MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously sided with open government advocates Thursday in a closely watched case over when meetings should be open to the public.
The court ruled that the Appleton school district improperly closed the meeting of a committee charged with reviewing course material. A parent in the district who had wanted to attend the meetings sued and lost in lower courts before the state Supreme Court sided with him.
“Today’s decision reaffirms that the open meetings law is to be interpreted literally in favor of transparency,” said attorney Rick Esenberg with the conservative law firm Wisconsin Law and Liberty, which fought the district’s decision.
Attorney General Brad Schimel, the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, the Wisconsin Newspapers Association and the Wisconsin Broadcasters Association all filed briefs in support of the argument that the meetings violated state law. They had warned that an adverse ruling could allow school boards and others to get around public access requirements.
Schimel praised the ruling. “Transparency is essential for good government and I’m glad to see the Supreme Court weighed in on the side of openness,” he said.
Appleton superintendent Lee Allinger issued a statement saying it was never the district’s intent to violate the open meetings law and it would make any necessary changes to ensure it is in compliance going forward.
Bill Lueders, president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, heralded the ruling as a “significant win for those who care about transparency in Wisconsin. Public officials cannot be creating committees to do the public’s business and then tell the public it cannot attend.”
The lawsuit was brought by John Krueger, the parent of an Appleton Area School District student who said meetings of a committee charged with reviewing course material for a ninth grade English class should have been open to the public.
Krueger argued in court filings that governmental bodies could evade the open meetings law by having administrators, rather than the governing boards, create committees. The district argued that when a committee is created by school employees it is not created by “rule or order” of the governing body and therefore not subject to the law.
The court disagreed.
