Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Marshfield approves police video redaction fee, cites Wisconsin public-records guidance
Summary
The commission approved a fee to recoup police video redaction costs under Wisconsin public-records law; commissioners and staff discussed statutory language, requester certification requirements and likely fees per hour of video.
The Marshfield Public Safety Commission approved a policy enabling the Marshfield Police Department to charge a redaction fee for open-records requests for body-worn and other police video, citing newly updated state guidance on public records.
Police Chief Jody (first name given in meeting) explained the department has purchased video-redaction software to process requests and that recent state guidance allows municipal agencies to recoup some redaction costs. Citing experience in other Wisconsin departments, staff said many requests come from social-media companies and commercial requesters; the policy is intended to recover staff time and deter overly broad requests.
Chief Jody told the commission the department currently has not been charging but will begin once the policy and a requester certification are in place. Chief staff said private citizens are entitled to up to 10 free requests; after that threshold the department may bill for time spent redacting.
Attorney and staff discussion corrected an initial reference to the federal Freedom of Information Act and clarified that Wisconsins Open Records Law (Wis. Stat. ch. 19) and recent Department of Justice guidance (May 2024) govern the process. Staff said the statute allows charging an hourly rate equal to the lowest applicable pay grade for the personnel doing the work; the local practice discussed in the meeting uses a multiplier of roughly three hours of staff time billed per one hour of video processed. At an estimated $25 per hour for the billing-grade, staff estimated roughly $75 per hour of video redaction as an illustrative example.
Assistant Chief Esther and other members answered commission questions about request types (attorneys, victims, insurance companies, social-media requesters) and confirmed attorneysrequests are generally not redacted and are released per statute. Commissioners requested the department update the redaction letter to reference "Wisconsin Public Records Law" rather than the FOIA terminology and to align statutory citations with DOJ guidance; staff committed to revising the letter and to bring the statutory language to the commission if needed.
The commission recorded a roll-call vote in favor of the fee policy; commissioners also directed staff to provide the Wisconsin Public Records Compliance Guide and the complete statute text to the commission and to coordinate bringing a similar policy to the fire department.
Next steps: staff to finalize the redaction policy and requestor certification language to reference Wis. Stat. ch. 19 and DOJ guidance; department to begin billing after the required procedures and affidavits are in place.
