Wisc democrats can be charged with a felony for going into hiding.

zack991 · Feb 25, 2011

946.12 Misconduct in public office. Any public officer or public employee who does any of the following is guilty of a Class I felony:

946.12(1)
(1) Intentionally fails or refuses to perform a known mandatory, nondiscretionary, ministerial duty of the officer's or employee's office or employment within the time or in the manner required by law; or

946.12(3)
(3) Whether by act of commission or omission, in the officer's or employee's capacity as such officer or employee exercises a discretionary power in a manner inconsistent with the duties of the officer's or employee's office or employment or the rights of others and with intent to obtain a dishonest advantage for the officer or employee or another;

Beretta92FSLady · Feb 25, 2011

I voted even though the premise of the question is that they are breaking the law, and whether or not they should be charged.

They are not breaking the law.

You are pointing out the code and seem to be stating that they are breaking the law. So, I would like for you to describe why you think they are breaking the law, and some legal ruling to back it up.

Has there ever been a congress-person (state or Federal) that has been charged with a felony for not being present to start proceedings? I should probably stick with any state congress-persons.

sudden valley gunner · Feb 25, 2011

The difference would be the intent.

Is this a Wisconson State law?

Republicans were called the party of no.

Looks like the Democrats are the party of don't show.

VW_Factor · Feb 25, 2011

Isn't there a law in WI that even if they break the law, they cannot be arrested while they are "in session" regardless of where they are at?

I read something along those lines somewhere around. Maybe someone knows more.

Beretta92FSLady · Feb 25, 2011

sudden valley gunner said:
The difference would be the intent.

Is this a Wisconson State law?

Republicans were called the party of no.

Looks like the Democrats are the party of don't show.

Republicans want people to believe that their constant "no's" are/were somehow different than not showing...it is the same freaking thing.

The Governor is a tool IMO. He will be out next election...anyone want to bet lunch on it?

DontTreadOnMeVa · Feb 25, 2011

Beretta92FSLady said:
Republicans want people to believe that their constant "no's" are/were somehow different than not showing...it is the same freaking thing.

The Governor is a tool IMO. He will be out next election...anyone want to bet lunch on it?

A lot of people think that of him....and a lot agree with him. If he closes the budget gap and weakens the unions to help ensure the state financial future it will help everyone, be they union members or not.

I hope other states/governors follow suit quickly and do the hard work to balance budgets and set us on a path to keep them balanced.

eye95 · Feb 25, 2011

I wonder if he is going to be the same kind of tool with the public employees unions that Reagan was with PATCO. I hope so. I vote for and thoroughly support those kinds of tools. We need more of them to fix this mess.

sultan62 · Feb 26, 2011

Beretta92FSLady said:
Republicans want people to believe that their constant "no's" are/were somehow different than not showing...it is the same freaking thing.

The Governor is a tool IMO. He will be out next election...anyone want to bet lunch on it?

Admittedly, I am unsure what you are referring to with the constant "NOs", but I don't see how it could remotely be the same thing as leaving the state so that an official function cannot be accomplished.

I don't pay any real attention to Wisconsin politics, and even my knowledge of the current situation is fairly basic. However, when an entire group of people leave the state to avoid a quorum, that appears to me to be the epitome of 946.12(1)

Beretta92FSLady · Feb 26, 2011

eye95 said:
I vote for and thoroughly support those kinds of tools. .

You would.

Interceptor_Knight · Feb 26, 2011

zack991 said:
946.12 Misconduct in public office. Any public officer or public employee who does any of the following is guilty of a Class I felony:

946.12(1)
(1) Intentionally fails or refuses to perform a known mandatory, nondiscretionary, ministerial duty of the officer's or employee's office or employment within the time or in the manner required by law; or

946.12(3)

Sub (3) would not apply. Sub (1) has no relevance unless you can provide a statute which makes it mandatory (requirement by law) for a WI State Senator to attend a session. The fact is that there is none so Sub(1) does not apply in this case either.

Only this weak language is found in the WI State Constitution...

Article IV, §7
Organization of legislature; quorum; compulsory attendance. Section 7. Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members; and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide.

VW_Factor said:
Isn't there a law in WI that even if they break the law, they cannot be arrested while they are "in session" regardless of where they are at?

I read something along those lines somewhere around. Maybe someone knows more.

This is also found there which makes it unpossible to arrest a Senator for not attending session...

Article IV, §15
Exemption from arrest and civil process. Section 15. Members of the legislature shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest; nor shall they be subject to any civil process, during the session of the legislature, nor for fifteen days next before the commencement and after the termination of each session.

It is fortunate for them that this is in the Constitution as the Statute appears a little weaker...

13.19 Arrest of officers. No officer of the senate or assembly,
while in actual attendance upon the duties of that person’s
office, shall be liable to arrest on civil process.

Interceptor_Knight · Feb 26, 2011

eye95 said:
I wonder if he is going to be the same kind of tool with the public employees unions that Reagan was with PATCO. I hope so. I vote for and thoroughly support those kinds of tools. We need more of them to fix this mess.

The difference is that Teachers are not "State" employees and Walker does not have any authority over them. He can not fire teachers like Reagan fired ATCs.

sudden valley gunner · Feb 26, 2011

Interceptor_Knight said:
The difference is that Teachers are not "State" employees and Walker does not have any authority over them. He can not fire teachers like Reagan fired ATCs.

I know the teachers here have to be part of their local Union, State Union and federal Union.

The funds to pay them come from state property tax.

Unionized public employees should be illegal in my thinking and the left's great socialist hero FDR thought the same thing.

eye95 · Feb 26, 2011

Interceptor_Knight said:
The difference is that Teachers are not "State" employees and Walker does not have any authority over them. He can not fire teachers like Reagan fired ATCs.

If, as a result of not being able to pass a funding bill, the State stops sending money to local schools, then the local schools will have to do layoffs. If I am running the local school district, I handle part of the fiscal crisis by firing all the "sick" teachers for whom I have any evidence that they were, in reality, protesting in Madison. The rest of the short-fall should be handled by negotiating from a position of strength with the union: "Either we (the school district) lay off a bunch more of your teachers, or we (the union and us) negotiate a reasonable contract.) If possible, the whole teacher force should be Providenced.

I say this being a former public and private school teacher for ten years. I can't abide how unions have coerced our local and state governments and private corporations into bankruptcy. It's about time these unions were stood up to!

sudden valley gunner · Feb 26, 2011

Beretta92FSLady said:
Republicans want people to believe that their constant "no's" are/were somehow different than not showing...it is the same freaking thing.

The Governor is a tool IMO. He will be out next election...anyone want to bet lunch on it?

No it isn't. When you vote "no" you show up to do it and there is a vote.

When you can just leave and then there will be no vote it is very very different.

eye95 · Feb 26, 2011

All rhetoric aside, I love what is going on. There are differences there to be seen. Obvious to anyone who will look.

Differences between these protesters and tea parties.

Differences between these protesters and the Egyptian people.

Differences between the way that Republicans in WI are pressing their agenda and how the Democrats pressed their agenda in Washington prior to this past election.

I think folks are noticing. Let 'er rip!

sudden valley gunner · Feb 26, 2011

My neighbor and his wife are teachers, they hate having to pay $2000.00 a year from their family budget to be able to teach. (Forced to join the unions)

They dislike that the money is directed into politics they don't agree with.
They dislike the fact the union often will tie teachers hands to create the illusion we need more tax money to hire more teachers, (rules about what teacher aids can do).
They dislike the fact they are not answerable to parents but to bureaucrats and union bosses.

They hope that what is happening in Wisconsin and New Jersey spreads to other states but are doubtful it will.

metalman383 · Feb 26, 2011

Federal employees are not given collective bargaining rights. Why should state employees?

sudden valley gunner · Feb 26, 2011

metalman383 said:
Federal employees are not given collective bargaining rights. Why should state employees?

I like how they keep saying "collective bargaining rights".....I have not found that anywhere in the constitution.

Huck · Feb 27, 2011

Governor Walker is going about dealing with those lamers in the wrong way. As I understand it, if a elected official fails to show up and do the job that they were elected to do, their seat can be declared vacant due to abandonment. Then the Governor can appoint another person to fill that seat/position.

Something to think about.

eye95 · Feb 27, 2011

Huck said:
...As I understand it, if a elected official fails to show up and do the job that they were elected to do, their seat can be declared vacant due to abandonment. Then the Governor can appoint another person to fill that seat/position...

Cite?

Wisc democrats can be charged with a felony for going into hiding.

Should any REP. who flees should be charged?

Yes

NO

Not sure

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member