Held for ransom — NLJ asks to inspect records related to past election ballots
Weston County Clerk Becky Hadlock wants to charge the News Letter Journal $375 to inspect public documents, specifically invoices and emails related to ballots purchased in past elections, after News Letter Journal Publisher and Editor-in-Chief Bob Bonnar made a request on Jan. 21 for newspaper employees to see those records.
In an email to Hadlock and County Attorney Michael Stulken, Bonnar made an official records request for access to “all invoices or correspondence (electronic and print) pertaining to the printing and handling of Weston County ballots for the primary and general elections of 2020, 2022 and 2024.”
“This request includes, but is not limited to, any invoices or communications from ES&S (Election Systems & Software) — or any other contractor or consultant who has provided election services to the county — related to the printing, preparation and handling of ballots for each of the six elections in question,” Bonnar said in the email. “We are especially interested in any documents that pertain to errors that may have been made in the preparation or printing of ballots intended for use in Weston County elections.”
Bonnar stated he believes the documents and the information they contain are of great public importance and encouraged the county to expedite the request, providing the information as soon as possible.
Stulken acknowledged receipt of the request the same day, but Hadlock never responded to the email. On Jan. 29, Stulken emailed Bonnar again to assure him that the request had “not fallen through the cracks” and that he was still working on the request with Hadlock.
On Feb. 7, Stulken sent an email to Bonnar with an attached response as to cost for the record inspection from Hadlock. No explanation on what the costs were related to were provided, and the following day Bonnar responded to the county attorney with a strong objection to the proposed cost to see the documents.
“This is another example of Clerk Hadlock’s incompetence. I am not asking for the creation of a public record, simply for the right to inspect existing records,” Bonnar said. “There should be no fee for that.”
He also said that the delay in providing the response was an insult to the taxpayers of Weston County who should be provided this information free of charge to “help restore confidence in elections.”
“That confidence has been eroded by Clerk Hadlock’s performance and by her attitude towards those members of the public who wish to see proof that our elections and the results have been accurate,” Bonnar said. “Please specify what these charges are for as I cannot see any justification for them at this point.”
Bonnar noted that the response from the county clerk indicates to him “that my worst fear may well be realized, that Clerk Hadlock is trying to conceal the fact that she has made this type of error in a previous election.”
He included Gov. Mark Gordon, Secretary of State Chuck Gray and Speaker of the House Chip Neiman in the email. He said he did so in hopes that Hadlock would recognize the seriousness of this situation and respond by providing the information — at no cost.
“It is in the public interest to release these documents and the clerk should have done so even without this request from the newspaper because she owes it to the constituents she let down in the last election and probably let down in previous elections,” Bonnar said.
Later that day, Stulken responded to Bonnar’s email, stating that he had no input in Hadlock’s statement on costs.
“I have no idea how she, the custodian of these particular records, came to this amount. The clerk needs to provide her basis for this,” Stulken said, noting that he takes very seriously “transparency, providing public records as required by law and election integrity.”
“I see no reason why these records can’t be immediately released and/or inspected,” Stulken said. “I don’t have custody of said records, so I do not have the ability to release them or make the Clerk release them.”
He added that he will continue to fulfill his duties to “you and the public” to ensure the request is responded to.
Hadlock failed to reply or offer any explanation, and on Feb. 10, Bonnar responded to Stulken, thanking him for the “immediacy and honesty” of his response.
“It is alarming to hear that Clerk Hadlock has assessed this fee without utilizing the county’s legal counsel, and I must apologize because I assumed that such consultations were the reason I waited 17 days before getting a response from the custodian of the record,” Bonnar said. “I now question the legality of the delay in Clerk Hadlock providing this response, as I was not informed of any reason why this record could not be provided immediately as outlined in Wyoming Statute 16-4-202(c)(ii).”
Bonnar also suggested that Hadlock’s refusal to provide any justification for the proposed fee for inspection of the records is in violation of Wyoming Statute 16-4-204(a) which states, “Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing a fee to be charged as a condition of making a public record available for inspection.”
“Clerk Hadlock’s decision to impose this fee without any indication of what services are being performed by her office to justify the charge also suggests a probable violation of subsection (c) of this statute which states, ‘any fees or charges assessed by a custodian of a public record shall first be authorized by duly enacted or adopted statute, rule, resolution, ordinance, executive order or other like authority,’” Bonnar said. “As the custodian of the record, Clerk Hadlock has a burden to indicate what services she is specifically charging for, and responding to this very reasonable records request in such a vague manner appears on the surface to be yet another attempt by the County Clerk to ignore state law when it is convenient. In this case it is also a demonstration of her desire to abuse her authority over these records.”
He then formally asked Stulken to investigate the potential violations of Wyoming statute by Hadlock. Bonnar noted that if Stulken feels his office would be conflicted in such a matter, he could defer to another qualified prosecutor to investigate instead.
Bonnar also responded by sending an email directly to Hadlock, in which he explained that there is no justification for the fee indicated for inspection of the records, “as retrieval of the records provides none of the rationale generally given for such charges under Wyoming law.”
He noted that the records requested can be produced for inspection with limited effort by her office because they should be easy to retrieve and that the volume of records requested should not be significant.
“Given the high degree of public interest in these records, and the fact that your own mismanagement of the 2024 general election elevated that interest, I believe it is incumbent on you to treat this request with sincerity and prioritize providing these public records for inspection as soon as possible,” Bonnar said.
He then offered to have an NLJ employee come to her office to inspect the records and take photos of them, since the office is right across the street. Bonnar also noted that the documents could be provided electronically via the flash drives provided by the News Letter Journal for use in retrieving audio records of county commission meetings from Hadlock’s office.
“Please advise immediately as to how and when you will be making the documents — or a drive with the documents on it — available,” he concluded.
According to Wyoming Press Association Attorney Chris Wages, there are reasons an entity could charge to inspect electronic documents but in this case none of those reasons are apparent.
“A reasonable reason doesn’t come to mind other than a public official is annoyed by a request. She serves the public and the paper is a conduit to public information,” he said.
He also stated that the county clerk is required to provide the reason for assessing a fee so the charges could be discussed, and noted that any email sent by the clerk on county time is a public record and the public has a right to access that information.