After the director of the Wisconsin Historical Society approved our reburial plan for the 831 ancestors disinterred in 2013, Milwaukee County and Froedtert Hospital appealed the decision to the Burial Sites Preservation Board, the Department of Administration, and Milwaukee County Circuit Court. All these appeals were either dismissed or not taken up, though time remains to appeal the circuit court decision.
Milwaukee County has now pursued a procedural claim under the open meetings law, following the dismissal or decline of its earlier appeals. This suit, filed June 6, 2025, raises doubts about whether its true purpose is to revisit the outcome rather than address legitimate concerns about transparency.
While the case is technically in the name of the state (State of Wisconsin ex rel., vs. Burial Sites Preservation Board et al.), it is being prosecuted by Milwaukee County, as the Dane County District Attorney declined to take it. Froedtert Hospital is not publicly involved, though in a letter to the Burial Sites Preservation Board dated June 3, 2025, the president of Froedtert Hospital repeated, among other things, the claim that “Froedtert and Milwaukee County did not receive required notice of all relevant meetings.”
The County’s Meeting Notice Claim
The County takes issue with two meetings in particular, saying that the public notices required by the open meetings law were not properly given:
- The board approved the Descendant Community’s application to the Registry of Interested Persons on June 8, 2023, under the cultural, tribal or religious affiliation priority.
- On August 8, 2024, the board voted on a motion on whether to accept an appeal of the director’s decision. The motion failed and the appeal was not taken up.
The County asks that the court void the actions at the meetings and assess a forfeiture of $300 against the board and each of its members.
Members of the Descendant Community attended both meetings. Indeed, our awareness of the August 8, 2024, meeting was due solely to public notices.
The Public Interest and the Risk of Voiding the Vote
Although not directly at issue in this lawsuit, the County has elsewhere argued that we do not meet the criteria for inclusion on the Registry of Interested Persons under the cultural, tribal, or religious affiliation priority. That inclusion was essential to the approval of our reburial plan. Only one other plan was submitted to the Historical Society, and even had we not submitted a plan or were on the registry with a lower priority, it is unlikely the alternative would have been approved, as it did not satisfy the legal requirements.
Even if a procedural violation occurred, a court may void the Board’s actions only if doing so serves the greater public interest. That threshold is not met here. The approved reburial plan is grounded in respect, legal compliance, and preservation of cultural and historical dignity—values that clearly serve the public interest.
It is worth noting that one of the meetings in question involved a failed motion to accept an appeal. Since the motion did not pass, no substantive action was taken at that meeting. Consequently, even if a procedural violation occurred, voiding this action would have no practical effect. This fact underscores the County’s focus on procedural technicalities rather than any genuine prejudice or harm.
The County’s claim of improper notice rests solely on “information and belief,” without affirmative evidence that the board failed to satisfy its statutory obligations. The complaint provides no detail on inquiries made or evidence supporting the assertion that physical posting—such as on a bulletin board at the Wisconsin Historical Society—did not occur. Absent such evidence, the allegation remains speculative rather than factual.
Moreover, the County and Froedtert Hospital were themselves added to the Registry of Interested Persons at meetings for which there is no clear evidence that the required public notices were given as currently alleged. If actions were to be invalidated on that basis, similar scrutiny would logically apply to their own prior inclusion on the registry. The issue, therefore, is not solely one of legal compliance in the abstract, but of consistent application and fair dealing.
This procedural challenge arises only after the County’s earlier substantive objections were dismissed or declined. Revisiting the matter now on speculative procedural grounds, without evidence of actual prejudice or harm, does not serve the public interest. Rather, it serves only to delay the dignified reburial of 831 ancestors.
The Descendant Community remains committed to honoring those once buried at the Milwaukee County Grounds Cemeteries. We welcome those who wish to learn more or support this ongoing work.
