227.04(4)(4) Each agency shall fully document every instance in which it made the decision to utilize discretion in penalizing businesses as provided in this section, including the reasons for its decision, and shall keep records of those instances on file for not fewer than 5 years.

227.05227.05 Agency publications. An agency, other than the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, the Technical College System Board, or the department of employee trust funds, shall identify the applicable provision of federal law or the applicable state statutory or administrative code provision that supports any statement or interpretation of law that the agency makes in any publication, whether in print or on the agency’s Internet site, including guidance documents, forms, pamphlets, or other informational materials, regarding the laws the agency administers.

227.05 NoteNOTE: In Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 1 v. Vos, 2020 WI 67, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that this section is facially unconstitutional to the extent that it addresses guidance documents.

227.05 AnnotationThe legislature may enact the laws the executive is duty-bound to execute, but it may not control the executive’s knowledge or intentions about those laws. Nor may the legislature mute or modulate the communication of the executive’s knowledge or intentions to the public. Because there was no set of facts pursuant to which this section, to the extent it applied to guidance documents, and s. 227.112 would not impermissibly interfere with the executive’s exercise of core constitutional power, they were in that respect facially unconstitutional. Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 1 v. Vos, 2020 WI 67, 393 Wis. 2d 38, 946 N.W.2d 35, 19-0614.

227.10(1)(1) Each agency shall promulgate as a rule each statement of general policy and each interpretation of a statute which it specifically adopts to govern its enforcement or administration of that statute. A statement of policy or an interpretation of a statute made in the decision of a contested case, in a private letter ruling under s. 73.035 or in an agency decision upon or disposition of a particular matter as applied to a specific set of facts does not render it a rule or constitute specific adoption of a rule and is not required to be promulgated as a rule.

227.10(2m)(2m) No agency may implement or enforce any standard, requirement, or threshold, including as a term or condition of any license issued by the agency, unless that standard, requirement, or threshold is explicitly required or explicitly permitted by statute or by a rule that has been promulgated in accordance with this subchapter, except as provided in s. 186.118 (2) (c) and (3) (b) 3. The governor, by executive order, may prescribe guidelines to ensure that rules are promulgated in compliance with this subchapter.

227.10(2p)(2p) No agency may promulgate a rule or take any other action that requires one or more lots to be merged with another lot, for any purpose, without the consent of the owners of the lots that are to be merged.

227.10(3)(a)(a) No rule, either by its terms or in its application, may discriminate for or against any person by reason of sex, race, creed, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry.

227.10(3)(b)(b) A rule may discriminate for or against a person by reason of physical condition or developmental disability as defined in s. 51.01 (5) only if it is strictly necessary to a function of the agency and is supported by data demonstrating that necessity.

227.10(3)(c)(c) Each person affected by a rule is entitled to the same benefits and is subject to the same obligations as any other person under the same or similar circumstances.

227.10(3)(e)(e) Nothing in this subsection prohibits the director of the bureau of merit recruitment and selection in the department of administration from promulgating rules relating to expanded certification under s. 230.25 (1n).

227.10 AnnotationGuidelines promulgated outside the context of one particular contested case do not qualify for exception to the requirement that all rules must be filed under s. 227.023 [now s. 227.20]. Here, failure to file the guideline as a rule did not deprive the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations of the authority to decide contested cases dealing with pregnancy leaves under the sex discrimination statute. Wisconsin Telephone Co. v. DILHR, 68 Wis. 2d 345, 228 N.W.2d 649 (1975).

227.10 AnnotationWhen a party files an application for a license with an administrative agency and the latter points to some announced agency policy of general application as a reason for rejecting the application, such announced policy constitutes a rule, the validity of which the applicant is entitled to have tested in a declaratory action. Schoolway Transportation Co. v. Division of Motor Vehicles, 72 Wis. 2d 223, 240 N.W.2d 403 (1976).

227.10 AnnotationWhen the Department of Transportation (DOT) revised its application of a statute to bring DOT’s practices into conformity with the plain meaning of the statute, DOT followed a course it was obliged to pursue when confronted with its error. This was not a regulation, standard, statement of policy, or general order. Neither was it a statement of general policy or interpretation of a statute. Therefore, there was no requirement that DOT comply with the filing procedures mandated in connection with promulgation of administrative rules. Schoolway Transportation Co. v. Division of Motor Vehicles, 72 Wis. 2d 223, 240 N.W.2d 403 (1976).

227.10 AnnotationThe Department of Transportation (DOT) engaged in administrative rule making when it changed its interpretation of a statute whose terms did not specifically require the interpretation, the interpretation was administered as law, and DOT relied upon the interpretation to deny the issuance of a license in a form in direct contrast to the manner in which the statute was previously administered by DOT. Those who are or will be affected generally by such an interpretation should have the opportunity to be informed as to the manner in which the terms of the statute regulating their operations will be applied. This is accomplished by the issuance and filing procedures under this chapter, and the rule is invalid until such measures are taken. Schoolway Transportation Co. v. Division of Motor Vehicles, 72 Wis. 2d 223, 240 N.W.2d 403 (1976).

227.10 AnnotationThe legislature may constitutionally prescribe a criminal penalty for the violation of an administrative rule. State v. Courtney, 74 Wis. 2d 705, 247 N.W.2d 714 (1976).