Studying Time: 2 minutes

Greater than a 12 months and a half after the expiration of his time period, Dr. Frederick Prehn continues to occupy a seat on the Pure Assets Board, which units coverage for the state Division of Pure Assets. His refusal to step down has allowed him to solid the deciding vote in key selections associated to wildlife administration, PFAS water high quality requirements, and land acquisition, with different vital points on the horizon.

On Nov. 16, my group, Midwest Environmental Advocates (MEA), requested a Dane County circuit courtroom decide to rule that Prehn violated Wisconsin’s open information legislation when he failed to show over dozens of textual content messages associated to his refusal to step down. These textual content messages just lately got here to mild due to our ongoing lawsuit in opposition to him.

The open information legislation is a vital instrument for holding the federal government accountable to the folks it purports to characterize. Below the legislation, Prehn ought to have turned over the textual content messages in query greater than a 12 months in the past, in response to MEA’s information request.

As a substitute, he has relied on the three D’s — denial, delay and deflection — to keep away from complying with the legislation. These techniques have led to pointless and expensive litigation and disadvantaged Wisconsinites of their proper to details about the actions and inactions of public officers.

In response to our June 2021 information request, Prehn denied that he possessed any related textual content messages. When a separate information request despatched to a different public official turned up a textual content he had despatched about his tenure on the board, MEA filed a lawsuit to compel full disclosure. 

Prehn requested the courtroom to dismiss the case, arguing that he was not a authorities authority and that communications associated to his resolution to stay on the board weren’t topic to the information legislation. 

When these arguments have been rejected by the courtroom and our lawsuit was allowed to proceed, MEA negotiated an settlement to present third-party forensic investigators entry to Prehn’s cellular phone and set a timeline for complying with MEA’s information request. However Prehn’s aspect did not comply by the agreed-upon deadline. 

Though Prehn has nonetheless not absolutely complied with our request, we obtained dozens of textual content messages that have been beforehand withheld. They contradict his claims that his resolution to remain on was not politically motivated.

Six months earlier than his time period ended, Prehn exchanged textual content messages with former Gov. Scott Walker through which Walker instructed Prehn to stay on the board. In one other textual content, Prehn instructed a lobbyist he would “see if I can dangle on until Becky will get in,” an obvious reference to holding his seat till former Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch was elected governor. She misplaced within the Republican major.

Prehn has questioned MEA’s motivation for requesting these information. Our curiosity lies in making certain authorities transparency in environmental resolution making, however our purpose for requesting the information is inappropriate. Below the open information legislation, a requester’s causes, actual or perceived, for wanting information has no bearing on an official’s obligation to supply them.

A call on this case is predicted quickly. Let’s hope the courtroom takes this chance to ship a robust message that officers who violate the open information legislation might be held accountable.