Wheel Tax Vote Violated City Rules?

The provision in Wis. Stat. § 19.84(3) requires that every public notice of a meeting be given at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, unless “for good cause” such notice is “impossible or impractical.” If “good cause” exists, the notice should be given as soon as possible and must be given at least two hours in advance of the meeting.

Every public notice of a meeting must give the “time, date, place and subject matter of the meeting, including that intended for consideration at any contemplated closed session, in such form as is reasonably likely to apprise members of the public and the news media thereof.”

Appearance by phone aren’t “time, date, place or subject matter” issues required by law.

Appearances by Telephone – Whenever a City body anticipates that a member will appear by telephone/teleconference or that a person shall be testifying or appearing by telephone/teleconference, staff shall ensure that the meeting notice/agenda specifically and conspicuously identifies which persons or members shall be appearing by such means. A member so participating shall count towards the official quorum of the body. Staff shall be responsible for coordinating the use of appropriate equipment so that the attending public can readily observe such person’s participation in the meeting. No person shall be allowed to participate in any meeting where the meeting notice failed to state the person would appear by telephone/teleconference means or where such equipment is unavailable or unusable at the time of the meeting.

Meeting notices must be posted at least 24 hours before the start of a meeting. Saturdays and Sundays are excluded in calculating the 24 hour notice. Thus, all Monday meetings should be preceded by the proper posting on Friday. In order to allow sufficient time for the City Clerk to post the notices, it is the responsibility of staff and/or the Chair of each governmental body to provide the City Clerk with an adequate agenda in sufficient time to allow for timely posting. Prior to commencement of the meeting, staff should verify that the agenda has been properly posted.

1. 1. 1. 1. Legistar bodies shall submit a link in an e-mail to CL Meetings.
         2. All others shall submit an electronic document in an e-mail to CL Meetings.

Both the Attorney General and the district attorneys have authority to enforce the open meetings law. In most cases, enforcement at the local level has the greatest chance of success due to the need for intensive factual investigation, the district attorneys’ familiarity with the local rules of procedure, and the need to assemble witnesses and material evidence. Under certain circumstances, the Attorney General may elect to prosecute complaints involving a matter of statewide concern.

A district attorney has authority to enforce the open meetings law only after an individual files a verified open meetings law complaint with the district attorney. Actions to enforce the open meetings law are exempt from the notice of claim requirements of Wis. Stat. § 893.80. The verified complaint must be signed by the individual and notarized and should include available information that will be helpful to investigators, such as: identifying the governmental body and any members thereof alleged to have violated the law; describing the factual circumstances of the alleged violations; identifying witnesses with relevant evidence; and identifying any relevant documentary evidence. The district attorney has broad discretion to determine whether a verified complaint should be prosecuted. An enforcement action brought by a district attorney or by the Attorney General must be commenced within two years after the cause of action accrues or be barred.

Proceedings to enforce the open meetings law are civil actions subject to the rules of civil procedure, rather than criminal procedure, and governed by the ordinary civil standard of proof, rather than a heightened standard of proof such as would apply in a criminal or quasi-criminal proceeding. Accordingly, enforcement of the open meetings law does not involve such practices as arrest, posting bond, entering criminal-type pleas, or any other aspects of criminal procedure. Rather, an open meetings law enforcement action is commenced like any civil action by filing and serving a summons and complaint. In addition, the open meetings law cannot be enforced by the issuance of a citation, in the way that other civil forfeitures are often enforced, because citation procedures are inconsistent with the statutorily-mandated verified complaint procedure.

If the district attorney refuses to commence an open meetings law enforcement action or otherwise fails to act within 20 days of receiving a complaint, the individual who filed the complaint has a right to bring an action, in the name of the state, to enforce the open meetings law. Although an individual may not bring a private enforcement action prior to the expiration of the district attorney’s twenty-day review period, the district attorney may still commence an action even though more than 20 days have passed. It is not uncommon for the review and investigation of open meetings complaints to take longer than 20 days.

Court proceedings brought by private relators to enforce the open meetings law must be commenced within two years after the cause of action accrues, or the proceedings will be barred.286 If a private relator brings an enforcement action and prevails, the court is authorized to grant broad relief, including a declaration that the law was violated, civil forfeitures where appropriate, and the award of the actual and necessary costs of prosecution, including reasonable attorney fees. Attorney fees will be awarded under this provision where such an award will provide an incentive to other private parties to similarly vindicate the public’s rights to open government and will deter governmental bodies from skirting the open meetings law.

Relief for alleged violations of the open meetings law cannot be sought under the public records law. In Journal Times, the plaintiff newspaper brought a mandamus action under Wis. Stat. § 19.37(2)(a), claiming, in part, that the defendant commission, by not contemporaneously creating a record of a motion at a closed-session meeting, had violated the requirement in Wis. Stat. § 19.88(3) of the open meetings law that all motions and roll call votes must be recorded, preserved, and open to public inspection to the extent required by the public records law. The court held, in part, that the newspaper could not seek relief under the public records law for the alleged violation of the open meetings law.

The fines are $25-300.

Madison Ordinances?

Again, it’s murky at best as to if there was any violation of the rules.  I believe they violated the intent of the rules by giving last minute and inaccurate notice of the absences and telephone appearance for the meeting.  But there doesn’t appear to be a clear violation of any of the rules.  It was just lacking in transparency.

Who enforces the Madison Ordinances?  Police, if it is an item in the bail schedule, can give tickets.  That’s not the case here.  In other areas fines can be imposed by Building inspection and others if its written into the ordinance.  That’s not the case here either.  Ordinances about the council process have no enforcement mechanism.  However, the ordinances generally say the following: