The Wisconsin Supreme Court, just hours before a deadline imposed by state legislative Republicans, just reinstated the anti-union law which a district court judge had blocked because it violated state open meetings requirements. They made the novel interpretation that those requirements don’t apply to the legislature.
|By: David Dayen Friday April 29, 2011 6:55 am|
Scott Walker’s team must be getting worried about their legal strategy in the case of the anti-union bill. Because now, there’s open talk about going back to the drawing board and putting the provisions into another piece of legislation, in this case the budget bill for this fiscal year.
|By: David Dayen Tuesday March 29, 2011 4:48 pm|
We all know how this turned out the first time, but for the record, Judge Maryann Sumi extended the temporary restraining order against the anti-union law which strips most collective bargaining rights from public employees, and warned of sanctions for any public official who continues to implement the law.
|By: David Dayen Friday March 18, 2011 3:40 pm|
The Attorney General of Wisconsin, JB Van Hollen, will appeal today’s ruling in Dane County Court of a temporary restraining order against implementation of the anti-union law that strips public employees of their collective bargaining rights. The appeal will go to the 4th District Court of Appeals in the state.
|By: David Dayen Friday March 18, 2011 11:59 am|
Wisconsin law requires that public meetings are announced with 24 hours notice, 2 hours if there’s some extenuating circumstance which prevents advanced planning. The meeting in question, the conference committee, actually had less than two hours notice. “I have been shown no rule that overrides the statutory requirement,” Judge Sumi said.
|By: David Dayen Friday March 11, 2011 5:25 pm|
Wisconsin’s anti-public employee bill is signed, but the Secretary of State will take the maximum 10 days to publish the legislation, which means it won’t officially become law until March 25 at the earliest, and probably not until the following Monday, March 28. So there are a couple weeks of legal efforts to go here before we see if the bill will become law immediately.
|By: David Dayen Thursday March 10, 2011 3:05 pm|
The Assembly Minority Leader, Peter Barca, has filed an official complaint that yesterday’s conference committee violated state open meetings laws. The complaint has a number of findings of fact, and then asserts that the conference committee “was not conducted in compliance with Joint Rule 3″ of the Wisconsin Legislature, as well as not being exempt from open meetings law requirements, specifically the stipulation that 24 hours notice be given for a public meeting. This complaint goes to the Dane County district attorney.
|By: David Dayen Thursday March 10, 2011 6:04 am|
When you talk to political folks in Wisconsin, you realize that transparency and procedure matter a lot. This violation of law is actually but one of the many dubious marks on yesterday’s action, and actually all the action around the budget repair bill and the assault on workers’ rights. Perhaps the open meetings violation could be rectified merely by waiting another day and starting over. But there are all the questions surrounding the content of the bill itself. The whole reason this ordeal has lasted three weeks is that the collective bargaining piece was tied into the budget repair bill, which had a fiscal impact. That’s what triggered the quorum requirement. But the Republicans supposedly stripped out the fiscal pieces and passed a purely non-fiscal bill last night in the Senate, and later this morning they’ll do the same in the Assembly.
|By: Scarecrow Wednesday July 28, 2010 5:55 pm|
S.E.C. Chairwoman Mary Schapiro announced improved public participation procedures to open up SEC’s rulemaking proceedings, thus proving that doing the public’s business in public isn’t hard. So what’s the excuse of other Federal agencies (like FCC) and Obama’s extreme closed-door Catfood Commission?
|By: Scarecrow Tuesday June 22, 2010 1:40 pm|
It was no surprise when the Wall Street Journal reported that senior officials at the Federal Communications Commission were meeting privately with affected industry to consider possible solutions to the disagreement over “net neutrality.” But why are they allowed to do that?