Did the Wisconsin Collective Bargaining Vote Violate Sunshine?

Meetings are often held in conference rooms

Image via Wikipedia

Bill Lueders of the Wisconsin FOI Council raises some important questions regarding yesterday’s controversial vote in Wisconsin:

I have been asked whether the Wisconsin FOIC has a position on last night’s action by the state Legislature. As you know, I am not a lawyer and do not play one on TV. These are difficult issues to parse. But a few points can be made:

The Open Meetings Law, at 19.84(3), states: “Public notice of every meeting of a governmental body shall be given at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of such meeting unless for good cause such notice is impossible or impractical, in which case shorter notice may be given, but in no case may the notice be provided less than 2 hours in advance of the meeting.”

There is no dispute that yesterday’s meeting was not noticed 24 hours in advance and I see no way it could be argued that giving 24 hours notice was “impossible or impractical,” three weeks into a budget stalemate. There is also some question as to whether a full two hours notice was given, in that it was arguably not posted in a location to which media and others have unfettered access. The Assembly Dems say they did were not notified until 4:10 pm, and the Senate meeting purportedly began at 6 p.m.

The Senate Chief Clerk, Robert Marchant, has advanced the argument that the notice was sufficient under Senate Rule 93, which holds that the Senate can convene in special session without giving advance notice. Others have pointed out that this rule pertains to the Senate, whereas last night’s meeting was a Joint Committee of Conference, a.k.a. Joint Conference Committee. They say Rule 93 would not apply in such a case.

The council’s position is that, whether or not a viable legal challenge can be brought, this action merits the condemnation of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council as contrary to the spirit, at least, of the Open Meetings Law, as well as to the state’s traditions of openness.

We believe the meeting was hastily convened without adequate public notice because the people convening it felt they needed an element of surprise to prevail — making it precisely the sort of action the state’s Open Meetings Law was intended to preclude.


Enhanced by Zemanta

One Response

  1. I know that two wrongs don’t make a right, but there is something that just doesn’t sit well with me about those who subverted democracy by going AWOL arguing about an open meeting notification violation.

    I don’t know enough about Wisconsin law to know whether there really is a violation, and note that reports seem to suggest that the parliamentarian said there would be no violation.

    In any event, open laws seem to be about sunlight being necessary and this whole Wisconsin matter has unfolded in front of thousands of protestors and the country.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: