Title: Association of State Prosecutors v. Milwaukee County and the

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
 
 
 
 
No.  93-3329 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN             :                IN SUPREME COURT 
                                                                   
 
 
Association of State Prosecutors, 
On Behalf of its Members, and  
David A. Feiss, 
 
 
Petitioners-Respondents, 
 
 
v. 
 
Milwaukee County and the Milwaukee County 
Pension Board, 
 
 
Respondents-Appellants-Petitioners. 
 
 
FILED 
 
 MAR 13, 1996 
 
 
 Marilyn L. Graves 
  
Clerk of Supreme Court 
  
Madison, WI  
                                                                 
  
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals affirming a 
judgment of the circuit court.  Reversed. 
 
WILLIAM A. BABLITCH, J.  Milwaukee County and the Milwaukee 
County 
Pension 
Board 
(Milwaukee 
County) 
challenge 
the 
constitutionality of legislation concerning the Milwaukee County 
Employee Retirement System (County Plan) and the Wisconsin 
Retirement System (State Plan).  The purpose of the legislation is 
 to produce a uniform statewide pension plan for prosecutors and 
to provide prosecutors with prior service credits for their 
Milwaukee County employment.  Under the legislation, Milwaukee 
 
No. 93-3329 
 
 
 
2 
County is required to transfer employer contributions made on 
behalf of Milwaukee County prosecutors from the County Plan to the 
State Plan.  Milwaukee County argues that such a transfer 
unconstitutionally takes funds held in trust for the benefit of 
vested employees and retirees.    
 
We hold that vested employees and retirees have protectable 
property interests in their retirement trust funds which the 
legislature cannot simply confiscate under the circumstances of 
this case.  Although we recognize that legislative modifications 
may be necessary in limited situations, we conclude that the 
transfer of funds from the County Plan to the State Plan takes 
property without due process of law. 
   
The relevant facts are undisputed.  This action involves two 
different retirement systems, the County Plan and the State Plan. 
 Prior to January 1, 1990, employees in district attorney offices 
throughout Wisconsin were employees of their respective counties. 
 Thus, assistant district attorneys in the Milwaukee County 
District Attorney's Office were employees of Milwaukee County.  
The Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorneys (ADAs) were not 
eligible to participate in the State Plan, pursuant to Wis. Stat. 
§ 40.21, since Milwaukee County never elected to participate in 
this plan.  All other counties in Wisconsin participated in the 
State Plan.  Under the County Plan, persons employed by Milwaukee 
County prior to January 1, 1982 could qualify for a deferred 
vested pension if they completed at least six years of county 
 
No. 93-3329 
 
 
 
3 
service.  Persons employed on or after January 1, 1982, however, 
had to complete at least 10 years of service in order to qualify 
for a deferred vested benefit under the County Plan. 
 
As of January 1, 1990, all district attorneys became state 
employees.  All Milwaukee County ADAs were given the option to 
remain in the County Plan or to transfer to the State Plan.  
However, when the transfer of the Milwaukee County ADAs to the 
State Plan took effect, none of those who had been hired after 
January 1, 1982 had sufficient time in the County Plan to be 
vested since none of them yet had 10 years of service.  While they 
could join the State Plan as state employees, their credited 
service in the State Plan could begin only on January 1, 1990.  
Thus, the non-vested Milwaukee County ADAs were subject to an 
anomaly since the State Plan did not give them credit for their 
time as county employees.   
 
 In order to place the non-vested Milwaukee County ADAs on an 
equal footing with all other assistant district attorneys, the 
legislature enacted § 333c of 1989 Wis. Act 336, creating Wis. 
Stat. § 978.12(5)(c)5.
1   Pursuant to § 978.12(5)(c)5, a 
                     
    
1  All future statutory references are to the 1993-94 volume 
unless otherwise indicated.  Wisconsin Stat. § 978.12(5)(c)5 
states:  
 
 
Notwithstanding 
any 
other 
provisions 
of 
the 
retirement system established under chapter 
201, laws of 1937, if a district attorney or 
state employe of the office of district 
attorney in a county having a population of 
500,000 or more who does not have vested 
benefit rights under the retirement system 
 
No. 93-3329 
 
 
 
4 
participating non-vested Milwaukee County ADA could elect to 
transfer employer contributions made on his or her behalf, along 
with the interest accrued, from the County Plan to the State Plan. 
 The companion statute, Wis. Stat. § 40.02(17)(g),
2 provided that 
the non-vested Milwaukee County ADAs would receive service credit 
for county employment in an amount dependent upon the dollar 
amount transferred determined by an actuary. 
                                                                  
established under chapter 201, laws of 1937, 
becomes a participating employe under the 
Wisconsin retirement system under ch. 40 as 
provided 
in 
this 
subsection, 
the 
participating 
employe 
may, 
on 
a 
form 
developed by the department of employe trust 
funds in consultation with that county, elect 
to 
transfer 
from 
the 
retirement 
system 
established under chapter 201, laws of 1937, 
an amount equal to all employer contributions 
made on his or her behalf, not including any 
employer contributions for unfunded prior 
service liability made on the basis of his or 
her 
earnings, 
to 
the 
retirement 
system 
established under chapter 201, laws of 1937, 
together with all interest actually accrued 
on 
those 
contributions, 
to 
the 
employer 
required contribution account provided for by 
s. 40.05(2).  (emphasis added). 
 
 
    
2 Wisconsin Stat. § 40.02(17)(g), states: 
 
 
Any 
participating 
employe 
for 
whom 
employer 
required contributions have been made under 
s. 
978.12(5)(c)5. 
shall 
be 
granted 
the 
maximum amount of creditable service that the 
board, on the recommendation of the actuary, 
determines can be fully funded by such 
contributions, not to exceed the total period 
of 
service 
under 
the 
retirement 
system 
established under chapter 201, laws of 1937, 
for which such contributions have been made. 
 
No. 93-3329 
 
 
 
5 
 
By July 1991, approximately 42 Milwaukee County ADAs, who 
were non-vested in the County Plan, elected to have Milwaukee 
County contributions made on their behalf transferred to the State 
Plan.  In response, Milwaukee County refused to transfer any funds 
contending that the contributions to the County Plan were not 
allocated to individuals. 
 
The County Plan is a defined benefit plan in which its 
members are assured they will receive a specific retirement 
benefit calculated as a percentage of their final average salary 
multiplied by their years of county service.  Actuaries make 
projections such as plan participation, future employee salary 
increases, the ages at which participants are expected to retire 
and economic assumptions.  Actuaries then examine the covered 
employees to ascertain the cost of the plan.  They examine age, 
employment and salary history for all individual participants.  
The individual participant data is the basis for determining the 
employer's annual contribution.  After the actuarial findings, 
contributions are made by the employer to cover the plan's 
anticipated present and future liabilities.  Also, under the 
County Plan, pursuant to Milwaukee County general ordinances, §§ 
201.24 through 5.1, different percentage multipliers are used for 
calculating the benefits to be paid to the different groups of 
county employees.  The Milwaukee County Pension Board administers 
the County Plan and submits the pertinent data, including the 
 
No. 93-3329 
 
 
 
6 
actual contribution required, to the County's board of supervisors 
each year. 
 
The State Plan is a hybrid plan with characteristics of both 
a defined contribution plan and defined benefit plan.  Defined 
contribution plans do not provide specific dollar benefits at 
retirement.  The benefits payable to the employees are funded by 
both the employer and employee.  The State Plan places its 
contributions into an employer accumulation reserve, pursuant to 
Wis. Stat. § 40.04(5).  Contributions placed in the accumulation 
reserve are applied solely to the payment of fixed monthly 
annuities based on percentages of the final average earnings, 
multiplied by years of service pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 
40.23(2)(b) and (2m)(e). 
 
Milwaukee County refused to make the transfer from the County 
Plan to the State Plan on the ground that such a transfer would 
have misappropriated funds held in trust exclusively for the 
benefit of vested employees and retirees.  The Association of 
State Prosecutors and David A. Feiss (The Association) sought a 
writ of mandamus to require Milwaukee County and its pension board 
to transfer money equal to "all employer contributions made on 
behalf of" all non-vested Milwaukee County ADAs from the County 
Plan to the State Plan.  The circuit court granted mandamus and 
ordered 
Milwaukee 
County 
to 
calculate 
and 
transfer 
the 
contributions made on behalf of the 42 ADAs.   
 
No. 93-3329 
 
 
 
7 
 
Milwaukee County appealed.  The court of appeals affirmed the 
circuit court in all respects.  It concluded that the County Plan 
participants did not have a property interest in contributions to 
the County Plan's trust fund.  Therefore, the court of appeals 
held that the legislatively-mandated transfer of funds from the 
County Plan to the State Plan was not a "taking" of their property 
without due process.  We granted Milwaukee County's petition for 
review to determine whether the transfer of pension funds from the 
County Plan to the State Plan is a taking of property without due 
process of law. 
 
Milwaukee County argues that vested Milwaukee employees and 
retirees have a legitimate protectable property interest in the 
County Plan's trust fund.  It contends that because the funds are 
held in trust, both vested participants and retirees have property 
interests not only in their own benefits, but also in the trust 
funds 
themselves. 
 
Therefore, 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 
978.12(5)(c)5 
unconstitutionally takes property because the statute appropriates 
private funds held in trust for current vested members of the 
County Plan without due process of law.   
 
The Association argues that the vested beneficiaries of the 
County Plan do not have property rights in the specific funds 
designated for transfer by Wis. Stat. § 978.12(5)(c)5.  Since 
Milwaukee County need only transfer those funds relating to the 42 
non-vested ADAs, the beneficiaries' property interests will not be 
injured.  
 
No. 93-3329 
 
 
 
8 
 
We address the single issue of whether Wis. Stat. § 
978.12(5)(c)5 violates federal constitutional prohibitions against 
the taking of property without due process.  This determination 
involves a question of law that we review de novo.  In Interest of 
J.A.L., 162 Wis. 2d 940, 962, 471 N.W.2d 493 (1991).  A statute is 
presumed to be constitutional.  State v. Hart, 89 Wis. 2d 58, 64, 
277 N.W.2d 843 (1979).  When attacking the constitutionality of a 
statute, the contesting party must prove the unconstitutionality 
of the statute beyond a reasonable doubt.  In Matter of E.B., 111 
Wis. 2d 175, 180, 330 N.W. 2d 584 (1983).     
 
This issue involves two questions.  The first question we 
address is whether a property interest exists for purposes of the 
due process clause.  The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States 
Constitution prevents the state from depriving a person of life, 
liberty or property without due process of law.   To establish a 
due process violation, it is necessary to show that he or she had 
a property interest and that he or she was deprived of the 
property interest without due process of law.  Dane County v. 
McCartney, 166 Wis. 2d 956, 967, 480 N.W.2d 830 (Ct. App. 1992).  
 The Fourteenth Amendment's procedural protection of property is a 
safeguard of the security of interests that a person has already 
acquired in specific benefits. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S.Ct. 
2701, 2709 (1972).   These property interests may take many forms. 
  In Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. at 577, the Supreme Court 
stated: 
 
No. 93-3329 
 
 
 
9 
 
Property interests, of course, are not created by the 
Constitution.  Rather they are created and their 
dimensions 
are 
defined 
by 
existing 
rules 
or 
understandings that stem from an independent source such 
as state law -- rules or understandings that secure 
certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement 
to those benefits. 
Id.   
 
Our caselaw supports the conclusion that each vested member 
and retiree of the County Plan has a property interest in their 
retirement system.   
 
In State Teachers' Retirement Board v. Giessel, 12 Wis. 2d 5, 
106 N.W.2d 301 (1960), we considered whether the legislature could 
lawfully require a state teachers' retirement system to pay for a 
study conducted by the governor's commission.  This court held 
that the funds could not be transferred out of the teachers' 
retirement fund.  We declared that such a transfer deprived 
teachers of vested rights in both their retirement fund and in the 
fund's investment earnings.  This court found that "the teachers 
have a contractual relationship with the state and a vested right 
in the state teachers' retirement system." Id. at 9.  This right 
extends to the retirement system as a whole.  
The [teacher's] right cannot be construed so narrowly.  The 
right includes the proper use of the earnings 
 . . . . [T]he legislature and the plaintiff board are not 
free to spend or appropriate the earnings of the fund 
except in a manner authorized by statute relating to the 
state teachers' retirement system.   
Id. at 10. 
 
No. 93-3329 
 
 
 
10 
 
Although 
Giessel 
involved 
a 
retirement 
fund 
that 
is 
structurally different from the fund involved in the present case, 
Giessel nevertheless stands for the proposition that vested 
employees and retirees have property interests in their retirement 
system.  
 
In Wisconsin Retired Teachers Ass'n v. Employe Trust Funds 
Bd., 195 Wis. 2d 1001, 537 N.W.2d 400 (Ct. App. 1995), the court 
of appeals relied on Giessel and held that the annuitants of the 
Wisconsin Retirement System had a property interest in the 
earnings of their trust fund.  Id. at 1027.   The court concluded 
that "on the basis of Giessel that WRS [Wisconsin Retirement 
System] annuitants have a property interest in the earnings of the 
trust fund . . . ."  Id. at 1027.  
 
The Association attempts to distinguish Giessel and Wisconsin 
Retired Teachers from the facts of the present case by emphasizing 
that those cases involved pension plans that were "defined 
contribution" plans, whereas the present case involves a "defined 
benefit plan."
3  The Association argues that, since an employee's 
                     
    
3 
Under 
a 
"defined 
benefit" 
scheme, 
the 
employer's 
contributions are not credited to individual accounts.  Rather, an 
actuary projects the amount necessary to fund the future payment 
of benefits to retirees and then calculates a single appropriate 
sum to be contributed to the pension fund.  Defined benefit 
schemes benefit "vested" employees only and vested employees must 
usually wait until retirement age to receive their benefits. 
 
 
Under a "defined contribution" scheme, a percentage of the 
employee's 
income 
is 
credited 
to 
a 
separate 
individually 
maintained account.  The employer makes this contribution on the 
employee's behalf.  The employer may also make separate "employer" 
contributions to the fund. 
 
No. 93-3329 
 
 
 
11 
benefit in a defined contribution plan is based upon amounts 
contributed to the plan on his or her behalf, those employer 
contributions become the beneficiary's individual property from 
the moment they are contributed.  Milwaukee County's defined 
benefit plan is different; fund assets and earnings do not dictate 
the amount of a vested employee's benefits.  Such benefits are 
determined strictly according to a formula based on the employee's 
final average salary and years of service.  Therefore, the 
Association states, members of a defined benefit plan do not have 
individual property rights in those amounts contributed to their 
retirement fund. 
 
We agree that there is a distinction between a defined 
contribution 
and 
a 
defined 
benefit 
plan. 
 
However, 
this 
distinction is of no significance in the present case.  The 
structure of a pension plan merely delineates the method of 
financing the pension funds and determines the appropriate amount 
of employer contributions.  Any pension plan's ability to meet its 
obligations can be jeopardized when funds are taken from it, since 
every dime is arguably part of a management strategy dependent 
upon spreading the fund's monies as broadly as possible.  
Therefore, although we acknowledge the distinctions between these 
two types of plans, we conclude that vested County Plan 
beneficiaries have property rights in their retirement fund. 
 
We now turn to the second question:  whether the transfer of 
funds from the County Plan to the State Plan pursuant to Wis. 
 
No. 93-3329 
 
 
 
12 
Stat. § 978.12(5)(c)5 takes property without due process of law.  
  
 
The Association argues that the transfer of funds prescribed 
by § 978.12(5)(c)5 will not affect the benefits paid to any 
retiree or member of the County Plan.  The Association contends 
that, since the contributions to be transferred make up less than 
one-third of one percent of the County Plan's net assets, the 
transfer will not diminish or "take" the benefits of County Plan 
employees and retirees.   
 
We disagree.  Governmental takings do not become exempt from 
due process requirements simply because they may be actuarially 
insignificant.   Wisconsin Stat. § 978.12(5)(c)5 orders Milwaukee 
County to transfer funds from the County Plan to the State Plan.  
This transfer takes funds directly out of the County Plan trust 
fund.  The gravity of a property deprivation is irrelevant to the 
question of whether such rights are violated without due process. 
 Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 576, 95 S. Ct. 729 (1975). 
 
The Association further argues that, under the County's 
defined benefit plan, the beneficiaries are not responsible for 
the funding of the retirement trust fund.  Only Milwaukee County 
is required to make contributions on behalf of participating 
employees.  The Association explains that, if the trust fund does 
well, the County must contribute less; if it does poorly, it must 
contribute more.  If funds are dissipated, Milwaukee County, as 
the guarantor of the fund, is the only entity responsible for 
 
No. 93-3329 
 
 
 
13 
making up any shortfall.  Therefore, the Association contends, a 
transfer of funds out of the County Plan would not affect the 
benefits of County Plan participants.  
 
We agree with the Association's explanation of a defined 
benefit plan.  However, we disagree with its suggestion that a 
beneficiary's property interest would never be impaired or 
diminished by a subsequent transfer of funds.    
 
While the specific transfer of trust funds pursuant to Wis. 
Stat. § 978.12(5)(c)5 may not immediately threaten the benefits of 
vested County Plan beneficiaries, the precedent set by such a 
transfer certainly could.  One commentator describes the problem 
as follows: 
With 
public 
employee 
pension 
systems 
absorbing 
an 
increasingly large share of state and local revenues, 
financially troubled governments have begun increasingly 
to look to these systems as a source of fiscal relief.  
In some instances, legislatures have sought directly to 
alter 
the 
benefit 
eligibility 
structure 
of 
a 
government's pension program . . . . Whatever their 
form, such efforts clearly call into question the 
protection to be afforded to the public employee in his 
pension. 
Public Employee Pensions in Times of Fiscal Distress, 90 Harv. L. 
Rev. 992, 993 (1977).   
 
Many employees have become, and might continue to become, 
employees of the state or of different private employers.  If the 
legislature orders contributions made "on behalf of" employees to 
be transferred to such new employers, the actuarial soundness of 
the plan could eventually suffer. 
 
No. 93-3329 
 
 
 
14 
 
In the present case, the legislature could have easily 
provided service credits to its new employees under the State 
Plan, and funded the resulting larger retirement pensions with 
state money.  Instead, the legislature chose to give the service 
credits, but to pay for the larger pensions by transferring money 
out of the County Plan.  This it cannot do.  In the present case, 
the state cannot simply "reach" into the County Plan to pay for 
obligations it has incurred.  Vested County Plan beneficiaries 
have protectable property interests in the integrity and security 
of their retirement fund.  Because Wis. Stat. § 978.12(5)(c) 
deprives the beneficiaries of this protectable interest, the 
statute takes property without due process of law. 
 
Our conclusion, however, does not render every legislative 
intervention into a retirement trust fund unconstitutional.  
Legislative 
modifications 
may 
be 
permissible 
in 
limited 
circumstances.   
 
The purpose of pension plans is to give the employees a 
protected interest in postretirement income.  `Til Death Do Us 
Part:  Pennsylvania's `Contract' with Public Employees For Pension 
Benefits, John J. Dwyer, 59 Temp. L. Q. 553, 585 (1986).   We 
recognize that the legislature should retain a limited power to 
adjust or amend a retirement plan in certain situations, such as 
when it is necessary to preserve the actuarial soundness of a plan 
or to salvage financially troubled funds.    
 
No. 93-3329 
 
 
 
15 
 
In Spina v. Consolidated Police and Firemen's Pension Fund 
Commission, 197 A.2d 169, 176 (1964), the Supreme Court of New 
Jersey stated the following: 
 What happens if the plan is unsound, so that little or 
nothing will remain for those presently contributing? 
. . .  As a practical matter, legislative intervention is the 
only sensible approach. 
In Spina, the retirement fund at issue could not meet all of its 
present and future demands.  The court held that the legislature 
did possess the power to enact amendatory legislation that 
appropriately dealt with the insolvent employee retirement fund. 
Id. at 176. 
   In Dadisman v. Moore, 384 S.E.2d 816 (W.Va. 1989), a West 
Virginia court recognized that pension plan participants had 
contractually vested property rights created by the pension 
statute, and that such rights were enforceable and could not be 
impaired or diminished by the state. Id. at 827.  In Dadisman, the 
state legislature improperly transferred monies out of the pension 
fund which severely underfunded the trust.   The court concluded 
that: 
. . . the 
realization 
and 
protection 
of 
public 
employees' 
pension 
property 
rights 
is 
a 
constitutional obligation of the State.  The 
State cannot divest the plan participants of 
their rights except by due process, although 
prospective modifications which do not run 
 
No. 93-3329 
 
 
 
16 
afoul of the Federal or State impairment 
clauses are possible. 
Id. at 828-29.   
 
We agree with the reasoning of these cases.  Although the 
legislature can modify pension plans in limited circumstances, the 
due process clause prevents it from doing so unreasonably.    
 
In the present case, the County Plan was neither insolvent 
nor in fiscal distress.  The purpose of Wis. Stat. § 978.12(5)(c)5 
was not to improve the actuarial soundness of the pension plan, 
but to create a uniform statewide pension plan for prosecutors and 
to provide non-vested prosecutors with prior service credits.  
This case does not present one of those situations in which 
legislative intervention may be needed.   
 
Therefore, based on all the above, we hold that vested 
employees and retirees have protectable property interests in 
their retirement trust funds which the legislature cannot simply 
confiscate under the circumstances of this case.  Although we 
recognize that legislative modifications may be necessary in 
limited situations, we conclude that the transfer of funds from 
the County Plan to the State Plan pursuant to Wis. Stat. 
§978.12(5)(c)5 takes property without due process of law.   
 
    
 
By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is 
reversed. 
 
 
No. 93-3329 
 
 
 
17 
 
DONALD W. STEINMETZ, J., did not participate.  
 
No. 93-3329 
 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
                                                              
 
Case No.: 
 
93-3329 
                                                              
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
Association of State Prosecutors, on behalf  
 
 
 
of its members and David A. Feiss, 
 
 
 
 
Petitioners-Respondents, 
 
 
 
 
v. 
 
 
 
Milwaukee County and The Milwaukee County 
 
 
 
Pension Board, 
 
 
 
 
Respondents-Appellants-Petitioners. 
 
 
 
_________________________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
 
 
Reported at:  189 Wis. 2d 291, 525 N.W.2d 768 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(Ct. App. 1994) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PUBLISHED 
 
                                                              
 
Opinion Filed:  
March 13, 1996 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
November 1, 1995 
 
                                                              
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
Circuit 
 
COUNTY: 
Milwaukee 
 
JUDGE: 
LAURENCE GRAM 
 
                                                              
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating: 
STEINMETZ, J., did not participate 
                                                              
 
ATTORNEYS:  
For the respondents-appellants-petitioners there 
were briefs Steven D. Huff, Anne Willis Reed, Bennett E. Choice, 
Dean E. Mabie, Thomas A. Cabush and Reinhart, Boerner, Van Deuren, 
Norris & Rieselbach, S.C. and Timothy R. Schoewe, corporation 
counsel, all of Milwaukee and oral argument by Anne Willis Reed. 
 
 
For the petitioners-respondents there was a brief from 
Timothy E. Hawks, Jeffrey P. Sweetland and Shneidman, Myers, 
Dowling  Blumenfield, Milwaukee and oral argument by Jeffrey P. 
Sweetland. 
 
 
No. 93-3329 
 
 
93-3329   Association of State Prosecutors v. Milwaukee County 
 
 
 
Amicus curiae brief was filed by Michael R. Burton and Burton 
& Davis, Milwaukee for the Retired Employees of Milwaukee County. 
 
 
Amicus curiae brief was filed by Alvin R. Ugent and Podell, 
Ugent & Cross, S.C., Milwaukee for the District Council 48, 
AFSCME, AFL-CIO. 
 
 
Amicus curiae brief was filed by Bruce Meredith, Chris 
Galinat, counsel, Madison for the Wisconsin Education Association 
Council