Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves public-records update; substitute removes proposed charge for redaction time
Summary
A substitute to register 86606 passed that updates city public-records procedures to match state law and city practice; the substitute removes an initial provision that would have allowed charging for staff time spent redacting audio and video.
The Madison Common Council Executive Committee approved a substitute for register 86606 that updates the city's public-records ordinance to align with current technology, city practices and state law. The substitute removes a provision in the original draft that would have authorized staff to charge for time spent redacting audio and video recordings.
Attorney Hass, of the city attorney's office, summarized the substitute and said the substantive portion of the original ordinance — a provision implementing a new state statute to allow charging for redaction time — was taken out of the substitute. "The new state statute would allow us to, and the original version of this ordinance, would have implemented that, given staff authority to keep track of that time and in charge for it. That has been taken out," Attorney Hass said.
Director Edgerton (IT) and city staff joined the discussion to confirm that the substitute otherwise makes technical updates aligned with current practices for responding to public-records requests. The committee discussed whether audio and video, including body-worn camera recordings, remain public records when required by the state's public-records law; Attorney Hass said they remain subject to the same public-records rules, including redaction requirements when necessary.
Members asked about timelines for fulfilling requests. Attorney Hass said the state statute does not set a firm deadline; the Department of Justice guidance expects many straightforward requests to be handled within about 10 days, but actual timing depends on factors such as complexity, clarification needs and redactions.
After discussion, the substitute ordinance passed by unanimous consent.
