Judge blocks Wisconsin union law

[Rheo]

Washington Examiner:

A Wisconsin judge issued a temporary restraining order Friday blocking the state's new and contentious collective bargaining law from taking effect, a measure that drew tens of thousands of protesters to the state Capitol and sent some Democrats fleeing to Illinois in an tempt to block a vote on it.

The judge's order is a major setback for Walker and puts the future of the law in question. Dane County Judge Maryann Sumi issued the order, which was requested by that county's District Attorney Ismael Ozanne, a Democrat. Ozanne filed a lawsuit contending that a legislative committee that broke a stalemate that had kept the law in limbo for weeks met without the 24-hour notice required by Wisconsin's open meetings law. The Republican-controlled Legislature passed the measure and Gov. Scott Walker signed it last week.

Secretary of State Doug La Follette planned to publish the law on Mach 25, but the judge's order will prevent that from happening, at least for now.

[clearvision]

Sigh

[Geee]

I just heard that. Madison judge. Double sigh!

[Rheo]

I don't understand the open meeting 24 requirement. They had been telling the fleebaggers for weeks to get their sorry arses back.

[Argyle58]

Seems to happen these days every time the voters try to protect or better their condition.

[SrWoodchuck]

I'm not sure about the political affiliation of the Wisconsin judiciary, but I'd guess it's Democrat, or at least liberal....based on what I've read of Wisconsin politics, and whether judges are elected or appointed. This was a Dane county judge, and her order was based on the assumption that a 24 hour notice before voting on a law, was broken. As I understand the Wisconsin law, there is no 24 hour rule in a special session, which it was; due to the fleebagging Democraps.

 

This is a blip, that is significant if it affects the implementation of the law, as far as timing to meet budgets.

 

It's also typical of Democrats, with their entitlement mentality & a ton of special interest cash to obfuscate any Republican attempt to take their entitlements away.

 

Republican's should take the opportunity to let Wisconsin citizens know that this is the only the Dem's latest shout to,"Keep your damn hands off your money!"

[Rheo]

Breakdown of 24 open meeting requirement

Big Government

[Rheo]

§19.84 (1) Public notice of all meetings of a governmental body shall be given in the following manner:….(2) Every public notice of a meeting of a governmental body shall set forth the time, date, place and subject matter of the meeting, including that intended for consideration at any contemplated closed session, in such form as is reasonably likely to apprise members of the public and the news media thereof. The public notice of a meeting of a governmental body may provide for a period of public comment, during which the body may receive information from members of the public.(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.”

 

We must also take into consideration §19.87 regarding the notice required by legislative meetings.

 

§19.87(2) No provision of this subchapter which conflicts with a rule of the senate or assembly or joint rule of the legislature shall apply to a meeting conducted in compliance with such rule.

 

Is there is a rule senate or assembly or joint rule which qualifies for this exception to the general Wisconsin Open Meetings Law notice requirements? To determine this, we simply need to take a look at the Wisconsin rules for the legislature.

 

Joint Rule 27. Committee hearings open to public. Unless otherwise provided by law, every committee hearing, executive session, or other meeting shall be open to the public. If time permits, advance notice of every regularly scheduled committee hearing, executive session, or other meeting shall be published as provided in joint rule 75.

 

Since this was not a regularly scheduled meeting, Joint Rule 75 does not apply. Joint Rule 27 requires only that such a non-regularly scheduled meeting be open to the public, without proscribing a time requirement.

 

In addition, the Senate Rules clearly agree with this analysis.

 

Senate Rule 93

 

(2) A notice of a committee meeting is not required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board, and a bulletin of committee hearings may not be published.

 

Senate Rule 93 (3)

 

(3) The daily calendar is in effect immediately upon posting on the legislative bulletin boards. The calendar need not be distributed.

 

The Senate clerk indeed posted notice of this committee online. The Senate rules require no notice of a committee meeting besides such a posting on the legislative bulletin board. This requirement is far less than the 24 hour notice guidelines specified §19.84 (1) of the Open Meetings Law. However, we saw in §19.87(2) of the same statute, that a senate, assembly, or joint rule does in fact trump this much more stringent notice requirement!

 

Accusations that the Wisconsin Republicans violated this law are incongruent with reality, distort the law, and qualify as demagoguery.

[Casino67]

The cure seems simple enough according to Judge Sumi,

 

"Sumi noted, however, that the Legislature could simply reconvene and pass the union measure again with adequate notice." Republicans on Friday were mum as to their next step.*

 

Since at least one Democrat said he wouldn't run away, the entire bill could pass with the Republican majority, not the one that was passed with the financial wording removed.

 

 

 

 

*From an article in the LATimes.

[Rheo]

That would be great.