Editorial: The city's media policy is being misused to restrict access

By Brandi Makyuski

A little-known city policy, adopted quietly five years ago and rarely invoked since, is now being used to restrict communication between Stevens Point’s department heads and the press.

The 2020 policy was intended to formalize how city information is shared. But under Mayor Mike Wiza’s interpretation, it has evolved into a mechanism for controlling who can speak, when, and about what.

For more than 20 years, this reporter has routinely sat down with Stevens Point department heads to talk through projects, budgets, infrastructure, and policies that affect residents. Those meetings have long provided the public with clear, detailed information about how city government works and what’s coming next.

For most of the five years since the city adopted its media relations policy, this reporter has been able to meet freely with department heads. That changed in 2024, when Mayor Mike Wiza first prohibited a scheduled tour of the city’s streets garage, and has now escalated into a broader communication ban.

Now, it’s happening again.

A sudden clampdown

Weeks in advance, we scheduled a sit-down interview with Public Works Director Scott Beduhn for Oct. 16 to discuss the upcoming Business 51 reconstruction. On Oct. 9, Beduhn informed the Metro Wire that the meeting had been canceled—by order of Mayor Mike Wiza.

Since then, multiple department heads have independently confirmed that the mayor told them they are no longer allowed to meet with or speak to the press, and that all information must now flow through his office.

This isn’t the first time. In September 2024, Beduhn had invited this reporter to tour the city’s 1963 streets garage to show the building’s deteriorating condition—a facility city officials themselves have described as outdated and unsafe. Wiza blocked that, too, saying if we wanted a walk-through, it would he him, and not Beduhn, leading it.

What the policy actually says

The city’s written Media Relations Policy designates the mayor as the city’s Public Information Officer, but also clearly names “all department directors” and “city employees with expertise on a specific issue” as authorized spokespersons. It was designed to ensure accuracy and better communication between the mayor and council—not to centralize control.

The policy was never added to the city’s ordinances, meaning it carries little weight beyond internal procedure. Nothing in it prohibits department heads from answering factual questions, meeting with reporters, or providing context on their areas of expertise. In fact, the document recognizes that experts should sometimes “assist with, or give, the city’s response.”

The policy was adopted on June 15, 2020, with virtually no discussion, proposed by then-Council President Meleesa Johnson.

The only discussion that occurred during that meeting involved comments from Johnson herself, when she said the document used the wrong title—Public Information Officer—and suggested changing it to Media Relations Officer to avoid confusion with the emergency-management term. Wiza agreed, and after that amendment, the policy passed unanimously, with no debate or questions from council members.

At the time, Wiza told the council, “This really puts into writing what we’ve been practicing within the city, just kind of affirming that in a written form which we didn’t have before.”

Following that meeting, Johnson said she drafted the policy after the council learned about a controversy involving then-Police Chief Marty Skibba in the press instead of from the mayor.

She added that the intent was to standardize communication, not restrict it.

How the city actually functions

In practice, Stevens Point’s communication structure has never relied on one person. During a declared public disaster or emergency, the city attorney—currently elected Andrew Beveridge—is designated as the official Public Information Officer. That’s policy, but not ordinance, and for good reason: a true PIO function has always been distributed across departments.

But in Stevens Point, “PIO” is used only as a title, not a function. Many within city government don’t even understand what the role entails. City Clerk Susan Pagel, for example, said on Friday that she had never heard the term. In professional practice, a Public Information Officer is someone who not only acts as a point of contact for the press but also trains department staff on how to communicate effectively and promptly with journalists, ensuring accuracy and consistency across departments. Whether you call it a PIO, or a “Media Relations Officer,” as the city’s policy outlines, the job is to facilitate the flow of public information—not to delay it or restrict it.

In most cities, a PIO is measured by how quickly and accurately they provide information to the press—not how tightly they control it, and certainly not by posting it on social media before the news outlets tasked with informing the public can publish a story with fuller context, multiple sources, and opposing views.

No order about communication from the mayor can override the authority of the police or fire chief, who answer only to the Police and Fire Commission under state law—a deliberate separation of powers meant to prevent political interference in public safety.

Historically, communication during emergencies has reflected that balance. When a street closes because of a water main break, a member of the city engineering department routinely emails the press with their direct phone number, allowing reporters to confirm details from the scene. Likewise, associate planners in Community Development have long answered questions before or after meetings to clarify technical issues for the public and the press. None of those contacts ever required the mayor’s permission.

That’s how Stevens Point has operated for decades—through professionalism, cooperation, and trust between departments and journalists. The mayor’s new interpretation of the media policy reverses that history and prevents our ability to report the news in a timely fashion, or sometimes, at all.

How Plover handles it

The contrast is striking when compared with the city’s southern neighbor. In the Village of Plover, for example, Administrator Steve Kunst serves as the general public information officer but said the village’s practice is rooted in common sense and openness—not control.

“From an ordinance perspective, I do believe it’s in the job description for the administrator,” Kunst said. “But it really depends on the incident. I’m the overall PIO, but then oftentimes, depending on what it is, we’ll delegate that to the pertinent department head. They’re the expert on it; they can give you more detailed answers.”

He added that there is no rule, written or otherwise, requiring department heads to get his permission before talking to the press.

“We expect them to be able to do that—it falls under the umbrella of transparency,” he said. “They know what they’re allowed to share, and if there’s anything we can’t release yet, they’re aware of that. Folks are able to speak on behalf of what they’re charged with. There’s not a policy that requires them to ask permission to speak to the press.”

That’s the standard in neighboring Plover: professional trust and transparency, where expertise—not politics—guides communication.

What the mayor said

When this reporter met with Mayor Wiza on Oct. 16, he began the conversation by saying that Public Works Director Scott Beduhn “wasn’t interested” in meeting.

That claim was false. Beduhn had already confirmed he had been ready and willing to meet, but had been told by the mayor that he could not.

He said that department heads could only speak to the press “with my permission,” but he refused to say why he was withholding it, or what prompted the change, although he insisted that “nothing instigated it.”

He said every question must now go through his office. “We have a media policy in place that directs you and your questions to my office,” Wiza said. “If there are times when I think that a director is best suited to do this, or any other staff member, I’ll do that.”

This reporter asked why he would not grant permission for department heads to talk to the press, since the policy itself clearly allows it. Wiza gave no clear answer. But when pressed again, he said, “I’ll be a little more frank with you—Scott’s very busy. He doesn’t have time for this stuff. Things are falling by the wayside, and that’s not acceptable. If you have questions, let me know, and if there’s time, then we’ll get Scott involved.”

That’s the CEO of Stevens Point essentially throwing his public works director under the bus, on the record and knowing that we were recording the conversation.

When told the written policy explicitly lists department heads and technical staff as authorized to speak to the press, Wiza redirected, saying, “This wasn’t even my thing. This is Meleessa’s thing,” referring to Johnson, who is no longer on the council. He then tried to justify the move by adding, “There are many cities that don’t even let the alderpersons talk to the department heads.”

It’s interesting that Wiza would choose to bring up that topic. Since that meeting, we’ve heard from several of those elected alders who say they’ve been told that department heads aren’t allowed to talk with them, either.

But anyway, Stevens Point isn’t “many cities.” It’s a community that has long prided itself on accessibility and openness—until now.

The mayor’s attempt to reframe the cancellation as disinterest on Beduhn’s part was a clear example of how control over information can be used not just to restrict access, but to rewrite the narrative after the fact.

Transparency shouldn’t depend on mood

For years, Stevens Point’s relationship with the press worked smoothly. Directors answered technical questions. The mayor or treasurer provided context. Everyone stayed in their lane, and the public was better informed for it.

That’s how this policy was applied—until it wasn’t. The sudden shift suggests the issue isn’t the wording of the policy but how it’s being interpreted, and by whom. When an elected official can unilaterally decide who the press—or even the city’s own council members—may speak to, information becomes filtered, delayed, and selective.

Transparency should never depend on political mood. If a reporter can’t get timely, direct information from the people doing the work, it’s not the media that suffers—it’s the residents. The voters.

What needs to happen

It’s time for the Common Council to review this policy and reaffirm what it was meant to do: facilitate communication, not control it.

Reaffirm that department heads and subject-matter experts remain authorized to speak on their work.
Require equal treatment for all media outlets.
Set clear timelines for responses when questions are routed through the PIO.
Provide training and coordination, not censorship.
And most importantly, codify transparency in ordinance form so no future mayor can unilaterally decide when the press—or the council—gets access.

City employees are paid by the public to serve the public. They should be able to explain their work to that same public—through an independent press and accountable council—without fear of reprisal.

The public should be concerned when access to information is filtered through any single elected voice. Residents deserve a government that’s transparent by design, not one that hides behind a selectively enforced policy.