Borowski: We use and fight for open records. When we do, we're fighting for you as well
Years ago, I attended a conference on investigative reporting and a particular way of thinking about reporting stuck with me: Operate with the conviction that every piece of information you may need for a story is written down somewhere.
And: You are entitled to it.
Not just you, as a journalist, you as a citizen.
Think about it.
Every ticket written, every bill passed, every judgement filed, every contract signed, every bonus paid, every campaign contribution received, every dinner bought, every report filed – about inmates being punished, potholes being filled, travel being taken, taxes raised.
That's nothing to be alarmed about. Quite the opposite: It's something to be celebrated.
That's what news organizations do each year, as they mark Sunshine Week, which begins Sunday. The week recognizes a bedrock aspect of our Constitution, the First Amendment, and two things that give it real teeth – open meetings laws and open records laws (often given the shorthand of FOIA, for the federal Freedom of Information Act).
Now, in practice, these laws carry some exceptions. We understand that. But the spirit is clear: Information about what government is doing should be available to the maximum extent possible, to be used by the people that government serves. That's all of us.
At the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, we use these laws all the time in pursuit of stories that serve our readers and our communities. This ranges from exposing gaps in Milwaukee County's 'Brady List' of police officers found to be untruthful to gathering data from 72 Wisconsin counties to understand the real picture of gun deaths in the state.
We've also used public records to expose problems at the Milwaukee Housing Authority, in state prisons, Milwaukee Public Schools, even how the chair of the Milwaukee County Board expensed roller blades and a MAC membership.
Nowhere in those laws does it say this information is available to journalists. All of that same information is available to anyone.
It's why you can search court cases online, and check campaign contributions and read the same information elected officials do before they vote on bills and measures. If you want to see what you're paying in property taxes, compared to your neighbor, you can. If you want to see how many times cars have been ticketed for speeding on your street, you can.
That's why I'm especially proud of an initiative launched by our staff.
To help bring more awareness to public records, Journal Sentinel staffers have been offering public records training sessions to resident-led groups across the city.
For instance, on a recent Saturday, reporters Ashley Luthern and John Diedrich – members of our investigative team – joined a dozen residents at Amani United's regular meeting to talk about public records. In an interactive presentation, the two walked through what a public record is — and is not — and where residents can find data, information and other records.
They gave practical examples: How to request a police report, where to look up property inspection records and how to find the latest on licensing of new businesses in the area.
Our reporters will be back with Amani United next month for a second session to give hands-on help to residents who want to find specific pieces of information or file their own records requests. If you would like reporters to join your neighborhood meeting to talk public records, let us know – you can email Ashley, our deputy investigations editor, at ashley.luthern@jrn.com.
That's one thing we can do.
What can you do?
First, you can support independent journalism. It can cost a lot of money to obtain records – from police body cam footage to databases to stacks of documents. Often, those holding the records will drive the costs as high as possible, causing some to abandon the effort.
There are many ways through the Local Media Foundation, a nonprofit group, that you can make a difference for our newsroom – including a donation that will advance our work.
Second, push back when a public official wants to give you less information, or create new barriers to getting information it should provide readily.
We've seen that most recently at the Milwaukee County Medical Examiner's office, which suddenly is refusing to provide basic information to the public in a timely manner on deaths it investigates: homicides, fatal crashes, drug overdoses, weather-related deaths. This includes such key information as when and where an incident occurred.
Under the recently-retired Karen Domagalski, the office had set a gold-standard for openness. No longer. Combine the new hurdles with the Milwaukee Police Department's refusal in its news releases about incidents to even give the gender of a victim, and it means you know much less about the public safety picture in our community.
Now, as a newsroom, we can push back – and we will. And we will keep seeking the same information from alternate sources, from family members and others, in order to cover such a vital topic with depth and context. We will not be deterred.
But something important is lost when information becomes less available.
And if it is harder for us to get it, that means it is harder for you as well.
So, if you have a question someone is refusing to answer, or the answers you're getting don't make sense, tell us about it. You can leave us a news tip at projects.jsonline.com/tips, or by emailing wisconsininvestigates@gannett.com, or by calling 414-319-9061.
Remember those two principles from the start of this piece?
What you want to know is almost certainly written down somewhere. And: With few exceptions, you're entitled to see it.
Here's a third: If someone says you can't, keep trying.
Because chances are there is something to see.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter Mary Spicuzza and Wisconsin public records legal expert Tom Kamenick will be answering questions about open records requests on Reddit at https://www.reddit.com/r/wisconsin/ Monday at noon.
Greg Borowski is executive editor of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. You can follow him on X, formerly known as Twitter, @GregJBorowski and reach him via greg.borowski@jrn.com.
Connect with the Journal Sentinel
Support our reporting on the environment, underserved communities and other areas: givebutter.com/milwaukee-journal-sentinel
Send a news tip: projects.jsonline.com/tips
Reach the newsroom: jsmetro@journalsentinel.com or 414-224-2318
Subscribe and support independent journalism: jsonline.com/deal
This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Borowski: We fight for open records. When we do, we're figting for you
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court delays order that would have blocked Trump from continuing to deploy National Guard in California
A federal appeals court Thursday delayed an order requiring the Trump administration to return control of the California National Guard to Gov. Gavin Newsom. A panel of three judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay of the lower court's order and set a hearing for June 17. Two of the judges on the panel were nominated by President Donald Trump, and one was nominated by former President Joe Biden. Earlier Thursday, a federal judge in California issued a temporary restraining order that would have blocked Trump's move to deploy California National Guard troops during protests over immigration raids in Los Angeles and returned control of the California National Guard to Gov. Gavin Newsom. Calling the judge's order "unprecedented" and an "extraordinary intrusion on the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief," lawyers for the Trump administration filed an emergency motion with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Before being paused by the appeals court, the lower court judge's order, which did not limit Trump's use of the Marines, was set to take effect at noon on Friday. "At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court must determine whether the President followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions. He did not," U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said in his order granting the temporary restraining order sought by Newsom. "His actions were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith." MORE: Trump's deployment of troops to LA prompts host of legal questions -- and a challenge from California In a press conference after the earlier order, Newsom said he was "gratified" by the judge's ruling, saying he would return the National Guard "to what they were doing before Donald Trump commandeered them," Newsom said. "The National Guard will go back to border security, working on counter drug enforcement and fentanyl enforcement, which they were taken off by Donald Trump. The National Guard will go back to working on what we refer to as the rattlesnake teams, doing vegetation and forest management, which Donald Trump took them off in preparation for wildfire season. The National Guard men and women will go back to their day jobs, which include law enforcement," Newsom's speech continued. Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta had filed an emergency request on Tuesday to block what they called Trump and the Department of Defense's "unnecessary" and "unlawful militarization" after Trump issued a memorandum over the weekend deploying more than 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles amid the protests -- over objections from Newsom and other state and local officials. In his order, Breyer pointed to protesters' First Amendment rights and said, "Just because some stray bad actors go too far does not wipe out that right for everyone. The idea that protesters can so quickly cross the line between protected conduct and 'rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States' is untenable and dangerous," he wrote. Breyer wrote that the protests in Los Angeles "fall far short" of the legal requirements of a "rebellion" to justify a federal deployment. Rebellions need to be armed, violent, organized, open, and aim to overturn a government, he wrote. The protests in California meet none of those conditions, he found. "Plaintiffs and the citizens of Los Angeles face a greater harm from the continued unlawful militarization of their city, which not only inflames tensions with protesters, threatening increased hostilities and loss of life, but deprives the state for two months of its own use of thousands of National Guard members to fight fires, combat the fentanyl trade, and perform other critical functions," the judge wrote in his order. "Regardless of the outcome of this case or any other, that alone threatens serious injury to the constitutional balance of power between the federal and state governments, and it sets a dangerous precedent for future domestic military activity," the judge wrote. Some 4,000 National Guardsmen and 700 Marines were ordered to the Los Angeles area following protests over immigration raids. California leaders claim Trump inflamed the protests by sending in the military when it was not necessary. Protests have since spread to other cities, including Boston, Chicago and Seattle. To send thousands of National Guardsmen to Los Angeles, Trump invoked Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services, which allows a federal deployment in response to a "rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States." In his order, Trump said the troops would protect federal property and federal personnel who are performing their functions. The judge did not decide whether the military's possible involvement in immigration enforcement -- by being present with ICE agents during raids -- violates the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which bars the military from performing civilian law enforcement. The judge said he would hear additional arguments on that point at a hearing next week. During a court hearing earlier Thursday, Breyer said during Thursday's 70-minute hearing that the main issue before him was whether the president complied with the Title 10 statute and that the National Guard was "properly federalized." The federal government maintained that the president did comply while also arguing that the statute is not justiciable and the president has complete discretion. The judge was asked not to issue an injunction that would "countermand the president's military judgments." Meanwhile, the attorney on behalf of the state of California and Newsom said their position is that the National Guard was not lawfully federalized, and that the president deploying troops in the streets of a civilian city in response to perceived disobedience was an "expansive, dangerous conception of federal executive power." MORE: Protests live updates: Americans split over support of LA protests, poll finds Bonta additionally argued in the emergency filing that Trump failed to meet the legal requirements for such a federal deployment. "To put it bluntly, there is no invasion or rebellion in Los Angeles; there is civil unrest that is no different from episodes that regularly occur in communities throughout the country, and that is capable of being contained by state and local authorities working together," Bonta wrote. Breyer had earlier declined California's request to issue a temporary restraining order immediately and instead set the hearing for Thursday afternoon in San Francisco and gave the Trump administration the time they requested to file a response. In their response, Department of Justice lawyers asked the judge to deny Newsom's request for a temporary restraining order that would limit the military to protecting federal buildings, arguing such an order would amount to a "rioters' veto to enforcement of federal law." "The extraordinary relief Plaintiffs request would judicially countermand the Commander in Chief's military directives -- and would do so in the posture of a temporary restraining order, no less. That would be unprecedented. It would be constitutionally anathema. And it would be dangerous," they wrote. They also argued California should not "second-guess the President's judgment that federal reinforcements were necessary" and that a federal court should defer to the president's discretion on military matters. MORE: How the immigration protests in Los Angeles started Trump on Tuesday defended his decision to send in the National Guard and Marines, saying the situation in LA was "out of control." "All I want is safety. I just want a safe area," he told reporters. "Los Angeles was under siege until we got there. The police were unable to handle it." Trump went on to suggest that he sent in the National Guard and the Marines to send a message to other cities not to interfere with ICE operations or they will be met with equal or greater force. "If we didn't attack this one very strongly, you'd have them all over the country," he said. "But I can inform the rest of the country that when they do it, if they do it, they're going to be met with equal or greater force than we met right here." ABC News' Jeffrey Cook and Peter Charalambous, Alyssa Pone and Alexandra Hutzler contributed to this report. Appeals court delays order that would have blocked Trump from continuing to deploy National Guard in California originally appeared on


Indianapolis Star
44 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
Indiana University changes rule about overnight protests on campus
The Indiana University board of trustees voted to change a policy intended to tighten restrictions on campus protests after a federal judge found it was likely to violate the First Amendment. Nearly a year ago, IU's board passed its "expressive activity" policy to ban overnight camping and the use of unapproved structures in response to a pro-Palestinian solidarity encampment that stood on campus for months during the spring 2024 semester. Violators faced a range of possible disciplinary actions, including suspension, expulsion, loss of university employment and a responsibility to pay for damages. However, the policy was paused after a judge ruled two weeks ago that it likely violates the campus community's First Amendment rights. Time, place and manner restrictions on free expression are legal as long as they are narrowly tailored; the judge's order said IU's policy was not. During its June 12 meeting, the board unanimously agreed to end the prohibition on overnight protesting and other expressive activities. It also added language saying the policy should be "interpreted in favor of free speech rights." While the overnight restriction is removed, protests stretching after hours, like the pro-Palestinian encampment, may still prove difficult. Camping is not permitted, and protesters must still obtain prior approval for structures. The trustees voted to amend the policy at their June 12 meeting without explicitly detailing the changes before the vote. The policy was updated online about 15 minutes after the vote. General Counsel Anthony Prather said he and other administrators were evaluating changes to the policy prior to the court's decision. The new version is a combination of stakeholder feedback and takeaways from the preliminary injunction, he said. Newly sworn-in trustee James Bopp Jr., a longtime conservative First Amendment lawyer, said he agreed that the previous policy overstepped constitutional rights. The new version, he said, adequately weighs guardrails and rights to on-campus speech. "This issue, not only in my general practice but for the purposes of the university, is of critical importance that we get this right," Bopp said. "I really want to compliment the general counsel, in my opinion, as having done that now." Trustees were also set to discuss resident undergraduate tuition, the budget and President Pamela Whitten's compensation during the June 12 meeting. Last year, trustees crafted an update to IU's "expressive activities" policy after a Dunn Meadow encampment resulted in several clashes with police and dozens of arrests. The university fenced off the area last school year to make pricey repairs it said the encampment caused. Three of the nine trustees voted against it during its initial passage last summer. Indiana Gov. Mike Braun has since removed three of the board's members, including two of the dissenting trustees, under his new appointment powers, codified last legislative session. The campus community widely decried the policy as unconstitutional, and protesters staged midnight candlelight vigils throughout the fall 2024 semester to test and challenge IU's enforcement of the policy. The Indiana Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging the policy on First Amendment grounds last August, which resulted in the policy's temporary halt this May. The USA TODAY Network - Indiana's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners.


USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Trump's throwing himself a parade while red and blue states join LA in protest
Trump's throwing himself a parade while red and blue states join LA in protest | Opinion I don't know whether June 14 will mark an inflection point, but it will offer a staggering contrast between the power-drunk despotism of Trump and the 'Aw, hell no' attitude of many Americans. Show Caption Hide Caption Armored tanks arrive in DC for Trump's military birthday parade As Washington, D.C. prepares for the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army, armored tanks have begun to arrive ahead of Saturday's celebration. The false narrative, since President Donald Trump's administration provoked protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Los Angeles, has been that it's a blue-city problem in a blue state with a liberal governor who can't control his citizens. But when protests over Trump's draconian immigrant crackdown and his authoritarian presidency spread across the country, as they will likely do on June 14 with "No Kings" protests expected in more than 2,000 cities and towns, the California narrative will swiftly go 'Poof!' We've already seen anti-ICE protests bubble up in the deep-red state of Texas, with more to follow June 14. Will the No Kings protest in Abilene, Texas, prompt Trump to send in U.S. Marines, as he has done in Los Angeles? Trump won't send the Marines into red states to deal with protesters Neither will the protests planned for Tupelo, Mississippi, or Eureka Springs, Arkansas, or Sebring, Florida, or Worland, Wyoming. But what they will do is show the president, who will be plunked in Washington, DC, watching an entirely unnecessary $45 million military parade that just so happens to coincide with his 79th birthday, that Americans are angry, and not just the ones in those disreputable blue states. Opinion: After LA, Trump hard launches new First Amendment – only MAGA can protest I don't know whether June 14 will mark an inflection point, but it will certainly offer a staggering contrast between the power-drunk despotism of President Trump and the 'Aw, hell no' attitude of a growing swath of the U.S. population. Sen. Padilla in handcuffs was the latest sign of Trump's authoritarianism On June 12, Americans saw video of a U.S. senator, Alex Padilla, being grabbed and dragged out of an LA news conference featuring Kristi Noem, head of the Department of Homeland Security. Padilla was asking a pointed question before being hauled off and then, in the hallway outside, pushed face first to the ground and handcuffed. That's a good way to boost turnout at this weekend's protests. DHS head Kristi Noem says feds are there to 'liberate' LA Almost as chilling as the administration's manhandling of a sitting U.S. senator was what Noem said during the press conference about the U.S. military presence in Los Angeles: 'We are not going away. We are staying here to liberate the city from the socialists and the burdensome leadership that this governor and that this mayor have placed on this country and what they have tried to insert into the city.' Opinion: Trump's military show of force in LA and DC camouflage his failing presidency That kind of gives away the whole game: Trump administration officials think they can send federal troops into a city and indulge in some causal 'regime change' under the pretense of a bunch of made-up nonsense. That's wildly un-American. Yet U.S. soldiers on June 14 will be forced to take part in a sprawling parade that's at least partially in homage to a man who thinks that's how America is supposed to work? What are we even doing here, folks? 'No Kings' protests will give voice to nationwide disapproval of Trump What has transpired in LA has nothing to do with it being a blue city in a blue state with a Democratic governor. It has to do with the American people, most of whom don't like masked federal goons grabbing their neighbors off the streets and not giving them due process. It has to do with many voters who were promised that President Trump would only target 'dangerous' immigrants, not friends and neighbors, or people who've been part of a community for years. It has to do with Americans who see the handcuffing of a U.S. senator for no justifiable reason as anti-democratic and a dangerous escalation. The big and small protests that will soon envelop small towns and big cities in all 50 states will show Trump and his 'lie first, then lie some more' administration that many Americans reject government-sponsored cruelty. The No Kings events will show the president and his people they can't fool all the people all of the time ‒ not even close. The booing of Trump will only get louder Trump and first lady Melania Trump were booed, rightfully, at the Kennedy Center when they arrived for a musical on June 11. The president's approval rating stinks, and a new Quinnipiac poll found him underwater on every issue, from immigration to trade to the economy. A recent poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that 60% of Americans don't think Trump's military parade is a good use of taxpayer money. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. So here's what's going to happen Saturday. Trump's narrative that liberal strongholds like Los Angeles are bastions of radical protesters will be soundly derailed by the appearance of protesters in states red, blue and purple. The hypocrisy of his calling out California Gov. Gavin Newsom and claiming the state is out of control will be highlighted by the fact that Trump says the same thing about red-state governors dealing with widespread protests. Trump himself will be scowling, hopefully in the rain if the weather forecast holds, as the soldiers he forced to march in front of him go by, their tanks and other vehicles needlessly tearing up the streets of the nation's capital. That mandated, wildly expensive parade to satisfy one small man's ego will be drowned out by myriad protests that will collectively deliver to Trump a message from a growing number of Americans: 'You stink.' Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at