June 30, 2003

Assembly Speaker John Gard
Senate Majority Leader Mary E. Panzer
State Capitol
Madison, Wisconsin

Dear Senator Panzer and Speaker Gard:

The public interest in knowing the rationale for spending public money is compelling and is not subject to negotiation, political compromise or claims of confidentiality.

As the custodians of public records are well aware, there is a balancing test that those who hold public records must perform in determining whether a record is open or closed to public inspection. The balancing test is whether the public interest in releasing a record outweighs the public interest in concealing it.

The balancing test is one that elected officials should perform whether or not they have a legal basis for claiming confidentiality. The law has a strong presumption of openness — our elected representatives should embrace the principle of open government and the spirit of the Open Records Law.

That is why I was dismayed to read that a member of the Legislature has disregarded a newspaper’s request for information that would cast light on how a revised shared revenue formula was devised.

I’ll have to confess that I’m a little curious too.

The effect of the mysterious new shared revenue formula on my organization’s members — despite an infusion of $20 million additional into the shared revenue pot — is that 12 members would lose $17.8 million more than they would under the budget bill introduced by Gov. Jim Doyle, and 26 would gain $11.9 million over the original version of the budget bill.

It’s in the public’s interest to know how the new formula was devised, and I hope you also support the public’s interest in this matter.

Sincerely,

Edward J. Huck

executive director