The Menominee Indian School District has denied a resident’s public records request regarding over $7 million that was transferred from the district’s general fund to capital projects.
Legend Lake resident Gregg Malmstrom sent a letter to Menominee Indian School Board President David Miller on July 20 regarding the transfer of funds that took place during the 2024-25 school year. Malmstrom asked for four things:
• A list of the specific capital projects funded by the $7,088,214 transfer, including each project’s scope, cost to date and estimated total cost.
• Board resolutions, including meeting dates and recorded votes, authorizing the transfer and any related budget amendments under Wisconsin Statute 65.90(5), or an explanation if the transfer was made without a formal amendment.
• Why the projects and transfer were not included in the original or amended budget presented at the annual budget hearing, given that the final amended budget still anticipated an essentially break-even year.
• Whether additional reserve-funded capital spending is planned for the 2026-27 school year or beyond, and the district’s plan — including any fund balance policy target — for maintaining the general fund balance, which now stands at approximately 27% of expenditures.
Malmstrom said there was an audit from Kerber Rose that flagged the transfer and questioned why there were no details on what the $7 million was used for, which prompted him to ask the district where the money went.
“I’ve been trying to find out where the fiduciary responsibility is of this board, because I’ve found that they don’t understand what the responsibilities are when it comes to finances,” Malmstrom said. “There’s a major lack of transparency to the community, especially us, who are the taxpayers and part of the community.”
Anthony Steffek, MISD’s attorney, denied the public records request, noting that only one of the items involved records, while the others ask for responses to Malmstrom’s inquiries. The letter was dated Oct. 6 with a note that the letter was originally supposed to be sent to Malmstrom on Aug. 19, but was delayed due to miscommunication.
“The District will not provide responses,” Steffek wrote. “In this regard, please be advised that the Board of Education has no obligation to answer questions posed to it during the public comment periods of their regularly scheduled meetings. Public comment is just that — comment. It is not a forum for discussion between Board of Education members and attendees.”
The letter did not address whether board members could respond to Malmstrom’s questions outside of the meeting.
Malmstrom disputed Steffek’s claim, noting that the district does have a responsibility to the public, especially when large amounts of money are involved.
“I have a right to ask the question. I have a right to receive the information,” Malmstrom said. “They have no explanation as to why it’s not being released, based on all of the (public record) requirements I put out there.”
Regarding the one item that falls into the public record request category, Steffek claimed that “no such documents exist.”
Steffek also addressed a school board meeting held Aug. 4 in which he claims Malmstrom continuously interrupted board discussion. He wrote that will no longer be tolerated.
“Moving forward, the Board will not allow any further behavior during its meetings,” Steffek wrote. “The first instance of such behavior will receive a warning, and the second instance will result in removal from the meeting, which will involve law enforcement assistance if necessary. Please note that this directive is not specific to you. Any community members violating these directives will receive the same response.”
Malmstrom said he interrupted the board’s discussion once, and that was to correct a factual inaccuracy. He said there were not multiple interruptions from him, as Steffek alleges, and he is not aware of a policy that allows the board to arbitrarily remove members of the public.
“I understand people have a right to say something during the public commentary section on the agenda, but it was blatantly clear … the information was not a factual statement, and I tried to clarify that,” Malmstrom said. “I wasn’t belligerent. I wasn’t disrespectful. It was just pointing out one thing.”
Malmstrom said he plans to keep asking the questions and plans to bring it up during the district’s annual meeting Oct. 28. He alleged the district has not been presenting a lot of information required by law at the annual meetings, and he plans to hold the board accountable.
lpulaski@newmedia-wi.com
