May 31, 2011

Wisconsin Open Meetings Law too burdensome

Dept. of Absurd Results:
There is a somewhat disturbing policy issue to the argument made in defense of the legislature's process in this case — the implication that the rules the legislature makes for everyone else should not apply to the legislature itself. If, in this case, the Open Meetings Law is too burdensome for the legislature to follow, it is unclear why other units of government should be expected to follow them. — MULS blawg commenter Bruce Thompson
Yes exactly. Although it's less an implication than it is a clear statement of the law. And that particular argument being made in defense of the legislature is being made in court by Republican Scott Walker and the Republican leadership in the legislature, and put forth by the Wisconsin Department of Justice, which is "representing the Republicans."

I don't know why those Republicans and their supporters in this grave matter don't just come out and say what their objective is: It is having the Wisconsin Supreme Court declare the Open Meetings Law — which guarantees reasonable public access to government — unconstitutional.

That's the takeaway, as they say. That's the real story.

The one that our librul media isn't reporting.

They've already tried locking all of the doors to the State Capitol and you know Scott Fitzgerald was aware of the law that he needed to provide at a minimum two hours notice for his March 9 twilight jamboree, as evidenced by the literally last-minute scrambling around to do so revealed by the sworn testimony in Judge Maryann Sumi's courtroom.

By the way, has Scott Walker's building maintenance supervisor Mike Huebsch ever determined whether any of the scuffed limestone piers were caused by Senate aide Rachel Veum's clogs? Anything's possible!

eta: [Wis. AG J.B.] Van Hollen is acting shamelessly, and shamefully.

At least somebody else gets it.

7 comments:

John Foust said...

I think you are quite correct that the Open Meetings law is under attack. I can't help but wonder if the Open Records law will be attacked as well.

Has anyone stood up to provide the argument behind this attack? Where is the public good in eliminating the advance notice of meetings? Why does the legislature need so many exceptions for themselves so they don't need to work within the laws they'd like everyone else to follow?

You'd think the CRG folks would be all over this.

illusory tenant said...

Too busy harassing private citizens for reading the paper at work.

Anonymous said...

Is this a due process issue?

Anonymous said...

Have you read Esenberg's latest foray?

Care to refute and rebut in a future blog posting? That could be fun!

law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2011/05/31/another-view-on-the-merits-of-judge-sumis-decision/#more-13559

illusory tenant said...

I see Esenberg understood exactly who Fallone was talking about when the latter raised the issue of "sloppy lawyering" and mentioned his professional ethical obligations as an officer of the court(s).

illusory tenant said...

"I have commented extensively on this case in the national and local media and have refused to question Judge Sumi’s character or competence."

Uh huh.

"[A] lawyer who read the law, and I'm talking about the statutes and, y'know, not a publication that is sent to schoolchildren to explain to gradeschoolers how, y'know, a law goes into effect, but actually read the law ... "

Some refusal.

illusory tenant said...

Esenberg: "The Zimmerman and Goodland cases ... " Er, Goodland v. Zimmerman is one case. Do I really have to keep reading this thing?