Court Opinion

ID: 9567765
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:57:30.408648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:20:35.793120
License: Public Domain

ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.
¶ 70. {concurring). I write separately to concur with the mandate of the majority. I reach the same conclusion but rest on a different analysis.
¶ 71. Before delving into the question of whether the collective bargaining agreement is a law, it is necessary to address a threshold question: whether Wis. Stat. § 111.92(l)(a) sets forth a rule of legislative proceedings. If § 111.92(l)(a) is a rule of legislative proceeding then the doctrines of separation of powers and comity prevent the court from intervening to enforce the statute. If it is not a rule of proceeding, then we are free to interpret and apply the statute.
¶ 72. I agree with the dissent that this is a close case, and that "there is no simple way of distinguishing in close cases between a rule of legislative proceeding and a rule relating to non-procedural matters." See *484dissent, ¶ 100. The dissent therefore weighs the interests involved.
¶ 73. It acknowledges that several significant factors weigh in favor of concluding that this is not a rule of legislative proceeding: "fairness requires notice"; "the public policy embodied in Wis. Stat. § 111.92(l)(a) ... is best served when the bill pinpoints the parts of a collective bargaining agreement that modify existing law"; and "transparency in government [is] a dominant public policy in this state." Dissent, ¶¶ 101-103.
¶ 74. Nevertheless, the dissent also observes that several other factors provide a counter-balance. Ultimately, it concludes that the balance tips in favor of the court's restraint. Dissent, ¶ 107.
¶ 75. I see the balance differently. In a close case, I conclude that the weighty public policies of notice and transparency in government tip the scale. I would therefore determine that Wis. Stat. § 111.92(l)(a) is not a rule of legislative proceeding, and the court may intervene to examine whether its conditions were met.
¶ 76. I turn then to the statute to determine whether the collective bargaining agreement was properly ratified. Wis. Stat. § 111.92(l)(a) provides in part:
If the [joint committee on employment relations] approves the tentative agreement, it shall introduce in a bill or companion bills,... that portion of the tentative agreement which requires legislative action for implementation, such as ... any proposed amendments, deletions or additions to existing law.
The portion of the collective bargaining agreement that provides that the State will not release employee information to the press creates an amendment to the open records law. Thus, I must determine whether the legislature followed the dictates of Wis. Stat. § 111.92(l)(a) when it ratified the agreement.
*485¶ 77. I determine that it did not. Nothing in 2003 Wis. Act 319 explicitly sets forth any portion of the tentative agreement at all. Certainly, nothing in the text of the Act sets forth an amendment to the public records statute requiring legislative action. I thus determine that the directives in Wis. Stat. § 111.92(l)(a) were not met to the extent that 2003 Wis. Act 319 attempted to provide an amendment to the public records law. Like the majority, I ultimately conclude that because Wis. Stat. § 111.92(l)(a) was not satisfied, the records are to be released.
¶ 78. Accordingly, I respectfully concur.