Back to No Spring Green Sand Pit

Comments on Supervisor Joel Gaalswyk's Email of October 5, 2006
by Mark Culverhouse

November 24, 2006

Dear River Valley Concerned Citizens (RVCC),

As a result of an Open Records request by the RVCC, an email written October 5 was made public. The email was written by Sauk County Supervisor Joel Gaalswyk to a member of the Town of Spring Green Plan Commission. The subject of the email was "sand". In the email Gaalswyk states that he supports a zoning change that would allow the sand pit.

From the email:
"I want to approve the zoning change, and to make that easier I want the town to approve the zoning change, or send the application to the county without taking action. The opponents are exaggerating all the fears they can think of." 

Read the complete email at: http://www.highway60.com/sandpit/plan_commission_documents2.htm

On November 4 this email was forwarded to each member of the Plan Commission. Note: Supervisor Gaalswyk is a member of the Sauk County Planning Commission and may vote on this same issue in the future. On November 14 the Plan Commission voted 5-0 against the sand pit. There are many steps remaining to the sand pit rezoning process. Yet on October 5 Supervisor Gaalswyk clearly indicated in his email that he supports the sand pit. His email is also a strong plea to the Plan Commission to vote for the sand pit.

If, behinds the scenes, Supervisor Gaalswyk is lobbying Plan Commission members to vote for the sand pit then what is the purpose of the public meetings where citizens are allowed to voice their concerns? What is the purpose of the Plan Commission meetings and vote? What is the purpose of the Town of Spring Green public hearings and vote? What is the purpose of the county Board of Adjustments? What is the purpose of electing people if they feel they do not have  to hear what people have to say?

The Wisconsin Open Meetings Law Compliance Guide (http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dls/docs/op_rec.pdf) is provided to public officials by the Attorney General. In the introduction the Attorney General states, "An informed citizenry is the bedrock of representative government. In order to properly observe, participate in, and critique their government, Wisconsin citizens must be assured that the operations of government occurs in the full light of day."

This compliance guide defines several types of "meetings" that are subject to the Open Meetings statute. One type of meeting is known as a "walking quorum". The email that Supervisor Gaalswyk sent appears to qualify as a "walking quorum".

From the Compliance Guide Page 6:
  • The requirements of the open meetings law also extend to walking quorums.
  • A “walking quorum” is a series of gatherings among separate groups of members of a governmental body, each less than quorum size, who agree,
    tacitly or explicitly, to act uniformly in sufficient number to reach a quorum. Showers, 135 Wis. 2d at 92, quoting
    Conta, 71 Wis. 2d at 687.
  • In Conta, the supreme court recognized the danger that a walking quorum may produce a predetermined outcome and thus render the publicly-held meeting a mere formality. Conta, 71 Wis. 2d at 685-88.
  • The court commented that any attempt to avoid the appearance of a “meeting” through use of a walking quorum is subject to prosecution under the open meetings law. Conta, 71 Wis. 2d at 687.
  • The widespread use of electronic mail and other electronic message technologies creates special dangers for governmental officials trying to comply with the open meetings law.
  • Although two members of a governmental body larger than four members may discuss the body’s business without violating the open meetings law, features like “forward” and “reply to all” common in electronic mail programs deprive a sender of control over the number and identity of the recipients who eventually may have access to the sender’s message.
  • Moreover, because of electronic mail communication, it is quite possible that a quorum of a governmental body may receive the sender’s message – and therefore may receive information on a subject within the body’s jurisdiction – in an almost real-time basis, the way they would receive it in a meeting of the body. Because of the dangers posed by electronic mail,
  • The Attorney General strongly discourages the members of every governmental body from using electronic mail to communicate about issues within the body’s realm of authority. Correspondence, October 3, 2000.

This email demonstrates how important it is for residents to attend the meetings of RVCC and to participate in the "political" process. Our efforts can help to ensure that important decisions that affect people's lives are made within the legal process and after proper deliberation.

Mark Culverhouse
E7488 Troy Village Road
Spring Green WI 53588