Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Manitowoc County board holds organizational meeting; vice chairs elected as members debate how public-records law applies to personal devices
Summary
At an organizational meeting for the 20262027 term, the Manitowoc County Board of Supervisors administered oaths, elected two vice chairs, and opened a contentious discussion on whether Section 11 of proposed board rules would subject supervisors' personal devices to public-records requests; a vote to adopt the rules was initiated but the transcript does not record the final tally.
The Manitowoc County Board of Supervisors convened its organizational meeting for the 20262027 term, administered oaths to newly elected supervisors and held nominations and elections for board leadership, while staff and members debated how state public-records law applies to supervisors' personal devices.
At the start of the meeting the presiding moderator asked supervisors to rise and repeat the oath of office. "I, Jane Socham, having been elected to the office of county board ... will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of said office," one supervisor recited.
The board took nominations for leadership positions. Nominations for county board chair were received and the moderator announced that a secret ballot would be used to decide that office. The board elected Kevin Behke as vice chair by voice vote after the moderator called, "All in favor of Supervisor Kevin Behke, vice chair, say aye," and the body responded "Aye." Scott Schuessler was likewise named second vice chair by voice vote.
A substantive portion of the meeting focused on Section 11 of the proposed county board rules, described in the discussion as the ethics/open-records provision. One supervisor raised privacy concerns, saying, "There's a lot of stuff on my phone that people contact me with that they would not want gone public, and it has nothing to do with the county," and asked whether the second sentence of the section could be struck or reworded.
Legal counsel responded with a legal interpretation frequently reiterated during the exchange: "It doesn't matter the device that it is created on. It is subject to the public records law." Counsel explained that the rules reflect state law: communications that pertain to county business, whether created on personal or county-owned devices, may be subject to disclosure, while "purely personal content does not fall within the scope of public records request."
Counsel also explained custodial responsibilities and recourse for requesters: as elected officials supervisors are the custodian of their own records and must produce records when required; if a requester believes records were withheld they can seek a mandamus court action to compel disclosure, and attorney-fee consequences can follow court outcomes.
Speakers gave examples to illustrate the rule's scope: exchanges of text messages between two supervisors about county business would likely be subject to disclosure, whereas private exchanges with a non-public individual (for example, "Mary Smith" in the discussion) would not. Counsel emphasized that the rules do not preempt state statute and that state law favors disclosure.
Near the close of the transcript the moderator instructed supervisors to vote on a resolution adopting the county board rules: "Supervisors will now vote on the resolution adopting county board rules ... once I hit vote, it should show up on your tablet to vote yes, no, or ..." The transcript ends as voting is being initiated and does not include the vote tally or a recorded final outcome for that resolution.
The meeting included procedural leadership elections and substantive legal clarification about records and privacy; the board began a formal vote on rules that, according to the recorded exchange, could affect how supervisors must preserve and disclose communications about county business.
