Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident says records request returned ‘incomplete and heavily redacted,’ urges oversight of legal fees
Summary
During public comment, resident Jim Pensel said his April 2025 open-records request was returned incomplete and heavily redacted, that the Wisconsin Transparency Project found the records insufficient to comply with state law, and he questioned recent legal fees billed to the village.
Jim Pensel, a resident of 512 Earl Street, used the public-comment period to press the committee on transparency and the village's use of legal services. Pensel said he filed an open-records request in April 2025 and that after months of calls and emails the records "finally showed up incomplete and heavily redacted."
He told the committee that he sought advice from the Wisconsin Transparency Project, which contacted the clerk and concluded the produced records were not complete or sufficient to comply with Wisconsin's open-government laws. Pensel alleged the village had spent more than $2,000 in attorney fees related to the redaction and nonproduction of records and said a subsequent closed-session meeting occurred at the board level; he said he remains unaware of what was discussed in that closed session.
Pense(l) asked the finance committee — which oversees financial policy — to consider whether the board should increase its legal budget, saying repeated use of attorney services to withhold records risks shifting costs to taxpayers and reduces transparency. He also urged the committee to stay engaged with procurement and oversight to ensure the village complies with legal record-production requirements.
No staff response correcting or disputing the specific timeline of the records production was recorded in the committee transcript; staff later clarified that the billed item labeled "Transparency Project" was the name of the firm providing open-records assistance.
What happens next: The committee did not take formal action on Pensel's public comment during the meeting. Members and staff acknowledged the public comment will be part of meeting records; further follow-up would depend on whether Pensel files a formal complaint or additional inquiries are directed to staff or the clerk's office.
