Judicial Council to make final plea to high court for budget  

Listen to this article

The Wisconsin Judicial Council voted last week to make a final plea asking the Wisconsin Supreme Court to foot the bill for its budget after a member suggested that the council choose between resigning en masse or suspending the council’s operations.

The 21-member independent body is charged with studying proposed changes to the state’s rules of procedures and providing related advice to the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the Legislature. Its members include prosecutors, lawyers, judges and lawmakers.

Gov. Scott Walker has twice proposed eliminating the council. Although lawmakers have declined to take his suggestions, they did chose to not set aside any money in the state budget this year to pay for the council’s staff or operations.

The decision did not kill off the council, but did leave its future largely up to the state Supreme Court. Earlier this year, the high-court justices, responding to the council’s decision to give its staff attorney a significant raise, came out against footing the bill for the council’s operations.

Since then, the council has been considering what to do. At a meeting held on Dec. 15, it voted to send members of its executive committee to meet with Director of State Courts Randy Koschnick and representatives of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The goal would be for the four members of the council to find out how the court wants the council to go forward.

The motion passed on a voice vote following more than an hour of discussion that was prompted by a statement from council Vice Chair and Court of Appeals Judge Brian Blanchard.

He proposed that the council, at a meeting scheduled for Jan. 19, vote to either resign en masse or indefinitely suspend the council’s operations.

Blanchard noted that the members of the council are all volunteers and have struggled, among other things, to find time to keep track of correspondence. They also have no one who can work with parties who are interested in the council’s work and who can present the council’s work to parties that might be interested.

“We can’t function,” he said.

Gleisner said he has volunteered to work as the council’s staff attorney to forestall its disbanding. Keeping the council solvent, Gleisner said, is important because of bills pending in the Legislature involving the state’s rules of procedure.

“I sincerely think the council is important to the State Bar,” he said. “To disband is inconsistent with state statute and a disservice to the bench, bar and Legislature, in my opinion.”

State Rep. Jim Ott, a Republican from Mequon and a member of the council, cautioned members about any decision to resign en masse, arguing that it may be difficult to undo.

He suggested the council chair and vice chair meet with the Director of State Courts or the high court to find out whether the court values the council enough to step in or simply suspend its operations.

Member Tom Shriner, Marquette University Law School’s appointee to the counci,l said he was inclined to vote for suspending operations.

“We just can’t do our job the way we want to do our job without staff,” he said. “Everyone loves us but no one has given us money – that’s how you show your love in government.”