administration stalling and otherwise obstructing my open records requests.  In 2010 his administration made me wait at lest 8 or 9 months to get records that I had requested of them.  In fact I may have never received those records if a reporter would not have called them and inquired about the long delay.

In the past I have also contrasted Walker's history of open record obstruction with how his office quickly (and usually for free) processed both large and small requests for his political allies.  One example of this that I have given on this blog is their quick response to the anonymous shill blog, ScottforGov.  It is the blog that was very quickly taken down after Darlene Wink was caught doing political stuff on county time.  Based on criminal complaints we also know that longtime Walker aide Tim Russell purchased some of the domains related to this anonymous shill blog.

The following is simply a review of how this anonymous open records request was quickly processed for free by the Walker administration.  I've included more recent details from the John Doe that seem relevant.

1. Someone from the ScottforGov sent an open records request to Scott Walker's general county email account.  I don't know who personally sent the email but it is interesting to note that Tim Russell is the person that paid for the domains according to the criminal complaint against him. 
2. Darlene Wink originally received this open records request from the ScottforGov blog.  We know that she has already admitted to improperly doing political work on county time and has reached a plea deal with prosecutors.
3. After Wink received the friendly open records request she quickly forwarded it to Wallker's communications person, Fran McLaughlin*.  Her name may sound familiar to you because on Thursday she became the 13th person in the John Doe to request and receive immunity.  An interesting note is that she appeared to get immunity after first invoking her 5th amendment right against self incrimination.  

It is also interesting to note that the anonymous shills at ScottforGov knew the exact details of my open records requests to the Walker administration.  In fact they blogged about it later (see the "Neumann slithering around for dirt" entry) .  It is certainly a telling event given the people involved with that flawed process and all of the details that have emerged so far from the John Doe investigation.

*For the record it was Fran McLaughlin that I had to deal with on my open records requests and as previously stated it took 8 or 9 months to get those records (only AFTER a reporter called inquiring about the long delay)

Walker Administration Emails 2009

Anyone that was reading this blog in 2010 is probably familiar with my struggles in getting records from Scott Walker's Milwaukee County administration. I only received certain records 9 months and hundreds of dollars after requesting them. Even then, they only sent some of them after a reporter questioned them about the long delay. I've repeatedly written about Walker only "turning on the light" for friends, including an anonymous shill blog that may have been run by some of Walker's county staffers.

Some of the records that I did finally receive included a ton of county emails from 2009. Given some of the recent developments and the news surrounding the John Doe investigation, I decided to search those 2009 Walker emails from a new point of reference. FYI, this blog posting may very well turn into the first of a series.

One thing that certainly stood out in the recent criminal complaints was the email from Scott Walker, using his campaign account, to address the Darlene Wink situation with right hand man Tim Russell. After seeing that Walker used his campaign account to discuss county business, I decided to again search my 2009 Walker administration emails for similar examples. I wanted to test whether Walker's intermingling of his campaign email and county business was a common practice.

Please note that the Walker administration used Lotus Notes and the electronic email records that they finally sent me are in that format. Since I don't have Lotus Notes the emails are a bit of a maze of Lotus Notes code and other data. To check out the emails that I am going to reference below, see them HERE. It is admittedly a pain to read but I've tried to make the reading easier by putting relevant information in bold. I've also deleted vast amounts of the Lotus Notes code. If you are interested in the original version with all of the code, let me know. There could be interesting discoveries hiding in that code.

Here is a summary of interesting items that I found in Walker 2009 emails (instances of Walker using his "skw@scottwalker.org" email address for county business):

• The first email chain listed in the above linked doc appears to be Walker sending a response to a Public Policy Forum draft report on the county budget. Walker seems to be sending it to his county staff. But he sends it to their private emails along with the business emails for Keith Gilkes (his campaign manager) and RJ Johnson (someone that served his campaign as a consultant). If I'm following this right, it then looks like he then forwarded that message from his campaign email to his county email.

• There are at least two examples of Walker forwarding Wispolitics emails from his county address to his campaign address. Both examples include prominent reporting on Walker's campaign for governor. One mentions the RPW convention in 2009 and that Walker won the straw poll and the other mentions his "very special announcement" from April 2009. I'm wondering if the county paid for the Wispolitics reports, exactly how could he legally forward them to his campaign email? Is that giving something of value from the county to his campaign? Does it violate Wispolitics policy against forwarding their products to others?

• An email that appears to be from Cynthia Archer to Walker at his campaign email address (and copying other staff...including Walker campaign consultant RJ Johnson). In that email she spells out their various "options" after a greatly anticipated arbitration hearing. It looks like Walker then takes that Archer email and forwards it from his campaign account to his county account.

Again, what is up with this mixing of county issues and campaign emails? Am I the only one that finds such free email usage suspicious? Did these emails happen before the establishment of the secret network that has been described by the Milwaukee County District Attorney's office?

NOTE: When requesting the email records, I only asked them to go from April - June of 2009. So these emails only represent a sampling from those 3 months.

Walker's Blurred Lines

We have heard a lot recently about the John Doe investigation that is being conducted in Milwaukee County. Apparently it involves Scott Walker's campaign and former Milwaukee County staffers including some that he brought with him to Madison. We've seen a lot of speculation on this subject over the last year. But that speculation has intensified after top Walker aid, Cynthia Archer, got a visit from the FBI recently. Although there is much speculation the one common thread seems to involve the alleged mixing of official work and campaign work.

If you paid attention to Scott Walker's past campaigns and to his Milwaukee County administration, none of this should be a surprise. The lines between campaign and county were repeatedly blurred during his train wreck tenure in Milwaukee County.

Revolving Door Between Walker Campaign and Walker Administration

• Jim Villa worked for Walker's campaigns bouncing between them and taxpayer financed county jobs.
  
• Robert Dennik, a former lobbyist and Walker campaign manager was appointed as head of the now nonexistent Milwaukee County Division of Economic and Community Development. Let's just say that his time there didn't go so well for him or for Milwaukee County.
  
• Tim Russell has repeatedly bounced back and forth between Walker campaigns and taxpayer funded positions (including a recent promotion). At one point he even took over the train wreck that was the Economic Development job (with not much more success).
  
• Walker wanted to give a county job to Chuck Grapentine even though he didn't even want to move to Milwaukee County. Chuck is the father of a former Walker aide.
  

Records Only Open for Political Pals

• In 2004 when the Walker administration received an open records request from a political opponent, they obstructed it. In fact a complaint was eventually filed and an assistant attorney general sent them a scolding letter saying "...nobody honored to serve in public office out to manipulate public records in this fashion."
• Contrast that with an extensive request sent to Walker's Administrative Services division(headed by Cynthia Archer) by Walker's political pals at Citizens for Responsible Government. In less than one month they received 188,000 accounts payable records for no charge. Later an audit was conducted of this incident because the information included sensitive data which CRG posted on their website.
  
• Although the Walker administration regularly obstructed open records requests of critics in 2009 they responded to a request from their cult-like fans at the "ScottforGov" blog within 2 hours. They also provided the records to this anonymous person/group of people for free. Some have openly wondered if this blog was written by Walker administration officials, which would be remarkable because they would have been requesting records from themselves.
  

Campaign Donors and County Affairs

• In 2003 Scott Walker's administration awarded a contract to Bear Stearns which was locally managed by Nicholas Hurtgen. Soon after that contract was awarded, Hurtgen helped arrange two fundraisers for Walker worth $25,000. A 2004 investigation about the contract found that it had been awarded improperly. When records were sought during that investigation, the media found that most were "lost" or destroyed. [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 7/15/04 and 7/23/04]
  
• In 2007 Walker removed an experienced member of the Milwaukee County Ethics Board and replaced them with a young attorney recommended by a member of a law firm that had given substantial campaign contributions to Walker. The then-chair of the Ethics Board suggested at the time that Walker must have been unhappy that the replaced board member publicly raised questions about Walker's actions.
  
• Walker tried for years to privatize Milwaukee County's cleaning services. In 2009, when he finally accomplished that goal, the company of a major campaign contributor received the $1.2 million contract from Walker's administration.
  

Open Record Obstruction: What is Alberta Hiding?

One Wisconsin Now was recently forced to file an open records lawsuit against state Senator Alberta Darling because she was stonewalling them on a request that they made to her office. They requested communications between her office and various elements of the private school industry. Only after they actually filed their lawsuit did Darling finally acknowledge their request and produce the records. In fact she produced the records so quickly that you have to wonder what the real hold up was in the first place.

The records that Darling finally produced gave us a strong idea as to why she was apparently trying to delay the release. The emails that OWN obtained clearly show that she was coordinating with private school industry lobbyists. In fact it appears that Darling was preparing to deliver several items on their legislative agenda.

Specifically Darling was communicating with the lobbyist for the school privatization industry organization, the American Federation for Children. This is the same organization that is currently spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to support Darling in her recall election.

Today the Democratic Party of Wisconsin (DPW) filed a complaint against Darling. One key part of the multifaceted complaint includes even more open record obstruction by Darling. They filed an open records request seeking communications between Alberta Darling and several right wing special interest groups. In fact some of those same groups are currently under investigation by the Milwaukee County DA's office for questionable activities involving the recall elections. Is this why Alberta is obstructing the DPW open records request?

I can can certainly empathize with both OWN and with DPW because Alberta Darling's office has also obstructed an open records request that I filed back in April. At that time I requested emails that she received from local officials regarding the budget repair bill. I further narrowed my request by including a limited time frame.

Darling's office first responded to my request nearly a full month after I first made it. They suggested that I narrow my request even further. Because I wanted to make the process as easy as possible I agreed to the suggested changes within 2 days. That was in mid-May and I didn't receive the requested records or even a status of my request until Tuesday, August 5th (one week before her recall election). As if this obstruction wasn't bad enough, now Darling wants me to pay hundreds of dollars for the honor of obtaining those public records that may be useless at this point.

In my view there is a clear pattern of open record obstruction by Alberta Darling. Three examples including mine have surfaced in only the past few days. I can only wonder how many other cases will surface before next Tuesday? But perhaps the most important question is, what exactly is Alberta Darling trying to hide in the first place?

UPDATE: I literally just asked "how many other cases will surface" and then I noticed this from the Shepherd Express.

That was then this is now: Open Meetings Edition

2007

"Access to open meetings and public records is an essential component of effective citizen oversight of the workings of our democratic government. Raising awareness, sharing information, and promoting compliance with open meetings and public records law is part of the ongoing mission of the Department of Justice." - J.B. Van Hollen, [Capital Times, September 12, 2007]

2009

"As the state's chief law enforcement officer, I am deeply committed to promoting compliance with Wisconsin's open meetings and public records laws." - J.B. Van Hollen, [Capital Times, March 16, 2009]

2010

"Nothing captures the essence of American democracy better than 'government of the people, by the people, for the people,' and a citizen's access to public records and meetings of governmental bodies is a vital aspect of this principle. That is why, as your attorney general, I am deeply committed to promoting understanding of, and compliance with, Wisconsin's open meetings and public records laws. Educating the public and public employees on these laws is one of the most important parts of that goal." - J.B. Van Hollen, [Capital Times, August 29, 2010]

2011

"Even by the low standard that Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen sets for himself when representing the interests of the people of Wisconsin, his move to try to eviscerate the state's open meetings law is unacceptable...If Van Hollen gets his way, Wisconsin's open meetings law would ultimately be rendered meaningless — as would the promise of open and honest governance that the legislators of the 1970s outlined and embraced for themselves and for all branches and units of government in Wisconsin. Van Hollen may not be the ablest lawyer. But he is no fool. He knows that he is attacking the underpinnings of the open meetings law." - Capital Times Editorial, [Capital Times, May 31, 2011]

The Full 2005 DOJ Letter to Scott Walker

I've written an opinion piece regarding Scott Walker and his promises of open government. In it I reference a scolding that he and his Milwaukee County administration got from the Wisconsin Department of Justice back in 2005. It was related to their obstruction of an open records request by a political opponent. Since my piece was run earlier today I've received many questions about the referenced DOJ letter. So I am including the full four page letter here. The part that I referenced is what I believe is the "money quote" in the last paragraph.

If you want to read more on the events surrounding the situation, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel did run a story about it at the time. You can also read this 2005 blog item by Xoff which fills in even more of the details (notice the appropriate title).

Walker's Open Records Games are Costly

Today Dan Bice reported that Scott Walker's administration has charged Milwaukee Supervisor John Weishan $2,800 to fulfill and open records request. What did Weishan get for that price tag? Four meaningless sheets of paper and a list of Walker employees according to the report. What makes the open records obstruction even worse is the fact that Walker's office didn't really provide the supervisor with the actual records themselves. Apparently he was only given summaries of Internet surfing done by Walker and his underlings. Naturally that summery was also produced by Walker workers.

Scott Walker has a long history of obstructing open records requests from political opponents and other people that he perceives as adversaries. I have some personal knowledge of that fact. But more specifically, Walker has been caught before not giving the actual records requested but rather producing some doctored data instead.

Back in 2004 the David Riemer campaign submitted an open records request to the Walker administration. They were trying to learn if Walker had kept one of his original promises: having "at will" employees sign pension benefit waivers. When the Walker administration received this request and realized that they had failed to keep that promise, they ran around trying to get as many waiver signatures as possible. When they finally did send records, it was only a listing rather than copies of the actual waivers (which would have shown the dates of the last minute signatures). Quite simply it wasn't what Riemer asked for in his request. Riemer later filed an open records complaint with the Wisconsin Department of Justice who had some of the following choice words for the Walker administration's open records games:

"In sum, this episode evinces a case of how government officials ought not to do business...Nobody honored to serve in public office ought to manipulate public records in this fashion -- that is the opinion of this office."

As I concluded when I chronicled my own Walker open records odyssey several months ago: "Although Walker's policy positions change with the wind, it seems that his approach to open records has not changed at all." Walker's open records games are not just costly to the requester, but they are also costly to any sense of open government in Milwaukee County.

Walker's Record of Obstruction Continues

It is a shame that a sitting Milwaukee County Supervisor may have to take legal action to obtain county information from Scott Walker's office. I am certainly not surprised at Scott Walker's obstruction on open records requests. He has a long history of playing all sorts of games with any requester that is not a close ally. Consider some of the following examples:

In 2004 Walker's opponent for County Executive, David Riemer, requested signed pension waivers of all "at-will" Walker employees. When the request was made, Walker didn't have many of the waivers signed even though it was one of his original promises. He proceeded to stall Riemer's request and dealt very deceptively with it. The full truth wasn't learned until after the 2004 election and it resulted in a complaint with the Wisconsin Department of Justice. That complaint led to a nasty letter from a DOJ attorney which commented saying the following:

"In sum, this episode evinces a case of how government officials ought not to do business...Nobody honored to serve in public office ought to manipulate public records in this fashion -- that is the opinion of this office."

I have personal experience with Walker's obstruction as I have outlined in a previous blog posting. Last June I submitted an 8 part open records request of Walker's office. It took several months to even obtain the first few applicable records. The real outrage was that it took 9 months and an inquiring reporter to motivate them enough to finally produce the calender and email record portions of my original request. As they are trying to do with Supervisor Weishan right now, they charged hundreds of dollars for the privilege of finally being able to inspect public records.

Just last week One Wisconsin Now put out a press release suggesting that the Walker Administration is apparently stonewalling one of their open records requests for his pension records.

And now we have him blocking a sitting Milwaukee County Supervisor from obtaining Milwaukee County records. Maybe a lawsuit is the only remedy at this point. Maybe it will be the only cure to Walker's record of obstruction.

Aside: Compare the above pattern of obstruction to the Walker Administration's responding to an open records request from the now defunct shill blog, ScottforGov. The request was not even signed by an actual person, only by "ScottforGov.com" (an actual name may not be required on an ORR but this still seems very strange). Their request last year was handled originally by the same Walker staffer that resigned because of her political blogging on county time. I can't help but wonder if that had anything to do with the fact that ScottforGov's request was fully processed for free in about 2 hours? When I think about it that way, maybe the Walker Administration does legitimately have something to fear from Supervisor Weishan's open records request.

Walker Only Turns Light On For Friends

On Thursday Scott Walker's campaign put out a press release touting his alleged views on open government. It was an interestingly awkward release, especially since only a week earlier a reporter was questioning his handling of an open records request. I know about this because the specific open records request was one that I filed back in June. A funny thing happened on the day that the reporter called. Finally, after a 9 month odyssey and hundreds of dollars, Walker's people finally mailed the remaining records.

The original price tag that the Walker administration put on open government was over $1,100. All because I wanted to examine his emails, calendar, expense and other records...all public records and all things that should be accessible to the public. I have learned that, depending on who you are, the Walker administration is perfectly willing to make access to public records cost/time prohibitive.

It appears that the Walker administration only values "sunshine" if you are a political ally. In late 2007, Citizens for Responsible Government asked Walker's Administrative Services division to provide a large amount of accounts payable records. In less than one month CRG was charged ZERO dollars for a disk containing information for 188,000 transactions. Last year, in a separate request from the one cited above, I submitted a comparable request within the very same division. I was charged $200 and it took over three times as long as it took to cater to Walker's friends.

Last year even an anonymous request was given preferential treatment from the Walker administration. Some shill for Walker's endless campaign for higher office sent a request directly to his official email. In it they asked for a copy of an email that was sent to Walker's office by our friend Capper. They also asked for any letters of response from the Walker administration. That request was not even signed by an actual person, only by "ScottforGov.com". That request was processed and the documentation sent via email in less than two hours. Not to mention that the Walker administration chose to waive all fees for the extra special service. What makes this even worse is that Walker's cult at "ScottforGov.com" got the response to Capper even before the Walker administration bothered to get it to Capper himself.

I am certainly not the only open records requestor to have problems with Walker's open records obstruction. They have a long history of trying to keep the "wrong people" from public records. Back in 2004 the David Riemer campaign submitted an open records request to the Walker administration. They were trying to learn if Walker had kept one of his original promises: having "at will" employees sign pension benefit waivers. When the Walker administration received this request and realized that they had failed to keep that promise, they ran around trying to get as many waiver signatures as possible. When they finally did send records, it was only a listing rather than copies of the actual waivers (which would have shown the dates of the last minute signatures). Riemer later filed an open records complaint with the Wisconsin Department of Justice who had some of the following choice words for the Walker administration's open records games:

"In sum, this episode evinces a case of how government officials ought not to do business...Nobody honored to serve in public office ought to manipulate public records in this fashion -- that is the opinion of this office."

Although Walker's policy positions change with the wind, it seems that his approach to open records has not changed at all.