In Madison, the case continues

The case of Ismael Ozanne vs. Jeff Fitzgerald, et.al, or as most of now refer to it – the open meetings hearing – continues today in front of Dane County Circuit Court Judge Maryann Sumi.

Will she rule with Ozanne and find the Republican leadership of the Senate and Assembly in violation of the state’s opening meetings laws when they called a conference committee with less than two hours notice on March 9?

Or will she rule for the state, represented by the Attorney’s General office, which has argued there was no violation since the Senate doesn’t have to follow the open meetings law but it’s own rules during special session?

The exact outcome in unknown, but Sumi has seemingly projected how she may rule.

Much has happened since she issued a temporary restraining order on March 18, stopping Secretary of State Doug LaFollette from publishing Wisconsin Act 10, the bill that removed most collective bargaining rights from public employees.

Sumi took a vacation and while away, the Legislative Reference Bureau published the act on its website and in the state statute books. That started a whole new round of arguing as to whether the law was in effect or not.

The majority of the court day on Tuesday was spent discussing the LRB’s publication of the act. Michael Barman, an LRB staffer, testified that bills are typically published within 10 days of the governor’s signature and with direction of the Secretary of State.

Act 10 was to set be published on March 25, but following Sumi’s TRO, LaFollette sent a letter to the LRB requesting that they put the their publishing schedule on hold until further notice from him.

LRB Deputy Chief Cathlene Hanaman testified that Sen. Scott Fitzgerald, LRB Bureau Chief Steven Miller, and the Senate chief clerk met with her the morning of March 25. She said Fitzgerald requested that the act be published that day, citing State Stat. 35.09(3)(a), which discussed the LRB’s role in publication of act. They group also discussed the idea of effective dates of acts after publication.

She added that after the meeting, Miller decided to publish the act.

After hearing the testimony and arguments about the LRB’s publication of Act. 10, Sumi ruled that the publication by the office did not count to make the law effective, essentially voiding the actions of the LRB.

Back to the issue of the open meetings violations, Assembly Minority Leader Rep. Peter Barca (D-Kenosha) testified that he didn’t receive an email noticing the conference committee meeting until 4:15 p.m. March 9. The meeting was called to order at 6 p.m., followed by a quickly organized Senate vote.

Prior to those meetings, the protest crowds had thinned and access to the Capitol had been limited, making it difficult for the public to get into the building to witness the events.  Additionally, the conference meeting was held in the Senate parlor, with limited space for staffers, media and the public.

But as the day ran out, Sumi reiterated her original temporary restraining order as to the publication of Act 10 and directed the Department of Administration to not enforce the provisions included in the act.

On Wednesday, Department of Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch said his office would continue the implementation of the act, including the mandatory percentage withholding for health insurance and pension from state employee paychecks.

On Thursday, Sumi issued a clearly worded order specifically directing the DOA to not enforce the act until the matter was settled in the court.

In response, Huebsch issued a release on Thursday saying the DOA would cease enforcement of Act 10 and “continue to abide by the court orders, like the department has done all throughout this process.”

An interesting aside in this case has been the legal representation of LaFollette. The Attorney’s General office had been representing LaFollette in his official capacity as the Secretary of State. However, attorneys representing Barca and Sen. Mark Miller (D-Madison) insisted that LaFollette should have independent counsel, since his personal and political views (he is a Democrat) may differ from the AG’s plan for representing him.

After attorneys on all three sides stopped debating the issue, Sumi ordered the state to provide LaFollette with is own separate and independent attorney to represent his views in the case.

The case resumes this morning at 8:30 a.m. in the Dane County Courthouse. Patti Wenzel will be in Madison today and will provide updates on the case at ThirdCoast Digest’s Facebook and Twitter feeds.