Two different issues, not sure if they call that redaction when it involves computers. Good "squirrel" moment, though, concernedwi.

I think its a good idea. There are a lot of jailhouse lawyers that request records for no good reason. I also do not think I should foot the bill for a profit making organizations request (the newspaper). The paper takes free public record and turns around and sells it for profit.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepoliti...

Just happened today Wislady

I'm not ashamed one bit Wislady, still not addressing the issue at hand I see. You can call it bullying, I call it distraction.

Even more reason you should be ashamed of yourself.
Bullying people does not work.

Wislady, I probably know more about ADHD than you ever will. And you can put yourself in the company with those if you want....I certainly did not. My point wasn't about people with ADHD, instead it was your failed ability to stay on topic, kind of like how you have now gone off topic again.

Yes Wislady, there is no court order prohibiting him from redacting documents in the future. The case you mention is from the past and he has to turn over the complete records now. There is no standing order to change in the future. And that has to do with lawsuits involving Act 10, not this new bill. You brought up Erpenbach, that does not

Okay, Einstein.
;-)

You would assume that anyone with AHDH (or any learning disability) can not have a valid argument. What an ill informed person you are.

Shame on you.

I will take your comment as a compliment (if you are placing me in that category simply because you disagree), since Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison, and Nelson Rockefeller are among that group.

Anything that restricts access to open records is suspect, what are they trying to hide? If you need to hide it from tax payers then most likely it is something they will not like and may cost you your job or even jail. Open records are the only way to keep track of the government and to catch crooks its a cheap security measure when you think how much money we are talking about. The public should pay this bill.

I am talking specifically about pretty boy, and the fact that he can NOT take it upon himself to decide what he can redact. YOU said he could.

Sure got quiet all of a sudden .

No, he can't.

The court ordered (Feb 5) that Erpenbach was required to turn over the information requested WITHOUT being redacted to the Court.

Why should taxpayers be on the hook for defending him, when he is violating the Open Records Law?

Wislady, he can still redact everything and probably hire more people to do it since the cost will be paid for by the requester to the requested. I am not a fan of any law that make's getting open records harder, takes away from transparency, we already have to little of it.

Erpenbach will have to lay off some staff, now that they can not redact everything when complying with the open record requests.

Did he have to pay back the $60,000 in lawyer fees the taxpayers got stuck with?

Aren't those requesting the information also taxpayers and haven't they already paid?

This idea is tricky. I have no problem with the fee process only if there is a standardized law for specific items that are required to be redacted and some kind of checks/balances is put in place to ensure only required items are being redacted.