By: Beth Kevit, [email protected]//May 9, 2013//
By: Beth Kevit, [email protected]//May 9, 2013//
A proposal that Milwaukee County hire an attorney could signal an eventual shift from the hearing room to the courtroom in the debate over government reform.
A county committee Thursday gave initial approval to hire an attorney, rather than using the county’s in-house legal staff, to comb through Assembly Bill 85 and Senate Bill 95. The bills, if passed, would limit the scope of the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisor’s powers and attempt to reduce supervisors’ pay, among other things.
The full board still must vote on the proposal to hire the attorney.
Supervisor John Weishan Jr., who made the proposal, said he believes the bills violate a state statute by unfairly targeting Milwaukee County. If that’s the case, he said, the county could have grounds for a lawsuit.
“I think this is an attempt,” he said, “to establish that legal foundation.”
According to the statute Weishan cited, the state can limit a county’s powers if the change has statewide implications and uniformly affects all counties. If the bills only apply to Milwaukee County, Weishan said, the effect certainly is not uniform.
Milwaukee County could use its in-house attorneys to evaluate two state bills for potential legal challenges, but Supervisor John Weishan Jr. said he wants outside expertise.
Weishan wants a review of AB 85 and SB 95 to determine if they violate a state statute by unjustly targeting Milwaukee County. But the county’s attorneys are not experts on state law, he said, and their involvement could open them to criticism no matter what opinion they reached.
Kimberly Walker, the county’s corporation counsel, said she believes her office could conduct a fair review of the bills. Still, she said, she is concerned the board would suspect bias if she were to return with a conclusion that favored the state.
However, Supervisor Pat Jursik said she does not believe Walker’s office could be unbiased. Corporation counsel also represents County Executive Chris Abele, Jursik said, and he supports the state bills despite the county’s official position against them, which was established through a resolution.
That disparity, Jursik said, is a conflict of interest.
— Beth Kevit
But Andy Phillips, general counsel for the Wisconsin Counties Association, which is registered in opposition to the state bills, said he does not believe that argument would stand up in court. He said he has not thoroughly analyzed the bills, but there is a flaw in Weishan’s argument.
“The Legislature,” Phillips said, “already created different requirements for Milwaukee County.”
Phillips cited as an example the statute that allows four-year terms for Milwaukee County supervisors. No other counties’ supervisors, he said, have four-year terms.
Weishan discounted that argument, saying the statute Phillips cited does not preclude the state from giving other counties’ supervisors four-year terms, but the bills would bar the Milwaukee County Board from having certain powers.
“It’s when they are adjusting these things to unfairly target Milwaukee County,” he said, “and put us in a negative position. That’s what’s wrong with it.”
Weishan said changes to the bills highlight the state’s effort to target only Milwaukee County.
The bills originally would have affected counties with more than 500,000 residents. Amendments raised that number to 750,000.
During testimony before an Assembly committee April 10, state Rep. Joe Sanfelippo, R-West Allis, who introduced AB 85 and co-sponsored SB 95, said the population change was necessary because Dane County is estimated to have grown to be more than 500,000 people since the last census. The bill, he said at the time, is intended to affect only Milwaukee County.
Those amendments, Weishan said, support his argument.
“The only reason they chose that number,” he said, “is to discriminate against Milwaukee County.”
Bob Delaporte, spokesman for state Sen. Alberta Darling, R-River Hills, who co-sponsored AB 85 and introduced SB 95, said it is true the state raised the population number so the bills would apply only to Milwaukee County. But, he said, that does not mean the bills violate the statute.
“When we drafted the bill,” he said, “we were pretty careful about that.”
It’s the same as the state using population as a measure to direct money to Milwaukee County, Delaporte said. Furthermore, he said, the bills were reviewed by attorneys, so it is unlikely the county could successfully challenge the changes in court.
Weishan said it is too early to predict a lawsuit. But, he said, he questions the state’s motives.
“If these are good, rational arguments,” he said, “they should apply everywhere.”