¶ 112. {concurring). I join the majority opinion except Part III in which the majority opinion determines that the municipalities did not deny WIREdata's open records requests. Majority op. ¶ 49.1
¶ 113. All three municipalities referred WIREdata's open records request to an independent contractor assessor. Sussex and Thiensville each directed WIREdata's request to their independent contractor assessor, Grota Appraisals.2 Port Washington asked WIREdata to direct its request to its independent contractor assessor, Matthies Assessments.3
¶ 114. Each municipality's independent contractor assessor denied WIREdata's request for the records after the receiving the request on referral from the municipality. Sussex's assessor, Grota Appraisals, forwarded WIREdata's request to yet another independent contractor, Andrew Pelkey, who refused to comply with *454WIREdata's request except on payment of a $6,600 fee.4 Grota Appraisals also, according to the majority opinion, failed even to respond to the request made upon Thiensville until two months after the request had been made.5 Port Washington's assessor, Matthies Assessments, expressly informed WIREdata that it was prohibited from complying with WIREdata's request.6
¶ 115. Although I agree as a general matter with the majority opinion that "a communication from an independent contractor assessor should not be construed as a denial of an open records request,"7 I do not agree that the same is true when an open records request is directed to a proper governmental authority under the open records law and the authority chooses to refer the request to an independent contractor assessor. The municipalities in the present case referred WIREdata's requests to their independent contractor assessors and thus must be held responsible for their assessors' responses to WIREdata's requests.
¶ 116. For the reasons set forth, I write separately on the issue of the relationship of the municipalities *455and assessors when a municipality refers an open record request to an assessor to respond on behalf of the municipality.
"If a municipality withholds a record or delays granting access, the requester may immediately bring an action for mandamus seeking release of the record." WTMJ, Inc. v. Sullivan, 204 Wis. 2d 452, 461, 555 N.W.2d 140 (Ct. App. 1996) (quoting State ex rel. Auchinleck v. Town of LaGrange, 200 Wis. 2d 585, 592-93, 547 N.W.2d 587 (1996)).
Majority op., ¶¶ 12, 28.
Majoirty op., ¶ 36.
Majority op., ¶¶ 12, 16.
Counsel for Sussex also sent WIREdata a letter characterizing WIREdata's open records request as involving, in part, a private "business transaction" between WIREdata and Grota Appraisals and not involving Sussex's duties under the open records law. Majority op., ¶ 20.
Majority op., ¶¶ 28, 31.
Alternatively, the record may be read to suggest that Grota Appraisals forwarded the Thiensville request to Richard Pelkey (just as it did for the Sussex request) and that Pelkey's demand for a $6,600 fee pertained to the request made upon Thiensville as well as to the request upon Sussex.
Majority op., ¶ 37.
Majority op., ¶ 77.