There's a lot of ground to cover here, so I apologize in advance for the wall of text.
The administration of Governor Walker today filed a petition with the State Supreme Court, seeking a supervisory writ to throw out the open meetings case over this bill currently being heard by Judge Sumi.
[size=18]Context[/size]:
In early February, newly-elected Governor Scott Walker put forward a bill intended to address Wisconsin's looming budgetary issues. It included salary and benefit cuts for public-sector employees, as well as provisions that eliminated the right to collective bargaining for some, and made it significantly harder for others (by declaring the state would no longer withhold union dues, mandating annual re-certification of union representation, declaring that unions could not negotiate for anything other than salary, and capping salary increases at cost-of-living unless expressly approved via referendum). Things have gotten acrimonious, and after the Democratic members of the Senate fled the state to prevent a quorum (required for all bills addressing fiscal matters), the anti-union provisions were split out and passed as 2011 Wisconsin Act 10. Unfortunately, in the course of passing it, the GOP may have violated Wisconsin's Open Meetings Law.
[size=18]Timeline[/size]:
March 9th
- Wisconsin Senate passes 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 (the CBA provisions from Governor Walker's original bill). This is in violation of Wisconsin Law § 19.84, as insufficient notice was given. Specifically, notice went out after 4pm for a 6pm meeting.
March 10th
- Wisconsin Assembly passes 2011 Wisconsin Act 10
March 11th
- Governor Walker signs 2011 Wisconsin Act 10
March 18th
- Judge Sumi issues a temporary restraining order (important quote: "I do, therefore, restrain and enjoin the further implementation of 2011 Wisconsin Act 10" - note that it does not mention either the Secretary of State or the LRB, though the LRB wasn't named as a party to the suit)
March 25th
- Wisconsin's Legislative Reference Bureau publishes 2011 Wisconsin Act 10
The bill, as published by the LRB, would appear to indicate that it was part of the Special Session:
[size=18]Relevant Statutes[/size]:
Wisconsin Law[/url]]19.84 Public notice.
(3) Public notice of every meeting of a governmental body shall be given at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of such meeting unless for good cause such notice is impossible or impractical, in which case shorter notice may be given, but in no case may the notice be provided less than 2 hours in advance of the meeting.
I haven't heard it articulated yet, but I expect the loophole that they'll try to use to avoid being found in violation of § 19.84 will be the Senate rules regarding special sessions.
SENATE RULE 93. Special, extended or extraordinary sessions. Unless otherwise provided by the senate for a specific special, extended or extraordinary session, the rules of the senate adopted for the regular session shall, with the following modifications, apply to each special session called by the governor and to each extended or extraordinary session called by the senate and assembly organization committees or called by a joint resolution approved by both houses:
(1) No senate bill, senate joint resolution or senate resolution shall be considered unless it is germane to the subjects enumerated by the governor in the special session proclamation and is recommended for introduction by the committee on senate organization or the joint committee on employment relations.
(2) No notice of hearing before a committee shall be required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board, and no bulletin of committee hearings shall be published.
Section 2 provides that they don't have to give any notice. WI State law allows for a special session to run concurrently with a normal legislative session, and since Governor Walker did order a special session in January, this would superficially appear to be a defense.
Except that Section 1 of the same rule provides that special sessions may only consider resolutions enumerated in the proclamation declaring the special session.
Governor Walker's proclamation doesn't mention anything about unions or collective bargaining.
[size=18]Summary[/size]:
As I see it, there are three issues in play right now:
1) Was 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 passed in violation of § 19.84?
2) Does Judge Sumi have the authority to order that publication be halted pending a lawsuit over the possible violation of § 19.84?
3) Is release by the LRB a necessary and sufficient condition for 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 to become law?
There was a previous thread about the actions by Governor Walker and our state GOP here. That one got sent to fat camp. Let's keep this one focused on Wisconsin Supreme Court election - I'll create others for specific topics like the eventual efforts to recall Governor Walker when there's something new to discuss. There's already a thread about the State Senate recall efforts here, and one about the Supreme Court Election here.
Also: I'd like to plead for us all to make room for dissenting opinions and reasonable debate.
I have a simple question but if the Democrats were to retake the house and senate in 2012 and win the gov in 2014, all they would need to do is vote to change the rules back?
That might also provide legal fodder for a lawsuit that argues that they passed the bill improperly, Dimmer.
Yep, that sounds like the right way to handle it. It's written right into the law. Be interesting to see how it comes out.
The arguments I've seen here so far seem to consist of 'well, they were only a few minutes late', which I don't think will fly. Plus, allowing the 2-hour window requires an emergency condition be declared, and the fact that the bill might not pass tomorrow does not constitute an emergency today.
I suspect that could result in a judge suspending the budget, couldn't it?
At this point, I have to admit a grudging admiration for the no holds barred, scorched earth, move forward at all costs policy the GOP is adopting here.
I can't help but compare this to the healthcare battle back in 2010, and the way the GOP has managed to get so far despite such enormous unpopularity and legal challenges is pretty impressive. It makes me think Obama could've avoided getting a public option scrapped if he'd just plowed through.
I suppose we'll see in July if the GOP burned too much capital, or if betting on the short memories of the public was a smart choice.
Obama didn't want the public option; he'd already promised it away very early in the process.
Here's something I had not heard about until today. Judge Sumi's son used to work for the AFL-CIO and SEIU.
Maryann Sumi has a clear conflict of interest. Her son is a political operative who also happens to be a former lead field manager with the AFL-CIO and data manager for the SEIU State Council. Both the SEIU and the AFL-CIO have members who are public-sector employees in Wisconsin. In fact, as a federation, the AFL-CIO can boast of several member-unions that represent public-sector employees.
Isn't this a conflict of interest that should have kept her from taking this case?
I think there's got to be some evidence that she's biased, beyond just "oh, she had a relative who worked for them once"... Maybe she took money from people with a stake in the issue, like Justice Thomas before Citizens United... But then he didn't recuse himself in that case.
Is there evidence that she's biased in that way?
Here's something I had not heard about until today. Judge Sumi's son used to work for the AFL-CIO and SEIU.
Maryann Sumi has a clear conflict of interest. Her son is a political operative who also happens to be a former lead field manager with the AFL-CIO and data manager for the SEIU State Council. Both the SEIU and the AFL-CIO have members who are public-sector employees in Wisconsin. In fact, as a federation, the AFL-CIO can boast of several member-unions that represent public-sector employees.Isn't this a conflict of interest that should have kept her from taking this case?
Why? She didn't work for the SEIU or the AFL-CIO. There's every possibility that she and her son have opposing political thoughts and ideas. Just look at Ronald Reagan and his second son.
I think there's got to be some evidence that she's biased, beyond just "oh, she had a relative who worked for them once"... Maybe she took money from people with a stake in the issue, like Justice Thomas before Citizens United... But then he didn't recuse himself in that case.
Is there evidence that she's biased in that way?
It seemed fine to doubt Kathy Nickolaus' motives because she worked for Prosser in the past. From that thread:
Given Kathy Nickolaus' history with Prosser, I think it's still sensible to investigate the Waukesha vote for irregularities
The best evidence that she's not going into this with an open mind is this:
In Sumi’s brief, lawyers Marie Stanton and Dean Strang also asserted on Sumi’s behalf that the conference committee likely did violate the state’s open meetings law with its hastily convened meeting, in which it approved a stripped-down budget repair bill that removed fiscal elements, then sent the bill on to the Assembly and the Senate for votes. The measure passed and was signed by Gov. Scott Walker.
Legislative leaders likely did not provide proper public notice for the meeting, Sumi’s lawyers wrote.
If the case hasn't been heard yet, how can she say it's "likely" the rules were not followed?
Robear wrote:I think there's got to be some evidence that she's biased, beyond just "oh, she had a relative who worked for them once"... Maybe she took money from people with a stake in the issue, like Justice Thomas before Citizens United... But then he didn't recuse himself in that case.
Is there evidence that she's biased in that way?
It seemed fine to doubt Kathy Nickolaus' motives because she worked for Prosser in the past. From that thread:
Given Kathy Nickolaus' history with Prosser, I think it's still sensible to investigate the Waukesha vote for irregularities
Nickolaus was hired by and worked for Prosser for 13 years so, yeah, it's incredibly suspicious when she's the one who mysteriously finds the winning votes for him. Doubly so because of her previous involvement in political fraud and her "creative" approaches to counting votes that violated who knows how many rules and procedures.
That's entirely different than a judge who's son worked a single election cycle for the AFL-CIO and who now has a career that is completely independent from the organizations in question.
Nickolaus was hired by and worked for Prosser for 13 years so, yeah, it's incredibly suspicious when she's the one who mysteriously finds the winning votes for him. Doubly so because of her previous involvement in political fraud and her "creative" approaches to counting votes that violated who knows how many rules and procedures.
Funny that she didn't "find" any votes though. The votes were always there, she missed including them in her totals. So yeah, that's not really suspicious, just sloppy.
After re-reading Robears comment, I want to make clear that I'm not saying Sumi is being biased. He seems to have taken my inquiry about a potential conflict of interest and implied that I think she is biased. I'd say that she would have some potential conflict of interest here and she should not have been the one to take the case.
After re-reading Robears comment, I want to make clear that I'm not saying Sumi is being biased. He seems to have taken my inquiry about a potential conflict of interest and implied that I think she is biased. I'd say that she would have some potential conflict of interest here and she should not have been the one to take the case.
But you have not presented anything beyond your suspicion - your concerns above were handily addressed - and you failed to mention that she *dismissed* several other cases against the governor in this matter, which mitigates against her being biased against him.
So she's taken action in a way that argues for her even-handedness in this matter, but not in a way which supports your worry. It's fine to cite relationships, but without actions, collusion or the like, it's just supposition, isn't it?
Again with the accusatory tone. It's not my "suspicion" or "worry". I'm not trying to prove bias, even though you continue to try and push me to do so.
Definition:
A conflict of interest (COI) occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other.
A conflict of interest can only exist if a person or testimony is entrusted with some impartiality; a modicum of trust is necessary to create it. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent from the execution of impropriety. Therefore, a conflict of interest can be discovered and voluntarily defused before any corruption occurs.
So your asking for proof doesn't even apply here.
Whatever, I just wanted to mention the connection and inquire if anyone here saw any reason for a conflict of interest, not be the defendant of the issue.
Again with the accusatory tone. It's not my "suspicion" or "worry". I'm not trying to prove bias, even though you continue to try and push me to do so.
The article you cited accused her of having a conflict of interest. You did not give any information opposing that; you defended the idea that no proof was needed to suspect her, based on someone else's comment about a different issue in a different thread; and you stated "...the best evidence she's not going into this with an open mind is...", all of which I took to be indicators that you felt she was biased.
If you want to change that, feel free, but I simply asked you justify your belief. Instead, you denied it, and then decided I was being "accusatory". Sorry. I thought I was asking you to present evidence, not accusing you of anything. I've been civil here, I believe.
I'd love to hear reasons for them not doing a re-vote, other than the fear that two Republicans might join Dale Schultz in voting "nay".
While the particular circumstances of this bill make it clear that the re-vote is a valid option, I don't ever like hearing the argument "well, you could just pass it again in a way I like" as part of the democratic process. There will always be hard fought battles to pass controversial bills, and I think the right way to fight this one is through the courts.
Yes, the bill could be passed again to avoid the court battle, but I don't for a second think that if they don't vote or pass the bill again that would make the original bill any less valid. The bill is invalid (IMO) because they violated state law NOT because they refuse to vote again. The ability to vote the bill through again is a potential solution to this situation, not any proof of the validity or invalidity of the original.
No problem Dimmer, my post was just based on seeing that statement repeated a few times and wanting to clarify.
Pages