Hey, I'm Matt Rothschild and welcome to this episode of the Wisconsin Ford podcast on the
Civic Media Radio Network and at civicmedia.us.
Today we're going to be talking about the ability of us as Wisconsin citizens to record
what's going on in our very own state capital.
With me to discuss this issue as Bill leaders, the longtime president of the Wisconsin Freedom
of Information Council and the editor at large at the Progressive magazine where I used
to work.
Hey Bill, great to see you again.
Good to see you, Matt.
Great to have you on the Wisconsin Ford podcast.
For those who don't know us, I've known Bill leaders for more than 40 years now we've
worked together on and off in one capacity or another, it's always great to see you.
I wanted to talk with you about the demise of Wisconsin I and the ridiculous ban on citizens
recording in the state capital.
Why don't we start with what happened with Wisconsin I?
Well, I'm not sure I'd say yet that we're talking about a demise, but it certainly did
go on hiatus in December 15th as I'm not shortly before then, Wisconsin I stopped performing.
It's a central function of covering legislative hearings and meetings and other state government
related meetings and went dark, also shut down its archive of past meetings so that if you
wanted to check something that was said at a assembly hearing three months ago, you
could no longer do so.
It was just not accessible anymore, which is a huge blow for transparency in Wisconsin.
I'm deeply concerned about that from my perspective as president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information
Council that this easy, effective way of helping citizens take part in their government
by being able to access the workings of government and to hear what is said and see what
is said at these meetings has been taken away.
What was the excuse for getting rid of the archive of growing ducts?
I don't know.
Exactly.
I guess there are some ancillary costs that are incurred by keeping that going that are
avoided if it's shot, but I don't have a clear beat on that.
The cost can't be great though.
I would think so.
The larger problem though is just that the Wisconsin I, which has been operating now for
18 years, it started in 2007, feels as though it's old method for functioning.
Its own old fundraising mechanism is no longer working.
It was donations from foundations and individuals and that kept it going.
Its budget is around $900,000 a year, I guess, and it just was not meeting that.
So we can't keep doing this, we're going to have to shot and I think, honestly, that
they thought that there would be a rally and people would go, no, no, don't do that.
Here's the money, which has not yet happened.
Well, someone who did a lot of fundraising back in the day, that can be a horrifying prospect
when you're close to having to shut down.
You give all points alert and the money doesn't flow in.
I have some sympathy for that, but they were getting corporate donations and I think ABC
supply, Diane Hendrix has come.
Well, they're supporting them somehow, she just gave a ton of money to the Assembly elections
committee that Robin Voss heads up.
But yeah, I would think the legislature itself would want to keep it going.
And there was, tell me about this, I read, you know, there was $10 million in some budget
or some official donation ready for it.
I guess it was for the endowment and not for operating costs and they had to get matching
funds.
But that's a lot of money.
That's right.
There's a $10 million endowment that was created by the legislature for Wisconsin I and
that money is available to be used for its operations.
But as it's constituted, they can only use it as matching funds.
They only get $50 from the endowment fund if somebody gives $50 and that was no longer
bringing in enough revenue.
John Hankess, who is the co-founder and the president and CEO of Wisconsin I has proposed
why don't you just change the rules and let us deepen to this fund and our time of need.
Do away with the matching fund requirement and will be good, which would be an easy fix.
But it seems not to have been readily implemented and here we are more than a month after Wisconsin
I was shuttered and it's still in the dark.
Those $10 million would allow Wisconsin I to run for 10 years if their budget's $900,000
a year.
Sure.
And they were talking also about increasing the size of the endowment to $20 million.
I'm not sure how.
But you know, Wisconsin is looking at having a $2.5 billion surplus after this next
biennial.
So there's no question that the money is there and I'm really kind of baffled that the
will isn't there because Wisconsin I had been a tool that citizens used to access their
government.
It was a tool that legislators themselves used.
I mean, I was at a test to find at a committee hearing a couple of weeks ago and there was
one member of the committee who had to get up in the middle of the meeting and go run
to another meeting of interest that, you know, he couldn't be at both at one time.
But you know what, when Wisconsin I was a business, you can be at both at one time.
You can be at one while it's happening and watch the other right afterwards.
You know, it'll all be archived and available.
And we've both been reporters and we both would use Wisconsin I to cover something that
we could attend in person at the same time.
We'd go there and they, you know, later in the day and look up the hearing.
Yeah.
And also, honestly, the quality of reproduction that you get from Wisconsin I filming it and
being a tester all the microphones is much better than you get with that tape recorder
on your knee.
And there's been an effort by some legislators, especially Democratic legislators to get
a fix through here or for the legislature itself to actually run a public news service out
of the Capitol recording and producing everything that's done in the Capitol that's done in
public anyway.
But none of that has come to fruition, right?
Yeah.
The legislature, the Democrats in the legislature have advanced a proposal that basically that
the state take over the functions of Wisconsin high.
And that doesn't seem to have gone anywhere.
And it is something that John Henkes, the CEO and president has said is not a good solution
for one thing it would put Wisconsin I out of business.
But the legislature would not be able to do as many meetings as this legislation talked
about it doing.
It just wouldn't be able to do that on around $1 million a year.
I guess my question is, what exactly was wrong with Wisconsin I, that the solution to
it going dark wouldn't be to turn the lights back on.
What more needed to be fixed?
And I haven't heard any good explanation of that.
Well, what is your guess?
I mean, why?
Let's put it this way.
Why does Robin Valls, who basically runs the show over there, not want Wisconsin I to
function?
Well, I mean, he puts out a lot of pablamon as he talks about how we're so transparent.
You know, we were transparent before Wisconsin I came around and we're transparent now.
And meanwhile, this function is not working for the people of the state.
There's this big hole in our democracy that is created by legislative inaction.
So I don't know.
I think the most sinister interpretation, which a lot of people embrace, is that they don't
like the cameras on them.
They don't like it being recorded.
So someone can hear after the fact the stupid things they say, I always push back against
that because as a reporter, I've had an inside look at many of these committee hearings.
Almost always I come away impressed by the quality of the questions, the integrity of the
process, the fact that people are, you know, making the government open to outside input
and then receiving it and commenting down it and incorporated into legislation.
I think the more the legislature allows a light to be shined on itself, the better it
looks.
So this whole thing strikes me as counterproductive.
It's shooting itself in the foot to shut down this function because people assume that
they don't want it to be seen because they're up to no good.
Well, we've got a little Robin Vos audio.
Maybe we'll play that right now and I'll get your quick reaction to it.
It's a long line you were talking about.
Tom, do we have that available?
This idea that if some activist is not allowed to record people that's not transparent, we've
got plenty of transparency over here today.
That's exactly what I remember him saying we've got plenty of transparency and he refers
to the problem as being some activist who wants to record.
Well, it's not just activists who want to be able to hear and see what their government
is doing.
It's ordinary people, it's other legislators, it's representatives of associations, it's
people like me who represent the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, which aims
to promote government access to meetings and records.
We all have a stake in this, not activists.
He tries to show, throw some shade on the motivations of the people who want to see their
government in action and I think it's kind of offensive that he would do that.
And right now what's prevailing are these legislative rules past years ago that deny citizens
to record, and this is personal for me because I was arrested in the capital during the
Walker protest because people were being arrested for holding signs in the gallery, which
I thought was stupid.
So I went up there and took a picture of someone who was being arrested for holding a sign
and I was arrested for taking a picture of the person holding a sign.
So there's all sorts of infringements on our basic freedom of assembly and freedom of
petition that's in our first amendment and in our Wisconsin Constitution seems to me and
has seemed to me for a long time.
So I don't know how those rules have passed muster and what's your perspective on that
from Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council?
Yeah, well this is the second prong of this, which is also in some ways more disturbing even
than the first prong, which is that Wisconsin I isn't functioning.
The state's open meetings law expressly states that governmental bodies,
quote, shall make a reasonable effort to accommodate any person,
desiring to record, film, or photograph and meeting.
Another part of the open meetings law expressly states that the assembly and the senate
are subject to the provisions of the open meetings law.
And then there's another statute that says that any rule that is promulgated by the senate
or the assembly as a whole trumps the open meetings law.
So they have the ability to pass a rule that will take away the obligation that they have to allow
people to record in both the senate and the assembly have done that in the last decade and a half,
they've, or two decades I should say, they've passed rules that say you can't record from the gallery,
the assembly rule, or you can't, unless you remember the news media, you can't film a record
a public meeting. These rules have been largely unenforced historically, but now they are being
enforced. Now at the precise time that the ability of citizens to record the meetings because
that's the only way to get, you know, a record of what happened is threatened by the closing
of Wisconsin. Now is when they decide, well, you can't film it, you can't record it yourself.
So are they actually booting people out?
Yes, they've been booting people out, they've been telling people they can't take pictures.
There was a legislative aide who was at one of these meetings who wanted to take a picture
of his boss, the legislator, to testify in the meeting. He put in the newsletter, whatever,
you know, here I am at work for you and was prohibited from doing so. He's not a member of the media,
he's not credentialed as a media member. You're not allowed to do this. It's just ridiculous.
And going back to your prior comment about the legislatures able to pass rules that Trump
are state laws on open records, that doesn't seem like that should pass muster if it gets up to
the Wisconsin Supreme Court. I mean, is there a challenge pending on this?
Well, actually, it's not that unusual that the legislature will carve out different rules for
itself. And I don't think it's really challenged as a matter of law that no one is saying you can't
do that. I would say you shouldn't do that. But we have other presidents like
legislative caucuses are allowed to meet in private. All of the Democrats and all of the Republicans
can mix with, we can talk to each other in a closed session. They have that right.
There's an exemption from the retention rules that are in place for every other state
and local government official. If you're the street superintendent of the city of Appleton
and someone sends you a letter about a crack sidewalk, you have to keep that for seven years.
But if you're a member of the legislature, you're exempt from the retention rule that would
otherwise apply, which means you can get an email from Alabia saying, hey, you do this for me.
And I'll do this for you. And you can erase it after you read it. You can just destroy it.
And that's perfectly legal. Well, to my mind, it shouldn't be perfectly legal. That's why one of
the reasons why people are so cynical about politicians because they get in power and they decide
that the rules don't apply to them and that they're above it all. It's a little different. The caucus
is when they're planning strategy. I mean, I can almost see a reason for not allowing cameras in
there, though I'd like to see them in there. But this idea that... The Democrats have on
occasion opened up their caucus outside viewing. It's not, you know, each and every meeting, but
they have allowed it in some circumstances. So tell me what the Freedom of Information Council
is trying to do about this current double whammy? Mainly, I've been doing things like this.
I was always waiting to come on the air here. I got an email from a reporter who wants to talk
me, you know, later today about the perhaps somehow become the patron saint of Wisconsin. I,
which is fine. I think it's a great service. I think it's important. I think it's a shame that
it's being shattered. And I think it's an even greater shame that members of the legislature
are acting affirmatively to prevent the public from seeing what's happening at the meetings that
it is financing and supporting involving the people that it has elected. Yeah, that's crazy.
I'm the patron saint of laws causes. So you've got a better title than I do. What do you want
citizens to do? Anyone who's listening to this podcast here in Wisconsin who thinks it's outrageous
that you can't go into the state capital and record what the legislators are doing? Well,
you know, the old recommendation is contact your legislator. Let them know that you're disappointed
that you can't see at Wisconsin. I and what are you doing about it? Tell me that would be the
even a handful of communications along those lines makes an impact on the legislature. It might
be somebody who's seen on the fence who didn't regard as a priority. Here's from a constituent that
says I used to use this. I miss this. Why what are you doing to bring it back? That can have a lot of
power. What I hope also happens is that there is a constitutional challenge to the rules that
are promulgated that say you can't record this because it's open to some. If you're a credential
member of the news media, you can see it. It's not open to another. You're just an ordinary citizen.
You can't. That's a real first amendment problem. You could sue over that and very possibly
prevail. You could say you can't draw that kind of distinction. You can't say media has this right
other people don't. That's a violation of the equal protection or whatever that is presumed to be
part of the application of the first amendment. So are you looking for a plaintiff here? Yeah,
why don't you go do it? Walk over the legislator right now and just see if you can get away with
taking the cell phone video. See if I can get arrested a third time in the state capital. So the
second time was when I was just filming someone was being arrested. One of the raging grannies
was being arrested and I was filming that and they arrested me for that and those good old days
of Scott Walker. Bill, while I have you here, you are a student of democracy and our democracy is
so under siege right now. I'm just wondering how you're processing what you're seeing here,
writ large with the Trump administration. Seeing here in Wisconsin or seeing you're just watching
the news unfold across the nation is looking at Minnesota or anything. It's truly frightening. I read
in the paper this morning in the cap times this morning that the governor says they're preparing for
it to come here at some point. It will come to Wisconsin. We will see Madison. We will see Milwaukee.
We will see other major urban centers that are not fully on board. The president's agenda
be invaded by federal troops and agents. It's horrifying that this happening. I think people
saw all along that this was a possibility in a second Trump term, but the fact that it's actually
here is still bracing. It still should be sending shockwaves through every person in this country
and there has to be a concerted response. There has to be a principled opposition. There has to
be a way to shut it down and people have to stop using the F word when they're making arguments over
what people need to do. The F word being the fall word or the fascism word? Well, not the fascism word,
the other one. Okay. I know there's been a lot of talk here. I've been speaking with David Cooper,
the former dean of Madison Police Chief and Reverend then for a couple of decades as well. There's
a piece from David in the issue of the progressive that's about to come out in a week or two.
Oh, that's great. And what is it saying at this time and age? Okay. And what is his advice?
To be aware of the abuses that are happening in police departments and through law enforcement,
how law enforcement is being used in ways that is not appropriate.
And do you have hope that we're going to get through this? Okay. Is it democracy?
Yes. I have hope. Do I have assurance? No, but I think there are a large number of people who are
alarmed. And I think there is a strong core of opposition that is emerging. And you have to be
optimistic that that can make a difference. I do think there are some lines that that will be
crossed that have never been crossed and are being crossed now that have never been crossed before,
which is scary. I think there are some lines that that people aren't going to cross. And if they
do, there's going to be backlash more than what they expected. I've said for a while and I'll say it
now, although I'm putting myself up there to say it, I don't think that Donald Trump is going to
finish his term. I don't think he's going to survive his own craziness. I think as Drainjes
sounds to say, I think he's going to go too far. I think there's going to be something that
may be really horrible. Maybe when troops are shooting down people in the streets across the
country, but he's going to go too far. He's headed toward too far. And when he gets there,
it will be quite the moment of reckoning. I think Colonel Sanders and his diet are going to get
to him. But who knows? A bill of interest. Thanks so much for being my guest today and the
Wisconsin Ford podcast. Sure, Matt. Great to see you and great talking with you.
Well, that's going to have to be it for this episode of the Wisconsin Ford podcast on the
Civic Media Radio Network at civicmedia.us. I'm Matt Rothschild and I want to thank Bill
leaders again for being my guest. I also want to thank my engineer and producer Dom Lee,
who is always great to work with. And I want to thank Sage Wilde of Civic Media for giving me
this platform. But most of all, I want to thank you for listening. I'll be back soon with another
episode of the Wisconsin Ford podcast where I'll be interviewing Mandela Barnes. You'll want to
keep a lookout for that one.
