Advertisement
Republican lawmakers started the week sharply divided over a proposed state constitutional amendment that would have limited growth in state and local government tax and fee collections.
By the end of the week, rumors circulated Speaker Pro Tem Steve Freese,
R-Dodgeville, had been asked to consider resigning his leadership post. Freese has been a staunch supporter of an ethics reform bill, which several lawmakers said was killed with a closed-caucus vote.
In short, we had more political drama than we’ve seen since the last time a proposed taxpayers amendment drove a wedge between Senate and Assembly Republi-cans. Two years ago, that tiff ended in the wholesale overthrow of Senate Republican leadership.
What seemed most striking last week, however, was how differently these two proposals — considered by many as the most important pieces of legislation this session — were handled.
Policy questions aside, the process wasn’t pretty.
Seemed like a new and improved version of the taxpayers amendment was cropping up just about everywhere, and near the end, a new one just about every hour. After rejecting a proposal that would have capped both state and local revenues, the Assembly eventually passed a version that restricts growth in revenue collection only on state government.
The measure was introduced, debated and very narrowly passed between midnight and dawn Friday. That’s not really a shining example of open government, but at least a floor vote was taken in public.
As uncomfortable as it probably was inside the caucus, Assembly Speaker John Gard, R-Peshtigo, kept his promise the Assembly would take the difficult vote first. As a result, we have a public record of where each representative stands on the proposed amendment.
By contrast, voters never really will know how their representatives would have voted on the ethics reform bill, introduced Jan. 11, 2005. Word leaked out of closed caucus that just two representatives, Sheryl Albers, Reedsburg, and Terri McCormick, Appleton, voted to bring the proposal to the Assembly floor for a vote.
One excuse offered by Rep. Mark Gundrum,
R-New Berlin, is there wasn’t enough time to study changes and for public input. Let’s say Gundrum’s right. How does that logic apply to the taxpayers protection amendment?
Sure, the ethics reform package is serious, complicated stuff. But more than a year should be enough time for anyone interested to sort out the details and be prepared for possible amendments — at least if a few hours is long enough to contemplate a permanent change to the state Constitution.
Politically, the way the Assembly handled these proposals makes sense.
Gard probably is happy to have handed off the controversial taxpayers amendment to the Senate, where a different version proved too hot to handle last session.
On top of that, all but nine Assembly Republicans can say they voted to protect state taxpayers this fall. Democrats will have to fend for themselves voting against it. Better yet for Republicans, they won’t have to say they voted against ethics reform — at least not openly.
Tom Sheehan can be reached at tsheehan@madison.com or (608) 252-6198.
