(C) Wisconsin Watch

(C) Wisconsin Watch
This story was originally published by Wisconsin Watch and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .

Supreme Court opts to close some meetings [1]

['Bill Lueders', 'Wisconsin Watch']

Date: 2012-02-27 21:20:02+00:00

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Wisconsin Supreme Court justices vote 4-3 to end the practice of discussing court administrative matters in open conference on Monday. The new rule requires all administrative matters to be discussed behind closed doors unless a court majority gives prior approval for an open conference. Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism/Lukas Keapproth

A sharply divided Wisconsin Supreme Court voted Monday to end its longstanding practice of discussing court administrative matters in open conference.

“To sit out here in public and philosophize … is really not the best use of our time,” said Justice Patience Roggensack, author of the proposal, which passed in an open administrative conference after nearly two hours of often-contentious discussion.

In a 4-3 vote, Roggensack was joined by fellow conservative justices David Prosser, Annette Ziegler and Michael Gableman, who argued that closing conferences when the court discusses administrative matters will save time and improve court relations.

“To sit out here in public and philosophize…is really not the best use of our time,” Justice Patience Roggensack said. Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism/Lukas Keapproth

Among the pending administrative topics slated for discussion by the court is a proposal by Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson regarding “Civility and Public Trust and Confidence.” This discussion will now take place behind closed doors.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court in 1999 became what was believed to the first court in the nation to open its discussions of administrative matters to the public. The change was backed at the time by Justice Patrick Crooks, who said Monday that closing these meetings would be “a major step backward” and “a terrible thing” for the court to do.

“I think it’s vitally important that the public be able to see what we do and how we do it,” Crooks said. “This would be a major mistake, to close what has been open.”

The new rule requires all administrative matters to be discussed in private, unless a court majority “gives prior approval in closed conference or by email for the placement of that matter on the open conference agenda.” Until now, the sessions were open unless the court ruled in open session to close them, for instance to discuss personnel matters.

Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson discusses Justice Patience Roggensack’s proposal that ends the Supreme Court’s practice of discussing court administrative matters in open conference. Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism/Lukas Keapproth

Petitions from outside groups calling on the court to change its rules would still be deliberated in open session. But the change would affect court administrative policy, including an upcoming discussion regarding court security.

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley spoke against the change, disputing claims by Roggensack that it would help the justices get decisions out sooner. She noted that the court produced its opinions more quickly in 1999-2000, when it held 20 open administrative conferences, than it did in the 2010-11 session, when it held 12 such meetings.

“What is the good public policy reason to exclude the public from this process?” Bradley asked. “I can’t think of any.”

Gableman, in backing the change, argued that in the 13 years Wisconsin’s policy of open administrative conferences has been in effect, “no court in this country has seen it wise to emulate our practice.” He said Wisconsin should not be “such an outlier” in comparison to other states.

Discussing court matters internally, Gableman said, would promote “consensus building and collegiality” among justices. And Ziegler said the court’s image has been hurt by its public exchanges.

“We do harm to ourselves as an institution and to judges around the state sitting at this table,” Ziegler said.

Justice Annette Ziegler debates with Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson over a proposal that ends the Supreme Court’s practice of discussing court administrative matters in open conference during a meeting on Monday. Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism/Lukas Keapproth

Bradley disagreed with this rationale.

“To suggest that we would behave better behind closed doors is rather counter-intuitive,” Bradley said. “The way for us to appear well-behaved is simple — it’s for us to behave well.”

Bradley, who last summer was involved in a physical altercation in which Prosser acknowledged putting both of his hands on her neck, added, “The last thing this court needs is another trigger-point for dissension.”

Abrahamson agreed, calling the proposal “very divisive.” She suggested it was unclear and would create new procedural problems.

But Roggensack pressed for a vote on her plan, at one point chiding Abrahamson, “I think what I’ve written is quite clear. I think you perfectly understand.”

Prosser, who voted for the change and against a motion by Bradley to first hold a public hearing on it, was the only justice who did not speak to the issue, even after Gableman asked for his thoughts.

“I think it would be better if I didn’t speak,” Prosser said.

The nonprofit Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism (www.WisconsinWatch.org) collaborates with Wisconsin Public Radio, Wisconsin Public Television, other news media and the UW-Madison School of Journalism and Mass Communication. All works created, published, posted or disseminated by the Center do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of UW-Madison or any of its affiliates.

Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.

Close window X Republish this article This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Scroll down to copy and paste the code of our article into your CMS. The codes for images, graphics and other embeddable elements may not transfer exactly as they appear on our site. *** Also, the code below will NOT copy the featured image on the page. You are welcome to download the main image as a separate element for publication with this story. *** You are welcome to republish our articles for free using the following ground rules. Credit should be given, in this format: “By Dee J. Hall, Wisconsin Watch”

Editing material is prohibited, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and in-house style (for example, using “Waunakee, Wis.” instead of “Waunakee” or changing “yesterday” to “last week”)

Other than minor cosmetic and font changes, you may not change the structural appearance or visual format of a story.

If published online, you must include the links and link to wisconsinwatch.org

If you share the story on social media, please mention @wisconsinwatch (Twitter, Facebook and Instagram), and ensure that the original featured image associated with the story is visible on the social media post.

Don’t sell the story or any part of it — it may not be marketed as a product.

Don’t extract, store or resell Wisconsin Watch content as a database.

Don’t sell ads against the story. But you can publish it with pre-sold ads.

Your website must include a prominent way to contact you.

Additional elements that are packaged with our story must be labeled.

Users can republish our photos, illustrations, graphics and multimedia elements ONLY with stories with which they originally appeared. You may not separate multimedia elements for standalone use.

If we send you a request to change or remove Wisconsin Watch content from your site, you must agree to do so immediately. You are welcome to republish our articles forusing the following ground rules. For questions regarding republishing rules please contact Coburn Dukehart, associate director, at [email protected] Supreme Court opts to close some meetings <h1>Supreme Court opts to close some meetings</h1> by Bill Lueders, Wisconsin Watch February 27, 2012 <div id="attachment_11807" class="wp-block-image wp-caption alignright"> <figure class="alignright"><a href="https://wisconsinwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/supremecourt-4-horizonal.jpg"><img src="https://wisconsinwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/supremecourt-4-horizonal.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-11807" title="Supreme Court Meetings - heading" /></a><figcaption>Wisconsin Supreme Court justices vote 4-3 to end the practice of discussing court administrative matters in open conference on Monday. The new rule requires all administrative matters to be discussed behind closed doors unless a court majority gives prior approval for an open conference. Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism/Lukas Keapproth</figcaption></figure> </div> A sharply divided Wisconsin Supreme Court voted Monday to end its longstanding practice of discussing court administrative matters in open conference. “To sit out here in public and philosophize … is really not the best use of our time,” said Justice Patience Roggensack, author of the proposal, which passed in an open administrative conference after nearly two hours of often-contentious discussion. In a 4-3 vote, Roggensack was joined by fellow conservative justices David Prosser, Annette Ziegler and Michael Gableman, who argued that closing conferences when the court discusses administrative matters will save time and improve court relations. <figure class="wp-block-image wp-caption right" id="attachment_11817"><a href="https://wisconsinwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/supremecourt-resized-3.jpg"><img src="https://wisconsinwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/supremecourt-resized-3.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-11817" title="Roggensack" /></a><figcaption>"To sit out here in public and philosophize...is really not the best use of our time," Justice Patience Roggensack said. Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism/Lukas Keapproth</figcaption></figure> Among the <a href="http://www.wicourts.gov/supreme/docs/oacagenda.pdf" target="_blank">pending administrative topics</a> slated for discussion by the court is a proposal by Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson regarding “Civility and Public Trust and Confidence.” This discussion will now take place behind closed doors. The Wisconsin Supreme Court in 1999 became what was believed to the first court in the nation to open its discussions of administrative matters to the public. The change was backed at the time by Justice Patrick Crooks, who said Monday that closing these meetings would be “a major step backward” and “a terrible thing” for the court to do. “I think it’s vitally important that the public be able to see what we do and how we do it,” Crooks said. “This would be a major mistake, to close what has been open.” The <a href="http://www.wicourts.gov/supreme/docs/oacagenda.pdf" target="_blank">new rule</a> requires all administrative matters to be discussed in private, unless a court majority “gives prior approval in closed conference or by email for the placement of that matter on the open conference agenda.” Until now, the sessions were open unless the court ruled in open session to close them, for instance to discuss personnel matters. <figure class="wp-block-image wp-caption left" id="attachment_11815"><a href="https://wisconsinwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/supremecourt-resized-1.jpg"><img src="https://wisconsinwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/supremecourt-resized-1.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-11815" title="Abrahamson" /></a><figcaption>Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson discusses Justice Patience Roggensack's proposal that ends the Supreme Court's practice of discussing court administrative matters in open conference. Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism/Lukas Keapproth</figcaption></figure> Petitions from outside groups calling on the court to change its rules would still be deliberated in open session. But the change would affect court administrative policy, including an upcoming discussion regarding court security. Justice Ann Walsh Bradley spoke against the change, disputing claims by Roggensack that it would help the justices get decisions out sooner. She noted that the court produced its opinions more quickly in 1999-2000, when it held 20 open administrative conferences, than it did in the 2010-11 session, when it held 12 such meetings. “What is the good public policy reason to exclude the public from this process?” Bradley asked. “I can’t think of any.” Gableman, in backing the change, argued that in the 13 years Wisconsin’s policy of open administrative conferences has been in effect, “no court in this country has seen it wise to emulate our practice.” He said Wisconsin should not be “such an outlier” in comparison to other states. Discussing court matters internally, Gableman said, would promote “consensus building and collegiality” among justices. And Ziegler said the court’s image has been hurt by its public exchanges. “We do harm to ourselves as an institution and to judges around the state sitting at this table,” Ziegler said. <figure class="wp-block-image wp-caption left" id="attachment_11816"><a href="https://wisconsinwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/supremecourt-resized-2.jpg"><img src="https://wisconsinwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/supremecourt-resized-2.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-11816" title="Ziegler" /></a><figcaption>Justice Annette Ziegler debates with Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson over a proposal that ends the Supreme Court's practice of discussing court administrative matters in open conference during a meeting on Monday. Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism/Lukas Keapproth</figcaption></figure> Bradley disagreed with this rationale. “To suggest that we would behave better behind closed doors is rather counter-intuitive,” Bradley said. “The way for us to appear well-behaved is simple — it’s for us to behave well.” Bradley, who last summer was involved in a physical altercation in which Prosser acknowledged putting both of his hands on her neck, added, “The last thing this court needs is another trigger-point for dissension.” Abrahamson agreed, calling the proposal “very divisive.” She suggested it was unclear and would create new procedural problems. But Roggensack pressed for a vote on her plan, at one point chiding Abrahamson, “I think what I’ve written is quite clear. I think you perfectly understand.” Prosser, who voted for the change and against a motion by Bradley to first hold a public hearing on it, was the only justice who did not speak to the issue, even after Gableman asked for his thoughts. “I think it would be better if I didn’t speak,” Prosser said. The nonprofit Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism (<a href="www.WisconsinWatch.org">www.WisconsinWatch.org</a>) collaborates with Wisconsin Public Radio, Wisconsin Public Television, other news media and the UW-Madison School of Journalism and Mass Communication. All works created, published, posted or disseminated by the Center do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of UW-Madison or any of its affiliates. This <a target="_blank" href="https://wisconsinwatch.org/2012/02/supreme-court-opts-to-close-some-meetings/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://wisconsinwatch.org">Wisconsin Watch</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://i0.wp.com/wisconsinwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/cropped-WCIJ_IconOnly_FullColor_RGB-1.png?fit=150%2C150&quality=100&ssl=1" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;"><img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="https://wisconsinwatch.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=11781" style="width:1px;height:1px;"> Copy to Clipboard

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://wisconsinwatch.org/2012/02/supreme-court-opts-to-close-some-meetings/

Published and (C) by Wisconsin Watch
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons BY-ND 4.0 Intl.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/wisconsinwatch/