

The deal is a departure from Wisconsin's open records law, which does not require either piece of information.

The Wisconsin Newspaper Association and the League of Wisconsin Municipalities, the two groups that crafted the agreement, say it's meant as a nonbinding stopgap measure to ensure people can obtain full reports while a state appeals court sorts out whether federal law mandates the redaction of personal information.

"We don't like it," said Bill Lueders, president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, referring to the agreement. "They're making you do something our state records law says you can't do. (But) it makes a bad situation slightly better."

Police departments often use motor vehicle records to obtain people's names, addresses, birth dates and other personal information. More Wisconsin departments have been redacting that information from incident and accident reports before releasing them to avoid violating the 1994 federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act, which requires states to obtain consent before they release a driver's personal information.



, violated the act when it left a parking ticket on resident Jason Senne's car that listed various pieces of his personal information.


Requestors still may obtain full accident reports from the state Transportation Department-- that agency doesn't interpret the privacy act as strictly as the municipalities -- but it typically takes two weeks for police to get the documents to the department.

A St. Croix County judge ruled in March that New Richmond didn't have to redact police reports it gave to the New Richmond News. He noted the state's open records law mandates disclosure of information regarding government affairs and the privacy act allows disclosure if the information is related to motor vehicle use or public safety.




New Richmond News publisher Steve Dzubay said he doesn't believe requestors should have to explain why they want documents but the compromise at least offers a way to get clean copies.

Bob Dreps, an attorney representing the New Richmond Times and the newspaper group in the dispute, stressed the deal doesn't establish any legal precedence. It's simply a temporary solution until a court issues a binding decision, he said.

Curt Witynski, the municipal league's executive director, said record requestors may bristle at the compromise but local government officials are worried the deal doesn't mean anything and they could still be liable for violating the privacy act if they don't redact.

Remzy Bitar, the city of New Richmond's attorney, said the appeals court must clear things up.

"Open records are important attributes of any democracy, but so is protecting privacy," he said. "How do you balance those two? Both sides want to have some clarity here."