• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wisconsin GOP senators violated open meetings law, Dane County DA alleges

danarhea said:
Was the open meetings law violated, or wasn't it? It's a very simple question.
Click to expand...

Like you give a **** what the truth is. The answer is YES for you regardless of anything else because it fits your idealogical drive. This whole effort, is utter BS by people unable to accept the outcome, and will do anything and everything they can to destroy those that made it happen.

Here we go, a little sanity, not that you'll admit it.

What the DA doesn’t mention is that the bill in question is a special session bill, which gives it a completely different status than a regular bill. Senate Rule 93 essentially says that with special session bills, the senate rules apply with some special stipulations (my bold):

Senate Rule 93. Special or extraordinary sessions. Unless otherwise provided by the senate for a specific special or extraordinary session , the rules of the senate adopted for the biennial session , with the following modifications, apply to each special session called by the governor and to each extraordinary session called by the senate and assembly organization committees or called by a joint resolution approved by both houses:

Senate Rule 93 (2) (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meeting is not required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board, and a bulletin of committee hearings may not be published.

So, as we’ve mentioned before, not even two hours was required — Scott Fitzgerald decided to offer it as a courtesy.
Click to expand...
Why the Wis. Dem Lawsuit Won
 
randel said:
if it doesnt stick, walker could get something rare out of it...a 'do over'....a chance to limit some of the political fallout and actually sit down and negotiate with the unions.
Click to expand...

Negotiate? Why?

So they can keep costing the Wisc. Taxpayers more then can be afforded? I don't see the bright side of this one.
 
MrVicchio said:
Negotiate? Why?

So they can keep costing the Wisc. Taxpayers more then can be afforded? I don't see the bright side of this one.
Click to expand...
as has been explained over and over, this has precious little to do with the budget and alot to do with simple union busting....last time i checked, 30 million was less than 3 billion, 30 million being the figure for immediate savings, and 300 million is less than 3 billion, 300 million the savings over several years, 3 billion being the total deficit....even with 300 mill in savings, that still leaves 2.7 billion in deficit...so stripping the unions of collective bargaining rights is going to fix this budget? uh, no, no its not....walker overstepped, and has a rare chance to say 'hey, i screwed up, lets get everyone together and talk this out'..
 
If the courts don't side with the Democrats on this, maybe they should just run away again like little wussies until they get their way :ninja:
 
Whovian said:
If the courts don't side with the Democrats on this, maybe they should just run away again like little wussies until they get their way :ninja:
Click to expand...
i'd be ok with them leaving again, the gov needs to realize that he is not god almighty. he could accomplish alot by sitting down and talking.
 
randel said:
as has been explained over and over, this has precious little to do with the budget and alot to do with simple union busting....last time i checked, 30 million was less than 3 billion, 30 million being the figure for immediate savings, and 300 million is less than 3 billion, 300 million the savings over several years, 3 billion being the total deficit....even with 300 mill in savings, that still leaves 2.7 billion in deficit...so stripping the unions of collective bargaining rights is going to fix this budget? uh, no, no its not....walker overstepped, and has a rare chance to say 'hey, i screwed up, lets get everyone together and talk this out'..
Click to expand...

Actually, you're wrong. I posted Gov. Walker's reasoning from his own words here...

By SCOTT WALKER

In 2010, Megan Sampson was named an Outstanding First Year Teacher in Wisconsin. A week later, she got a layoff notice from the Milwaukee Public Schools. Why would one of the best new teachers in the state be one of the first let go? Because her collective-bargaining contract requires staffing decisions to be made based on seniority.

Ms. Sampson got a layoff notice because the union leadership would not accept reasonable changes to their contract. Instead, they hid behind a collective-bargaining agreement that costs the taxpayers $101,091 per year for each teacher, protects a 0% contribution for health-insurance premiums, and forces schools to hire and fire based on seniority and union rules.

Over the past three weeks, local unions across the state have pursued contracts without new pension or health-insurance contributions. Their rhetoric does not match their record on this issue.

Local governments can't pass budgets on a hope and a prayer. Beyond balancing budgets, our reforms give schools—as well as state and local governments—the tools to reward productive workers and improve their operations. Most crucially, our reforms confront the barriers of collective bargaining that currently block innovation and reform.
Click to expand...

Scott Walker: Why I'm Fighting in Wisconsin - WSJ.com

He's "busting unions" to improve the budgets, strengthen schools and empower the people. You want to be the guy on record supporting the Unions, that's on you buddy, me? I'm cheering for the people of Wisc.
 
MrVicchio said:
Actually, you're wrong. I posted Gov. Walker's reasoning from his own words here...



Scott Walker: Why I'm Fighting in Wisconsin - WSJ.com

He's "busting unions" to improve the budgets, strengthen schools and empower the people. You want to be the guy on record supporting the Unions, that's on you buddy, me? I'm cheering for the people of Wisc.
Click to expand...

the governor is telling you what you want to hear...'damn unions, keeping me from balancing the budget, i'm doing it for the schools, for the local communities...FOR THE CHILDREN!!! OH THE HUMANITY!!!....He is so full of it to be beyond imagination...the governor was trying to do damage control. the governor just wants to screw the unions over, break legal contracts, and reward his buds. nothing more.
 
randel said:
the governor is telling you what you want to hear...'damn unions, keeping me from balancing the budget, i'm doing it for the schools, for the local communities...FOR THE CHILDREN!!! OH THE HUMANITY!!!....He is so full of it to be beyond imagination...the governor was trying to do damage control. the governor just wants to screw the unions over, break legal contracts, and reward his buds. nothing more.
Click to expand...

Okay then, we are at a crossroads. You believe he's a bad man trying to reward his buddies and I think he's helping improve the state of Wisc.
 
buck said:
I've done a little research, and since it was a special session (under senate rule 33 if I recall correctly) they probably did not break the open meeting rule. But we'll know for certain in a couple of weeks.
Click to expand...
I don't know what happened up there so I am not making a claim one way or another.

However, as I look over the open meeting compliance guide, special sessions aren't one of the listed exceptions. There are procedures for going into closed meeting mode. I have no idea if those were followed or not.
 
MrVicchio said:
Okay then, we are at a crossroads. You believe he's a bad man trying to reward his buddies and I think he's helping improve the state of Wisc.
Click to expand...
the way he went about this, yes, i think he is trying to screw the unions over, and the budget issues are a smokescreen, cover that he is using to try and do so. from a public relations point, he totally screwed up.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
I don't know what happened up there so I am not making a claim one way or another.

However, as I look over the open meeting compliance guide, special sessions aren't one of the listed exceptions. There are procedures for going into closed meeting mode. I have no idea if those were followed or not.
Click to expand...

The claim on the other side is that since the senate was in "special session" the open meeting rules do not apply.

Edited to add link to rule:
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/rules/SenateRules.html#Rule 93

(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.
 
Last edited:
buck said:
The claim on the other side is that since the senate was in "special session" the open meeting rules do not apply.

Edited to add link to rule:
Rules of the Wisconsin Senate 93

(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.
Click to expand...
The "open meeting rule" is a law. I suspect that if it came down to it, WI law would trump WI Senate rules.
The procedures for starting a closed meeting seem well defined. It seems this could be decided pretty easily from the public record.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
The "open meeting rule" is a law. I suspect that if it came down to it, WI law would trump WI Senate rules.
The procedures for starting a closed meeting seem well defined. It seems this could be decided pretty easily from the public record.
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that in the open meetings law, it allows for the following exception in 19.87(2):

This subchapter shall apply to all meetings of the senate and assembly and the committees, subcommittees and other subunits thereof, except that:

(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.
Click to expand...

As we've already established, the senate rules clearly state the special sessions are exempt.

Edited to provide link to the law:
http://www.wisfoic.org/an-openmeetingslaw.html
 
Last edited:
Whovian said:
do you even realize how contradictory and stupid that sounds?
Click to expand...

Nope. It essentially boils down to this.

"If you don't sit down and discuss the bill with us then we'll do everything we can to stop it or slow it down."
 
Whovian said:
do you even realize how contradictory and stupid that sounds?
Click to expand...
roughdraft274 said:
Nope. It essentially boils down to this.

"If you don't sit down and discuss the bill with us then we'll do everything we can to stop it or slow it down."
Click to expand...

Yeah, by leaving so they can't sit down and discuss the bill. Like I said... contradictory nonsense.
 
Stumbled upon a posting at the Legislative Reference Bureau website that appears to back my understanding of the law:

Wisconsin Legislative Spotlight
Critics of the legislation have contended that the conference committee met in violation of open meetings law. An open meetings complaint was filed by Representative Barca on March 10. Wisconsin’s open meetings law can be found in Subchapter V of Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 19. Senate Rule 93 and Assembly Rule 93 provide modified notification procedures for times when the legislature is in special session. Article IV, Section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution gives each house the authority to determine the rules of its proceedings. For more information on this topic, see our Informational Bulletin 98-1 on Special and Extraordinary Sessions of the Wisconsin Legislature.
Click to expand...
 
Whovian said:
Yeah, by leaving so they can't sit down and discuss the bill. Like I said... contradictory nonsense.
Click to expand...

If they leave AFTER the other side refused to sit down then it's not contradictory. It's no different than a filibuster. A filibuster prolongs a bill from being voted on. You could filibuster it. If someone said "we will filibuster this bill until someone from the other side sits down and talks it over with us" they aren't being contradictory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom