[Conscience of a Conservative]

Yes, it will. Unfortunately, this may well be struck down as a violation of Wisconsin’s open meetings law. Wisconsin Statute requires that public notice of a government meeting (including a legislative committee meeting) be given at least twenty-four hours in advance of the meeting, unless “for good cause” such notice is “impossible or impractical.” Section 19.97(3) provides that a court may void any action taken at a meeting held in violation of the open meetings law if the court finds that the interest in enforcing the law outweighs any interest in maintaining the validity of the action.

Given how long this has gone on (with nothing really happening other than the protests), it will be hard to argue that there was “good cause” to hold this meeting without 24 hours notice, or that it was impossible or impractical to do so.

I don’t understand why they didn’t just schedule the meeting 24 hours in advance - they would’ve still had the votes to do what they did.

[stockpirate]

And when they return they have a quorum and then vote the whole bill in.

[Husker24]

Yes, you watch, the rats will win in the end, they always do.

[DAC21]

Do we know for sure that it wasn’t scheduled in advance?

[DBeers]

Yes, it will. Unfortunately, this may well be struck down as a violation of Wisconsin’s open meetings law.

Generally speaking, I would argue that this meeting was an ongoing meeting and very publicly known meeting. Some details and procedures taken may not have been known until developed during and as a result of the meeting; however, the meeting itself was normal senate business that all were aware of despite some running away to avoid it...

[Thunder90]

Yes, it will. Unfortunately, this may well be struck down as a violation of Wisconsin’s open meetings law. Wisconsin Statute requires that public notice of a government meeting (including a legislative committee meeting) be given at least twenty-four hours in advance of the meeting, unless “for good cause” such notice is “impossible or impractical.” Section 19.97(3) provides that a court may void any action taken at a meeting held in violation of the open meetings law if the court finds that the interest in enforcing the law outweighs any interest in maintaining the validity of the action.

But, it brought the Dims back from hiding. They now can be restrained to prevent another flight. The original budget now can be voted on.

[mdel747]

But whats to say they wont just bring the original bill back to the floor once the Dem's walk in to the building making quorum and passing every thing

[bert]

maybe they gave the notice 14 days ago

[austinaero]

“I don’t understand why they didn’t just schedule the meeting 24 hours in advance - they would’ve still had the votes to do what they did.”

Maybe true but then, what’s the harm if it is found to be without merit and they have to go back and,,,vote on the bil again? Then the Dems will have to decide again, do they stay and vote or do they leave the state,,again? I think it was a smart move! Maybe the Union Dems will stop playing chicken and next time Walker says get back in the state, they’ll get back in the state. I love it!

[1L]

How do you know notice wasn’t given, assuming the rest of what you wrote is correct? Can you define proper notice?