JUDGE BARB HART-KEY FOR WISCONSIN STATE SUPREME COURT ??

HART-KEY FOR WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT


A lot of emphasis has been on local elections this spring but how about getting an early start to next years spring elections. If you have not heard Wisconsin Supreme Court Associate Justice Wilcox has announced he will not seek re-election next spring.

I offer up the suggestion of encouraging our own Winnebago Cty Circuit Court Judge Barb-Hart-Key. She is the best this county has for judges and has experience in all types of cases. She has a family which maybe one drawback for her not seeking the position.

What do you think ???

Send along a comment.

Treatment for non-violent offenders

Treatment for non-violent offenders
By KATHLEEN FALK

Anyone who has had his home broken into or her car stolen knows that Wisconsin needs to do a better job of crime prevention. Anyone who reviews the statistics knows we can prevent crime by giving judges the ability to sentence non-violent drug or alcohol offenders to treatment.
Advertisement

That's why I proposed four years ago that judges be given the resources necessary for them to mandate that non-violent offenders with drug or alcohol problems get treatment for their addiction and be held accountable.
Make no mistake: Substance abuse treatment is not for every addict who stands before a judge. Those who commit violent crimes are going to do hard time, as they should. But by holding non-violent offenders accountable and mandating treatment to stop the destructive cycle of addiction, we improve public safety by stopping offenders addicted to drugs and alcohol from committing crimes over and over.
I know firsthand this approach works: A number of counties statewide, including Dane, are doing it. Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives have come to agree that court-mandated treatment can be an effective weapon in our war on crime.
• In the past state budget, the Republican-controlled Legislature earmarked dollars to fund initiatives that allow judges to hold non-violent offenders accountable and mandate substance-abuse treatment.
• Reps. Carol Roessler (R-Oshkosh) and Gary Bies (R-Sister Bay) have requested a study to document the savings that would result if Wisconsin had more drug and alcohol treatment options available to judges at sentencing.
• Drug courts provide treatment and have a high success rate. These courts are now operating effectively in a growing number of counties including La Crosse and Dane and are just beginning in Racine and other counties statewide.
• The Journal Sentinel Editorial Board supported more money for treatment options in a carefully reasoned editorial last month.
As I was growing up in Milwaukee and Waukesha counties, my German and Irish grandparents taught me three things: Don't waste money, don't waste land and don't waste kids' lives. It is painfully clear that when it comes to our criminal justice system, the status quo is not working.
Who, after all, can defend a system in which we have drunken drivers with 11 convictions? Who, after all, can defend a system that costs Wisconsin taxpayers $83 million a year to lock up people with drug and alcohol problems who get out and reoffend? Who can defend a system that so disproportionately affects people of color?
As Dane County executive, I've prioritized law enforcement in tough fiscal times, adding 105 positions to the Sheriff's Department, including 85 deputies. I've increased local dollars to the district attorney's budget by 62% and protected critical domestic violence and crime victim services cut by the Bush administration.
My 2005 and 2006 budgets fund the planning and design of a Huber/alcohol and other drug abuse facility where drug and alcohol offenders can get the treatment they need to be sober and law-abiding.
Our system can hold criminals accountable and offer non-violent offenders treatment so they stop committing crimes. As the Journal Sentinel editorial pointed out, "Wisconsin leads the Midwest in per-capital expenditures for corrections."
We can do better, and we must.

Kathleen Falk is Dane County executive and a former assistant attorney general. She is a candidate for Wisconsin attorney general.

Local officials resist push for revenue curbs

By MIKE JOHNSONmikejohnson@journalsentinel.com
Posted: March 28, 2006

In polite, but firm terms, municipal leaders throughout Wisconsin are telling state lawmakers to keep their noses out of local government finances and abandon the Taxpayer Protection Amendment.

But state Rep. Jeff Wood (R-Chippewa Falls), who along with state Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend) introduced the amendment in February, said he has no intention of dropping it based on a "sky is falling" claim by local officials.
"We keep hearing from officials who just don't want people to have oversight of the government. We keep hearing from government officials and public employees who don't want to give up their power to tax," Wood said.
Said Grothman: "Of course there won't be major service cuts. It helps our cause when opponents make clearly insincere and exaggerated threats."
The proposed state constitutional amendment that would limit local and state government revenue would have disastrous effects on municipalities and lead to dramatic cuts in the services on which citizens have come to depend, the officials say.
"As locally elected and appointed city officials, we share your concern with high property taxes. 'Taxpayer Protection' sounds simple on the surface, but this amendment creates complex problems for city government," states one letter sent to lawmakers last week by municipal officials from across the state, including Germantown, Racine, Madison, Eau Claire, Marinette, Rhinelander, West Bend and Wauwatosa.
"Citizens depend upon local government, and rolling back our basic services is an extreme response. Police protection, education, emergency responders, firefighters, snow removal, road maintenance, child protection services, meals-on-wheels, park maintenance, library access, public health, and sanitation services would all face serious cutbacks. This isn't the answer," states the letter, which was sent to all state lawmakers and which lists 60 officials opposed to the amendment. The list was collected by AFT-Wisconsin, the state chapter of the American Federation of Teachers union.
Elected officials in other municipalities, including West Allis and Johnson Creek, recently have approved resolutions urging lawmakers to oppose the amendment. Still more, including Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, are sending letters to individual lawmakers "humbly" and "respectfully" imploring them to ditch the plan.
Waukesha Mayor Carol Lombardi said it's no exaggeration. Already under state-mandated spending caps, which keep property tax levy increases to 2% or the value of new construction, Lombardi said Waukesha had to make $400,000 in cuts to public library staff, materials and programs this year. The city also cut funding for summer youth playground programs by 50%, she said.
Services draw support
During budget hearings, officials saw "few property owners saying 'Cut my taxes'; comments were 'Keep services as is, as that's why I moved to Waukesha city,' " Lombardi said.
Delafield Mayor Paul Craig, in his own letters to Sen. Neal Kedzie (R-Elkhorn) and Rep. Scott Newcomer (R-Delafield), points out that the majority of Delafield taxpayers have seen a reduction in their city tax bills the last two years, and that "we are doing our job at the local level."
Decisions over local spending should remain at the local level, Craig said. "Other states, including Colorado, have implemented these types of Taxpayer Bill of Rights legislative gimmicks with disastrous results," Craig stated.
In November, Colorado residents voted to put their taxpayer bill of rights on hold for five years. The spending controls had been in place for 12 years. The vote authorized $3.7 billion more in state spending on roads, health care, public schools, colleges and universities, and police and firefighter pensions, which area officials said had been strapped after years of spending limits.
A tie voters can unbind
The Wisconsin amendment would tie governments' revenue, including fees, to inflation or growth in personal income statewide, whichever is less, and other factors such as population growth, increases in school enrollment and new construction. Under the provision, voters would be able to lift the controls.
For cities and villages, for example, the Wisconsin amendment would limit revenue to inflation and 60% of new-construction value in each community.
If state officials proceed with it, West Allis officials say, the revenue limit formula should be revised to include 100% of new growth. And they say that municipalities should be authorized to exceed revenue limits for major expenditures over which they have little control, such as rising health care costs, and federal mandates such as the Clean Water and Clean Air acts.
Delafield's Craig states that without the ability to "capture the full value of new development, we will experience a gap between the actual costs to provide services" and the revenue brought in by the development.
What do employers want?
Municipal officials are worried that the amendment will hurt economic development. "TPA also cuts away at our greatest asset for creating local economic development - our strong cities and excellent quality of life. Studies show that clean air and water, good schools, well-trained workers, public health and safe streets are more important to prospective employers than a complex calculation of relative tax rates," they state in their letter to state lawmakers.
West Allis Mayor Jeannette Bell said the amendment could affect municipalities' ability to borrow money for redevelopment projects or cause them to pay higher interest rates. The result, she said, would be that cities don't have enough revenue to undertake projects and citizens will "end up with tired old communities."
Grothman, though, says they are wrong. "In general, states with lower taxes have greater economic development," he said. "One reason we want TPA to pass is for us to have a better climate for business."
The Assembly and Senate are expected to take their first votes on the amendment in late April or early May.

UW SYSTEM RESPONDS TO TPA/TABOR II

Return to News News Archive
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEMarch 23, 2006
Contact: Doug Bradleydbradley@uwsa.edu (608) 262-5061
Regents: Taxpayer Protection Amendment not in Wisconsin’s best interest
Board opposes policy that would likely mean increased tuition, fewer students
MADISON—The University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents took a stand Thursday against a proposed constitutional amendment that would hurt student access and affordability by limiting state and local revenue.
"We believe the so-called Taxpayer Protection Amendment would force the UW to admit fewer students, and tuition would have to significantly increase,” said Board of Regents President David G. Walsh. “Those results are not in the public’s best interest. Today’s action is part of our responsibility to make sure the state’s public university system is accessible to the maximum number of Wisconsin’s sons and daughters, provides them a quality higher education and meets the needs of all Wisconsin citizens.”
The Board voted to approve a resolution opposing the proposed constitutional amendment, which would place limits on revenue that can be collected by state and local governments. The resolution also opposes any proposed constitutional amendment that would routinely require state referenda for budget matters that are traditionally voted on by elected representatives. The resolution notes that because the proposed amendment will reduce critical state funding for higher education, it will likely:
Force increased tuition and student enrollment caps;
Decrease citizen access to statewide UW-Extension services, and limit student access to the freshman-sophomore UW Colleges, which would both be impacted by limits on both state and county revenue;
Harm the state’s ability to leverage federal funds that support university research in areas like health care, homeland security, and economic development; and
Inhibit the university’s goal to increase the number of citizens with four-year college degrees, an essential strategy for growing Wisconsin’s knowledge economy.
Regents learned about the potential impacts of the proposed amendment at their regular March meeting. One of the proposed amendment’s co-sponsors, Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend), told the Board that the amendment was intended to stimulate Wisconsin’s economic growth by creating a more favorable tax environment. In addition, an aide to Rep. Jeff Wood (R-Chippewa Falls), the amendment’s other co-sponsor, agreed that the proposed constitutional amendment would probably result in a significant increase in tuition as well as additional costs. An analysis by Andrew Reschovsky, a professor at UW-Madison’s La Follette School of Public Affairs, projected that the UW System would have received approximately $200 million less in state support if the proposed amendment had been in effect over the last ten years.
"In a word, the impact on the UW System would be crippling,” observed Regent Roger Axtell of Janesville.
UW System President Kevin P. Reilly indicated that the UW System will work vigorously in the weeks and months ahead with chancellors, faculty and staff across the state to communicate about these priorities with local communities and citizens.
"It’s important for our students and for the economic health of Wisconsin that budget decisions like these remain in the hands of elected officials,” Reilly said. “The right choice for the state at this time is to reject this proposed amendment, and to instead reinvest in the state’s public university system.”
"The Regents must make the right choices in the best interest of our students, their families and the public,” Walsh added. “The Board is ready to work with state government to fulfill the public’s priorities for the future.”
###