Steve Lund: Judge gives meetings law vital support
No matter how people feel about the changes to Wisconsin‚Äôs collective bargaining laws passed by the Legislature in March ‚ÄĒ and then voided May 26 by Judge Maryann Sumi ‚ÄĒ Wisconsin residents should take heart in Sumi‚Äôs decision.
She declared the state‚Äôs open meetings law means something.
‚ÄúThis case is the exemplar of values protected by the open meetings law: transparency in government, the right of citizens to participate in their government and respect for the rule of law,‚ÄĚ Sumi wrote in her decision. ‚ÄúIt is not this court‚Äôs business to determine whether 2011 Act 10 is good public policy or bad public policy; that is the business of the Legislature. It is this court‚Äôs responsibility, however, to apply the rule of law to the facts before it.‚ÄĚ
Sumi described the evidence supporting her finding that the law was violated as ‚Äúclear and convincing. This was not a case in which proper notice was missed by a few minutes or an hour. Not even the two-hour notice justified by ‚Äėgood cause‚Äô was provided. The legislators were understandably frustrated by the stalemate existing on March 9, but that does not justify jettisoning compliance with the open meetings law.‚ÄĚ
According to Sumi, the Joint Committee of Conference, the committee of legislative leaders from both chambers of the Legislature that met to separate fiscal from non-fiscal portions of the budget repair bill, was aware it was violating the law.
She noted remedies were readily available. In her conclusions, Sumi said the conference committee violated the open meetings law by failing to provide at least 24 hours public notice of the meeting. She doesn‚Äôt mention it in her documents, but the remedy for that problem is pretty obvious: Give 24 hours notice.
Sumi said the meeting also violated the law by failing to provide reasonable public access to the meeting. The meeting was held in the Senate Gallery, which, after being set up to accommodate legislative staff members and the media, had seating for only 20 people. Larger rooms in the Capitol were available, the judge wrote, and they had been used for conference committee meetings in the past.
The Legislature still could post a timely notice of a new committee meeting and take the same action, voiding the effect of her decision. The judge pointed out it has been possible all along for the Legislature to hold the vote again, making the case unnecessary.
In fact, the legislators could have held a new vote without admitting they violated the law. They didn‚Äôt do so, so the case proceeded. But now that the judge has ruled, a new vote may be forthcoming.
For that reason, Sumi‚Äôs ruling ultimately may not have any effect on the public policy concerning collective bargaining. But it will have an important effect on the way legislators and the public look at the open meetings law: It still matters.
Many of our elected politicians speak glowingly of Wisconsin‚Äôs tradition of open government. But it took a circuit court judge to hold the Legislature to that tradition.
Steve Lund is the editorial page editor of the Kenosha News. His column was distributed by the Freedom of Information Council (www.wisfoic.org), a nonprofit dedicated to open government.