SCOTT GOVERNOR SCOTT Nlcl'l'mcl. ?3 . Of?ce ofthe Secretary Post Of?ce Box 7864 I 0 I A 0F Madison. WI ADMINISTRATION May 8, 2015 George Zaske 21 1 Plainview Drive River Falls, WI 54022 Dear Mr. Zaske: This is in response to your public records request for copies of the drafting memos, analysis and supporting documents justifying the proposed changes to Family Care and IRIS (Include, Respect, I Self?Direct) in Governor Walker?s proposed budget. We are providing the attached documents in response to your request. We have withheld or redacted the following information from the records we compiled. We have removed drafts, notes, preliminary computations, and like materials that fall outside the de?nition of ?record? as set forth in 1932(2), Wis. Stats. Also note, some of the materials that we are withholding consist of preliminary analysis and deliberations created and exchanged by and among DOA and Governor?s of?ce employees in preparation of the Governor?s budget, before the budget legislation was introduced in the legislature. By law, the Governor is responsible for the state ?s biennial budget, and the Department of Administration is mandated to prepare the budget under the direction of the Governor. See Wis. Stats. 16.42?16.47. A candid, complete, and creative evaluation of the state?s ?nances within DOA and within the Governor?s of?ce is inherent to the development of the Governor?s executive budget. Making these internal discussions just as open to disclosure as the ?nal version of the budget would inhibit the free exchange of ideas, opinions, proposals, and recommendations among those involved in deciding what to include in the ?nal legislation. Disclosure of this narrow category of records?limited to discussions within DOA, within the Governor?s of?ce, and between the two-?would discourage frank internal discussion and harm the quality of the ?nal executive decision. Further, it would disincentivize the free exchange of emails and written documentation necessary to hone the precise language and calculations that are key to proper budget development. Without a doubt, this would signi?cantly inhibit the ef?ciency and ef?cacy of the employees who develop the detailed language and financial calculations for the budget. In addition, disclosure would risk public confusion as a result of publishing n0n~?nal proposals, which may not ultimately have been adopted. IS OPEN OR BUSINESS Wisconsingm- April 30, 2015 Page 2 The public interests supporting con?dentiality have long been nationally recognized, including in federal law. See Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 USC 552(b)(5); Bureau of National Affairs v. US. Department of Justice, 742 F.2d 1484 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Conversely, the public interest in accessing these particular records is limited. All legislation is publicly available once it is introduced, and numerous documents are produced and released to the public explaining and justifying the speci?cs of the executive budget. Thus, pursuant to the required balancing test, we have concluded that the public interest in protecting the quality of the executive decision-making process and maintaining the ef?ciency and ef?cacy of the budget writing process outweighs the public interest in the release of these materials. Further, the public records law exempts from public disclosure drafts, notes, preliminary computations, and like materials prepared for the originator's personal use or prepared by the originator in the name of a person for whom the originator is working. Wis. Stats. 1932(2). These preliminary analyses and deliberations are ?like materials? similar to drafts, notes, and preliminary computations prepared by individuals working for the Governor on creation of the Governor?s biennial budget. Release of these preliminary materials would be contrary to the conduct of government business, running counter to 1932(2) ?s exclusions and to the declaration of policy in 19.31, Wis. Stats. Note that we have not analyzed communications with representatives of the Legislative Reference Bureau under this reasoning. We are providing these communications because it is our understanding that they are already publicly available. We are required to inform you that to the extent this amounts to a partial denial of a written request for records, it is subject to review by mandamus under 1937(1), Wis. Stats, or upon application to the Attorney General or a District Attorney.