When Transparency Fails: The Anthony Sleck Case and Worceste

When Price County’s open records requests revealed that 15 of 19 municipalities ignored the law, one official’s response stood out. Anthony Sleck didn’t just refuse to provide records — he questioned whether the law applied to him.

Quick Answer: The Anthony Sleck case illustrates what happens when Wisconsin’s open records law meets local resistance. One official’s refusal revealed systemic gaps in enforcement.

Quick Answer: The Anthony Sleck case illustrates what happens when Wisconsin’s open records law meets local resistance. One official’s refusal to comply with public records requests revealed systemic gaps in enforcement.

When Transparency Fails: The Anthony Sleck Case and Worcester’s Open Records Crisis

A Price County man sued his own town board for withholding public records. A court ruled against Worcester. But nearly six years later, residents say the transparency battle isn’t over. Read more Price County stories from across the web.

—

In the fall of 2020, Anthony “Tony” Sleck did something that most people would never consider: he sued his own town government.

The Town of Worcester, a small community in southeastern Price County, had. According to Sleck’s lawsuit. Repeatedly violated Wisconsin’s open records law. His complaint alleged eleven separate violations. Several were resolved quickly. But the core issue , a town board that would not provide public records to its own residents , became a legal fight that would last for years.

The Wisconsin Transparency Project, a nonprofit legal organization, took up his case. Their conclusion was definitive: the Town of Worcester had violated the open records law.

The 2020 Lawsuit

Sleck filed his lawsuit in October 2020, alleging that the Worcester Town Board had withheld public records that he was legally entitled to access. The case centered on records related to town finances and decision-making that Sleck believed were being hidden from the public.

The Wisconsin Transparency Project, which provides legal support for open records cases, documented the violations. The Price County circuit court ultimately sided with Sleck on multiple counts, ruling that Worcester had failed to comply with the state’s open records requirements.

As one letter to the editor in the Price County Review framed the issue: “When a town commits to millions in debt without disclosing the interest cost to the people that are paying for it, transparency has failed.”

The Deeper Context

The Sleck case was not an isolated incident. It reflects a systemic problem in small-town government: when boards operate with minimal public oversight, the records that allow citizens to hold them accountable can become inaccessible.

The specific records Sleck requested appear to have involved town financial decisions. A small town committing to debt without disclosing the terms , interest rates, payment schedules, and total costs , is precisely the kind of decision that Wisconsin’s open records law is designed to make transparent.

When those records are withheld, the public cannot know whether their tax dollars are being spent wisely. Worse, when the board that controls the records also decides which records to release, there is no meaningful check on their power.

The Status of the Case

Documents from Wispolitics and local news sources confirm the court ruled against Worcester. But the question of whether the town has fully complied with the court’s ruling remains open.

Recent social media posts on the “My Price County” Facebook page indicate that Worcester residents continue to raise concerns about transparency. One post from February 12, 2025 asked directly: “Why does the Town of Worcester Board not respond to or provide transparency on open records requests and what is the plan to address the accountability?”

The question went unanswered.

What Wisconsin Law Requires

Wisconsin’s open records law (Wisconsin Statutes 19.31-19.39) establishes a strong presumption in favor of public access to government records. Key provisions include:

Presumption of access. All records are presumed open unless specifically exempted by law.

Prompt response. Requests must be responded to “as soon as practicable and without delay.”

No excessive burden. The public body cannot require requesters to explain why they want the records.

Limited exceptions. Even exempt records often have portions that must be disclosed.

Enforcement. Citizens can sue to enforce the law and recover attorneys’ fees if they prevail.

The Sleck case demonstrates that even when these rights are clearly established in law, they are not always honored in practice. And when a small town violates the law, the citizens who enforce it must bear the burden of litigation.

Connections to the Hastings Allegations

The Worcester transparency crisis echoes the broader concerns raised by former Supervisor Jason Hastings, who alleged that constituent emails to the County Board were being blocked. Both cases involve the same fundamental issue: citizens attempting to access information about their government and being prevented from doing so.

If the Town of Worcester withheld financial records from residents, and if the County Board is blocking constituent emails, Price County has a transparency problem that extends beyond any single office or official.

The Cost of Secrecy

When local government operates without transparency, the costs are real:

Financial. Undisclosed debt terms can cost taxpayers thousands in unnecessary interest.

Democratic. Citizens cannot make informed voting decisions without access to information about their government’s performance.

Legal. Violating open records law can result in lawsuits, attorneys’ fees, and court-ordered compliance.

Trust. Once transparency is compromised, restoring public trust takes years.

Questions for Worcester Officials

1. Has the Town of Worcester fully complied with the court’s ruling in the Sleck case?
2. What specific records were at issue in the lawsuit?
3. What policies has the town adopted to ensure future open records compliance?
4. How does the town respond to open records requests today?
5. What training do town officials receive on open records requirements?
6. Are there any other pending open records issues involving the town?
7. What is the total cost of the Sleck litigation to Worcester taxpayers?

The Price County Pattern

The Worcester case is not isolated. Worcester is also at the center of a proposed gravel pit and asphalt plant that has drawn resident opposition. Consider the pattern of transparency issues across Price County:

Worcester Town Board: Court ruling for open records violations (2020-2025)
– County Board: Hastings alleged blocked constituent emails (2026)
– Budget transparency: Social media reports of “municipal cover-up” and “empty carbon ledgers”
– Audit scrutiny: County administration facing financial review questions
– DA office: 8-month vacancy with limited public communication

This pattern suggests that Price County has a systemic transparency problem that goes beyond any single official or board. It is a cultural issue within county and local government that requires systemic reform.

What Can Be Done

For Worcester residents: Continue to file open records requests. Document any delays or denials. Contact the Wisconsin Transparency Project for legal support. Attend town board meetings and ask questions.

For Price County residents: Demand that the County Board adopt clear open records policies. Ask candidates about their commitment to transparency. Support organizations that defend open records rights.

At the state level: Wisconsin could strengthen open records enforcement by requiring training for all elected officials, establishing penalties for knowing violations, and creating a state-level ombudsman to resolve disputes without litigation.

The Bottom Line

Tony Sleck went to court because he believed his town was hiding something. The court agreed with him. Nearly six years later, residents are still asking whether anything has changed.

Transparency is not optional in Wisconsin. It is the law. And when local government ignores that law, citizens should not have to sue to enforce their rights. They should be able to trust that their government will follow the rules without being taken to court.

In Worcester, that trust was broken. The question is whether it can be rebuilt.

—

This article is part of an ongoing investigative series by Northwoods Explorer covering Price County governance, transparency, and accountability. Related coverage: Who Blocked the Emails?, The Hastings Resignation, The Good Old Boys Club.

Sources: Wisconsin Transparency Project documentation, Wispolitics press releases, APG-WI reporting (Price County Review), WJFW reporting (“Price County man wants answers from town board”), social media posts (My Price County Facebook group, February 2025).

Related Coverage

This investigation connects to our ongoing series:

See also: our complete Price County economic dashboard with sourced data on population, employment, wages, and federal spending.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are Wisconsin’s open records laws?

Wisconsin’s Public Records Law (Wis. Stat. § 19.31-19.39) presumes that all government records are open to the public, with limited exceptions. The law applies to all state and local government entities, including counties, municipalities, and school districts. Agencies must respond to records requests promptly.

What are common violations of open records laws?

Common violations include unreasonable delays in responding to requests, excessive fees, improper redactions, failure to preserve records, denying requests without legal basis, and requiring requestors to identify themselves or state their purpose — none of which are required under Wisconsin law.

How can residents enforce their open records rights in Price County?

Residents can file open records requests with any county office, appeal denials to the Wisconsin Department of Justice or circuit court, and request attorneys’ fees if they prevail in court. The Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council also provides guidance and advocacy for open government.

What penalties exist for violating open records laws?

Wisconsin law provides for actual damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees for successful open records lawsuits. Government officials who arbitrarily and capriciously deny records requests can be held personally liable for damages, though this standard can be difficult to meet in practice.