Wisconsin Thread

[Jenksismyhero]

http://www.themonkeycage.org/2011/02/the_r...ween_union.html

 

What's the projection into the future? That's the problem.

 

And yes, I completely agree that government was stupid to "sign" those deals. It's the f***ing government, of course they'll screw the whole to get themselves reelected. Again, you're talking about teachers and police and fireman - people that it's a PR nightmare to come out against. It's only happening now because of the state of the economy and state budgets, which is exactly why Walker is making his move now. It's a power play for Wisconsin government going forward.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Unions have agreed plenty of times to defer compensation to help cover budget shortfalls. They've certainly done that in Wisconsin, but Walker wanted absolutely nothing to do with negotiating. He, like the new governor down in Florida, seems to think being governor means being King of the State and allows you to run the state like you'd run a business.

 

The problems are governors and legislators never actually making long-term plans to pay for anything and, of course, the massive recession caused by Wall Street, not public employees' unions.

 

Is that really a bad thing?

[Jenksismyhero]

LOL, Reagan:

 

"[...]where unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost."

"... Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations ... The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for ... officials ... to bind the employer ... The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives ...

 

"Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people ... This obligation is paramount ... A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent ... to prevent or obstruct ... Government ... Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government ... is unthinkable and intolerable." - FDR

[StrangeSox]

Is that really a bad thing?

 

Yes. Government and private enterprise are different structures serving vastly different goals. Even a not-for-profit makes a poor comparison to government.

[Jenksismyhero]

Yes. Government and private enterprise are different structures serving vastly different goals. Even a not-for-profit makes a poor comparison to government.

 

I'd argue the not-for-profit model of not spending more than you have is one to follow.

[StrangeSox]

I'd argue the not-for-profit model of not spending more than you have is one to follow.

It's still two completely different institutions. The government exists to serve all citizens. It is not analogous to a business and it should not be run like one.

[Balta1701]

I'd argue the not-for-profit model of not spending more than you have is one to follow.

That'd be an awful model for a government to follow.

[Jenksismyhero]

That'd be an awful model for a government to follow.

 

Not surprising that you'd think that. Why should the government run a surplus (except minimally to pay down the country's debt)?

[Balta1701]

Not surprising that you'd think that. Why should the government run a surplus (except minimally to pay down the country's debt)?

Running a surplus to pay down debt is a reasonable thing to do in a time of economic growth. Running deficits during times of war or contraction are the real thing you need a government have the ability to do.

 

We've also seen governments leveraging surplus funds for all sorts of purchases over the past few years...the "Sovereign Wealth Funds" that became popular after the Asian collapse of '97 became popular because the governments could use them as buffers to prevent additional runs on their economy. It's an interesting case and it's one that I don't know how it will wind up working yet.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

http://wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=230087

 

From: Sen.Fitzgerald

Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 3:52 PM

To: *Legislative Senate Republicans

Subject: Senate Democrat voting privileges in standing committees

 

Dear Members,

 

With the return of the Senate Democrats this weekend, questions have arisen regarding Democrat members’ participation in Senate standing committee public hearings and executive sessions.

 

Please note that all 14 Democrat senators are still in contempt of the Senate. Therefore, when taking roll call votes on amendments and bills during executive sessions, Senate Democrats’ votes will not be reflected in the Records of Committee Proceedings or the Senate Journal. They are free to attend hearings, listen to testimony, debate legislation, introduce amendments, and cast votes to signal their support/opposition, but those votes will not count, and will not be recorded.

 

If you have any questions, feel free to contact my office.

 

Thank you,

 

Scott Fitzgerald

Senate Majority Leader

13th Senate District

[Balta1701]

http://wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=230087

 

From: Sen.Fitzgerald

Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 3:52 PM

To: *Legislative Senate Republicans

Subject: Senate Democrat voting privileges in standing committees

 

Dear Members,

 

With the return of the Senate Democrats this weekend, questions have arisen regarding Democrat members’ participation in Senate standing committee public hearings and executive sessions.

 

Please note that all 14 Democrat senators are still in contempt of the Senate. Therefore, when taking roll call votes on amendments and bills during executive sessions, Senate Democrats’ votes will not be reflected in the Records of Committee Proceedings or the Senate Journal. They are free to attend hearings, listen to testimony, debate legislation, introduce amendments, and cast votes to signal their support/opposition, but those votes will not count, and will not be recorded.

 

If you have any questions, feel free to contact my office.

 

Thank you,

 

Scott Fitzgerald

Senate Majority Leader

13th Senate District

Hmm...I would have figured that facing 8 recall petitions the Republicans might be interested in letting this go away rather than continuing to push the other side.

[Controlled Chaos]

[GoSox05]

Oh my god socialists!!!!! Everybody run for your lives!!!!!

[StrangeSox]

I like that Socialism isn't just a competing economic philosophy, it's actually evil.

 

The rest of that site advertised in the video is hilariously awful. I am tempted to think it's a parody.

Edited March 16, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

http://wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=230087

 

From: Sen.Fitzgerald

Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 3:52 PM

To: *Legislative Senate Republicans

Subject: Senate Democrat voting privileges in standing committees

 

Dear Members,

 

With the return of the Senate Democrats this weekend, questions have arisen regarding Democrat members’ participation in Senate standing committee public hearings and executive sessions.

 

Please note that all 14 Democrat senators are still in contempt of the Senate. Therefore, when taking roll call votes on amendments and bills during executive sessions, Senate Democrats’ votes will not be reflected in the Records of Committee Proceedings or the Senate Journal. They are free to attend hearings, listen to testimony, debate legislation, introduce amendments, and cast votes to signal their support/opposition, but those votes will not count, and will not be recorded.

 

If you have any questions, feel free to contact my office.

 

Thank you,

 

Scott Fitzgerald

Senate Majority Leader

13th Senate District

The top GOP leader in the state Senate backtracked Tuesday, saying he wouldn’t seek to prevent Democrats from voting on bills in committee.

 

On Monday, Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) said that Democrats couldn’t vote on bills in committee immediately even though they’ve returned from Illinois. That’s because GOP lawmakers voted to hold Democrats in contempt of the Senate for driving to Illinois to attempt to block a vote on Gov. Scott Walker’s union bargaining bill.

 

On Tuesday, Fitzgerald and Senate President Mike Ellis (R-Neenah) said they would not enforce that contempt finding.

 

"The name of the game is moving this state forward, putting this stuff behind us," Ellis said. "Let's get on with the people's business. Let's stop all the bickering."

 

GOP senators will also not fine Democrats $100 each for missing a session day and will stop withholding paychecks from Democratic senators.

 

Fitzgerald said he'd received assurances from Democrats that they would participate in future session days, relieving his fears they would again leave the state to prevent passage of the state budget later this year.

Link

[Cknolls]

Well, at the very least, it appears the legislature specifically and clearly broke a rule about 24 hour notification. So I'm guessing it goes back for another vote if contested in the courts.

 

 

 

 

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 not even the 2 hour notice was required but as a courtesy.

[Balta1701]

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 not even the 2 hour notice was required but as a courtesy.

You timed this well. Charges were filed today.

Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne charged state Senate Republicans Wednesday with open meetings law violations in connection with a controversial move they made to pass legislation to curtail public sector union bargaining rights.

 

"Our investigation has found merit in the verified complaints, which allows us to commence this litigation," says Ozanne in a statement. "This litigation does not address the merits or the wisdom of the legislation."

 

Senate Republicans had been stymied by 14 Democrats who fled the state last month to deprive the GOP-controlled Senate of the 20-member quorum needed to pass Gov. Scott Walker's budget repair bill, which included a measure to effectively end collective bargaining for public employees. A week ago, Republicans hastily called a joint conference committee, including members of both legislative houses, to consider a bill that was stripped of fiscal elements, allowing the legislation to be passed by a simple majority.

 

State law requires 24 hours notice for such meetings unless "good cause" exists. The Republicans' notice was short of two hours.

 

The Senate passed the legislation, prompting thousands of angry protesters to swarm the Capitol. The bill was passed by the Assembly the next day and signed by Walker on Friday.

 

Senate Chief Clerk Robert Marchant has said the Republicans acted legally.

 

But Wednesday, Ozanne charged Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, his brother, Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald, Senate President Mike Ellis and Assembly Majority Leader Rep. Scott Suder with violating the state's open meetings law.

 

The complaint filed by Ozanne charges that no reason existed for the exigency with which the conference committee called the meeting, and says the committee should have given the customary 24-hour notice.

 

"The public notice for said meeting was insufficient as to reasonably likely apprise the public and the news media that the Joint Committee of Conference would consider, discuss, debate and act on a new version of said bill consisting of only those items denominated ‘non-fiscal,'" the complaint states.

 

The complaint went on to say, "No good cause existed such that the notice of 24 hours was impossible or impractical."

[NorthSideSox72]

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 not even the 2 hour notice was required but as a courtesy.

Senate rules are not vaild if in conflict with state law.

 

[Balta1701]

A state judge has issued a temporary restraining order on the passed bill due to the violation of state law in its passage. Important to note...this is not on the legal question of whether or not the bill is a financial bill that requires the full quorum.

 

Should the Republicans so desire, they can of course re-pass the bill with the appropriate procedures. Esp. now that the Dems have returned.

A state judge in Wisconsin has just issued a temporary restraining order blocking Gov. Scott Walker's (R-WI) newly-passed law curtailing public employee unions, on the grounds that the GOP-controlled legislature appeared to have violated state public notice requirements when quickly passing the bill last week.

 

"It seems to me the public policy behind effective enforcement of the open meeting law is so strong that it does outweigh the interest, at least at this time, which may exist in favor of sustaining the validity of the (law)," wrote Judge Maryann Sumi, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports.

 

A key thing to note here is that this is a procedural objection, and not a constitutional finding based on the content of the law itself. As such, even if the bill's opponents secure a permanent injunction in further litigation -- and then prevail in any appeals to higher courts -- the Republican-controlled could still theoretically get together and pass the bill again.

[Rex Kickass]

More importantly than the minutiae of law:

 

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=140002042731702

 

Event Sat April 2

Zombie Walk against Governor Walker

Dress up like a zombie and make a clever sign.

 

I would like everyone to meet near Urban Outfitters on State Street. I will be there at 1pm and start walking towards the Capitol at 1:15pm. Or you can do whatever suits you.

 

I will be holding a sign saying; "Zombies Unite for Union Workers". I have short bright pink hair and will most likely be wearing a black zip up hoodie and jeans.

[BigSqwert]

And you thought politicians in Illinois has ethical issues. Sheesh.

[Cknolls]

Congrats Justice Prosser on your victory.

[Balta1701]

Congrats Justice Prosser on your victory.

I'll remember that the next time y'all complain about Democratic votes turning up after an election.

[Cknolls]

I'll remember that the next time y'all complain about Democratic votes turning up after an election.

 

 

Karma is a b**** isn't it?

 

[Balta1701]

Karma is a b**** isn't it?

Eh, I don't mind. Mistakes happen. I'm just wondering where the Republicans are complaining about voter fraud?