Hogan, John

From:
Sent: 20, 2011 7:39 PM
To: ichard, Rob
SUbject: r call of the house

Rob can u send me the texas res?

----- Original Message -----

From: Rose, Laura
To: Champagne, Rick; Rob Richard Hogan, John; Richard, Rob
Cc: Anderson, Terry C.; Lovell, D
Sent: Sun Feb 20 19:31:30 2011
Subject: RE: Senate Resolution for call of the house

Hi all,

I agree with Rick with regard to the penalties. I think the Texas resolution that we
shared with you on Friday are examples of penalties that may be enforceable, because they
reach benefits such as office accounts, etc. We have a lot of information that was
gathered by NCSL during the Texas situation in 2003 that they shared with us on Friday and
which may be of use in putting together a resolution.

Rob, I will try to give you a calIon Sunday evening to follow up on this email.

Laura

-----Original Message-----
From: Champagne, Rick
Sent: Sun 2/20/2011 5:02 PM
To: Rob Richard; Rose, Laura; Hogan, John; Richard, Rob
Subject: RE: Senate Resolution for call of the house

Couple of thoughts:

1. Any penalty that you provide should be one that you can enforce., Dave Lovell
mentioned monetary penalties on Friday evening when we talked. The key question here
would be how you can enforce a forfeiture or other monetary penalty on a sitting senator.
Would a court enforce a forfeiture imposed on a member by the legislature for refusing to
answer a call of the house? Would the Senate president order the Senate payroll officer
to withhold the monetary penalty? What would be the legal liability of a payroll officer
who refused to pay a member his salary? There is a body of law dealing with payroll
people and their obligations to pay people their salaries, with very few exceptions. So
my thoughts here are to focus on penalties that you can be certain you can enforce and
that you can enforce without the courts' involvement.

2. There are a host of privileges that senators have that are not rights and that do not
warrant the same kind of due process considerations. For example, senators can be
stripped of committee assignments, senators may have reduced office space, fewer staff,
reduced office accounts, etc. Other privileges of a monetary nature would be per diems,
traveling expenses, covering of conference expenses, etc. In other words, these kinds of
things are privileges that senators have from serving in office. There is no
constitutional right to these things, per se. Providing for reductions in these kinds of
things does not necessarily implicate due process concerns.

3. The Wisconsin provision on compelling attendance is very similar to the one in the US
Constitution and probably to those in most other states. Tomorrow I will try to look at
some of this law, but quite honestly we have been swamped at the, LRB with drafting
amendments to AB 11 for (now) Tuesday. I don't' know if Laura or some of her staff can
gather some of this law. In the end, I go back to my first point. If you are going to
impose penalties, be certain that they are ones that can be enforced. An unenforceable
penalty may not be helpful.
Rick

-----Original Messa
From: Rob Richard
Sent: Sun 2/20/201 3:34 PM
To: Rose, Laura; Champagne, Rick; Hogan, John; Richard, Rob
Subject: Senate Resolution for call of the house

Laura and Rick:

Below are some thoughts I sent John late Friday night. Can you please let me know if my
assessment of reading the Constitution is correct?

Looking at the WI Constitution it appears that we cannot change any rule or statute to do
anything else but compel the attendance of an absent member.

Article IV, Section 7 states:

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 constutite 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.

Article IV, Section 15 states:

Members of the legislature shall in all cases, except treason, felony, and breach of the
peace, (the courts have interpreted this to mean all crimes) 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 would appear that Section 15 prevents us from narrestingn or "physically forcing" a

member to attend. It now seems that monetary penalties and removal of privileges may be
our only recourse with this resolution.

Laura and Dan, if we move forward with a resolution, it appears that the ndue process n
portion of the resolution may take the most time and thought. Can you please start to
think about the process and language needed in a draft resolution to accomplish this? As
David Lovell mentioned to John and I on Friday, it appears there are 3 keys issues to be
aware of (giving notice, trial/jury deliberations and imposition of the penalties) .

I would think that ngiving notice n would entail an electronic and/or hand-delivered letter
from the senate chief clerk to each Oem office and publication of the resolution by the
statewide media. I would assume we'd want to make the penalty provisions effective the
day following the resolution's adoption for any member absent from the chamber under the
call of the house issued on Feb 18. (We didn't officially take the roll on Thursday, so
that's why I'm going with Friday's date). Whatever we do, we also may want to make this a
permanent change to the rules of the senate.

I'm working with Hogan and Fitz to figure out what penalties we may want to impose, but if
you could give some thought to t h ~ ~ I ' d appreciate it. For Sunday, I can be
reached at home at this e-mail o r ~ (h) or (c)

Thank you!
Rob Richard

2
Hogan, John

From: Hogan, John

Sent: Wednesday, February 23,2011 9:14 AM
To: Burri, Lance
Subject: RE: You guys need Glenn for something at 9?

We're gonna make a call of the house, so I need 6 senators, he's one of them

From: Burri, Lance

Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 8:45 AM
To: Hogan, John; Richard, Rob
Subject: You guys need Glenn for something at 97

What is it?

Lance Burri
Office of Sen. Glenn Grothman
608-266-7513

1
 Page 1 of2

Hogan, John

From: Richard, Rob

Sent: Sunday, February 20,2011 8:12 PM
To: Hogan, John
Subject: FW: Quorum and attendance requirements; walkouts
Here's the Texas stuff.

Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless

-----Original message-----

From: "Lovell, David" <David.Lovell@legis.wisconsin.gov>

To: "Richard, Rob" <Rob.Richard@legis.wisconsin.gov>
Cc: "Rose, Laura" <Laura.Rose@legis.wisconsin.gov>
Sent: Fri, Feb 18, 2011 22:51 :54 GMT+00:00
Subject: FW: Quorum and attendance requirements; walkouts

Rob,

Here is the second message I got from NCSL. First is the initial message Brenda sent me;
below that is her follow up message -- the bottom line is that it appeasr that the Texas Senate
did not, in the end, impose the large fines stated in the resolution it adopted.

Call if you have any questions. I will be here at least until 5:30.

David

David L. Lovell, Senior Analyst

Wisconsin Legislative Council Staff
608/266-1537

From: Brenda Erickson [mailto:Brenda.Erickson@ncsl.org]

Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 2:05 PM
To: Lovell, David
Cc: Anderson, Terry c.; Karls-Ruplinger, Jessica; Konopacki, Larry; Rose, Laura; Sappenfield,
Anne
Subject: RE: Quorum and attendance requirements; walkouts

Hi All!

Here is the link to the Texas Senate Journal during the period when the Texas senators walked
out of a 2003 special session http:((www.journals.senate.state.tx.us(sjrnl(782(html(sj07-28-
fa.htm. I will check with Patsy Spaw, the Secretary of the Texas Senate, to see which-if any--
penalties ultimately were imposed. (She is out of the office this afternoon.)

2/28/2011
 Page 2 of2

Robert Haney, the Chief Clerk of the Texas House, is checking to see if any penalties actually were
imposed on the Texas representatives who walked out during the end of the 2003 regular session.

Brenda

I just heard from Robert Haney, the Chief Clerk of the Texas House, about penalties to. Here is what he
reported about penalties to the members who walked out in 2003:

It is my understanding that we didn't penalize our members in any way due to the situation in
2003. The only thing that happened concerning the issue of per diem for the house was that
those members who fled the state voluntarily completed a form and refused their per diem for
that period of days they were gone. That is a much different situation than actually taking it
away. The members voluntarily declined.

Brenda

2/28/2011
Hogan, John
From: Ottman, Tad
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 9:49 AM
To: Hogan, John
Subject: RE: GAB ruling

Just quickly reading the statutes, under 13.31, either house or any committee can compel
the attendance of a witness by sUbpoena signed by the presiding officer and the chief
clerk. Under 13.32, if they fail to appear, you can sign a summary process to compel
their appearance and the Sergeant can arrest them. Further, under 13.33 the Sergeant can
deputize someone (a state trooper?) to arrest them and compel their appearance.

-----Original Message-----
From: Hogan, John
Sent: Thu 2/24/2011 9:46 AM
To: Ottman, Tad
Subject: GAB ruling

«GAB ruling on use of campaign funds by Senate Democrats State Senate memo.pdf» On
another note, Legislators are immune from civil prosecution under the constitution.

John Hogan
Chief of Staff
Office of the Senate Majority Leader
Senator Scott Fitzgerald
(608) 266-5660

1
 Page 1 of 1

Hogan, John
From: Welhouse, Andrew
Sent: Thursday, February 24,2011 11 :24 PM
To: Fitzgerald, Scott; Hogan, John
Subject: FYI - Oem sens on Call of the House
Sen. Tim Cullen, D-Janesville, said troopers were at his home both Wednesday and early
Thursday morning. Cullen said his wife came home with their 3-year old granddaughter
Wednesday to find their driveway blocked, The troopers then moved and parked across the
street. After about 30 minutes, they came back to the door again, he said. They returned at about
7:05 Thursday morning.

"It's sort of disruptive to her," he said.

The Democrats say they will stay away from Wisconsin as long as necessary to stop Gov. Scott
Walker's budget repair bill.

"I think they're wasting their time and money," said Sen. Fred Risser, D-Madison. "We're in
Northern Illinois. It's just harassment of the people that are at our homes."

From today's Wi State Journal

2/28/2011
Hogan, John
From: Hogan, John
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 11:43 AM
To: Marchant, Robert
Subject: Fw: State patrol

Fyi

Original Message
From: Ottman, Tad
To: Hogan, John
Sent: Fri Feb 18 09:30:59 2011
Subject: State patrol

If there is still any question, you could always introduce and pass a bill in Senate Org
that would give the State Patrol the power to compel a state legislator's attendance at
the capitol upon direction of the Senate or Assembly Sergeant, or the Org Committees, or
something like that. You could draft it, introduce it and waive the public hearing
requirement in Org, pass it on the floor and have the Assembly do something similar.

1
Hogan, John
From: Hogan, John
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011" 11:44 AM
To: Ouerkop, Nathan
Subject: RE: Quotes from Oems in IL

Good sleuth work

From: Duerkop, Nathan

Sent: Wednesday, February 23,201111:07 AM
To: Welhouse, Andrew
Cc: Hogan,John
Subject: Quotes from Dems in IL

http://mchenrycountyblog.com/category/kathleen-vinehout/ some interesting quotes

I came across this blog today
and photos from the Dems in it. ..

Apparently from Jauch: "He asked me not to identify the location, so the group could continue helping out the McHemy County
economy."
"He said that the Senators didn't 'want a crowd of sign-carrying demonstrators outside of the motel."

1
Hogan, John
From: Hogan, John ".
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 11:44 AM
To: Welhouse, Andrew
Subject: RE: Quotes from Dems in IL

Should present this to the press corps

From: Duerkop, Nathan

Sent: Wednesday, February 23,2011 11:07 AM
To: Welhouse, Andrew
Cc: Hogan, John
Subject: Quotes from Dems in IL

http://mchemycountyblog.com/category/kathleen-vinehoutl some interesting quotes

I came across this blog today
and photos from the Dems in it...

Apparently from Jauch: "He asked me not to identify the location, so the group could continue helping out the McHenry County
economy."
"He said that the Senators didn't want a crowd of sign-carrying demonstrators outside of the motel."