Progressive Thinking

Sen. Kathleen Vinehout writes about “Canada Day” in the Capitol. The Canadian General Consul visited with state legislators and shared information about the incredible partnership between Wisconsin and Canada.

MADISON - Did you know a third of everything Wisconsin sells to the world we sell to Canada? And more visitors come to Wisconsin from Canada than any other country?

Wisconsin recently celebrated Canada Day at the Capitol. We welcomed Canadian Consul General Roy Norton. He brought along a host of facts about Wisconsin’s relationship with Canada.

Many of us think the ideal summer vacation is going north – this summer my husband and son enjoyed a canoe trip in Canada. Fortunately, Canadians like to head south. Wisconsin welcomed over 300,000 Canadian visitors who spent $65 million last year.

Even Canadians who don’t venture to the Badger state help our economy. Canada is the largest buyer of Wisconsin products. Our state sells more to Canada than we sell to our next six foreign country markets combined. Wisconsin goods bound for Canada include paper, plastics, beverages (including alcohol), electric motors, engines and motor vehicle parts. Nearly 160,000 Wisconsin jobs depend on trade and investment with Canada.

In return, Wisconsin buys plastic, wood pulp and wood products, fertilizer, natural gas, cereals and live animals from Canada. Surprised by live animals? Spend a day at the World Dairy Expo and you will see the importance of Canadian cattle to Wisconsin. The story of dairy cattle breeding is one of Wisconsin ingenuity perfected by Canada and brought back to us.

Like Wisconsin, Canada has a long environmental history. Back in 1911, while the Wisconsin Legislature passed a host of progressive bills including workers compensation legislation and nonpartisan local elections, the Canadian Parliament created the world’s first national park system. Today Canada has a park system that would cover the landmass of the state of New Mexico.

Usually state lawmakers don’t do much by way of international relations, but a few years ago, my legislative colleagues and I worked to pass the Great Lakes Compact. This international agreement updated protections for our Great Lakes.

The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement added modern concerns including an international approach to controlling invasive species, like Asian Carp, efforts to prevent further loss of habitat and species, and efforts to consider climate change impacts on our shared Great Lakes resources.

Canada continues to do its part worldwide to slow global deforestation. Almost 30% of the world’s boreal – or coniferous- forests are in Canada. The forests absorb carbon dioxide helping to protect our planet from global climate change. Over 90% of forestland is under public stewardship for responsible habitat protection and timber management

Waterways also provide habitat. For nearly thirty years, the U.S and Canada have worked jointly to protect our waterfowl through an agreement known as the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Over the years, various partners conserved 13 million acres of wetlands and raised over $3 billion for conservation efforts

The Consul General came to Wisconsin with a message of shared democracy, gratitude, friendship and cooperation. But, he also reminded us of what Canada prefers in return.

He reminded us that half of Wisconsin’s gasoline comes from Canadian oil. His country contains the world’s third largest oil reserves. Canada would like to see the Keystone XL pipeline built. Mr. Norton told us the pipeline would take eight 100-car oil trains off the rail tracks every day.

Mr. Norton shared with us the importance of Wisconsin to Canadian railroads. Two major Canadian rail companies traverse Wisconsin every day. The lines run north to the Canadian border and then east and west across the Canadian countryside.

One popular Wisconsin program the Consul General did not like was “Buy Local, Buy Wisconsin”. He referred to this type of program as a barrier or preferences’ and said “Buy Wisconsin discriminates against your best customers. You must remember that Canada does not compete with Wisconsin on labor, health, and environmental standards. We value these as much as you.”

Mr. Norton told the Senators, “I think the ‘Buy Wisconsin’ might be aimed at the other country with a name that starts with ‘C’!”

I do not see Wisconsin stopping promotion of Wisconsin products anytime soon. But I did suggest that a “Buy Canadian” campaign might be successful in the Badger state. And I highly recommend buying Canadian winter gear.

Mr. Norton laughed and said, “Yes, we do know winter.”

Bipartisan is not nonpartisan. When the Packers play the Vikings, we don’t want each side to appoint half the referees. Sen. Vinehout reflects on the bills in the Legislature that would change Wisconsin’s campaign finance laws, the Government Accountability Board and ‘John Doe’ process.

MADISON - “Just do the right thing,” my doctor told me. We were discussing politics. We just finished reviewing the x-rays of my new hip replacement. My doctor wanted to offer a little advice to my colleagues in the Senate.

“People want you to think of them,” he said. “They don’t want you to make decisions on what’s best for the party – whoever’s in power. They want you to make the best decision for the people.

“The problem,” I told him, “is that the interest groups are pulling the parties further and further apart. They don’t want to compromise. It’s very hard for the leaders of both parties to say ‘No’ to their favorite interest group.”

Republicans are struggling to round up enough votes to pass a bill that dissolves the Government Accountability Board (GAB) and places elections and ethics under the control of boards appointed by political party leaders. Nonpartisan judges now oversee Wisconsin’s elections, ethics and lobbying. Strongly GOP allied groups, like Americans for Prosperity and Wisconsin Manufactures and Commerce are pushing the change.

Conservative groups also support bills that open the door to political jobs in our civil service system, opt political crimes out of ‘John Doe’ criminal investigations and allow unfettered and undisclosed money in campaigns.

Nonpartisan does not mean bipartisan. When the Packers play the Vikings we don’t want half the referees appointed by the Vikings and half by the Packers. They would never agree on what was pass interference. It is the same with elections. We want the calls made by judges in pinstripes, not wearing the colors of the two teams.

‘Do the right thing’ means looking at the facts and acting to fix problems that are identified but not acting to advance one party over the other ‘just because we can’.

Nonpartisan audits did indicate lapses in the GAB’s performance. Seldom is there an audited agency that does not need improvement in performance. Even the best refs make some bad calls.

Wisconsin lived through extraordinary changes in elections in the past few years. The GAB was at the center of effecting these changes. Unprecedented recall elections happened in 2011 and 2012. During this time GAB oversaw a statewide recount; a redrawing of legislative boundaries that ended in court; an on-again, off-again voter ID that also ended in court and the enactment of 31 separate pieces of legislation affected the agency.

Overall, auditors identified a dozen problems in an agency with 154 separate responsibilities. Lawmakers themselves created some of these problems. For example, auditors pointed out the agency did not complete all the administrative rules related to the training of clerks. The GAB responded that the content of the training for clerks kept changing because of 31 new laws. When the GAB asked the legislature and Department of Administration officials for additional staff, they were told, “No”.

Wisconsin has a decentralized election process: 1,853 municipal clerks and 72 county clerks conduct elections. Keeping clerks supported takes time and staff. The GAB used federal grant money to hire staff. The grant is running out. Lawmakers in the majority on the budget writing committee did not extend the positions beyond the current budget – leaving many GAB staff to wonder about their future.

In other controversial legislation, we see a similar pattern: some problems exist, but rather than tweak the law to fix the problems, conservative interest groups are pushing lawmakers to use the opportunity to tilt the system in favor of partisan advantage.

A hundred years of civil service ought to tell us the system should not be disbanded in favor of opening the door to political positions. Wisconsin’s century and a half old “John Doe” process of investigating crimes may need tweaking. But not allowing investigations of political crimes opens the door to corruption. Couple the “John Doe” bill with unfettered, undisclosed money in campaigns – another bill waiting for Senate action- and Wisconsin will return to the big money heydays of the late nineteenth century.

No voter has told me they want that result.

Sen. Kathleen Vinehout focuses on the campaign finance bills currently moving through the Legislature that favor the rich and well-connected candidates, and open the door to “dark money” contributions where who wrote the check is unknown.

MADISON - “This bill strengthens democracy because it allows more citizens to participate,” Assembly Speaker Robin Vos told the Wisconsin State Journal. Vos is the lead author of a bill to overhaul the state’s campaign finance law.

Wisconsin was an early leader in campaign finance reforms of 1911 that limited money in campaigns and provided “rigorous penalties” including disqualifying candidates and sending them to prison. Ironically, the effort over 100 years ago was led by legislative Republicans.

Today’s Assembly leader may advocate for more democracy, but the bill he authored favors the rich and those well-connected candidates. I fear the bill’s effect will be more negative ads, less voter knowledge, more out-of-state contributions, more centralized control by legislative leaders, and an increasingly dispirited electorate.

The bill opens the door to so-called “dark money” or contributions not reported by who wrote the check. Loopholes created in the bill make it unclear which political action committees (PAC) or independent expenditure groups must report donors and campaign spending.

Unlimited campaign contributions are allowed in a host of new areas. Unlimited donations can be made to a PAC or to two new political committee types for a recall or a referendum. This makes me concerned more money and outside groups will try to affect local elections and referendum.

Corporations cannot contribute to candidate campaigns but corporations, labor unions and Native American Tribes can make unlimited contributions to independent expenditure groups, a referendum committee or a special fund for non-candidate contribution purposes run by a political party or a legislative committee (run by legislative leaders).

In addition, unlimited dollars can be moved from a political party or legislative campaign committee to a candidate. The latter increases the hold leaders have over legislative members. The former increases the power of the political party to pick candidates.

Donation limits to candidates’ campaigns are doubled. For example, the current limit for a single individual over a four-year Senate term is $1,000. This limit becomes $2,000 under Vos’ bill.

Who benefits from adding more money to campaigns? An analysis by Nick Heynen of the Wisconsin State Journal, shows that since 2008, $17.8 million in donations that reach the maximum limit were contributed to candidates for statewide office. Almost 60% of this money came from outside Wisconsin.

Donors would not be required to report their employer. This makes it difficult to track the relationship between a company that receives grants or tax credits from the state and donations of their employees to candidates.

Removed from the statute is the purpose of campaign finance laws: The legislature finds and declares that our democratic system of government can be maintained only if the electorate is informed. It further finds that excessive spending on campaigns for public office jeopardizes the integrity of elections….When the true source of support or extent of support is not fully disclosed, or when a candidate becomes overly dependent upon large private contributors, the democratic process is subject to a potential corrupting influence.

Perhaps Speaker Vos found his bill a bit in conflict with the real purpose of campaign finance laws. If he truly wants to improve democracy by increasing citizens’ participation in campaigns, I wonder if he’d join me in supporting an amendment to his bill suggested in the testimony of Matt Rothschild, the executive director of Wisconsin Democracy Campaign.

In a March hearing, Mr. Rothschild cited one way to amplify the voice of small campaign donors was to use public financing to match – by five times – the donation of anyone who gave $175 or less to a candidate. This sounds like a great way to strengthen democracy.

I haven’t met a single voter who thinks we need more out of state or dark money in Wisconsin elections. Without regard to political affiliation, people think there is already too much influence on elections from outside Wisconsin.

Every donation to influence an election needs to be reported in a way citizens can see who is behind the nasty ads. Not only should groups disclose their donors, they should register every patriotic or feel good name used to influence elections.

We don’t need more dark money. We need more democracy and the best way to get that is to let the light shine in.

Republican politicians in Madison want to replace the Government Accountability Board (GAB) with partisan appointed commissions. The GAB has received national recognition and needs to remain non-partisan. The legislation is rapidly moving through the Legislature.

MADISON - “Wisconsin is the only state with a truly nonpartisan board structure,” wrote Professor Daniel Tokaji in 2013. The Ohio State law professor hailed the Government Accountability Board as “America’s Top Model” of nonpartisan elections.

Clean elections and corruption free elected officials are goals most of us share. Yet few states have laws that truly create a nonpartisan watchdog to assure public confidence. Wisconsin is blessed to be a national leader.

“The United States is an outlier among democratic countries when it comes to the institutions charged with running our democratic elections,” Professor Tokaji wrote in the UC Irvine Law Review. He continued, “There is one conspicuous exception to the partisan character of state election administration: Wisconsin’s Government Accountability Board (GAB).”

The GAB and its staff have received several awards and accolades.

In January of 2014 the Presidential Commission on Election Administration cited the GAB as a model for improving accessibility to polling places for the disabled. Their frequent and unannounced audits of polling places identified 10,488 issues for disabled voters during the study period April 2011 to April 2013 as reported in a 2014 Legislative Audit Bureau report.

In April of 2014 the PEW Charitable Trusts ranked Wisconsin third in the US for election performance. The nonpartisan group measured elections 17 different ways including ballots rejected, post-election audits, voter turnout, registration rate, waiting time to vote, online voter education materials. PEW researchers reported only Minnesota had a higher voter participation rate than Wisconsin in the 2012 presidential race. Researchers also reported Wisconsin had dramatically improved its data since 2008 – the year the GAB began operations.

These accolades are but a few received by the only nonpartisan state watchdog of elections in the United States. Adding further to the evidence of a well-run government accountability agency, the Legislative Audit Bureau recently released an analysis of complaints and investigations conducted by the GAB and found no major concerns with the activities of the agency. Auditors recommended a quicker resolution to complaints and the GAB responded with a new computer system to track complaints.

As a reward for excellent service to the people of the state, two western Wisconsin legislators, Representatives Dean Knutson and Kathy Bernier, introduced legislation to kill the watchdog and fire its long serving administrator. It is widely believed this legislation is partisan “payback” for investigations in which the GAB was involved.

The bill replaces the nonpartisan judges of the GAB with two partisan appointed commissions to control elections and ethics and creates a partisan confirmed administrator of the commissions.

Notably, the bill restricts the ability of the new commissions to initiate investigations including prohibiting any member of the commissions from submitting a sworn complaint to initiate an investigation. The bill limits money to conduct an investigation to that specified by the legislature – and makes no release of funds. The effect of curtailing access to money is to shut down investigations of illegal activities related to elections, ethics and lobbying.

Currently the GAB has access to funds needed to conduct an ethics or elections violation. The bill forces the commissions to come back to the legislature to beg for money needed to investigate – leaving the lawmakers holding the purse and, essentially, starving the watchdog.

Any current employee or investigation would be reviewed by the politically appointed Secretary of Administration who would direct the transition to the new system, deciding which employees, assets, contracts and other matters are transferred to which of the two new commissions.

The proposed law would be in place for the 2016 elections.

In less than a week the bill has gone from invitation for cosponsors to a full joint hearing – providing citizens with what is likely to be the only opportunity for testimony.

Professor Tokaji concluded his article saying, “the GAB’s experience therefore provides a ray of hope for those of us who believe that the United States should move away from its partisan system of election administration.”

The people of Wisconsin now appear to be the last ray of hope remaining to save the GAB. Please let lawmakers know you want to keep our nonpartisan system of elections and ethics. Our democracy is at stake!

Gov. Walker and GOP lawmakers in Madison want to change the state’s civil service system, eliminating objective civil service exams and replacing them with a subjective review of "qualifications" by their appointees. These changes open the door to hiring partisan political hacks and making party loyalty a qualification for a state job, the very hiring practices that civil service was established to root out.

MADISON - “Please do what you can to stop the dismantling of the civil service system,” Mary from Trempealeau County asked me.

Mary is a retired social worker. Her call is one of a number of contacts I received lately from residents unhappy with a bill that would change state employment. Residents expressed concern that government jobs will be filled with political friends and relatives of those in power and will fail to serve its citizens.

A newly introduced bill would do away with examinations for state jobs. Under the bill, every resume for filling 30,000 state positions would go to the behemoth state Department of Administration (DOA) and into the hands of political appointees. The bill would keep employees on probation for two years and use new vague language to fire state employees.

This language includes as grounds for firing “personal conduct” the boss “determines to be inadequate, unsuitable, or inferior”. This ambiguous rule could become a proxy for political retribution. Is recall petition signing “inadequate” for a social worker? Is singing union songs in the Capitol rotunda “unsuitable” activity for a scientist? How about a state employee attending a rally on off time?

The bill opens the door to an employee hiring process completely controlled by politically appointees hired by the Secretary of Administration.

But to understand the context of the newly proposed law, one must step back and look at changes to state employment – especially major changes made just this summer.

Governor Bob La Follette is credited with creation of Wisconsin’s civil service system. La Follette wrote in his 1912 autobiography that public service “has been democratized by a civil service law opening it to men and women on an equal footing independent of everything except qualification and fitness for office…There is no longer any political pull in Wisconsin.”

Major credit for modernizing the system that eliminated “political pull” should go to Democratic Governor Patrick Lucey and Republican Governor Lee Dreyfus.

In 1976, through executive order, Governor Lucey created the Governor’s Employment Relations Study Commission. The Commission recommended a distinct cabinet department, headed by a Secretary appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. The Commission reasoned that policies related to personnel must have “accountability to the executive office, protection from the possibility of manipulation and independence from the general bureaucratic structure.”

According to a paper written by the Legislative Fiscal Bureau “after extensive legislative debate” a new law was passed and signed by Governor Dreyfus creating the Department of Employment Relations. In 2003, the legislature made a number of changes to the department including changing its name to the Office of State Employee Relations (OSER).

The independence of a separate office lasted until this summer when Governor Walker’s budget became law. Tucked into the budget was a provision to eliminate OSER and bury its functions in the Department of Administration. I write ‘bury’ because DOA has a $2 billion budget and over 1,000 employees making the new employment process opaque to legislators and the people of the state.

Efforts to politicize employee relations by the current administration began in 2011 with Act 10. This law took 38 civil service positions and made them political appointments. The law also allowed bosses to turn “other managerial positions” into political appointments. Both the 2011-13 budget and the 2013-15 budget added more political appointment positions.

Changes made in 2011 signaled the intention of the administration. But few paid attention to the signs. As an example, here is what I wrote on March 19, 2011:

Yesterday I had in interview with a reporter, and I told her about what the Governor was doing to our civil service put in place by Bob La Follette - how three dozen civil service jobs were made political appointments; how the definition of a political appointment was made so broad the team leader who helps clean the Capitol could be a political appointment. The reporter had no idea this was in the bill.

That bill became Act 10 – known only for stripping public employees of their labor protections, not stripping the citizens of their good government. With the most recent legislation, intentions to politicize state government just became clearer.