Madison Mayor Authorizes City Attorney To Pursue Legal Action Surrounding Senate’s Vote

[highplainsdem]

http://www.channel3000.com/news/27147386/detail.html

Madison Mayor Authorizes City Attorney To Pursue Legal Action Surrounding Senate’s Vote
State Senate Passed Bill Removing Collective Bargaining Rights From Public Workers

Updated: 10:44 am CST March 10, 2011


MADISON, Wis. -- Mayor Dave Cieslewicz has authorized city attorney Mike May to pursue any legal actions that might be filed over the state Senate’s passage of a bill Wednesday night taking away collective bargaining rights from public workers.

May said in an e-mail he sent to Cieslewicz and city council members that in his opinion a committee meeting called before the Senate took action was in violation of the state open meetings law.

State law requires at least 24 hours notice of a meeting, unless there is an emergency, which allows only a two-hour notice.

A notice for Wednesday’s 6 p.m. meeting was posted at 4:10 p.m. Senate Clerk Rob Marchant said under Senate rules, no notice was required other than posting it on the legislative bulletin board.

-snip-

[FBaggins]

1. What standing does he imagine that he has?

Other than grandstanding of course. :)

I love the chutzpah, but he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

A notice for Wednesday’s 6 p.m. meeting was posted at 4:10 p.m.

Actually, the statement was that it was posted earlier, and then Marchant's office decided to email a copy of it to the various offices at 4:10 (which would have been less than two hours before the meeting by a tad).

[sinkingfeeling]

3. That's not two hours even and there was no 'emergency' as required by state law.

[FBaggins]

5. The two hours would have started when it was posted on the bulleting board.

Not when it was later emailed to other offices.

and there was no 'emergency' as required by state law.

Guess who gets to decide whether or not there's an "emergency"? The same people who pushed it through. Isn't that special?

And it isn't open to court review. When a democratic legislator raised that objection and was voted down, that pretty much ended it. It certainly wouldn't be something that the mayor of the local town would have standing to appeal.

[Uncle Joe]

9. How do they decide when it's an emergency, what is the process? n/t

[FBaggins]

11. That's the "beauty" of it. They just take a vote.

Almost all open-meeting laws have great big loopholes for the legislature (hint... because they're the ones who wrote the law).

There is a (supposedly nonpartisan) office within the senate that is tasked with determining whether such things are kosher. Reportedly, he's the one who said that the proper steps were followed.


But to highlight my earlier point. There wouldn't be anything there that kept the majority from passing the bill. If there actually were a court with the ability to review the rule (there isn't) and it actually ruled that the process wasn't followed, they could hold the vote two hours later or a day later. We don't have the votes to stop them. This is really just bluster so that people who otherwise wouldn't pay attention realize how extreme some of these actions are.

I'm all for it... but let's not pretend that there's any legal force behind it.

[Uncle Joe]

13. So the legislature doesn't actually vote to determine as to whether it's an emergency?

"There is a (supposedly nonpartisan) office within the senate that is tasked with determining whether such things are kosher. Reportedly, he's the one who said that the proper steps were followed."

[FBaggins]

14. No. I think they vote on it.

They certainly are the ones who vote on whether or not the rule was followed. That's what makes these kinds of challenges difficult in most legislatures. The final authority on whether or not the rules were followed is the legislature itself (with the majority controlling the ruling).

The office I was refering to isn't taskes with determining if there's an emergency, he's tasked with determining whether such rules have been followed. He said they were.

The office is supposedly nonpartisan, but I don't know how true that is in reality.

[sinkingfeeling]

24. Actually, the Wisconsin Dept. of Justice's complicance guide says this:

http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dls/OMPR/2010OMCG-PRO/2010_OML_Compliance_Guide.pdf


The provision in Wis. Stat. § 19.84(3) requires that every public notice of a meeting be given at least
twenty-four hours in advance of the meeting, unless “for good cause” such notice is “impossible or impractical.”
If “good cause” exists, the notice should be given as soon as possible and must be given at least two hours in
advance of the meeting. Wis. Stat. § 19.84(3).
No Wisconsin court decisions or Attorney General opinions discuss what constitutes “good cause” to
provide less than twenty-four-hour notice of a meeting. This provision, like all other provisions of the open
meetings law, must be construed in favor of providing the public with the fullest and most complete information
about governmental affairs as is compatible with the conduct of governmental business. Wis. Stat. § 19.81(1)
and (4). If there is any doubt whether “good cause” exists, the governmental body should provide the full
twenty-four-hour notice.
- 13

[FBaggins]

25. It also says this:

The open meetings law also does not apply where it conflicts with a rule of the Legislature, senate, or assembly. Wis. Stat. § 19.87(2).

WI Senate Rule 93 (2) says
(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.

The state constitution says that only the state legislature may determine whether or not such rules were followed.

[sinkingfeeling]

27. It wasn't a committee meeting.

[FBaggins]

28. The legislative conference committee isn't a committee?

News to me.

The next challenges that you will read are that rule 93 doesn't really over-rule the open meetings law, it merely changes WHERE notice must be given (and doesn't adress how MUCH notice must be given and therefore doesn't change it).

Who would hear such a dispute? The senate.

[sinkingfeeling]

33. Sorry, when I read the vote was 18-1, I believed it was the entire number of

Republican state senators and that it was therefore the Senate that had acted, not a committee.

[FBaggins]

34. That was a later action.

It's the earlier committee meeting that allegedly was held without proper notice.

[LanternWaste]

26. And it was listed precisely as an emergency session where...?

"Guess who gets to decide whether or not there's an "emergency"? The same people who pushed it through. Isn't that special?..."

And it was listed precisely as an emergency session where...?

[FBaggins]

29. Presumably in the meeting annoucement.

I think that would be the correct form.

Regardless... it still comes down to who rules on such a dispute. Challenge whether or not it really was an emergency? The senate votes to rule. Challenge whether or not rule 93 really does trump the open meetings requirements (the next argument to be made)? The senate rules on whether or not that's the case.

This again is the catch 22 of most legislative bodies. They make their own rules and are the only judge of whether or not they are followed.

[LanternWaste]

30. Presumably, huh?

Presumably, huh?

[FBaggins]

31. Nobody has claimed that such a declaration was lacking.

Barca has challeneged just about everything else and he has a copy of it. If it wasn't there don't you think he would have said something?

And once again... guess who gets to rule on whether or not the session was properly called?

I bet you can guess. :)

[LanternWaste]

32. Not to belabor any one point

So it's an Official Emergency Meeting without anyone knowing it's an official Emergency Meeting?

Not to belabor any one point, but you appear to be making presumptions without anything other than inference as claim.

"I bet you can guess...." As it would seem everyone is... :shrug:

[FBaggins]

37. I think it was a fair assumption given Barca's dilligence

He's objected to everything that could reasonable be objected to.

I have since looked it up and the notice does say that's it's a "special session" (which means that it was at the Governor's request and not, as I thought earlier, an "sxtraordinary" session called by the legislature... but the rules are the same in either case).

[travelingtypist]

4. I took this kind of negativity from you last night.

Care to explain your credentials for being so absolutely down on anyone thinking there's a legal remedy here?

Please.

[FBaggins]

6. It's not "negativity"

It's just explaining what the rules are. We have lots of people who are ready to assume that the rules must be whatever we need them to be in order to prevail... because we feel really REALLY strongly about the issue. I understand the emotion, but I try not to let it influence me. I don't get to change the rules because I don't agree with the results.

There isn't always a way to win in the short term when they hold the cards. You have to take it to the people and kick the bums out.

[travelingtypist]

41. You didn't answer my question.

What are your credentials to be saying no, no, no, there's no remedy?

Spill.

[Recursion]

18. It's called "separation of powers"

Legislative bodies are the only bodies competent to determine whether their own rules have been followed.

[FBaggins]

19. Lol... I don't know about "competent"...

...but they're the only ones empowered to do so. :)

Not much competence going around these days.

[Recursion]

20. Ha, fair enough

I was using "competent" in a legal sense

[travelingtypist]

42. Then why have rules at all if they're all meaningless when they get in the way?

:banghead:

[rucky]

10. someone's gotta get the ball rolling

:shrug:

[FBaggins]

12. As long as "the ball" is raising public awareness...

...and not an actual legal challenge.

Leave the voters with impression (correct) that this was done "in the middle of the night", and "bypassed open meeting requirements" and "violated the will of the people", etc. By all means do.

But if you take it to court, you're going to lose (and lose easily) and that'll leave voters with the impression that republicans must not have done anything wrong. And that's NOT how we want this to play out.

[rucky]

21. agreed, but who should sue?

I don't think the state AG will do it.

[FBaggins]

23. I don't think anyone can... and therefore I don't think that anyone SHOULD.

I said it earlier (don't know if it was this thread), but they should make all the noise in the world about how wrong this is. Call it illegal and/or unconstitutional all you want. Make some noise.

But if you actually take it to court, then you're going to lose and lose quickly/decisively. They'll then spin that as evidence that they didn't do anything wrong (though that's NOT the same thing), and some public pressure will turn in their favor.

[rucky]

36. well, there's this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5sx-4i5y0E&tracker=False

[FBaggins]

40. He did a good job.

I don't think there's anything there that adds to what we've seen so far, but it's a heck of a lot more effective than just yelling "shame shame!" (not that there's anything wrong with that).

[damntexdem]

15. The city employs government workers, who are now going to be deprived of rights.

The legislation would affect how cities deal with their employees. Seems like standing to me.

And the grandstands are full to overflowing and need to be kept that way.

[FBaggins]

17. Well... I certainly agree with your final sentence.

There's a difference between what can win in a court of law and what can win in the court of public opinion. This fails the first, but clearly belongs in the second.

Seems like standing to me.

It would certainly be standing to challenge the constitutionality of the law, but it wouldn't give a court the jurrisdiction to review the process by which the law became a law.

The people who have standing to challenge whether a senate rule was followed are all senators... and the judge and jury is the senate itself. Thus the verdict is preordained.

[MadBadger]

2. Go Mayor Dave!

[Uncle Joe]

7. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, highplainsdem.

[EFerrari]

8. Good. This is what needs to be done.

I was thinking state AG but this is much better.

[Shiver]

16. Our state AG is a Rethug crony. No help from him.

[EFerrari]

22. Yes, that's what another DUer told me last night.

CA was in the same position for most of the Grope's governorship. It's was horrible.

[alfredo]

35. Dem legislature is calling for Fitzgerald to be removed as

head of the Senate for knowingly breaking the open meeting law.

[FBaggins]

38. I think that's the other Fitzgerald

They just held a vote on removing his brother as head of the Assembly.

Of course the vote fell along party lines.

[alfredo]

39. My feed went down and I missed that. TKS for the correction.