Wis. quasi-gov't groups subject to info requests

In another case, the court said officials must hand over information from closed government meetings as evidence in lawsuits.

The decisions' impact is twofold: Quasi-governmental groups brokering multimillion-dollar business deals are open to as much public scrutiny as any other government body, and closed meetings about government workers' performances or other sensitive matters aren't completely secret.

"Absolute victories for the citizens of this state," said Peter Fox, executive director of the Wisconsin Newspaper Association, which filed briefs in both cases. "It's really about citizens and ... the ability of local governments to operate fully in public view."

The first case involved the Beaver Dam Area Development Corp. A citizens group complained the organization secretly negotiated a deal with Wal-Mart Stores Inc. in 2003 to bring a $55 million distribution center to the city.

Former Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager filed a complaint in 2004, arguing the development group must follow open government laws because it's funded by the city and housed in the city's municipal building.

Dodge County Circuit Judge Richard O. Wright disagreed and threw out Lautenschlager's complaint. The state challenged that ruling, and an appeals court sent the matter directly to the Supreme Court.

In a 4-2 decision, the court concluded an entity is a quasi-governmental body subject to open government laws if it resembles government in "function, effect or status." Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, writing for the majority, did not lay out criteria for determining that, saying it should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

But she said the Beaver Dam development group qualifies because it is funded exclusively by tax dollars; its office was in the municipal building when the complaint was filed; and the city provided it with support and supplies.

The court chose not to punish the development group for violating open meetings laws or invalidate actions taken at its meetings. Bradley said that wouldn't be fair because the court had just announced a new test for determining whether it was subject to the open government laws.