Wisconsin public records response letters: a template for every outcome.

Wisconsin’s Public Records Law is construed “in every instance with a presumption of complete public access” (Wis. Stat. 19.31). There is no general exemption list to cite, so when a record is withheld, the reasons in the custodian’s letter carry the entire weight. The DOJ Public Records Law Compliance Guide is direct about what happens on review: “it is not the court’s role to hypothesize or consider reasons not asserted by the records custodian’s response” (p. 18). How to build those reasons is covered in our guide to the balancing test. This post is the companion: the letters themselves.

The statute gives a custodian two moves. Under Wis. Stat. 19.35(4)(a), the authority shall, “as soon as practicable and without delay, either fill the request or notify the requester of the authority’s determination to deny the request in whole or in part and the reasons therefor.” The DOJ guide puts it more bluntly: “The records custodian has two choices: comply or deny” (p. 16). Every template below is one of those two moves, or a courtesy that comes before them.

How to use them: replace every bracketed placeholder, delete any optional line that does not apply, and keep a copy in the request file. The DOJ guide notes that public records requests “are themselves ‘records’” (p. 15), and so are your responses.

What the law requires: fill the request as soon as practicable and without delay (Wis. Stat. 19.35(4)(a)). If you charge, every fee must fit within 19.35(3). Copy fees “may not exceed the actual, necessary and direct cost of reproduction and transcription of the record, unless a fee is otherwise specifically established or authorized to be established by law” (19.35(3)(a)). Location fees are allowed only “if the cost is $50 or more” (19.35(3)(c)). Mailing and shipping may be charged at actual, necessary and direct cost (19.35(3)(d)). And on prepayment, the statute says exactly this: “An authority may require prepayment by a requester of any fee or fees imposed under this subsection if the total amount exceeds $5” (19.35(3)(f)).

Two fee limits trip offices up. Redaction time is not a chargeable cost for most authorities: per the DOJ guide, review and redaction are separate processes from location “for which a requester may not be charged” (p. 71), with a narrow statutory exception for law enforcement audio and video in 19.35(3)(h). And an authority may waive or reduce fees “where the authority determines that waiver or reduction of the fee is in the public interest” (19.35(3)(e)). The full fee structure is in our guide to Wisconsin public records fees, and the fee schedule you charge from should already appear on your posted 19.34 notice.

If an item on the fee line is not listed in 19.35(3), take it off. The DOJ guide warns that an offer of compliance conditioned on unauthorized costs and terms “constitutes a denial” (p. 17), which would turn a routine release into a letter that needs reasons and a review notice.

What the law requires: Wis. Stat. 19.35(4)(b) sets the form. An oral request may be denied orally unless the requester demands a written statement of the reasons within 5 business days. For written requests, the requirement is absolute: “If an authority denies a written request in whole or in part, the requester shall receive from the authority a written statement of the reasons for denying the written request.” And then the sentence every denial letter must carry:

“Every written denial of a request by an authority shall inform the requester that if the request for the record was made in writing, then the determination is subject to review by mandamus under s. 19.37 (1) or upon application to the attorney general or a district attorney.”

The reasons are the part that decides cases. The guide says plainly that “Just stating a conclusion without explaining specific reasons for denial does not satisfy the requirement of specificity” (p. 16), and that if the custodian fails to state sufficient reasons, “the court will issue a writ of mandamus compelling disclosure of the requested records” (p. 18). Before a full denial goes out, have your municipal attorney read it. The method for building the reasons is in the balancing test guide; the template below gives those reasons a home.

One house note on the review notice: the statute says the determination is subject to review “if the request for the record was made in writing.” Keep that conditional in the letter rather than deciding the question for the requester. A denied oral request can still become a written one, since under Wis. Stat. 19.35(1)(h) “a request must be in writing before an action to enforce the request is commenced under s. 19.37.”

What the law requires: Wis. Stat. 19.35(1)(h) sets the sufficiency standard. A request “is deemed sufficient if it reasonably describes the requested record or the information requested. However, a request for a record without a reasonable limitation as to subject matter or length of time represented by the record does not constitute a sufficient request.”

The DOJ guide frames clarification as a courtesy, not a requirement. A custodian “may contact a requester to clarify the scope of a confusing request, or to advise the requester about the number and cost of records estimated to be responsive to the request” (p. 14). The same passage warns that custodians making these contacts “should take care not to communicate with the requester in a way likely to be interpreted as an attempt to chill the requester’s exercise of his or her rights.” And the guide limits the fallback: a custodian “may not deny a request solely because the records custodian believes that the request could be narrowed” (p. 14).

So there are two versions of this letter. Use 6A when the request is workable but confusing, or large enough that the requester would want to know the cost. Use 6B only when the request truly lacks a reasonable limit on subject matter or time, and only after talking to your municipal attorney, because 6B is a denial.

A note on the 6A sentence about purpose: it is there on purpose. Under Wis. Stat. 19.35(1)(i), with narrow exceptions, a request may not be refused because the person making it “is unwilling to be identified or to state the purpose of the request.” A clarification letter that seems to ask why the requester wants the records is exactly the kind of contact the guide warns could chill the request.

• Is this one of the two moves? The letter either fills the request or denies it in whole or in part with reasons (19.35(4)(a)). An acknowledgment or clarification is a courtesy on the way, not the response.
• Did anything get withheld or redacted? If yes and the request was written, the letter needs written reasons and the review notice (19.35(4)(b)). That includes Template 3.
• Are the reasons specific? A statute citation works only where the statute itself makes the record confidential. Otherwise, state the public policy reason (DOJ guide p. 16). The court will read only what you wrote (p. 18).
• Is the withheld material described? Enough detail for the requester to understand what is being kept back (guide p. 17).
• Is every fee authorized? Actual, necessary and direct cost only; location only at $50 or more; no charge for redaction outside 19.35(3)(h); prepayment only above $5 (19.35(3)).
• Did you avoid asking who or why? Identity and purpose cannot be conditions of the request, outside the narrow 19.35(1)(i) exceptions.
• Has the municipal attorney seen it? For any full denial or a 19.35(1)(h) denial, yes, before it goes out.
• Are the records on hold? After a denial, the records may not be destroyed until at least 60 days after the denial (90 days if the requester is a committed or incarcerated person), and longer if a lawsuit is filed (Wis. Stat. 19.35(5)).
• Is a copy in the request file? The request and the response are both records.

These templates are a starting point for your office’s own versions. Adapt them with your municipal attorney, keep them next to the 19.34 notice they depend on, and more Wisconsin guides are collected on our Wisconsin page.