Collective bargaining bill published despite restraining order - Wisconsin
JSOnline ^ | 3/25/2011 |
By Jason Stein of the Journal Sentinel
Madison - A controversial bill limiting collective bargaining for public workers has been officially published despite a temporary restraining order barring its publication.
The legislation was published Friday with a footnote that notes the restraining order, but says the law "requires the Legislative Reference Bureau to publish every act within 10 working days after its date of enactment."
The publication of the law means that it will take effect Saturday.
The restraining order was issued against Secretary of State Doug La Follette, not the reference bureau. La Follette is a Democrat and the Legislature is run by Republicans, but the reference bureau is a nonpartisan agency widely respected by both sides.
La Follettte and aides to Gov. Scott Walker and legislative leaders could not be immediately released.
The publication of the law came the same day a third court action was filed challenging Walker's budget-repair law that sharply curtails union bargaining by public employees.
Friday, city of Madison firefighters and public works employees filed suit in Dane County Circuit Court against Walker and the state seeking to block the law from taking effect, saying it had been passed in violation of the state constitution.
The Madison workers are using somewhat different arguments than those in other lawsuits, saying that the law treats some union workers unfairly compared to other workers. The law also violates constitutional provisions requiring that three-fifths of lawmakers be present to vote on certain financial bills, the lawsuit said.
"These provisions treat those employees who are represented by public-sector labor organizations in ways that are different in significant respects from the ways in which they treat employees who are not represented by any labor organization," the lawsuit reads.
The named plaintiff in the lawsuit is Jamie O'Brien, a public works employee who lives in Madison.
A spokesman for Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen declined to comment on the lawsuit. It followed other court actions brought against the law by Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk and other county officials and a separate case brought by Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne.
Last week, a Dane County judge temporarily blocked the law from taking effect while she hears the case brought by Ozanne. In that case, Ozanne argues that GOP lawmakers violated the state open meetings law when a committee passed the measure without adequate public notice - a contention that Republicans deny.
Those cases are ongoing and the state's appeal of the judge's temporary restraining order is currently before the state Supreme Court, which has not said whether it would take up the matter.
The budget-repair measure was meant to shore up the state's finances through June 30 but drew massive protests because of the collective bargaining changes. It stalled when Senate Democrats left the state Feb. 17 to block action on the measure. The state constitution requires 20 of 33 senators - three-fifths of the body - to be present to vote on bills with certain fiscal elements, and Republicans hold just 19 seats.
After three weeks, Republicans quickly convened a conference committee March 9 to strip appropriations out of the bill. They said the changes to the bill meant they no longer needed 20 senators to be present.
The four Republicans on the conference committee voted for the bill as they ignored shouts by the lone Democrat at the meeting, Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca of Kenosha, that they were violating the open meetings law. The Senate passed it minutes later with no Democrats present as protesters jammed the halls of the Capitol.
Other provisions with financial impacts for the state, such as requirements that state employees pay more for their health and pension benefits, remained in the bill. Those provisions should have also required a vote by 20 senators, the lawsuit filed Friday argued. Republicans have also denied that claim.
The constitution requires the three-fifths majority for "any law which imposes, continues or renews a tax, or creates a debt or charge, or makes, continues or renews an appropriation of public or trust money, or releases, discharges or commutes a claim or demand of the state."
No comments:
Post a Comment