Judges asked to require digital release of records

MADISON - Conservative and government transparency advocates asked Wisconsin appeals court judges to reject a state lawmaker’s argument that he is not required to provide records in an electronic format.

The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, the MacIver Institute for Public Policy, the Badger Institute, and Americans for Prosperity — all conservative groups — and the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, filed a brief together recently in a lawsuit against Rep. Scott Krug (R-Nekoosa), saying Krug should be required to provide records in electronic format if the records exist that way already.

The lawsuit was filed by Bill Lueders, president of the Freedom of Information Council and editor of The Progressive magazine, after Krug delivered records Lueders had requested in paper format rather than in their electronic format.

Krug argues he is not required to provide the records in electronic format because he already supplied Lueders with paper records.

In the brief filed by the five groups, attorneys wrote upholding the printing of electronic records when not necessary “could lead to disastrous results.”

“It defies common sense — and the law — for the Legislature to waste taxpayer resources by printing out electronic records that could cheaply and quickly be provided via email, file sharing website, or CD,” Tom Kamenick, deputy counsel at WILL, said in a statement.

In response to an initial records request by Lueders, Krug had produced more than 1,500 pages of records related to state policies on water. For a per-page fee, Krug offered to make copies of the pages that Lueders wanted, but Lueders instead requested and then sued in 2016 to obtain electronic copies of the records.

Digital files would be less expensive for Lueders and he might be able to use them in other ways such as searching for keywords.

In January, a Dane County judge sided with Lueders, saying lawmakers have yet to set a specific standard for electronic records but that state law does require public officials to provide copies of records that are “substantially as good” as the official documents or files.

The Department of Justice is appealing the circuit court ruling.