The WPPA’s commitment to protecting the law enforcement profession, its members’ benefits, and the integrity of public institutions was again on full display when the WPPA secured a recent major legal victory in Racine.

In a significant win for transparency and accountability, the WPPA prevailed in a public records lawsuit against the City of Racine, securing a court order that requires the City to release previously withheld, unredacted billing records.

The case arose after the WPPA submitted a public records request seeking documentation of the expenses the City had incurred in a separate legal dispute over the City’s efforts to strip health insurance benefits from its retired officers, disabled officers, and officers’ dependents (which the WPPA also won). Although the City produced records in response, nearly every substantive entry was heavily redacted under broad claims of attorney-client privilege and attorney work product. After repeated attempts to obtain meaningful disclosure failed, the WPPA filed a petition for a writ of mandamus—asking the court to enforce Wisconsin’s strong open records laws.

After reviewing both the redacted and unredacted records, the Racine County Circuit Court rejected the City’s sweeping use of privilege and found that the vast majority of the redactions were improper. In a detailed, seven-page decision issued on December 9, 2025, the court ruled that the City had “not met its required burden for specifically asserting privileged redactions” and ordered that the billing statements be produced to the WPPA in full, without redactions, within 10 days.

The court emphasized that Wisconsin’s public records law carries one of the strongest pro-transparency policy statements in the nation and that evidentiary privileges must be interpreted narrowly—not expansively. The decision made clear that simply referencing legal topics, discussions, or drafting activity does not automatically transform a billing entry into privileged material. As the court noted, it is the specific content of a confidential legal communication that may be protected—not the mere fact that legal work occurred.

In one striking finding, the court reported that after comparing dozens of redacted and unredacted entries, it did “not find one legitimately privileged entry” in the sample reviewed. The City’s use of boilerplate privilege logs was also rejected as legally insufficient under Wisconsin precedent.

This important victory was argued on behalf of the WPPA by our Director of Legal & Field Services Roger Palek and Staff Attorney Kate Harrell, whose advocacy ensured that the City was held to its statutory obligation of openness. Their work in this case reinforces the WPPA’s longstanding commitment to defending transparency, fair dealing, and the public’s right to understand how government entities operate—especially when those operations directly affect public-safety employees and their benefits.

Beyond the immediate disclosure of documents, the ruling carries broader implications. It reaffirms that municipalities cannot shield broad categories of records from public scrutiny simply by labeling them “privileged,” and it underscores that courts will closely examine such claims when challenged. For WPPA members, the decision is another example of how the Association uses legal advocacy not only at the bargaining table and in discipline cases, but also to protect integrity and accountability in government decision-making.

The WPPA will continue to monitor compliance with the court’s order and will evaluate the released records as part of its ongoing work on behalf of our members. This case stands as another reminder that when transparency is challenged, the WPPA is ready—and willing—to take the fight to court.