Cheri Mastel v. School District of Elmbrook

2021 WI App 78

COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN
PUBLISHED OPINION

Case No.: 2020AP1781

Complete Title of Case:

CHERI MASTEL,

PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V.

SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ELMBROOK,

RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

Opinion Filed: October 27, 2021
Submitted on Briefs: August 26, 2021
Oral Argument:

JUDGES: Gundrum, P.J., Neubauer and Grogan, JJ.
Concurred:
Dissented:

Appellant
ATTORNEYS: On behalf of the petitioner-appellant, the cause was submitted on the
briefs of Thomas C. Kamenick of Wisconsin Transparency Project
Kamenick Law Office, LLC, Port Washington.

Respondent
ATTORNEYS: On behalf of the respondent-respondent, the cause was submitted on
the brief of Joel S. Aziere and Saveon D. Grenell of Buelow Vetter
Buikema Olson & Vliet, LLC, Waukesha.
2021 WI App 78

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
October 27, 2021
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Sheila T. Reiff petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 and
RULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2020AP1781 Cir. Ct. No. 2020CV886

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

CHERI MASTEL,

PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V.

SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ELMBROOK,

RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Waukesha County:
MICHAEL O. BOHREN, Judge. Affirmed in part; reversed in part and cause
remanded for further proceedings.

Before Gundrum, P.J., Neubauer and Grogan, JJ.

¶1 GUNDRUM, P.J. Cheri Mastel appeals from an order of the circuit

court denying her petition for a writ of mandamus that sought to compel the School
District of Elmbrook (District) to provide her with (1) the applications of three
No. 2020AP1781

applicants who were not “final candidates” for a vacant school board position;
(2) the e-mail addresses, phone numbers, addresses, and other personal information
of the seven applicants who ultimately were not chosen for the position; (3) the
professional contact information of the one applicant who was chosen for the
position; and (4) the “Declarations of Eligibility” for all eight applicants. For the
following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further
proceedings.

Background

¶2 According to Mastel’s petition, including documents attached thereto,
the District sought to fill a vacant seat on its school board. Eight individuals applied
for the appointment, five were selected as “final candidates,” and one,
Dr. Mushir Hassan, was ultimately chosen and appointed to fill the seat.

¶3 On May 12, 2020, prior to the selection of Hassan during a school
board meeting later that day, Mastel e-mailed a record request to the District asking
it to “point [her] to a list of all applicants for the Vacant School Board Position” or
“[a]lternatively” provide her with “electronic copies of applications (with any
redactions which may be necessary).” (Italics added.) On May 21, 2020, the
District responded to her e-mail by stating that it “has conducted the applicable
balancing test under the [Wisconsin public records law], and has determined that
there are record(s) responsive to your request and that these record(s) are subject to
disclosure,” adding that it “intends to disclose the requested record[s].” The District
explained why there would be a several day delay in releasing the records to Mastel
but indicated that after that time it would release them to her, “except as otherwise
required or authorized by law.”

2
No. 2020AP1781

¶4 On May 22, 2020, counsel for Mastel e-mailed a letter to the District
explaining why he believed the District’s reasons for the delay were “unlawful” and
stating that Mastel “insists that you provide the applications, in electronic format as
she requested … immediately.” Counsel added that Mastel “would also like to
clarify that her request includes the e-mails from the applicants sent to
westfalc@elmbrookschools.org, as instructed on the application website ... not just
the application attached to such e-mails.” (Emphasis added.)

¶5 On June 2, 2020, the District responded to Mastel’s May 12 and 22
records requests, stating:

The district has complied with its obligations under
Wisconsin’s Public Records Law … in response to this
request. We are releasing the applications of the top 5
finalists per [WIS. STAT. §] 19.36(7) Identities of Applicants
for Public Positions. Personal information has been
redacted, such as the home address, e-mail address, phone
number, or any other personal material that is prohibited
from releasing [sic] under section 19.36(11).

The documents pertaining to your request are attached to
this e-mail.

¶6 Mastel filed this petition for a writ of mandamus under WIS. STAT.
§ 19.37(1)(a) (2019-20),1 alleging numerous violations of the public records law
and including various attachments, including her May 12 and 22 records requests as
well as the District’s May 21 and June 2 responses to those requests. The petition
alleges that the District unlawfully withheld the applications of the three applicants
who were not “final candidates” for appointment to the position and adds that
withholding these three applications was unlawful because “none of the three

1
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2019-20 version unless otherwise
noted.

3
No. 2020AP1781

applicants whose applications were withheld requested anonymity in writing,
making the [WIS. STAT.] § 19.36(7) exception inapplicable to their applications.”

¶7 Related to the seven unsuccessful applicants for the position, the
petition alleges that the District unlawfully “redacted e-mail addresses, phone
numbers, addresses, and other personal information from the records it produced to
Mastel, claiming that [WIS. STAT.] § 19.36(11) prohibited release of that
information.” The petition states that these applicants “are not ‘individual[s] who
hold[] a local public office,’” and “[t]herefore, § 19.36(11) does not prohibit the
release of their home addresses, e-mail addresses, or telephone numbers.” (First
and second alterations in original.)

¶8 The petition also alleges that the District unlawfully “redacted the
e-mail address and signature block from Hassan’s transmittal e-mail, which appears
to be from a professional account.” It asserts that “some or all of the information
redacted from that e-mail is professional contact information, which is not exempted
by [WIS. STAT.] § 19.36(11).”

¶9 Lastly, the petition alleges that the district unlawfully “failed to
produce copies of any of the Declarations of Eligibility from the eight candidates,”
noting that the District’s application process required from applicants both a
completed application form and a sworn Declaration of Eligibility (establishing the
applicant’s residency and eligibility to serve on the District’s board). The petition
sets forth the application process found on the District’s website for the school board
vacancy:

Any eligible person who desires to be considered for
appointment to this public office must complete and file the
following documents:

4
No. 2020AP1781

1. An application that identifies the potential appointee’s
name, residential address, telephone number, and that also
addresses the individual’s qualifications and the reasons
he/she is interested in serving on the School Board.

2. A sworn Declaration of Eligibility. The Declaration must
be sworn to before a notary or another official who is
authorized to administer oaths.

To ensure consideration, the application and a scanned
copy of the notarized Declaration of Eligibility must
be e-mailed by May 8, 2020 to [the executive
assistant of the superintendent and Board of Education]
westfalc@elmbrookschools.org.

Mastel attached a copy of a blank Declaration of Eligibility to the petition.2

¶10 The District moved to dismiss the petition on the basis that it failed to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Following briefing and oral
argument, the circuit court granted the motion. Mastel appeals, asserting that the
petition did sufficiently state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We agree
with Mastel in all respects except with regard to the Declarations of Eligibility.

Discussion

¶11 We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a
claim, accepting as true all factual allegations in the complaint and all reasonable
inferences therefrom. Data Key Partners v. Permira Advisers LLC, 2014 WI 86,
¶¶17-19, 356 Wis. 2d 665, 849 N.W.2d 693; Wisconsin Mfrs. & Com. v. Evers,
2021 WI App 35, ¶10, 398 Wis. 2d 164, 960 N.W.2d 442. The sufficiency of a
complaint “depends on the substantive law that underlies the claim.” Wisconsin
Mfrs., 398 Wis. 2d 164, ¶10 (citing Data Key Partners, 356 Wis. 2d 665, ¶31).
“[T]he alleged facts related to that substantive law must ‘plausibly suggest [that the

2
The petition also alleges the District “unlawfully delayed” in responding to Mastel’s
record requests. On appeal, she has expressly abandoned this issue.

5
No. 2020AP1781

plaintiff is] entitled to relief.’” Id. (second alteration in original; citation omitted).
We also review independently the interpretation and application of statutes.
Westmas v. Selective Ins. Co., 2016 WI App 92, ¶14, 372 Wis. 2d 683, 889 N.W.2d
178.

¶12 WISCONSIN STAT. § 19.31 provides that WIS. STAT. §§ 19.32 to 19.37
“shall be construed in every instance with a presumption of complete public
access…. The denial of public access generally is contrary to the public interest,
and only in an exceptional case may access be denied.” WISCONSIN STAT.
§ 19.35(1) provides that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, any requester has
a right to” (a) “inspect any record” and (b) “make or receive a copy of a record.”
“Each authority, upon request for any record, 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.”
Sec. 19.35(4)(a). A government entity resisting disclosure of public records bears
the burden “to rebut the strong presumption” favoring disclosure. C.L. v. Edson,
140 Wis. 2d 168, 182, 409 N.W.2d 417 (Ct. App. 1987).

When addressing an open records request, a records
custodian must make the initial decision[] on … whether any
statutory or common law exceptions to disclosure apply. If
the custodian determines that the item is a record and no
exceptions apply, the custodian must then conduct a
balancing test to “weigh the competing interests involved
and determine whether permitting inspection would result in
harm to the public interest which outweighs the legislative
policy recognizing the public interest in allowing
inspection.”

If the custodian’s decision is challenged … a court must
make its own independent decisions regarding these matters,
including the balancing test. “The duty of the custodian is
to specify reasons for nondisclosure and the court’s role is to
decide whether the reasons asserted are sufficient.” If the
custodian states no reason or insufficient reasons for
refusing to disclose the information, the writ of mandamus

6
No. 2020AP1781

compelling disclosure must issue. A court should apply the
balancing test “when the record custodian has refused to
produce the record, in order to evaluate the merits of the
custodian’s decision.”

John K. MacIver Inst. for Pub. Pol’y, Inc. v. Erpenbach, 2014 WI App 49,
¶¶13-14, 354 Wis. 2d 61, 848 N.W.2d 862 (emphasis added; citations omitted).

Applications of the Three Non-Final Candidates

¶13 The petition alleges that Mastel requested the applications of all
candidates applying for the open school board position, and copies of her public
records requests indicate that this is so. According to the petition and the District’s
June 2 response to Mastel’s records requests, the District provided Mastel with the
applications of only “the top 5 finalists,” and did not provide her with the
applications of the other three individuals who applied for the position. The only
reason the District gave for declining to provide the applications of the other three
applicants was a generic reference to WIS. STAT. § 19.36(7). This denial was in
error.

¶14 WISCONSIN STAT. § 19.36(7) provides in relevant part:

(a) In this subsection:

1. “Final candidate” means each applicant who is seriously
considered for appointment … and whose name is submitted
for final consideration to an authority for appointment, to
any of the following:

....

b. A local public office.

.…

2. “Final candidate” includes all of the following …:

7
No. 2020AP1781

a. Whenever there are at least 5 applicants for an office or
position, each of the 5 applicants who are considered the
most qualified for the office or position by an authority.

.…

(b) Every applicant for a position with any authority may
indicate in writing to the authority that the applicant does not
wish the authority to reveal his or her identity. Except with
respect to … a final candidate, if an applicant makes such an
indication in writing, the authority shall not provide access
to any record related to the application that may reveal the
identity of the applicant.

(Emphasis added.) Boiled down, subsection (7) states that an authority, such as the
District here, “shall not provide access to any record related to the application that
may reveal the identity of [an] applicant” if the particular applicant (1) is not a “final
candidate” for the position sought and (2) “indicate[d] in writing to the authority
that [he or she] does not wish the authority to reveal his or her identity.”
Sec. 19.36(7). In the case before us, subsection (7) does not apply to protect the
identities of the three applicants who were not final candidates if they did not
provide such a written indication to the District, as the petition alleges is the case
here. The petition sufficiently states a claim that the District violated the public

8
No. 2020AP1781

records law by failing to disclose the applications of these three non-“final
candidate” applicants.3

Redacted Information of the Seven Unsuccessful Applicants

¶15 The petition also sufficiently alleges that the District unlawfully
“redacted e-mail addresses, phone numbers, addresses, and other personal

3
While in its May 21, 2020 response to Mastel, the District indicated that it had
“conducted the applicable balancing test under the law,” the District further stated that this
balancing resulted in the District’s conclusion that the records responsive to Mastel’s records
request “are subject to disclosure.” (Emphasis added.) The District gave no indication that the
balancing test suggested that any records were not subject to disclosure. At no time did the District
show in its responses to Mastel’s records requests that it had “weigh[ed] the competing interests
involved” and with regard to the records it refused to disclose, had “determine[d] [that] permitting
inspection would result in harm to the public interest which outweighs the legislative policy
recognizing the public interest in allowing inspection.” See John K. MacIver Inst. for Pub. Pol’y,
Inc. v. Erpenbach, 2014 WI App 49, ¶13, 354 Wis. 2d 61, 848 N.W.2d 862 (citation omitted);
Village of Butler v. Cohen, 163 Wis. 2d 819, 826, 472 N.W.2d 579 (Ct. App. 1991) (“[M]ere legal
conclusions that a record is ‘confidential’ or that its release would be ‘contrary to the public interest’
insufficiently justif[ies] refusal because such reasons lack specificity.” (citation omitted)).

Moreover, as it did before the circuit court, the District contends, erroneously, that the
burden is on Mastel to identify a basis for disclosure, and fails not only to identify a clear statutory
exception, but also to sufficiently address the competing interests of the public interest in disclosure
and the public interest in keeping the record confidential, in light of the weighing already embodied
in the statutory parameters. While we may apply a clear statutory exception even if a custodian
failed to identify it, we see no such exception in this case, and we will not speculate as to other
reasons to deny the request. See Osborn v. Board of Regents, 2002 WI 83, ¶16, 254 Wis. 2d 266,
647 N.W.2d 158 (“It is not th[e] court’s role to hypothesize or consider reasons to deny the request
that were not asserted by the custodian.”); Journal Times v. City of Racine Police & Fire
Comm’rs, 2015 WI 56, ¶76, 362 Wis. 2d 577, 866 N.W.2d 563 (concluding that the court may
consider application of a “clear statutory exception” even if not raised in a denial).

9
No. 2020AP1781

information” from the records that it did produce to Mastel in relation to the seven
unsuccessful applicants for the position.4

¶16 In its June 2, 2020 response to Mastel’s public records requests, the
only reason the District provided for redacting such information was a generic
reference to WIS. STAT. § 19.36(11), which the District apparently believed
“prohibited” it from releasing this information. Mastel’s petition explains why this
provision does not apply, noting that subsection (11) only prohibits the release of
such information “of an individual who holds a local public office or a state public
office,”5 and “[t]he seven unsuccessful candidates are not ‘individual[s] who hold[]

4
This is how Mastel sets out the issue in her petition. We recognize that the petition
alleges the District failed to produce the applications for the three non-finalist applicants. It is
unclear, however, whether the District failed to produce any records related to these applicants.
Regardless, our analysis as to redaction applies equally to the “e-mail addresses, phone numbers,
addresses, and other personal information” of the three non-finalist applicants. Also, the District
has not identified what, if anything, is encompassed within “other personal information,” and thus,
in this section we address the petition and the District’s response as it pertains to e-mail, phone
numbers and home addresses. We also note that the parties have addressed this contact information
in a manner that assumes it identifies the applicant; thus, so will we.
5
WISCONSIN. STAT. § 19.36(11) provides in relevant part:

RECORDS OF AN INDIVIDUAL HOLDING A LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICE
OR A STATE PUBLIC OFFICE. Unless access is specifically
authorized or required by statute, an authority shall not provide
access under [WIS. STAT. §] 19.35(1) to records … containing
information maintained, prepared, or provided by an employer
concerning the home address, home electronic mail address, home
telephone number, or social security number of an individual who
holds a local public office or a state public office, unless the
individual authorizes the authority to provide access to such
information. This subsection does not apply to the home address
of an individual who holds an elective public office or to the home
address of an individual who, as a condition of employment, is
required to reside in a specified location.

(Emphasis added.)

10
No. 2020AP1781

a local public office.’” (Emphasis added.) Because the generic reference to
subsection (11) is the only “reason” given by the District for refusing to disclose
this information and because Mastel has sufficiently alleged facts indicating that
this statute does not even apply to these seven applicants and thus does not
“prohibit” the District from releasing this information, she has sufficiently stated a
claim that the District violated the public records law in redacting this information.
See Erpenbach, 354 Wis. 2d 61, ¶14 (“If the custodian states no reason or
insufficient reasons for refusing to disclose the information, the writ of mandamus
compelling disclosure must issue.”).6

Redacted Information of Dr. Hassan

¶17 We next consider Mastel’s claim that the District unlawfully
“redacted the e-mail address and signature block from Hassan’s transmittal e-mail,
which appears to be from a professional account.”

¶18 The attachments to Mastel’s petition indicate that in its responses to
Mastel’s records requests, the District did not provide a specific explanation for why
it was redacting Hassan’s professional information. Assuming the District intended
its alleged refusal to disclose this apparently non-“home” information of Hassan to
be “covered” by its June 2, 2020 statement to Mastel that it had redacted “other
personal material that is prohibited from releasing [sic] under [WIS. STAT.
§] 19.36(11),” this denial was in error.

6
The District complains that an applicant is entitled to less protection against disclosure
of home phone numbers and e-mails than an individual who holds public office, and it asks that we
extrapolate and extend the protection to applicants. The District fails to recognize that WIS. STAT.
§ 19.36(7) specifically addresses applicants. Moreover, the District does not identify any
applicable legal authority to support its request that we override the statutory weighing of the
competing interests for applicants embodied in the statute, particularly given the option of a non-
finalist to protect his/her identity.

11
No. 2020AP1781

¶19 Mastel states in her petition that such “professional contact
information [of Hassan’s] … is not exempted by WIS. STAT. § 19.36(11).” She is
correct as that subsection, by its plain language, only protects against disclosure of
“home” addresses, “home” e-mail addresses, and “home” telephone numbers of
“individual[s] who hold[] a local public office.” See sec. 19.36(11). Without further
explanation, “section 19.36(11),” by itself, does not provide a sufficient legal basis
to refuse disclosure of non-“home” information. Mastel’s petition sufficiently states
a claim with regard to the redacted information of Hassan.

Declarations of Eligibility

¶20 Mastel’s petition, however, does fail to sufficiently state a claim for
relief in relation to the Declarations of Eligibility. While Mastel faults the District
for failing to provide these declarations with regard to any of the applicants, neither
of Mastel’s records requests sufficiently indicated that she was requesting the
applicants’ Declarations of Eligibility.

¶21 Mastel’s May 12, 2020 e-mail to the District asked the District to
“point me to a list of all applicants for the Vacant School Board Position” or
“[a]lternatively” to provide her with “electronic copies of applications (with any
redactions which may be necessary).” (Italics added.) This e-mail obviously would
have indicated to the District that a simple “list” of the applicants would have
satisfied Mastel’s request for information and records. Furthermore, Mastel’s
petition shows that a Declaration of Eligibility was a separate submission from an
“application” that an applicant also needed to submit in order to be considered for
appointment to the position. In Mastel’s May 12, 2020 e-mail, there is no request
for the “Declarations of Eligibility” of applicants—the request is for either a “list”
of all applicants or electronic copies of “applications” for the post.

12
No. 2020AP1781

¶22 On May 22, 2020, counsel representing Mastel e-mailed a letter to the
District “clarifying” that Mastel’s May 12, 2020 request “includes the e-mails from
the applicants sent to westfalc@elmbrookschools.org, as instructed on the
application website ... not just the application attached to such e-mails.” (Emphasis
added.) This is ambiguous because reference to “the e-mails” could be referring to
either just the text-filled transmission to which electronic documents can be attached
or such text-filled transmissions along with anything that is electronically attached
thereto. The last line—“not just the application attached to such e-mails”—
however, suggests that counsel was referring to the first of these understandings of
“e-mails” as it refers to “such e-mails” and one would “attach[]” an application to
the text-filled transmission to which electronic documents can be attached.

¶23 Also ambiguous is what Mastel intended in reference to a request for
an applicant’s “application.” This could be interpreted as a reference to all materials
submitted by an applicant in pursuit of the appointment, as seems to be suggested
by Mastel’s reference to “the application website,” but it could also mean just the
separate “application” document that was an individual item that needed to be
submitted to the District in addition to a Declaration of Eligibility, as seems to be
suggested by Mastel’s reference to “the application attached to such e-mails.”

¶24 A mandamus action may lie against an authority if the authority
“withholds a record or part of a record” after a written request for disclosure of the
record is made. WIS. STAT. § 19.37(1) (emphasis added). But the request for
disclosure is only “deemed sufficient,” and thus legally actionable, if it “reasonably
describes the requested record or the information requested.” See WIS. STAT.
§ 19.35(1)(h). Mastel’s petition and attachments indicate that both she and the
District were well aware that the Declaration of Eligibility was a separate item that
needed to be submitted in order for an applicant to apply for the position, yet neither

13
No. 2020AP1781

her May 12 nor May 22 records requests “reasonably describe” that item. See
Seifert v. School Dist. of Sheboygan Falls, 2007 WI App 207, ¶¶39-41, 305 Wis. 2d
582, 740 N.W.2d 177 (in determining whether a request “reasonably describes” the
record or information requested, we may consider how a reasonable records
custodian would “[r]ead” the request “in light of the background facts”). Thus, her
records requests failed to reasonably describe that Mastel was requesting the
Declarations of Eligibility for the applicants in addition to the text-filled
transmission to which documents can be attached (“the e-mails”/“such e-mails”)
and the separate application document “attached to such e-mails.” To sufficiently
state a claim for mandamus then with regard to the Declarations of Eligibility,
Mastel needed to allege in her petition facts showing she “reasonably described” in
writing to the District that she was requesting the declarations and thus that the
District “withheld” them from her. See id., ¶42 (“While magic words are
unnecessary, some requirement for specificity makes sense. A custodian should not
have to guess at what records a requester desires.”). Her petition fails in this regard.

By the Court.—Order affirmed in part; reversed in part and cause
remanded for further proceedings.

14