|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED June 8, 1995 |
NOTICE |
|
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and Rule 809.62(1), Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
Nos. 94-0796
94-0801
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT IV
No. 94-0796
STATE OF WISCONSIN EX
REL.
LARRY GEORGE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
LIN MECHLER,
Respondent-Respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 94-0801
STATE OF WISCONSIN EX
REL.
LARRY GEORGE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
GRACE BROWN,
Respondent-Respondent.
APPEALS from orders of
the circuit court for Dodge County:
JOSEPH E. SCHULTZ, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Eich, C.J.,
Dykman and Sundby, JJ.
PER
CURIAM. Larry George appeals from two orders
dismissing his petitions for writs of mandamus in two public records cases.[1] The issues are whether requiring a
disbursement request with a public records request violates § 19.35(3)(f),
Stats., and whether George's ABLE
test scores constitute records under § 19.35(1)(am), and, if they do,
whether § 19.37(2), Stats.,
authorizes a $100 minimum damage award.
We conclude that requiring a disbursement request does not violate §
19.35(3)(f) under State ex rel. Christie v. Vande Zande, 187
Wis.2d 591, 595, 523 N.W.2d 166, 167 (Ct. App. 1994). We also conclude that George's ABLE test scores[2]
contain "personally identifiable information" under § 19.35(1)(am),
but that he is not entitled to damages under § 19.37(2)(b) because he has
not shown that Grace Brown acted wilfully or intentionally. Therefore, we affirm.
In appeal No. 94-0796,
George requested a copy of his visiting list.
Lin Mechler, a Social Services Department Program Assistant, directed
George to complete a disbursement request for fifteen cents. George brought a mandamus action contending
that Mechler's response violated § 19.35(3)(f), Stats., which authorizes prepayment only if the copying
charge exceeds five dollars. The trial
court concluded that requiring an inmate to complete a disbursement request
does not constitute prepayment under § 19.35(3)(f).
In Christie,
we concluded that a disbursement request which merely begins the disbursement
process, does not constitute prepayment.
Christie, 187 Wis.2d at 595, 523 N.W.2d at 167. Consequently, requiring a disbursement
request with a record request does not violate § 19.35(3)(f), Stats.
Id. Although we
conclude that Christie was wrongly decided, we are bound by
published opinions of this court.
Section 752.41(2), Stats.
In appeal No. 94-0801,
George requested a copy of his ABLE test scores for a job application. George asserts that all inmates are required
to take ABLE tests and that the scores are posted publicly. Despite public posting, George's ABLE test
scores contain "personally identifiable information pertaining to
[George]." Section 19.35(1)(am), Stats.
Section 19.35(1)(am) does not distinguish between private and public
records "containing personally identifiable information pertaining to
[George]." Consequently, §
19.35(1)(am) applies to George's ABLE test scores and he has a right to inspect
and copy them.
The remaining issue is
whether George is entitled to damages and actual costs under § 19.37(2), Stats.
Although § 19.37(2)(a) authorizes such an award, § 19.37(2)(b)
provides:
In any action filed under sub. (1) relating
to access to a record or part of a record under s. 19.35(1)(am), if the
court finds that the authority acted in a wilful or intentional manner, the
court shall award the individual actual damages sustained by the individual as
a consequence of the failure.
(Emphasis
added).
George's request for
ABLE test scores falls within § 19.35(1)(am), Stats. Section
19.37(2)(b), Stats., limits its
damage award to an authority's "wilful or intentional" refusal,
rather than authorizing a minimum damage award of $100 to a "requester
[who] prevails in whole or in substantial part in any action filed under sub.
(1) relating to access to a record or part of a record under s.
19.35(1)(a)." Section
19.37(2)(a). The plain language of §
19.37(2)(a) applies to record requests under § 19.35(1)(a). The plain language of § 19.37(2)(b) applies
to record requests containing personally identifiable information under §
19.35(1)(am). George has not shown that
Brown wilfully or intentionally withheld his requested test scores. Consequently, he is not entitled to damages
under § 19.37(2)(b) for the denial of his § 19.35(1)(am) request.
By the Court.—Orders
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.