How would they prove how much time was spent? Would they charge by each word redacted? By each page reviewed? What if the page is reviewed but nothing is redacted? Should it matter that the person who is redacting it makes $15 an hour and does it on straigt time in one municipality, but someone who makes $20 an hour in another has to work overtime ($30/hour) to get it done? I understand not wanting to pass the cost along to the taxpayers...but how do we make sure that cash-strapped municipalities don't gouge the media for this information as a cash cow? Eventually taxpayers, at least some of them, will end up paying anyway - if you buy a product that was advertised at now-higher ad rates in the media which has now has increased expenses due to redacting fees or anything else, the product you buy might cost more, too...somebody pays for it, one way or the other.

I don't think the commentors understand. Currently medical records requests etc. are controlled by statute. It sounds like they are just trying to codify this. Seems perfectly reasonable.

Do you work fore the Republican Caucus wislady?

Why not ask Erpenbach, since he spent so much time redacting information on his emails, before turning them over.

Now, with the lawsuit, taxpayers been paying for his defense....$60,000 so far, and climbing.

I understand the legislator's concern for assessing a "time charge" where redaction fees are "necessary". But who controls and watches over the process? If the state Supreme Court has already made a decision on this matter, why dredge it up again at this time?
Our democracy continues to cost us. If we pay the price, do we continue to "purchase" our guaranteed freedoms? Do we let others buy their share of government influence or subvert the wishes of the people? Freedom of the press is not necessarily the same thing as "free" press is it? Democracy is expensive but it is cheaper than slavery, isn't it? Either way, somebody pays.