'Sprocket:
Of course this incident has something to do with right to carry, maybe not directly but it is part of our dilemma. It demonstrates just how ingrained the "police state" is in our political process. It shows how the legislature feels that it is above and beyond the reach of state statutes, ignoring state statutes, specifically directed at it, by simply writing a "rule". A Rule that strips we citizens of the statute privilege to video tape an open session but gives it exclusively to the press. It sends up a message to us concerning Act35, which we anxiuosly await. Act 35 is a state issued privilege. If the legislature feels it can butcher statute 19.90 by rule then what ominous things could be in waiting for statute 175.60 absent due process? There is real concern if the power of political control shifts after next years election. We must make it absolutely clear that we voters will not accept the legislature mentality that "Rules" triumph state statute, or that the legislature can play games with state statutes without due process. What happened in this video is despicable regardless the parties involved. This is a state were we rule by law. It is true that the "rules" in question generally address the conduct and decorum in the chambers and the way of doing legislative business but it is the mind set of the legislature and disregard for state law that is troublesome. We must make them know we are watching.
19.90 Use of equipment in open session. Whenever a governmental body holds a meeting in open session, the body shall make a reasonable effort to accommodate any person desiring to record, film or photograph the meeting. This section does not permit recording, filming or photographing such a meeting in a manner that interferes with the conduct of the meeting or the rights of the participants.
19.90 History History: 1977 c. 322.
19.96 19.96 Penalty. Any member of a governmental body who knowingly attends a meeting of such body held in violation of this subchapter, or who, in his or her official capacity, otherwise violates this subchapter by some act or omission shall forfeit without reimbursement not less than $25 nor more than $300 for each such violation. No member of a governmental body is liable under this subchapter on account of his or her attendance at a meeting held in violation of this subchapter if he or she makes or votes in favor of a motion to prevent the violation from occurring, or if, before the violation occurs, his or her votes on all relevant motions were inconsistent with all those circumstances which cause the violation.
19.96 History History: 1975 c. 426.
19.96 Annotation The state need not prove specific intent to violate the Open Meetings Law. State v. Swanson, 92 Wis. 2d 310, 284 N.W.2d 655 (1979).
19.97 19.97 Enforcement.
19.97(1)(1) This subchapter shall be enforced in the name and on behalf of the state by the attorney general or, upon the verified complaint of any person, by the district attorney of any county wherein a violation may occur. In actions brought by the attorney general, the court shall award any forfeiture recovered together with reasonable costs to the state; and in actions brought by the district attorney, the court shall award any forfeiture recovered together with reasonable costs to the county.
19.97(2) (2) In addition and supplementary to the remedy provided in s. 19.96, the attorney general or the district attorney may commence an action, separately or in conjunction with an action brought under s. 19.96, to obtain such other legal or equitable relief, including but not limited to mandamus, injunction or declaratory judgment, as may be appropriate under the circumstances.
19.97(3) (3) Any action taken at a meeting of a governmental body held in violation of this subchapter is voidable, upon action brought by the attorney general or the district attorney of the county wherein the violation occurred. However, any judgment declaring such action void shall not be entered unless the court finds, under the facts of the particular case, that the public interest in the enforcement of this subchapter outweighs any public interest which there may be in sustaining the validity of the action taken.
19.97(4) (4) If the district attorney refuses or otherwise fails to commence an action to enforce this subchapter within 20 days after receiving a verified complaint, the person making such complaint may bring an action under subs. (1) to (3) on his or her relation in the name, and on behalf, of the state. In such actions, the court may award actual and necessary costs of prosecution, including reasonable attorney fees to the relator if he or she prevails, but any forfeiture recovered shall be paid to the state.
19.97(5) (5) Sections 893.80 and 893.82 do not apply to actions commenced under this section.
19.97 History History: 1975 c. 426; 1981 c. 289; 1995 a. 158.
19.97 Note Judicial Council Note, 1981: Reference in sub. (2) to a "writ" of mandamus has been removed because that remedy is now available in an ordinary action. See s. 781.01, stats., and the note thereto. [Bill 613-A]
19.97 Annotation Awards of attorney fees are to be at a rate applicable to private attorneys. A court may review the reasonableness of the hours and hourly rate charged, including the rates for similar services in the area, and may in addition consider the peculiar facts of the case and the responsible party's ability to pay. Hodge v. Town of Turtle Lake, 190 Wis. 2d 181, 526 N.W.2d 784 (Ct. App. 1994).
19.97 Annotation Actions brought under the open meetings and open records laws are exempt form the notice provisions of s. 893.80 (1). Auchinleck v. Town of LaGrange, 200 Wis. 2d 585, 547 N.W.2d 587 (1996), 94-2809.
19.97 Annotation Failure to bring an action under this section on behalf of the state is fatal and deprives the court of competency to proceed. Fabyan v. Achtenhagen, 2002 WI App 214, 257 Wis. 2d. 310, 652 N.W.2d 649, 01-3298.
19.97 Annotation Complaints under the open meetings law are not brought in the individual capacity of the plaintiff but on behalf of the state, subject to the 2-year statue of limitations under s. 893.93 (2). Leung v. City of Lake Geneva, 2003 WI App 129, 265 Wis. 2d 674, 666 N.W.2d 104, 02-2747.
19.97 Annotation When a town board's action was voided by the court due to lack of statutory authority, an action for enforcement under sub. (4) by an individual as a private attorney general on behalf of the state against individual board members for a violation of the open meetings law that would subject the individual board members to civil forfeitures was not rendered moot. Lawton v. Town of Barton, 2005 WI App 16, 278 Wis. 2d 388, 692 N.W.2d 304, 04-0659
19.98 19.98 Interpretation by attorney general. Any person may request advice from the attorney general as to the applicability of this subchapter under any circumstances.
19.98 History History: 1975 c. 426.