On May 16, 2026, pricecounty.fun sent public records requests to every town and village clerk in Price County. We asked for something straightforward: meeting agendas and minutes for 2025 and 2026, the same documents every municipal clerk in Wisconsin is legally required to maintain and make available.
Seventeen days later, only four municipalities have responded. Fifteen have said nothing at all.
That’s not a typo. Seventy-nine percent of Price County’s local governments have failed to comply with a state law designed to give residents a window into how their tax dollars are spent.
What We Requested
On May 16, 2026, we sent requests under the Wisconsin Public Records Law (Wis. Stat. §19.31–19.39) to 17 municipalities in Price County. The request was simple: provide meeting agendas and minutes for calendar years 2025 and 2026.
Meeting agendas and minutes are not exotic or sensitive documents. They are the most basic records of local governance: who voted on what, how money was allocated, what matters were discussed. Every town board, village board, and city council in Wisconsin is required by law to keep them.
We chose this request deliberately. If a municipality can’t or won’t provide agendas and minutes, the floor-level minimum of public accountability, it raises serious questions about what else might be difficult to obtain.
Who Responded: Four Clerks Who Did It Right
Four municipalities responded promptly and completely. They deserve recognition, not because they did anything extraordinary, but because they demonstrated that compliance is entirely manageable, even for small offices with limited resources.
Village of Catawba, 2 Days
Village Clerk Shirley Kempen responded within 48 hours, sending complete ZIP files containing all 2025 and 2026 meeting agendas and minutes. The Village of Catawba board meets on the third Monday of each month, and Kempen’s swift response shows that even the smallest municipalities can meet their obligations under the law.
Town of Elk, 2 Days
Town Clerk Regina Damjanovic also responded within 48 hours, directing us to the town’s website at townofelk.com, where all meeting agendas and minutes are publicly available. The Town of Elk’s approach is a model of proactive transparency: rather than waiting for individual requests, the clerk makes records freely accessible online.
City of Park Falls, 3 Days
City Clerk Shannon Greenwood responded within three days, adding pricecounty.fun to the city’s agenda distribution list. Park Falls posts minutes on the city website and also publishes them in the local newspaper. Greenwood’s response went beyond mere compliance, she ensured ongoing access.
These three clerks proved something important: responding to a public records request is not burdensome. It doesn’t require a large staff or an expensive records system. It requires a commitment to the principle that public records belong to the public.
Town of Emery, 5 Days
Town Clerk Judy Freeman initially acknowledged our request on May 19 and said she would follow up. Two days later, on May 21, Freeman sent a complete archive of Town of Emery meeting agendas and minutes spanning from January 2025 through May 2026, including agendas for meetings as recent as April and May 2026, and minutes through the May 5, 2026 meeting. The records were thorough and well-organized, covering every regular board meeting, special meeting, and annual meeting in that period. Emery proves that even a delay of a few days can be managed with proper communication. Freeman told us she’d follow up, and she did.
Who Didn’t Respond: 15 Silent Municipalities
The following 15 municipalities did not respond to our records request as of June 2, 2026, 17 days after we sent it:
- Town of Worcester
- Village of Kennan
- Town of Catawba
- Town of Eisenstein
- Town of Flambeau
- Town of Georgetown
- Town of Hackett
- Town of Harmony
- Town of Hill
- Town of Kennan
- Town of Knox
- Town of Lake
- Town of Ogema
- Town of Spirit
- Town of Prentice
Update June 2, 2026: The Town of Emery clerk, Judy Freeman, initially acknowledged our request on May 19 and said she would follow up. On May 21, she sent a complete set of agendas and minutes covering January 2025 through May 2026, every meeting documented. Emery’s response, while a few days later than the others, was thorough and professional. We’ve updated our count accordingly: four municipalities responded, 15 did not.
We want to be clear: many of these municipalities are small. Some clerks are part-time. The Town of Hackett, for example, has fewer than 300 residents. We understand that small offices face real challenges. But the Wisconsin Public Records Law applies to every municipality in the state, regardless of size. And the four clerks who responded prove that compliance is achievable, even for the smallest jurisdictions.
What’s more, the statute doesn’t just require eventual response, it requires prompt communication. Wis. Stat. §19.35(4) states that a records custodian “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.” Even a one-sentence email saying “we’re working on it and expect to have records by [date]” would satisfy the law’s communication requirement. None of the 15 non-responsive municipalities provided even that.
The Law: What Wisconsin Requires
Wisconsin’s Public Records Law, codified at Wis. Stat. §19.31–19.39, opens with an unambiguous declaration of purpose:
“It is declared to be the public policy of this state that all persons are entitled to the greatest possible information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those officers and employees who represent them.”
The law is not optional. Section 19.35(4) requires that a records custodian respond “as soon as practicable and without delay.” The Wisconsin Department of Justice has interpreted this to mean approximately 10 business days for most requests.
Our request was sent on May 16, 2026. The 10-business-day guideline passed on approximately May 30. None of the 14 non-responsive municipalities have provided a written explanation for the delay, as the statute requires.
In plain terms: every one of these municipalities is currently in violation of state law. Not borderline. Not ambiguous. In violation.
It’s worth noting that Wisconsin ranks 48th out of 50 states for public records compliance, according to the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council. Price County’s experience is not an anomaly, it’s part of a statewide pattern. But that pattern doesn’t make it acceptable.
Village of Prentice: A Website Two Months Behind
We initially did not send a records request to the Village of Prentice because we believed their records were already available online. When we checked on June 1, 2026, we found that assumption was wrong.
The village’s official website, vil.prentice.wi.gov, shows:
- Agendas posted only through April 13, 2026
- Meeting minutes only through March 9, 2026
- The April 13 meeting minutes, from nearly seven weeks ago, are missing
- No agenda or minutes for the May 11 board meeting
The missing records are not trivial. According to reporting by the APG Price County Review on May 8, the April board meeting included discussion of selling the village’s municipal golf course. That conversation, about the potential disposition of public property, is not reflected in any publicly available minutes.
We also discovered that the village website does not list a direct email address for the village clerk. Residents who want to request records must send email to [email protected] or [email protected], generic addresses with no indication of who, if anyone, monitors them.
On June 1, we sent a records request to both addresses. We’ll report what happens.
Why This Matters
Price County is home to 13,988 residents spread across 1,254 square miles. That’s 11.2 people per square mile. Thirty percent of residents are 65 or older, one of the highest rates in Wisconsin. The median household income is $60,546, which is $11,500 below the state average. Only 17.9% of residents hold a bachelor’s degree.
These aren’t just statistics. They describe a population that faces real barriers to in-person civic participation. When you live in the Town of Eisenstein and the town board meets 20 miles away on a Tuesday night in January, you need published minutes to know what happened. When you’re on a fixed income in the Town of Ogema and the board is setting the property tax rate that determines whether you can afford to stay in your home, you deserve to know how they voted.
Town boards in Wisconsin set property tax rates. They approve spending. They make land-use decisions that affect property values, road maintenance, and emergency services. Without public meeting minutes, residents have no way to verify that these decisions are being made properly, or even made at all.
The Village of Catawba, with a population under 500, responded in two days. The Town of Elk, one of the county’s smaller municipalities, puts everything online proactively. If they can do it, the argument that compliance is too burdensome for small offices doesn’t hold up.
This is also about the stories that public records make possible. Our investigation into the Worcester gravel pit and proposed asphalt plant, a conditional use permit that could affect neighboring property values and the local environment, was built on public records. Our reporting on the Village of Catawba’s US-8 property purchase came from meeting minutes. Without access to these documents, none of that reporting would exist.
What Happens Next
We have multiple open records requests at different stages:
- Municipal meeting records (sent May 16): 14 of 17 municipalities never responded. We sent follow-up emails on June 1. Under Wisconsin law, these municipalities now have until June 16 (10 business days from our follow-up) to provide the records or a written explanation for the delay.
- Sheriff and Flock camera records (sent May 25): Price County and the City of Phillips have until June 8 to respond to our requests for Flock Safety contracts, sheriff’s office records, and related documents.
- Sheriff candidate question (sent June 1): We asked both candidates for Price County Sheriff, Robert Hawn and Walt Madsen, whether they would renew the Flock Safety contract using county tax revenue. Walt Madsen has responded. Robert Hawn has not.
If any municipality or office fails to respond by its respective deadline, we will send a formal notice citing Wis. Stat. §19.35(4), which requires a written explanation for any delay. We will publish updates as responses come in and note response times for every municipality.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Wisconsin Public Records Law?
Wisconsin’s Public Records Law, codified at Wis. Stat. §19.31–19.39, guarantees that any person has the right to inspect and copy public records held by government bodies in the state. You do not need to be a resident, and you do not need to explain why you want the records.
What is the deadline for a government body to respond to a records request?
The law requires a response “as soon as practicable and without delay.” The Wisconsin Department of Justice has interpreted this to mean approximately 10 business days for most requests. If a records custodian needs more time, they must provide a written explanation for the delay.
What happens if a municipality ignores a records request?
If a municipality fails to respond, the requester can file a complaint with the Wisconsin Department of Justice or pursue a mandamus action in circuit court to compel disclosure. Courts can award attorney fees and damages to successful plaintiffs.
Can a municipality charge for copies of public records?
Yes, but only the actual cost of reproduction. Under Wis. Stat. §19.35(3), municipalities may charge a fee for copies, but it cannot exceed the actual cost of producing them. For electronic records, many municipalities provide them at no charge.
Why did you request meeting minutes specifically?
Meeting agendas and minutes are the most basic records of local governance. If a municipality cannot or will not provide these, it raises questions about what other records might be difficult to obtain. They are also the documents most residents need to understand how their local government makes decisions.
What is Flock Safety and why does it matter for Price County?
Flock Safety manufactures automated license plate readers (ALPRs) and surveillance systems used by law enforcement. Price County’s current Flock contract is funded through federal ARPA money that expires December 31, 2026. We asked both candidates for sheriff whether they would renew the contract using county tax revenue. Read our SignalTrace investigation for more on surveillance technology in northern Wisconsin.
See also: our reporting on Price County’s surveillance cameras
How to File Your Own Records Request
Wisconsin’s Public Records Law gives every person, not just journalists, not just residents, any person, the right to request records from any government body in the state. You don’t need a lawyer. You don’t need a special form. Here’s how:
- Identify the records custodian. For towns and villages, this is usually the clerk. For counties, it’s often the county clerk or a designated records custodian.
- Put your request in writing. Email is sufficient under Wisconsin law. Be specific about what you want, “meeting agendas and minutes for 2025 and 2026” is a good example.
- Cite the law. A simple reference to “Wisconsin Public Records Law, §19.31–19.39” makes clear that you know your rights.
- Send it. Most municipal websites list a clerk’s email address. If they don’t, a phone call to the municipal office will get you one.
- Follow up. If you don’t hear back within 10 business days, send a follow-up citing §19.35(4), which requires a response “as soon as practicable and without delay.”
You don’t have to explain why you want the records. You don’t have to be a resident of the municipality. The law applies to everyone.
If a municipality denies your request, they must provide a written explanation. If they ignore you entirely, you can file a complaint with the Wisconsin Department of Justice or pursue a mandamus action in circuit court, though we hope it doesn’t come to that in Price County.
Transparency isn’t a luxury. It’s the minimum standard that every resident of this state is entitled to. Fourteen of our 17 municipalities aren’t meeting it. The data speaks for itself.
We will update this article as municipalities respond. If you’ve had difficulty obtaining public records from a Price County municipality, we’d like to hear about it. Contact us through pricecounty.fun.
Reporting by the Price County Fun Editorial Team. Last updated June 2, 2026. If you’ve had difficulty obtaining public records from a Price County municipality, contact us at [email protected].
See also: our guide to free camping in Wisconsin, our 48-hour Price County itinerary, what makes Price County communities special and our guide to Price County public records
See also: our investigation into Flock cameras in Price County
See also: our guide to every town in Price County
Related: One judge handling 174 cases in a single week
Update July 16, 2026
This article was our initial report from June 2, 2026. The situation has evolved significantly since publication. For the most current status, see our updated and expanded coverage here.
As of July 16, 2026: 17 of 22 Price County municipalities have responded or are in progress. Only 2 remain non-responsive (Town of Harmony and Town of Ogema). The original non-responses were primarily caused by email delivery failures (spam filters), not willful non-compliance. The Town of Prentice — a separate municipality from the Village of Prentice — has been added to our tracking as a new request. Our inbox tracking system has been fixed to prevent future gaps.