Judges: BRONSON C. La FOLLETTE, Attorney General
Filed Date: 12/4/1980
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
LEE SHERMAN DREYFUS, Governor State of Wisconsin
At the request of the Governor's Committee for People with Disabilities you ask my opinion on three questions which relate to the open meetings law.
1. Does s.
19.81 , Wisconsin Statutes, mean that governmental bodies including local governmental bodies are limited in *Page 252 their discretion in deciding whether to conduct the meetings in places that are physically accessible to persons with disabilities?
The answer is yes. Section
The statute is applicable to both state and local governmental bodies and to meeting places for open as well as closed sessions. A meeting cannot be initially convened in closed session. An open session must precede a closed session for the purposes of taking a vote and making announcement as required by sec.
A local governmental body has greater leeway in the selection of a meeting place than does a state governmental body. The Legislature has defined what standards are applicable to state governmental bodies. Sections
*Page 253(3) "Open session" means a meeting which is held in a place reasonably accessible to members of the public and open to all citizens at all times. In the case of a state governmental body, it means a meeting which is held in a building and room thereof which enables access by persons with functional limitations, as defined in s.
101.13 (1).
101.13 (1) In this section, "access" means the physical characteristics of a place which allow persons with functional limitations caused by impairments of sight, hearing, coordination or perception or persons with semiambulatory or nonambulatory disabilities to enter, circulate within and leave a place of employment or public building and to use the public toilet facilities and passenger elevators in the place of employment or public building without assistance.
In my opinion local governmental bodies can utilize meeting places reasonably accessible, with assistance, to persons with disabilities.
2. If a reasonable opportunity exists to conduct such meetings in accessible rooms of comparable size, is there discretion to choose a non-accessible location on the basis of convenience (i.e. immediate access to records or files) or tradition?
The answer is no. The statutory provisions set forth above indicate a legislative intent that reasonable access to all members of the public is to be accorded a higher priority than access of members to records and files or tradition.
3. If an accessible room for such meeting is not available and a person with physical limitations expresses a desire to attend, does the governmental body have a duty to make special arrangements to enable the person to attend?
As noted above, state governmental bodies must schedule meetings for and meet in a building and room which enables access by persons with functional limitations as defined in sec.
You also request my opinion on five questions which relate to obligations of counties to deliver services to mentally and physically disabled persons in a county other than that of residence and under various, and sometimes disputed, residency conditions. The underlying theme of the five questions is a delineation of state versus county responsibility for the individuals in the various hypothetical situations. It would be improper for me to offer an opinion on these five *Page 254 questions at this time since these matters are presently in litigation in which our office is serving as counsel for state interests. We will respond to the five questions when the litigation is completed if the litigation does not answer the questions.
BCL:RJV