Open Records Law Treated With Contempt
Both Vos and Gableman cited for contempt of court for trashing open records law.
Most of the time, public officials in Wisconsin obey the state’s openness laws. Sometimes, they need a little prodding from the courts. But the recent conduct of Robin Vos and Michael Gableman is something altogether new, and deeply disturbing.
Both Vos, the speaker of the state Assembly, and Gableman, whom Vos hired at taxpayer expense (more than $1 million and counting) to look for fraud in the 2020 election, have been cited for contempt of court regarding open records requests.
Similarly, Dane County Circuit Court Judge Frank Remington found Gableman’s Office of Special Counsel in contempt over its handling of records requests and referred the former justice to the Office of Lawyer Regulation for possible disciplinary action for his disgraceful conduct during a court proceeding.
Gableman sneeringly refused to answer questions from Christa Westerberg, an attorney representing American Oversight, a group seeking records regarding Gableman’s probe, and vice president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council.
Gableman’s conduct was “misogynistic” and “an affront to the judicial process and an insult to Atty. Westerberg,” Remington wrote in his contempt order. “The circus Gableman created in the courtroom destroyed any sense of decorum and irreparably damaged the public’s perception of the judicial process.”
At a subsequent hearing in which he managed to maintain his composure, Gableman admitted that he has routinely destroyed records he considers not relevant to his investigation.
“Did I delete documents? Yes, I did,” he told the court. These include his notes from trips he took on the taxpayer’s dime to Arizona to watch the widely ridiculed recount and to South Dakota to hear My Pillow founder Mike Lindell make baseless allegations of electoral fraud. (“I didn’t find anything that I could use during that seminar,” Gableman testified.)
Indiana attorney James Bopp, Jr., representing Gableman’s Office of Special Counsel, argued in an April 8 letter that, absent a pending records request, there is no statutory requirement that records be preserved. But the Wisconsin Legislative Council, a nonpartisan service agency, had previously determined that this office was required to retain these records.
That’s right: Bopp declared from his perch in Indiana that he knew more about Wisconsin’s rules than the state itself. Gableman attained the same level of hubris in contending to reporters, “If I had to keep every scrap of paper I would do nothing else. I would need a warehouse.”
In fact, released records reveal, among other things, that the work for which Gableman was pocketing $11,000 per month (it has since been cut in half) was, in the estimation of Judge Bailey-Rihn, “minimal.” Gableman is now being sued again by American Oversight, over his destruction of records.
Clearly, the state Legislature must do a better job of ensuring that those it hires are complying with their obligations under the state’s openness laws. And Robin Vos and Michael Gableman should be held accountable for treating these laws with contempt.
Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a group dedicated to open government. Bill Lueders, former editor and now editor-at-large of The Progressive, is the group’s president.
Your Right to Know
-
Rights Clash in Records Dispute
May 6th, 2024 by Matthew DeFour -
Don’t Let Government Charge For Open Records Redactions
Feb 1st, 2024 by Amanda St. Hilaire -
Limit Privacy Protections for Police
Jan 2nd, 2024 by Jacob Resneck
It should be said that a new standard was created, that deleted records are subject to disclosure. It remains to be seen how that will play out over time.
The reluctance to release potentially damaging information on the part of these Republican’s involves a self imposed trap that they inadvertently created in seeking political advantage at any cost.
In this case fraudulent allegations were followed by expensive and fruitless investigations, all in an attempt to justify those allegations. And the folly in all this is evident even to the casual observer.
Perhaps candidate character, rather than party affiliation should be given more weight by voters in future elections.