CREW: Senator Scott Fitzgerald: Regarding Wisconsin Governor Walker's Dispatching of State Patrol: 3/14/11 - Rob Richard Emails Combined

Richard, Rob
From: Phillips, Matt

Sent: Thursday, February 24,2011 9:09 AM
To: Richard, Rob; Hogan, Rebecca
Subject: RE: SUbpoena power
Yeah - I had that conversation with her as well. I think the Tax Exemptions angle is a little more defensible. As it is not an
investigation, but gathering information to make a report. Regardless, I thought she was doing a little more advocating
than simple answering a legal question.
Certainly, I would believe that the chairman of the Sen. Com on Org might want to hold an investigation as to what, if any,
state resources are being used to fund this political stunt, and witnesses should be called to answer those questions.
Aside from hotel bills/food/travel expenses, you certainly might want to examine security and other costs to the state,
phone expenses from legislative offices to missing senators in III, etc. I am sure I can come up with a long list of potential
state expenditures.
From: Richard, Rob

Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 8:54 AM
To: Phillips, Matt; Hogan, Rebecca
Subject: Subpoena power
Anne Sappenfield said that using subpoena power can be done by all committees; however it's generally
reserved for the investigation of gathering information from witnesses. She said using it for the purposes that
we're looking for is a real stretch.
Rob Richard
Legislative Aide
Office of Senator Scott Fitzgerald
Senate Majority Leader
608-266-5660
1
Page 1 of 1
Richard, Rob
From: Lovell, David

Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 5:46 PM
To: Kreye, Joseph; Richard, Rob
Cc: Anderson, Terry C.; Karls-Ruplinger, Jessica; Konopacki, Larry; Rose, Laura; Sappenfield, Anne
Subject: FW: Draft review: LRB 11-1487/2 Topic: Penalties for senators who are absent without leave
Attachments: LRB-1487_2
I am sorry to find such a small mistake in this after reading it so many times, but here it is:
p. 3, I. 15: presumably, this should read "... paid out of the member's office ...".
David L. Lovell, Senior Analyst

Wisconsin Legislative Council Staff
608/266-1537
From: Parisi, Lori

To: Lovell, David
Subject: Draft review: LRB 11-1487/2 Topic: Penalties for senators who are absent without leave
Draft Requester: Scott Fitzgerald
Following is the PDF version of draft LRB 11-1487/2.
3/8/2011
~fa:t.e of ~isr:onsin
2011 - 2012 LEGISLATURE
LRB-1487/2
JK:jld:md
2011 SENATE RESOLUTION
1 To amend senate rule 84; and to create senate rule 13n; relating to: imposing a
2 penalty on a senator who is absent without leave.
Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau

Under this resolution, a senator who is absent without leave from two or more
session days is subject to a penalty equal to $100 for each day that the senator is
absent without leave. In addition, the senator must reimburse the senate for the
actual costs incurred to compel his or her attendance. The penalties and costs are
imposed by adopting a privileged resolution that identifies the senator who has been
absent without leave. A senator who is subject to the penalties and costs imposed
by the resolution may only be heard on the matter on the session day on which the
resolution is before the senate. If a senator who owes the penalties and costs has not
paid the penalties and costs in full within 30 days after the resolution is adopted, the
chief clerk will withhold from any payments due to the senator for per diem, travel
expenses, or other matters, not including salary, the amount of any unpaid penalties
and costs. The senate majority leader may also take certain measures to compel the
attendance of any senator who is absent without leave.
The resolution also allows the sergeant at arms to request the assistance of any
law enforcement officer in this state to find and return any senator who is absent
without leave.
3 Resolved by the senate, That:
4 SECTION 1. Senate rule 13n is created to read:

LRB-1487/2
2011 - 2012 Legislature -2- JK:jld:md
SECTION 1
1 SENATE RULE 13n. Imposing penalties on senators who are absent
2 without leave. (1) PENALTY. A member of the senate who is absent from 2 or more
3 session days without obtaining a leave of absence under rule 16 shall do all of the
4 following:
5 (a) Forfeit to the senate $100 for each day that the member is absent without
6 leave. Amounts under this paragraph shall be paid exclusively from the member's
7 personal funds.
8 (b) Reimburse to the senate the actual costs incurred in compelling the
9 attendance of the member. The chief clerk shall calculate the costs and submit the
10 result to the president. Amounts under this paragraph shall be paid exclusively from
11 the member's personal funds.
12 (2) PROCESS. (a) The penalties and costs under sub. (1) are imposed by a senate
13 resolution that identifies the member who is absent without leave. A resolution
14 under this paragraph is a privileged resolution and may be offered by any member
15 of the senate at any time during the legislative session in which the absence without
16 leave occurs.
17 (b) Publication of a senate calendar that includes the resolution serves as notice
18 to the member who is absent without leave that the member is subject to the
19 penalties and costs under sub. (1). The president may provide additional notice to
20 the member who is absent without leave by requiring the sergeant at arms to deliver
21 a copy of both the calendar and the resolution to the senate office of the member who
22 is absent without leave.
23 (c) A member of the senate who is identified in a resolution under this
24 subsection shall be given an opportunity to be heard on the resolution only on the

LRB-1487/2
SECTION 1
1 session day on which the resolution is before the senate. If the member is absent on
2 that day, the member waives his or her opportunity to be heard on the resolution.
3 (3) COLLECTION AND COMPULSION. (a) If a member who owes the penalties and
4 costs imposed under subs. (1) and (2) has not paid those amounts in full within 30
5 days after the day on which a resolution under sub. (2) is adopted, the chief clerk shall
6 withhold any payments due to the member for per diem, travel expenses, or other
7 matters, not including salary, in an amount equal to the unpaid penalties and costs.
8 (b) When a member of the senate is absent without leave from 2 or more session
9 days, the senate majority leader, with the consent of the committee on senate
10 organization, may do any of the following to compel the absent member to attend:
11 1. Direct the chief clerk to terminate the direct deposit of the absent member's
12 paycheck and provide the paycheck to the majority leader for the absent member to
13 pick up in person.
14 2. Direct the chief clerk to cease any and all expense reimbursements for the
15 absent member that are paid out the member's office expense account until a date
16 specified or the end of the legislative biennium, whichever is earlier.
17 3. Direct the chief clerk to reduce or zero out the balance of the absent member's
18 office expense account for the remainder of the legislative biennium.
19 4. Direct the sergeant at arms to revoke the parking privileges allocated to the
20 absent member, and the member's staff, for the remainder of the legislative
21 biennium.
22 SECTION 2. Senate rule 84 is amended to read:
23 SENATE RULE 84. Sergeant to bring in absentees. The chief clerk shall
24 immediately call the roll of the members, and note the absentees, whose names shall
25 be read, and entered upon the journal in such manner as to show who are absent with
LRB-1487/2
SECTION 2
1 leave and who are absent without leave. The chief clerk shall furnish the sergeant
2 at arms with a list of those who are absent without leave, and the sergeant at arms
3 shall forthwith proceed to find and bring in such absentees. In exercising his or her
4 responsibilities under this rule, the sergeant at arms may request the assistance of
5 any law enforcement officer in this state.
6 SECTION 3. Initial applicability.
7 (1) The treatment of senate rules 13n and 84 first applies to a senator who is
8 absent 2 or more session days that occur on or after the day this resolution is adopted
9 by the senate.
10 (END)
Richard, Rob
From: Kreye, Joseph

Sent: Tuesday, February 22,2011 2:16 PM
To: Richard, Rob
Cc: Rose, Laura; Lovell, David; Anderson, Terry C.; Sappenfield, Anne; Konopacki, Larry; Karls-
Ruplinger, Jessica
Attachments: 11-1489/P1
This version just removes the term "consecutive" from page 2 line 6 of the previous version, as it would appear
unnecessary.
Joseph Kreye
Senior Legislative Attorney
Legislative Reference Bureau
608 266-2263
"'
~ ....i.•,..
J-~.,.
iJ'Udi:
11-1489P1470b4c
ba.pdf (28 KB)
1
~fate of ~isr:onsin
_ .....
,
LRB-1489/Pl
:-:.' .
. .'
.
JK: ...:...
PRELIMINARY DRAFT - NOT READY FOR INTRODUCTION
1 Relating to: imposing penalties and costs on Senator Mark Miller for being absent
2 without leave.
3 Whereas, the Senator Mark Miller of the 16th Senate District has been absent
4 without leave from two or more session days; and
5 Whereas, Senate Rule 13n imposes penalties and costs on any member of the
6 senate who is absent without leave for two or more session days; and
7 Whereas, pursuant to Senate Rule 13n, Senator Miller has received notice by
8 publication of both this resolution and the senate calendar which includes
9 consideration of this resolution that he is subject to such penalties and costs; and
10 Whereas, the sergeant at arms has delivered a copy of both this resolution and
11 the senate calendar which includes consideration of this resolution to Senator
12 Miller's senate office, thereby providing additional notice to the senator, pursuant
13 to Senate Rule 13n; and

LRB-1489/Pl
2011 - 2012 Legislature -2- JK: ...:...
1 Whereas, pursuant to Senate Rule 13n, Senator Miller has an opportunity to
2 be heard, on the session day on which this resolution is before the senate, on the
3 matter of whether or not penalties and costs for being absent without leave may be
4 imposed on the senator; and
5 Whereas, upon adoption of this resolution, Senator Miller is responsible for the
6 penalties and costs imposed under Senate Rule 13n for each day that the senator is
7 absent without leave; now therefore be it
8 Resolved by the senate, That: pursuant to Senate Rule 13n, Senator Mark
9 Miller shall pay the penalties and costs imposed under Senate Rule 13n for being
10 absent without leave for two or more session days and that the total amount of such
11 penalties and costs shall be calculated by the Senate Chief Clerk and submitted to
12 the President who shall deliver that total, in writing, to Senator Mark Miller's senate
13 office for immediate payment.
14 (END)
Richard, Rob
From: Kreye, Joseph

To: Richard, Rob
Cc: Lovell, David; Rose, Laura; Anderson, Terry C.; Sappenfield, Anne; Konopacki, Larry
Subject: Penalty resolution; slighty revised
Joseph Kreye
608 266-2263
~("
~
..
11-1489P1.pdf (28
KB)
1
..
.' , ··"<;) ·
~±a:t.e of ~iz.conzin
2011 - 2012 LEGISLATURE H
LRB-1489/P 1
.
JK: ...:...
1 Relating to: imposing penalties and costs on Senator Mark Miller for being absent
2 without leave.
3 Whereas, the Senator Mark Miller of the 16th Senate District has been absent
4 without leave from two or more session days; and
5 Whereas, Senate Rule 13n imposes penalties and costs on any member of the
6 senate who is absent without leave for two or more session days; and
7 Whereas, pursuant to Senate Rule 13n, Senator Miller has received notice by
8 publication of both this resolution and the senate calendar which includes
9 consideration of this resolution that he is subject to such penalties and costs; and
10 Whereas, the sergeant at arms has delivered a copy of both this resolution and
11 the senate calendar which includes consideration of this resolution to Senator
12 Miller's senate office, thereby providing additional notice to the senator, pursuant
13 to Senate Rule 13n; and

LRB-1489/Pl
2011 - 2012 Legislature -2- JK: ...:...
1 Whereas, pursuant to Senate Rule 13n, Senator Miller has an opportunity to
2 be heard, on the session day on which this resolution is before the senate, on the
3 matter of whether or not penalties and costs for being absent without leave may be
4 imposed on the senator; and
5 Whereas, upon adoption of this resolution, Senator Miller is responsible for the
6 penalties and costs imposed under Senate Rule 13n for each consecutive day that the
7 senator is absent without leave; now therefore be it
8 Resolved by the senate, That: pursuant to Senate Rule 13n, Senator Mark
9 Miller shall pay the penalties and costs imposed under Senate Rule 13n for being
10 absent without leave for two or more session days and that the total amount of such
11 penalties and costs shall be calculated by the Senate Chief Clerk and submitted to
12 the President who shall deliver that total, in writing, to Senator Mark Miller's senate
13 office for immediate payment.
14 (END)
Richard, Rob
From: Kreye, Joseph

To: Richard, Rob; Lovell, David
Cc: Rose, Laura; Konopacki, Larry; Karls-Ruplinger, Jessica; Anderson, Terry C.; Sappenfield,
Anne
Subject: RE: Resolution example
After speaking with David, I think we certainly could have an initial applicability for the rule change so that it applies to
absences after a certain date.
Also, we may want to specify in the penalty resolution that the penalty applies to absences that continue pass the adoption
of the resolution.
Joe
Joseph Kreye
608 266-2263
From: Richard, Rob

To: Lovell, David: Kreye, Joseph
Cc: Rose, Laura; Konopacki, Larry; Karls-Ruplinger, Jessica; Anderson, Terry c.; Sappenfield, Anne
I don't think we can/should do it retroactively because they were not given notice.
No, the other penalties would not be triggered by resolution. Majority leader would have that option under the
rules, not contingent upon a resolution.
The resolution states that the two day absence has been met - that's all I want, but it should very clear they are
required to pay for all days absent.
Sorry I'm operating between session and caucus meetings. Do my answers make sense?
Rob Richard
Legislative Aide
608-266-5660
From: Lovell, David

Sent: Tuesday, February 22,201111:41 AM
Joe, Rob,
Related to this, should the resolution imposing the penalties specify the days that the senator has been absent? I would
assume that a senator who remains absent after adoption of the resolution would be subject to further penalties, but that
those further penalties would require another resolution to impose.
Second, will the additional sanctions, being added in the redraft of the other resolution, be triggered by a resolution, and so
does this resolution need to be revised to do that?
Thanks --
David

608/266-1537
From: Kreye, Joseph

To: Richard, Rob
Cc: Rose, Laura; Loveil, David; Konopacki, Larry; Karis-Ruplinger, Jessica; Anderson, Terry c.; Sappenfield, Anne
Subject: Resolution example
The attachment is my attempt to give you all an example of what a resolution imposing the penalty may look like. I'm not
wedded to the language. I just wanted to provide a document to work from. I assume the final document would then
serve as a template for all imposing the penalty on each individual Senator.
Joe
Joseph Kreye
608 266-2263
«File: 11-1489/Pl »
2
Richard, Rob
From: Kreye, Joseph

Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 11:20 AM
To: Richard, Rob
Cc: Rose, Laura; Lovell, David; Konopacki, Larry; Karls-Ruplinger, Jessica; Anderson, Terry C.;
Sappenfield, Anne
SUbject: Resolution example
Joe
Joseph Kreye
608 266-2263
350003e980b2a8a
b.rtf (20 KB)
.1..J1.loU-.l..'"IUvlJ.. .l..
JK:...:...
2011 Special Session
Senator Mark Miller; absent without leave

ENGROSSED 2011 SENATE RESOLUTION
Relating to: imposing penalties and costs on Senator Mark Miller for being
absent without leave.
Whereas, the Senator Mark Miller of the 16th Senate District has been
absent without leave from two or more session days; and
Whereas, Senate Rule 13n imposes penalties and costs on any member of the
senate who is absent without leave for two or more session days; and
Whereas, pursuant to Senate Rule 13n, Senator Miller has received notice by
publication of both this resolution and the senate calendar which includes
consideration of this resolution that he is subject to such penalties and costs; and
Whereas, the sergeant at arms has delivered a copy of both this resolution
and the senate calendar which includes consideration of this resolution to Senator
Miller's senate office, thereby providing additional notice to the senator, pursuant
to Senate Rule 13n; and
Whereas, pursuant to Senate Rule 13n, Senator Miller has an opportunity to
be heard, on the session day on which this resolution is before the senate, on the
2011 Spec. Sess.
2011 - 2012 Legislature
LRB-1489/Pl
JK: ...:...
matter of whether or not penalties and costs for being absent without leave may
be imposed on the senator; now therefore be it
Resolved by the senate, That: pursuant to Senate Rule 13n, Senator Mark
Miller shall pay the penalties and costs imposed under Senate Rule 13n for being
absent without leave for two or more session days and that the total amount of
such penalties and costs shall be calculated by the Senate Chief Clerk and
submitted to the President who shall deliver that total, in writing, to Senator
Mark Miller's senate office for immediate payment.
(END)
Page 1 of6
Richard, Rob
From: Anderson, Terry C.

To: Richard, Rob
SUbject: RE:
No deductions should be made from the paycheck.
The Texas model is best.
Terry C. Anderson
Director
Wisconsin Legislative Council
608.266.1304
From: Richard, Rob

To: Kreye, Joseph; Lovell, David; Rose, Laura
Cc: Anderson, Terry c.; Karls-Ruplinger, Jessica; Konopacki, Larry; Sappenfield, Anne; Hogan, John;
Champagne, Rick
Subject: RE:
Can we legally deduct the penalty from a senator's paycheck?
Joe, Fitz now wants to make the penalty $100 per day. No doubling or anything. Just $100 per
day for every day they are absent.
Rob Richard
Legislative Aide
608-266-5660
From: Kreye, Joseph

Sent: Tuesday, February 22,2011 9:02 AM
To: Richard, Rob; Lovell, David: Rose, Laura
Champagne, Rick
Subject: RE:
Thanks all. I'll let you know if I have questions, because it should be fairly straightforward.
Joe
Joseph Kreye
608 266-2263
3/812011
Richard, Rob
From: Kreye, Joseph

To: Lovell, David; Richard, Rob
Cc: Rose, Laura; Konopacki, Larry; Karls-Ruplinger, Jessica; Anderson, Terry C.; Sappenfield,
Anne
With regards to the applicability, I wanted to give leadership as much flexibility as possible. Rules typically don't have initial
applicability provisions and given the fact that an absent senator is given at least 24 hours notice of the resolution imposing
the penalty, I don't think it's problematic to indicate that at the time of the resolution's introduction a senator has been
absent without leave for 2 or more session days.
When preparing this example, I actually assumed that the body would not want to adopt a series of resolutions to impose
the penalties on a member who has been absent for an extended period of time. So the 2 day absent acts as a trigger, the
body adopts the resolution, and the chief clerk calculates the penalty based on the actual number of days absent. I
assumed that the clerk would keep track of the days absent and the penalties/costs incurred for the entire absence.
Finally, in the other draft, the actions that the majority leader may take to compel attendance are not triggered by adopting
a resolution. The only trigger for that, as drafted, is the 2 day absence without leave.
Joseph Kreye
608 266-2263
From: Lovell, David

Joe, Rob,
This, too, looks good. Two questions:
First, are the penalties applicable only to those days of absence after the adoption of the rule change? Or is the intent to
apply penalties retroactively? Maybe the resolution creating the rule needs to be revised to specify initial applicability.
Related to this, should the resolution imposing the penalties specify the days that the senator has been absent? I would
assume that a senator who remains absent after adoption of the resolution would be subject to further penalties, but that
those further penalties would require another resolution to impose.
Second, will the additional sanctions, being added in the redraft of the other resolution, be triggered by a resolution, and so
does this resolution need to be revised to do that?
Thanks --
David

608/266-1537
1
From: Kreye, Joseph
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 201111:20 AM
To: Richard, Rob
Cc: Rose, Laura; Lovell, David; Konopacki, Larry; Karls-Ruplinger, Jessica; Anderson, Terry c.; Sappenfield, Anne
Subject: Resolution example
Joe
Joseph Kreye
608 266-2263
«File: 11-1489/Pl »
2
Richard. Rob
From: Rose, Laura

Sent: Monday, February 21,2011 4:11 PM
To: Rose, Laura; Richard, Rob; Hogan, John
Cc: Lovell, David
SUbject: RE:
Rob,
FYI, I no longer have a 4:00 meeting so I'm here if you'd like to talk.
Laura
Laura D. ROJe, Deputy Direr/or

One East Main Street, Suite 401
PO Box 2536
Mallison, WI 53701-2536
tel: 608.266.9791
fax: 608.266.3830
laura.rose@legis.wisconsin.gov
From: Rose, Laura

To: Richard, Rob
Cc: Lovell, David
Subject: RE:
Rob,
David Lovell is drafting an outline sketching out notice and deliberation processes for imposing penalties. We are working
off the Texas penalties. Let us know if there are others you want to include.
Let us know how to proceed once you get the outline. Do you want us to speak with Rick Champagne to get this drafted?
If you impose penalties through the internal tools you have, we don't think this would be considered a reduction in the
legislator's compensation unless it is taken directly from their paycheck. There are other means of collecting monetary
penalties. However, we doubt that a civil court would or could enforce a legislatively-imposed penalty.
With regard to the compelling attendance issue, the Senate could probably adopt a resolution authorizing the Senate
sergeant to request the aid of state troopers to compel the absent legislators' attendance. It would be a good idea to
include in such a resolution some findings that state that this compelling of attendance is being done pursuant to art IV, s.
7; and that it is not an arrest or civil process under art. IV, s. 15.
I'm at my desk until 4:00, and then am going to a meeting. If you can't reach me, please call David Lovell.
Thanks,
Laura
Laura D. ROJe, Deputy Director

PO Box 2536
Mallison, WI 53701-2536
tel: 608.266.9791
1
fax: 608.266.3830
From: Richard, Rob

Sent: Monday, February 21, 20111:57 PM
To: Rose, Laura
Subject: RE:
Ok, thanks.
Rob Richard
Legislative Aide
608-266-5660
From: Rose, Laura

To: Richard, Rob
Subject: RE:
Yes, we are meeting right now, and I will get back to you shortly.
Laura
Laura D. MJe, Deputy Director

PO Box 2536
Madison, WI 53701-2536
tel: 608.266.9791
fax: 608.266.3830
From: Richard, Rob

Sent: Monday, February 21,20111:33 PM
To: Rose, Laura
Subject:
Are you finding out anything more concretely with regard to establishing a
fine for legislators?
Rob Richard
Legislative Aide
608-266-5660
2
Richard, Rob
From: Lovell, David

Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 3:49 PM
To: Richard, Rob
Cc: Rose, Laura; Anderson, Terry C.; Karls-Ruplinger, Jessica; Konopacki, Larry; Sappenfield,
Anne; Hogan, John; Champagne, Rick
Subject: RE:
Rob,
One further though, which occurred to me after I sent the outline: You may want to specify that a senator who is penalized
under the proposed rule may not pay the penalty from his or her office account or any other state resources.
David

608/266-1537
From: Lovell, David

To: Richard, Rob
Cc: Rose, Laura; Anderson, Terry c.; Karls-Ruplinger, Jessica; Konopacki, Larry; Sappenfieid, Anne; Hogan, John; Champagne, Rick
Subject: RE:
Rob,
Here is the promised outline. In addition to sharing it with the team in our office looking at this, I am sharing it with Rick
Champagne on the theory that he may have to draft something based on it and, if he sees problems, he can raise them
earlier, rather than later.
-
I am leavlnq the office at about 4: 15, but will be accessible by cell phone until about 4:45 and after 6:30; that number is
Until 5, or even a little later, you can call Laura or Anne Sappenfield over here, also.
David
« File: PENALTIES FOR FAILURE OF A SENATOR TO ATTEND.doc»

608/266-1537
From: Rose, Laura

To: Richard, Rob
Cc: Lovell, David
Subject: RE:
Rob,
1
With regard to the compelling attendance issue, the Senate could probably adopt a resolution authorizing the Senate
sergeant to request the aid of state troopers to compel the absent legislators' attendance. It would be a good idea to
include in such a resolution some findings that state that this compelling of attendance is being done pursuant to art IV, s.
7; and that it is not an arrest or civil process under art. IV, s. 15.
Thanks,
Laura
Laura D. Rose, Depllt)l Director

PO Box 2536
tel: 608.266.9791
fax: 608.266.3830
From: Richard, Rob

To: Rose, Laura
Subject: RE:
Ok, thanks.
Rob Richard
Legislative Aide
608-266-5660
From: Rose, Laura

To: Richard, Rob
Subject: RE:
Laura
Laura D. Rose, Dept/f)! Director

PO Box 2536
tel: 608.266.9791
2
fax: 608.266.3830
From: Richard, Rob

To: Rose, Laura
Subject:
Are you finding out anything more concretely with regard to establishing a
fine for legislators?
Rob Richard
Legislative Aide
608-266-5660
3
Richard, Rob
From: Hogan, John

To: Richard, Rob; Marchant, Robert
Subject: Procedure for dem attendance
We should work out a script / prodecure for exactly what Ellis and Fitz would do if a Senate Democrat were to show up in
the chamber at any point, for example during regular session. Would we immediately call for a call of the house and lock
the chamber doors? How would that happen? Or what if we're not on the floor at the time and a dem shows up someplace
in the buildinq? Then I assume we compel them back to the chamber via Ted / Trooper / TV cameras. We should just be
ready with a precedure in case it happens.
John Hogan
Chief of Staff
Office of the Senate Majority Leader
Senator Scott Fitzgerald
(608) 266-5660
1
Page 1 of7
Richard, Rob
From: Lovell, David

To: Richard, Rob
Subject: RE:
Rob,
The Constitution does not allow the compensation of public officials to be changed during their
terms of office:
Article IV, Section 26. Extra compensation; salary change.
(2) Except as provided in this subsection, the compensation of a public officer may not be
increased or diminished during the term of office:
The exceptions are not applicable here.
I don't know if deducting a penalty from a public official's pay constitutes diminishing his or her
compensation -- others copied on this message may have thoughts on that -- but it looks a lot
like it, and I would recommend avoiding that approach if there is an alternative. This is why I
suggested deducting any unpaid penalty from per diems and any reimbursement of expenses due
to a senator.
David

608/266-1537
._--_...._._-_. __ ...._ ---_._--_......- .--_.._--_._._---....--_.

From: Richard, Rob
To: Kreye, Joseph; Lovell, David; Rose, Laura
Champagne, Rick
Subject: RE:
Can we legally deduct the penalty from a senator's paycheck?
Joe, Fitz now wants to make the penalty $100 per day. No doubling or anything. Just $100 per
day for every day they are absent.
Rob Richard
Legislative Aide
608-266-5660
3/8/2011
Page 2 of7
From: Kreye, Joseph

To: Richard, Rob; Lovell, David; Rose, Laura
Champagne, Rick
Subject: RE:
Thanks all. I'll let you know if I have questions, because it should be fairly straightforward.
Joe
Joseph Kreye
608 266-2263
From: Richard, Rob

To: Lovell, David: Rose, Laura
Champagne, Rick; Kreye, Joseph
Subject: RE:
Agreed. Joe should take whatever latitude he needs and we'll go from there.
Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless
-----Original message-----
From: "Lovell, David" <David.Lovell@legis.wisconsin.gov>
To: "Rose, Laura" <Laura.Rose@legis.wisconsin.gov>, "Richard, Rob" <Rob.Richard@legis.wisconsin.gov>
Cc: "Anderson, Terry C." <Terry.Anderson@legis.wisconsin.gov>, "Karls-Ruplinger, Jessica"
<Jessica. Karls@legis.wisconsin.gov>, "Konopacki, Larry"
<Larry.Konopacki@legis.wisconsin.gov>, "Sappenfield, Anne"
<Anne.Sappenfield@legis.wisconsin.gov>, "Hogan, John"
<John. Hogan@legis.wisconsin.gov>, "Champagne, Rick"
<Rick.Champagne@legis.wisconsin.gov>, "Kreye, Joseph" <Joseph.Kreye@legis.wisconsin.gov>
Sent: Tue, Feb 22,2011 02:18:10 GMT+OO:OO
Subject: RE:
Rob,
I agree with all of the above -- it should be workable.
One thing I would suggest is to not become too wedded to specific language, but to give the drafter latitude where possible.
I know Joe will accommodate your wording preferences to the extent possible, but may have good reasons for deviating at .
times. In particular, I would leave the organization of the rule to him. What I wrote was intended not as draft language but
an outline to convey the ideas to you and, ultimately, to the drafter.
3/812011
Page 3 of7
Laura is in the office now (8 p.m. on Monday) and can reach me if needed; otherwise, I will be available in the office in the
morning.
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Rose, Laura
Sent: Mon 2/21/2011 7:26 PM
To: Richard, Rob; Lovell, David
Cc: Anderson, Terry C.; Karls-Ruplinger, Jessica; Konopacki, Larry; Sappenfield, Anne; Hogan, John; Champagne, Rick;
Kreye, Joseph
Subject: RE:
Hi Rob
I think you are right, that it makes sense to put items a through d under "Collections". David is teaching a class but I should
be able to talk to him within the next half hour or so.
I will also give Joe a call.
Thanks,
Laura
Laura D. Rose, Deputy Director

PO Box 2536
tel: 608.266.9791
fax: 608.266.3830
From: Richard, Rob

To: Lovell, David
Cc: Rose, Laura; Anderson, Terry C,; Karls-Ruplinger, Jessica; Konopacki, Larry; Sappenfield, Anne; Hogan, John;
Champagne, Rick; Kreye, Joseph
Subject: RE:
David:
I like the way this is laid out. I'd like section A to look something like this:
A. Penalty.
1) A senator absent from the Senate without leave of the Senate for two or more session days shall:
3/8/2011
Page 4 of7
a) Forfeit to the Senate $1,000 per day, doubling each day, not to exceed $5,000 per day; for each day of absence
without leave. Penalties shall be paid exclusively out of each Senator's personal funds.
b) Reimburse to the Senate the actual costs incurred in compelling the attendance of the senator. Actual costs shall be
calculated by the chief clerk and submitted to the President.
2) When a member is absent without leave of the Senate, the Majority Leader may do any of the following to compel the
absent member to attend:
a) Direct the chief clerk to terminate the direct deposit of the absent member's paycheck and provide the
paycheck to the Majority Leader for the absent member to pick up in person.
b) Direct the chief clerk to cease any and all expense reimbursements for the absent member that are paid out the
senator's office expense account until a date specified or the end of the legislative biennium, whichever is earlier.
c) Direct the chief clerk to reduce or zero out the balance of the absent member's office expense account for the
remainder of the legislative biennium.
d) Direct the sergeant-at-arms to revoke the parking privileges allocated to the absent member, and the member's
staff, for the remainder of the legislative biennium.
Now that I have this written out, the question might be whether the section I created under "2) a thru d" should go
under "Collection"? Please offer input.
Under "Process", please have it read that "any senator can introduce a resolution at any time during the legislative session in
which the unexcused absence occurs".
Also, at the same time we are working on these rules changes, I need resolutions drafted for each senator without leave ready
to go by Thursday. Unless you think otherwise, there should be one resolution for each senator.
Joe and Rick, please have a draft ready for us to look at as soon as possible. I want us to have the ability to review it
tomorrow at some point (later in the day ifit must) and ready for introduction on Wednesday.
Thank you all! I can be reached at ith questions. I also have access to my work e-mail via Droid so feel
free to communicate with me that way as well.
Rob Richard
Legislative Aide
608-266-5660
From: Lovell, David

To: Richard, Rob
Cc: Rose, Laura; Anderson, Terry C.; Karls-Ruplinger, Jessica; Konopacki, Larry; Sappenfield, Anne; Hogan, John;
Champagne, Rick
Subject: RE:
3/8/2011
Page 5 of7
Rob,
Here is the promised outline. In addition to sharing it with the team in our office looking at this, I am sharing it with Rick
is.
Champagne on the theory that he may have to draft something based on it and, if he sees problems, he can raise them earlier,
rather than later.
aving the office at about 4: 15, but will be accessible by cell phone until about 4:45 and after 6:30; that number
Until 5, or even a little later, you can call Laura or Anne Sappenfield over here, also.
David
«File: PENALTIES FOR FAILURE OF A SENATOR TO ATTEND.doc»

608/266-1537
From: Rose, Laura

To: Richard, Rob
Cc: Lovell, David
Subject: RE:
Rob,
With regard to the compelling attendance issue, the Senate could probably adopt a resolution authorizing the Senate sergeant
to request the aid of state troopers to compel the absent legislators' attendance. It would be a good idea to include in such a
resolution some fmdings that state that this compelling of attendance is being done pursuant to art IV, s. 7; and that it is not
an arrest or civil process under art. IV, s. 15.
Thanks,
Laura
3/8/2011
Page6of7

PO Box2536
tel: 608.266.9791
fax: 608.266.3830
From: Richard, Rob

To: Rose, Laura
Subject: RE:
Ok, thanks.
Rob Richard
Legislative Aide
608-266-5660
From: Rose, Laura

To: Richard, Rob
Subject: RE:
Laura

PO Box 2536
tel: 608.266.9791
fax: 608.266.3830
From: Richard, Rob

To: Rose, Laura
3/8/2011
Page 7 of7
Subject:
Are you finding out anything more concretely with regard to establishing a fme for legislators?
Rob Richard
Legislative Aide
608-266-5660
3/8/2011
IMPOSITION OF MONETARY PENALTIES ON SENATORS ABSENT FROM THE
SENATE WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE SENATE
A. Penalty. A senator absent from the Senate without the leave of the Senate shall:
1. Forfeit to the Senate $ for each [entire] day of absence without

leave.
2. Reimburse to the Senate the actual costs incurred in compelling the attendance
of the senator. [Note: While not directly related to imposition of a monetary
penalty, this is a common element of other state legislatures' rules.]
B. Process.
1. Initiation. Imposition of the penalty and costs under A. is by a Senate

Resolution, which shall be privileged, introduced by [Senate Org.] [the
President] [any senator] [within one [week][month] of the unexcused
absence] [at any time during the legislative session in which the unexcused
absence occurs].
2. Notice. Publication of a Senate calendar that includes the resolution serves as

notice to the senator in question that the senator is possibly subject to the
penalty. Additional notice could be provided by requiring that the Sgt. staff
deliver to the Capitol office of the senator:
a. A copy of the calendar.
b. A copy of the resolution.
3. Opportunity to be Heard. The senator's opportunity to be heard in his or her

defense is that the senator is present in the Senate when the resolution is
debated and voted on. Failure of the senator to attend the session is forfeiture
of the opportunity to be heard.
C. Collection. If the penalty and costs under A. remain unpaid within _ _ days, the
Senate Chief Clerk shall withhold any payments due the senator for per diem,
travel expenses, or other matters, but not including salary, in an amount up to the
amount of any unpaid penalty and costs.
Richard. Rob
From: Rose, Laura

To: Richard, Rob
Cc: Lovell, David; Anderson, Terry C.; Kreye, Joseph; Sappenfield, Anne
Subject: RE:
Okay.
A couple of other thoughts:
1. You may wish to consider requiring Senate Org to approve the majority leader's actions under 13n(3)(b) page 3, lines
7-9. This would provide an additional layer of review prior to imposing these directives. Senate Rule 1m(3) provides that
for staffing and oudqet purpose related to the operation of Senate offices, all senators are subordinate to the Senate Org
committee.
2. Including the initial applicability provision would help to clarify that the penalties can only be imposed from the date of
passage of the resolution, going forward.
Thanks,
Laura
Laura D. ROJe, Deputy Director

PO Box 2536
tel: 608.266.9791
fax: 608.266.3830
From: Richard, Rob

To: Rose, Laura
Cc: Lovell, David: Anderson, Terry c.; Kreye, Joseph
Subject: RE:
Appreciate the thought, but we mean "zeroing out", Please leave as is.
Rob Richard
Legislative Aide
608-266-5660
From: Rose, Laura

To: Richard, Rob
Cc: Lovell, David; Anderson, Terry c.; Kreye, Joseph
Subject: RE:
Rob, one thought. On page 3, lines 17-18, it talks about "zeroing out" the office account. What exactly does this entail?
1
Will the district still get constituent services? I'm thinking of several offices which now have vacancies in the Assembly but
are still staffed to be able to provide constitutent services. Maybe there should be consistency there.
Laura
Laura D. Mse, Deputy Director

PO Box 2536
tel: 608.266.9791
fax: 608.266.3830
From: Richard, Rob

To: Rose, Laura
Subject:
Laura:
Can you please make sure this is legally tight?
«File: ll-1487P3.pdf»
Rob Richard
Legislative Aide
608-266-5660
2
Page 1 of 1
Richard, Rob
From: Marchant, Robert

To: Richard, Rob; Hogan, John
Subject: Texas Walk Out by Democrats 2003
Attachments: document2011-02-21-114724. pdf; document2011-02-21-114759.pdf
Rob and John-
Please see the information below and attached from my colleague in Texas.
Rob
From: Patsy Spaw [mailto:Patsy.spaw@senate.state.tx.us]

Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 12: 10 PM
To: Brenda Erickson
Subject: Texas Walk Out by Democrats 2003
Brenda,
I've attached some information for you regarding Texas Senate actions when faced with an issue similar
to the one currently faced by the Wisconsin Senate.
The first attachment contains 5 items.

1) A timeline of events
2) The "arrest" warrant issued immediately following the call of the Senate on July 28, 2003
3) The motion prescribing penalties for absent members adopted on August 12, 2003
4) The amended motion prescribing penalties for absent members adopted on August 15,3003
5) The Journal pages containing the motion placing the members who walked out on probation,
suspending their fines, and conditionally restoring their privileges
The second attachment contains the resolution that was adopted on October 2, 2003, amending the
Senate Rules to provide for the loss of seniority, to provide that a member has "a duty" to attend meetings
of the legislature, and to provide a procedure for issuing writs of mandamus during a call.
For additional information regarding points of order, parliamentary inquiries, and members' remarks the
Senate Journal is online and using the timeline of events for dates you can relive our nightmare. I feel for
Rob.
Let me know if you need anything else.
Patsy
Patsy Spaw
Secretary of the Senate
P.O. Box 12068
Austin, Texas 78711
patsy.spaw@senate.state.tx.us
Telephone: 512/463-0100
Fax: 512/463-6034
3/8/2011
TIMELINE FOR 2003 CALL OF THE TEXAS SENATE
The First Called Session ofthe 78th Legislature ofthe State of Texas adjourned sine die on
Monday, July 28,2003, after completing a 30~day session' in which no legislation on redrawing
congressional districts was passed. The Senate adjourned at 2:30 p.m. and the House at 3:10
p.m.
The governor issued a proclamation calling for a Second Called Session on the issue to begin at
3:15 p.m. that day. The House convened for the Second Called Session at 3:15 p.m. The Senate
came in at 3:55 p.m. but failed to achieve a quorum. A call of the Senate was moved.
After two weeks under the call, on Tuesday, August 12,2003, the Senate adopted a motion
imposing penalties on the absent members. On Friday, August 15, 2003, a motion was adopted
that added the suspension of certain privileges of the absent members to the previously adopted
penalties.
The Senate adjourned sine die on Tuesday, August 26, 2003, without ever achieving a quorum
during the 30-day special session. The governor called a third special session to begin Monday,
September 15,2003, to address congressional redistricting and other matters. The Senate
achieved a quorum on the first day of the session.
On Thursday, September 18, 2003, the fourth day of the Third Called Session, a motion in
writing was adopted that put the previously absent members on probation and suspended the
fines and restored their privileges on the condition that they not be absent without excuse for
more than 72 hours until the convening of the 79th Legislature in January 2005.
On Thursday, October 2,2003, the Senate adopted S.R. No. 302 which amended the Senate rules
to provide for the loss of privileges of seniority for members absent during a call of the Senate
(Rule 4.09, Punishment for Misconduct), to add text stating that it is a determination of the
Senate that a member has a duty to attend meetings of the legislature (Rule 5.03, Absences), and
to provide a procedure regarding issuing writs of mandamus during a call (Rule 5.04, Call ofthe
Senate).
The congressional redistricting bill (RB. No.3) was finally passed Thursday, October 12, 2003,
and the Third Called Session of the 78th Legislature of the State of Texas adjourned sine die on
that day.
1 The Texas Constitution provides for a 30.day maximum for called sessions. (Section 40, Article III).
2 The amendment to the rules was adopted by a vote of 15·13.
f1J~Jt j§-f~~t-f ~f irlpt jjtatt~ ~f ID'1t~Jli
Jat£'il1 ~pctfu
~£:Crdctrl1 .of t4:e ~:etmt:e
IN THE NAME AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE

SENATE, STATE OF TEXAS
TO: The Sergeant-At-Arms of the Texas Senate:
GREETINGS:
Pursuant to Section 10, Article III, Texas Constitution, and in accordance with Rule 5.02 and Rule
5.04, Rules of the Texas Senate, by order of the majority of the members of the Texas Senate
present: '
You are hereby directed to send for and compel the attendance of The Honorable Gonzalo
Barrientos, Member ofthe Texas Senate, wherever he may be found, and to return that person to the
Senate Chamber and there secure and retain that person.
Herein fail not. So ordered this 28th day of July, 2003.
Patsy Spa
Attestedby~~ Dianne Arrington

Journal Clerk, Texas Senate
J..®. ;lli\ux 12U.68 • j\ustin, 'CIT.eXItS 78711 • 512/453-UlUU • ~id 711 fur ~e1It1J <11&115
Mr. President, pursuant to Article III, Sec. 10 of the Texas Constitution and Senate
Rule 5.04, I move that in addition to the terms of the ·Call of the Senate already in
place that the present members of the Senate hereby impose a penalty of a $1,000
per day, doubling each day, not to exceed $5,000 per day, for each member of the
Senate absent from the Second Called Session of the 78th Legislature without
leave of the president. Pursuant to Senate Rule 5.04, payment of said penalties
shall. be a condition of discharge of the. order issued by the present members

. of the
Senate on July 28th, 2003, and a condition precedent to voluntarily return to the
Senate floor. Said penalties shall begin on August 14,2003, at 4:00 p.m, and
shall be paid only out of each senator's personal funds.
Should any portion ofthis motion be deemed invalid the remainder of this.motion
shall be severable and fully enforceable. The present members intend to
memorialize this motion into a formal change in the Senate Rules once a quorum
is restored.
ADOPTED
AUG 1 2 2003
dZm, ~fJJ
, ;;;;];;of !be SeMJr,
Mr. President, pursuant to Article III, Sec. 10 of the Texas Constitution and Senate
Rule 5.04, I move that the present members of the Senate readopt the motion
adopted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003, namely that the present members of the
Senate hereby impose a penalty ofa $1,000 per day, doubling each day, not to
exceed $5,000 per day, for each member of the Senate absent from the Second
Called Session of the 78th Legislature without leave of the president. Pursuant to
Senate Rule 5.04, payment of said penalties shall be a condition of discharge of
the order issued by the present members of the Senate on July 28th, 2003, and a
condition precedent to voluntarily return to the Senate floor. Said penalties shall
begin on August 14,2003, at 4:00 p.m. and shall be paid only out of each
senator's personal funds.
Lalso move that in order to ensure the payment of these penalties imposed on the
absent senators to compel their attendance, the Secretary of the Senate is hereby
directed to suspend the provision of the following privileges to Senators absent
from the Second Called Session of the 78 th Legislature until the said penalties be
paid in full:
• All purchasing privileges.
• All mail privileges.

A,UG 1 s 2003
~,~
• All travel.
-s» $,,;tO 0 ;»'-- '/)1JJ7l)-L.. ~ jJM ~

;. .
• No reservations for conference rooms, press conference rooms or meeting
• All subscriptions.
• All printing privileges including newsletter production.
• All cell phones.
• Floor passes for staff of delinquent members.
These suspensions will continue in effect after the close of the Second Called
Session of the 78th Legislature until the penalties are paid in full.
Should any portion of this motion be deemed invalid the remainder of this motion
shall be severable and fully enforceable. The present members intend to
memorialize this motion into a formal change in the Senate Rules once a quorum
is restored.
SENATE JOURNAL
SEVENTY-EIGHTH LEGISLATURE - TIDRD CALLED SESSION
AUSTIN, TEXAS
PROCEEDINGS
FOURTH DAY
(Thursday, September 18, 2003)
The Senate met at 11:00 a.m, pursuant to adjournment and was called to order by
the President.
The roll was called and the following Senators were present: Armbrister, Averitt,
Barrientos, Bivins, Brimer, Deuell, Ellis, Estes, Gallegos, Harris, Jackson, Janek,
Lindsay, Lucio, Mad1a, Nelson, Shapiro, Staples, Van de Putte, Wentworth, Whitmire,
Williams, Zaffirini.
Absent-excused: Carona, Duncan, Fraser, Hinojosa, Ogden, Ratliff, Shapleigh,
West.
The President announced that a quorum of the Senate was present.
Senate Doorkeeper Don Long offered the invocation as follows:
Heavenly Father, we thank You for the hunger that is in our hearts
which has lead us to this pavilion of prayer where we are united in a
common fellowship of yearning and burning desire to do Your blessed will
for the people of Texas. Our littleness needs Your greatness, our weakness
Your strength. Let the Members of this illustrious body rest their faith in
You in order that during these days of deliberation these Senators and our
Lieutenant Governor may not lack for wisdom. Save each from self-interest
and self-righteousness. Amen.
Senator Whitmire moved that the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of
yesterday be dispensed with and the Journal be approved as printed.
The motion prevailed without objection.
LEAVES OF ABSENCE
On motion of Senator Whitmire, Senator Carona was granted leave of absence
for today on account of important business.
On motion of Senator Whitmire, Senator Duncan was granted leave of absence
On motion of Senator Whitmire, Senator Fraser was granted leave of absence for
today on account of important business.
On motion of Senator Whitmire, Senator Hinojosa was granted leave of absence
14 78th Legislature - Third Called Session 4th Day
On motion of Senator Whitmire, Senator Ogden was granted leave of absence for
On motion of Senator Whitmire, Senator Ratliff was granted leave of absence for
On motion of Senator Whitmire, Senator Shapleigh was granted leave of absence
On motion of Senator Whitmire, Senator West was granted leave of absence for
MOTION IN WRITING
The following Motion In Writing was read by the Secretary of the Senate:
Mr. President, on July 28, 2003, the Senate convened the 2nd Called Session of
the 78th Legislature without a quorum. A motion was made and seconded by five
Members to place a call on the Senate as provided in Senate Rule 5.04. On
August 15, 2003, in order to compel attendance pursuant to the call on the Senate, a
motion was approved imposing fines and providing for loss of privileges for those
Members who had not responded to the call.
I now move to adopt the motion offered August 15, 2003, once again and to
create a state of probation for the operation and assessment of the fines and
provisionally restore the privileges withdrawn in the motion adopted August 15,2003,
for a probationary period that shall last so long as the following condition is met:
"A member may not absent himself or herself without sufficient excuse for
more than 72 hours when a call has been placed on the Senate under Senate
Rule 5.04."
If any Member fails to meet this condition of the probation that Member will
again be subject to the full fines and loss of privileges until those fines are paid. For
all members satisfying the condition set out above, the fines and loss of privileges
imposed on absent Members by the motion adopted on August 15, 2003, and this
probation terminates on January 11,2005, at the convening of the 79th Legislature. A
Member who fails to meet the prescribed condition and for whom the probation has
ended remains subject to the full fines and loss of privileges until those fines are paid.
JANEK
Senator Janek moved adoption of the Motion In Writing.
Senator Ellis, Senator Barrientos, and Senator Lucio were recognized for
parliamentary inquiries.
Senator Harris moved to call the previous question.
Five Senators seconded the motion.
Question - Shall the main question be now put?
Thursday, September 18, 2003 SENATE JOURNAL 15
The motion to call the previous question was adopted by the following
vote: Yeas 13, Nays 10.
Yeas: Averitt, Bivins, Brimer, Deuell, Estes, Harris, Jackson, Janek, Lindsay,
Nelson, Shapiro, Staples, Williams.
Nays: Armbrister, Barrientos, Ellis, Gallegos, Lucio, Madla, Van de Putte,
Wentworth, Whitmire, Zaffirini.
West.
POINT OF ORDER
Senator Barrientos raised a point of order that the sanctions imposed in the call of
the Senate on Friday, August 15,2003, were in violation of Senate Rule 5.04 in that
no bill was pending before the Senate.
POINT OF ORDER RULING
The President stated that under Senate Rule 5.04, a call of the Senate is in order
at any time, and that the point of order was respectfully overruled.
POINT OF ORDER
Senator Wentworth raised a point of order that no vote had been taken to adopt
the Motion In Writing by Senator Janek.
POINT OF ORDER RULING
The President ruled that the point of order was well-taken and sustained.
Question - Shall the Motion In Writing be adopted?
.Senator Janek was recognized and again moved adoption of the Motion In
Writing.
The Motion In Writing was adopted by the following vote: Yeas 13, Nays 10.
Yeas: Averitt, Bivins, Brimer, Deuell, Estes, Harris, Jackson, Janek, Lindsay,
Nelson, Shapiro, Staples, Williams.
Nays: Armbrister, Barrientos, Ellis, Gallegos, Lucio, MadIa, Van de Putte,
Wentworth, Whitmire, Zaffirini.
West.
SANCTIONS REMOVED
The. President directed the Secretary of the Senate to reinstate all Members'
privileges that were suspended on August 15, 2003, in the call of the Senate and
directed that the Sergeant-at-Arms have all barriers removed in the parking spaces.
RESOLUTIONS OF RECOGNITION
The following resolutions were adopted by the Senate:
Congratulatory Resolutions
SR 21 by Barrientos, Commending Alice Braun for her career and her service to
Texas.
SR 22 by Brimer, Commending Bob Miller of Killeen for his service to his ministry.
16 78th Legislature - Third Called Session 4th Day
SR 23 by West, Recognizing Roy Orr on the 20th anniversary of Governmental

Relations Specialists.
SR 24 by West, Commending the Veterans of Foreign Wars Done Miller Post 1406 of
Dallas on its second Annual Community Awards Banquet.
SR 25 by Nelson, Recognizing Birdville Baptist Church in Haltom City on its 150th
anniversary.
ADJOURNMENT
On motion of Senator Whitmire, the Senate at 12:38 p.m, adjourned until
9:00 a.m. tomorrow.
By: Harris S.R. No. 30
SENATE RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Senate of the State of Texas, That
the Rules of the Senate, 78th Legislature, be amended as follows:
1. Amend Rule 4.09 to read as follows:

PUNISHMENT FOR MISCONDUCT
Rule 4.09. The Senate may punish any member for
disorderly conduct and, with the consent of two-thirds of the
elected members, may expel a member, but not a second time for the
same offense. (Constitution, Article III, Section 11)
A member who is absent without sufficient excuse for more
than 72 hours under a call of the Senate under Rule 5.04 shall
lose all privileges of accrued seniority established by Senate
tradition. A member shall immediately lose the privileges of
accrued seniority if the member is absent without sufficient

excuse under a call of the Senate within seven calendar days of
final adjournment of a regular session of the Legislature or

under a call of the Senate during a special session of the
Legislature.
ABSENCES
Rule 5.03. The Senate determines that a member has a duty
under his or her oath or affirmation of office and an obligation
under the constitution and laws of this state to attend the

sessions of the Senate, and a (N4] member shall not absent
1
S.R. No. 30
himself or herself from the sessions of the Senate without leave
unless the member be sick or unable to attend.

CALL OF THE SENATE
Rule 5.04. It shall be in order to move a call of the
Senate at any time to secure, to maintain, or to secure and
maintain a quorum for the following purposes:

(1) for the consideration of a specific bill,
resolution, or other measure;

(2) for a definite period of time or for the
consideration of any particular class of bills.
When a call of the Senate is moved for one of the above
purposes and seconded by five members and ordered by a majority
of those present I the Doorkeeper shall close the main entrance to
the floor of the Senate. All other doors leading from the floor
of the Senate 'shall be locked and no member shall be permitted to

leave the Senate without written permission of the presiding
officer until after the subject matter upon which the call was
ordered has been disposed of. The Secretary shall call the roll
of members and note the absentees. Those for whom no sufficient
excuse is made, by order of the majority of those present, may be
sent for and arrested wherever they may be found and their
attendance secured and retained by the Sergeant-at-Arms or
officers appointed by the Sergeant for that purpose. The
President of the Senate shall request a writ of mandamus from the
Supreme Court of Texas compelling their return. Any service of
notice or process made or required in connection with the
2
S.R. No. 30
mandamus or an order compelling the member's return adopted under

this rule may be served upon the member's Capitol office and
placed upon the member's desk by the Sergeant-at-Arms in lieu of
personal service. The Senate shall determine upon what
conditions they shall be discharged. Members who voluntarily
appear shall, unless the Senate otherwise directs, be
immediately admitted to the floor of the Senate, and they shall

report their names to the Secretary to be entered upon the
journal as present. Until a quorum appears, should the roll call
fail to show one present, no business shall be done except to

compel the attendance of absent members or to adjourn.
When a quorum is shown to be present, the Senate may

proceed with the matters upon which the call was ordered or may
enforce and await the attendance of as many of the absentees as it
desires to have present. If the Senate decides to proceed, the
Sergeant-at-Arms shall not be required to bring in other

absentees unless so ordered by a maj or ity vote of the Senate.
president of the Senate
I hereby certify that the

above Resolution was adopted by
the Senate on October 2, 2003, by
the following vote: Yeas 15,
Nays 13.
3
Richard, Rob

Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 11:39 AM
To: Richard, Rob; Hogan, John
Subject: DRAFT Document10
Attachments: Document10.doc
Here is something for you to chew on:
DocumentlO.doc
(26 KB)
Amend Senate Rules as follows:
When a member who is absent without leave fails to return to the chamber under a call of
the Senate, the [President or Majority Leader??] may do any of the following to compel
the absent member to attend:
a. Direct the Sergeant-at-Arms to locate the absent member, inform the member of
the call of the Senate, and request that the member voluntarily return to the
chamber immediately.
b. Direct the Sergeant-at-Arms to take the absent member into custody and deliver
the member to the chamber.
c. Order the absent member to forfeit an amount equal to the cost of locating and
returning the member to the chamber.
d. Direct the Chief Clerk to terminate the direct deposit of the absent member's
paycheck and provide the paycheck to the Majority Leader for the absent member
to pick up in person.
e. Direct the Chief Clerk to cease any and all expense reimbursements for the absent
member that are paid out of the Senator's office expense account until a date
specified or the end of the legislative biennium, whichever is earlier.
f. Direct the Chief Clerk to zero out the balance on the absent member's office
expense account for the remainder of the legislative biennium.
g. Direct the Sergeant-at-Arms to revoke the parking privileges allocated to the
absent member for the remainder of the legislative biennium.
In exercising his responsibilities under this rule, the Sergeant-at-Arms may request the
assistance of any law enforcement officer in this state.
Page 1 of 4
Richard, Rob
From: Rob Richard

Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 8:35 PM
To: Hogan, John; Richard, Rob
Subject: RE: Senate Resolution for call of the house
I just spoke with Terry Anderson. I'm having his staff research the legality of imposing fines on
legislators. He said something about reducing their salaries (although he raised constitutional issues),
but I said we'd likely rather not go that route and instead look at simple fines. He's also looking into the
feasibility of holding deliberations/hearings in the senate with regard to the imposition of fines.
Just got off the phone with Laura -

She thinks that imposing a fine may be doable because they don't necessarily have to pay their fine with
salary. They may have other means of income. However, we should state that fines must be paid with
personal funds.
With regard to denying them an accrued year in the WRS, you'll probably have a legal fight.
The rest of Tad's ideas are basically what I sent you in Friday's e-mail. I say we not only make it hurt for
them, we have to make it hurt for their staff as well.
> Subject: Fw: Senate Resolution for call of the house

> Date: Sun, 20 Feb 201119:45:53 -0600
> From: John.Ho an Ie is.wisconsin.gov
> To: Rob.Richard@legis.wisconsin.gov
>
> Tad's thoughts
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ottman, Tad
> To: Hogan, John
> Sent: Sun Feb 20 19:34:38 2011
> Subject: RE: Senate Resolution for call of the house
>
> I don't know that you can do much monetarily to them. You can't raise or lower any legislators salary
during their term. Anything like a fine might be considered lowering their salary.
>
> Some things you might be able to do, are ban any travel. You can prevent them both from state-
funded travel and from accepting travel costs paid by someone else, since any travel that org has to
approve is technically accepting something on behalf of the state, so you should be able to ban that.
>
> You could reduce their per diem. Maybe pass a differential per diem for Senators who are committee
chairs or members of finance. Everyone else gets a reduced rate. Or you could deny per diem for any
month in which they are absent from any session day without leave.
>
> You could take away their parking privileges. Make them pay for and arrange parking on their own and
give their spots to staff or something.
>
> You could disallow district offices for them.
>
> You could reduce their staff. Since one person from each of their office is failing to show up for work
(the Senator) reduce each of their staffs by one position ...
>
> You could reduce their office accounts by almost any amount really. If you wanted to tie it to
3/8/2011
Page 2 of4
something, you could divide the total office account by the number of months or weeks in the biennium and
reduce it by one month, or one week for every week they fail to show up, or just pick a numberto reduce it.
>
> You could clarify that they are not eligible for reimbursement for any expenses (travel, per diem, etc) for any
week in which there was a day of session for which they were absent without leave.
>
> I also go back to what I said in an earlier email about the trooper's authority. I think either by resolution or bill
you could clarify that troopers have the ability to compel any legislator's attendance under a call of the house.
Since you have the call language and the language that prevents the arrest of a legislator during session, you
could clarify that troopers have the ability to compel attendance by any means necessary and specify that such
compulsory attendance does not constitute arrest and no criminal record is associated with it.
>
> It wouldn't hurt to have a couple extra redistricting computers either. We could always take those away from
the Oems and give them to us. At least we could take the one that's been deployed to the Senate democrats
away.
>
> You could limit them to one computer per office instead of one computer per staff.
>
> You could also pass a resolution of censure. Either for all of them, or I would actually do 14 individual
resolutions. I believe those would have a stain in that they would permanently be in the journals. In fact, that
might be a good first step.
>
> I wonder if you can deny them an accrued year of service in the state retirement system? That might be
something to ask leg. council.
>
> Finally, I would just be somewhat cautious in whatever we do so that it doesn't end up creating sympathy for
the Oems. The more directly we can tie whatever action we take to what they are doing the better it will be.
>
> Those are just a few of my thoughts.
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hogan, John
> Sent: Sun 2/20/2011 6:08 PM
> To: Ottman, Tad
> Subject: Fw: Senate Resolution for call of the house
>
> Tad, any thoughts on this? We want to pass a resolution to start penalizing the missing Derris.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Champagne, Rick
> To: Rob Richard Rose, Laura; Hogan, John; Richard, Rob
> Sent: Sun Feb 20
> 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. Oave 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,
.".
3/812011
Page 3 of4
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 Message-----
> From: Rob Richard
> Sent: Sun 2/20/2011 : 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 "arresting" 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 "due process" 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 "giving notice" would entail an electr~nic and/or hand-delivered letter from the senate chief
3/8/2011
Page 4 of4
clerk to each Dem 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
or_
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 the rest of it, I'd appreciate it. For Sunday, I can be reached at home at this e-mail
" ( h ) or (c)
>
> Thank you!
> Rob Richard
>
>
3/8/2011
Richard, Rob
From: Rose, Laura

Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 7:32 PM
To: Champagne, Rick; Rob Richard; Hogan, John; Richard, Rob
Cc: Anderson, Terry C.; Lovell, David
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 call on 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
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. O~her 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
1
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 "arresting" 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 "due process"
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 "giving notice" 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 a p p ~ it..For Sunday, I can be
reached at home at this e-mail orJlllllllllllf (h) orllllllllllllr(c)
Thank you!
Rob Richard
2
Richard, Rob
From: Rose, Laura

Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 6:13 PM
To: Richard, Rob
Subject: RE: penalties
Hi Rob,
This information was provided to us this afternoon by NCSL. This is what Texas did in 2003. They imposed penalties
pursuant to their rules; I have those in bold below. In a communication with the Senate Chief Clerk of Texas, this is what
he said:
Robert Haney, the Chief Clerk of the Texas House, reported the following 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."
(Tuesday, August 12, 2003)
IN LEGISLATIVE SESSION
The President at 4:45 p.m. called the Senate to order as In Legislative Session.
CALL OF THE SENATE

Senator Nelson moved that pursuant to Section l O, Article III of the Texas Constitution and Senate Rule 5.04, in
addition to the terms of the Call of the Senate already in place, that the present Members of the Senate hereby
impose a penalty of a $1,000 per day, doubling each day, not to exceed $5,000 per day, for each Member
of the Senate absent from the Second Called Session of the 78th Legislature without leave of the President.
Pursuant to Senate Rule 5.04, payment of said penalties shall be a condition of discharge of the order issued by
the present Members of the Senate on July 28th, 2003, and a condition precedent to voluntarily return to the
Senate floor. Said penalties shall begin on August 14,2003, at 4:00 p.m. and shall be paid only out of each
Senator's personal funds. Should any portion of this motion be deemed invalid the remainder of this motion
shall be severable and fully enforceable. The present Members intend to memorialize this motion into a formal
change in the Senate Rules once a quorum is restored.
The motion prevailed by a viva voce vote.
RECORD OF VOTE
Senator Armbrister asked to be recorded as voting "Nay" on the motion by Senator Nelson.
1
LETTER FROM SENATOR CARONA
Senator Carona submitted the following letter:
The Senate of
The State of Texas
Austin, Texas 78711

August 12,2003
To the Members, Texas Senate:
As Texas Senators, we have the duty to attend legislative sessions and represent the people who elected us. This
responsibility is clearly stated in the Texas Constitution. Eleven of our colleagues have chosen not to fulfill this
responsibility. The Texas Constitution and the Texas Senate Rules allow the Senate to "compel attendance of
absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each House may provide." I fully support the
actions my fellow Senators are taking to assess penalties in the form of fines to compel our missing colleagues
to attend this legislative session, and, had I been able to be present today, I would have voted in favor of the
motion. Furthermore, if our colleagues choose not to return within two days following the assessment of fines, I
support suspension of each member's operating budget. In an effort to avoid similar legislative delays and waste
of taxpayer funds, I will support a permanent change in Senate rules required to implement these changes in the
future.
Sincerely,
IslJohn Carona
AT EASE
The President at 4:50 p.m. announced the Senate would stand At Ease until 11:00 a.m. Friday, August 15,2003.
(Friday, August 15, 2003)
IN LEGISLATIVE SESSION
The President at 11 :30 a.m: called the Senate to order as In Legislative Session.
CALL OF THE SENATE

Senator Nelson moved that pursuant to Section 10, Article III of the Texas Constitution and Senate Rule 5.04,
that the present Members of the Senate readopt the motion adopted on Tuesday, August 12,2003, namely that
the present Members of the Senate hereby impose a penalty of a $1,000 per day, doubling each day, not to
exceed $5,000 per day, for each Member of the Senate absent from the Second Called Session of the 78th
Legislature without leave of the President. Pursuant to Senate Rule 5.04, payment of said penalties shall be a
condition of discharge of the order issued by the present Members of the Senate on July 28th, 2003, and a
condition precedent to voluntarily return to the Senate floor. Said penalties shall begin on August 14,2003, at
4:00 p.m. and shall be paid only out of each Senator's personal funds.
Senator Nelson also moved that in order to ensure the payment of these penalties imposed on the absent
Senators to compel their attendance, the Secretary of the Senate is hereby directed to suspend the provision of
the following privileges to Senators absent from the Second Called Session of the 78th Legislature until
2
the said penalties be paid in full:
All purchasing privileges.
All mail privileges.
All travel.
No reservations for conference rooms, press conference rooms or meeting rooms, will be allowed.
All parking privileges.
All subscriptions.
All printing privileges including newsletter production.
All cell phones.
Floor passes for staff of delinquent Members.
Iaura D. Rose, DeputyDirector

\Xiisconsin Legislative Council
PO Box 2536
tel: 608.266.9791
fax: 608.266.3830
From: Richard, Rob

To: Rose, Laura
Subject:
Laura:
It's my understanding that you've been assigned to look at rules and statutes to see if there's some way to
financially incentivize the senators to return to Wisconsin. Hogan asked me check in to see where you're at
with that. Thank you!
Rob Richard
Legislative Aide
608-266-5660
3
Page 1 of2
Richard, Rob
From: Lovell, David

To: Richard, Rob
SUbject: RE: Quorum and attendance requirements; walkouts
Rob,
I just called to follow up on the materials I had sent, but did not get through. I was hoping to have just a
brief conversation about the materials. Please give me a call, if you have a chanec between now and
about 5:30.
thanks --
David

608/266-1537
From: Lovell, David

To: Richard, Rob
Cc: Rose, Laura
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

608/266-1537
From: Brenda Erickson [mailto:Brenda.Erickson@ncsl.org]

To: Lovell, David
3/8/2011
Page 2 of2
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.)
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 ofthe 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 thingthat 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
3/8/2011
Richard, Rob

To: Hogan, John; Richard, Rob
Subject: Draft org ballot on paychecks
John--
Here is some draft ballot language for Org. We would need to get this ballot passed by tomorrow morning in order for HR
to be able to suspend the March 1 paycheck.
Let me know if you would like to move on this a.s.a.p.
Rob
Document14.doc
(29 KB)
1
Org ballot:
Motion: That the Chief Clerk suspend the direct deposit of the paycheck of any Senator
who is absent without leave for 3 or more session days. The Chief Clerk shall process the
paycheck as a paper check and shall provide the paper check to the Majority Leader's
office for the absent Senator to pick up in person. The Majority Leader's office shall
provide the paycheck to the absent Senator only.
Richard, Rob
From: Hogan, John

To: Richard, Rob
Subject: More options to compel.doc
Attachments: More options to compel.doc
Here's the file I dropped on your desk
More options to
compel.doc (26...
1
Here are some thoughts on options for the Senate to compel or encourage absent members of the
Senate to return to the Capitol.
SENATE ACTING ALONE: The State Constitution gives each chamber of the legislature broad
authority to "compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties
each house may provide." Art. IV, Sec.7. Since this authority is vested in each house, I believe
the Senate can act, by resolution or otherwise, to impose a monetary penalty on absent members
in the amount the Senate deems appropriate. To avoid a "due process" type problem, I'd structure
such a penalty as affecting an absence that occurs after the date the resolution is enacted and
after notice is given to each office. In addition, the Senate could fortify the authority it has
conferred on the Sergeant at Arms (or any other Senate officer) by empowering the Sergeant to
issue such orders and command the assistance of any peace officer to enforce any Senate
Resoution, Rule or directive compelling the attendance of an absent member.
SENATE ACTING WITH ASSEMBLY: Recall that the requirement to have 20 Senators
present for a quorum (or, more precisely, three-fifths of the elected members present for such a
quorum, Art. VIII, Sec. 8) applies only to "fiscal" measures. Ordinary, non-fiscal measures can
be taken up with a simple majority in each house. Thus, the Senate and Assembly majorities may
continue to perform their law-making functions and revise, create, etc., new statutes in
accordance with the process for making laws (i.e. passage of a measure through both Houses,
presentment to the Governor for his action, etc.). So, as examples, any concern about the
authority of the Senate acting alone to empower its officers to compel the attendance of absent
members can be fortified by a new statute that enhances the authority of house officers to
retrieve absent members by the issuance of a warrant or other order enforceable by any peace
officers or the imposition of monetary penalties. The legislature could also consider the
circumstances under which the absence of any member may render the absent member's office
vacant.
* * *
* * *
Some further exploration would be necessary to make sure that the process to enforce such
orders, warrants, etc., issued by the Sergeant at Arms was effective in other states or by a judicial
process if that became necessary. There are state constitutional provisions that shield a member
of the legislature from "arrest" and also relieve a member from being subject to "any civil
process" during a legislative session and for 15 days thereafter. Art. IV, Sec. 15. These
constitutional privileges may not apply in these circumstances, but testing their reach under these
circumstances may not be ideal. The Senate or the legislature instead might first encourage the
return of the absent members by the "incentive" of imposing a monetary penalty sufficiently
significant and under a process that ensures the collection of such a penalty (e.g. a payroll
deduction) so that the absent members return by their own actions. Action by the entire
legislature on other bills might also be an incentive for the absent members to return to their law-
making functions.
Richard, Rob

To: Veum, Rachel
Cc: Richard, Rob; Hogan, John
Subject: REVISED Document14
Rachel--
Please prepare this one for distribution Tuesday morning at 9:00, with a deadline of noon (unless Rob wants different
times).
Thanks.
Rob
Document14.doc
(26 KB)
1
Org ballot:
Motion: That the Chief Clerk suspend the direct deposit of the paycheck of any Senator
who is absent without leave for 2 or more session days. Until the Majority Leader
authorizes the Chief Clerk to reinstate the direct deposit, the Chief Clerk shall process the
Senator's pay as a paper check and shall provide the paper check to the Majority Leader
for the absent Senator to pick up in person. The Majority Leader shall provide the
paycheck only to the absent Senator and only on the floor of the Senate during a session
day.
It is further moved that the Chief Clerk provide to the Majority Leader the per diem and
expense reimbursement checks of any Senator who is absent without leave for 2 or more
session days. The absent Senator may pick up the checks in person from the Majority
Leader. The Majority Leader shall provide the checks only to the absent Senator and
only on the floor of the Senate during a session day.

CREW: Senator Scott Fitzgerald: Regarding Wisconsin Governor Walker's Dispatching of State Patrol: 3/14/11 - Rob Richard Emails Combined

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

CREW: Senator Scott Fitzgerald: Regarding Wisconsin Governor Walker's Dispatching of State Patrol: 3/14/11 - Rob Richard Emails Combined

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Richard, Rob

From: Phillips, Matt

From: Richard, Rob

From: Lovell, David

David L. Lovell, Senior Analyst

From: Parisi, Lori

Draft Requester: Scott Fitzgerald

Following is the PDF version of draft LRB 11-1487/2.

2011 SENATE RESOLUTION

2 penalty on a senator who is absent without leave.

Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau

3 Resolved by the senate, That:

4 SECTION 1. Senate rule 13n is created to read:

1 SENATE RULE 13n. Imposing penalties on senators who are absent

11 the member's personal funds.

22 is absent without leave.

23 (c) A member of the senate who is identified in a resolution under this

24 subsection shall be given an opportunity to be heard on the resolution only on the

16 specified or the end of the legislative biennium, whichever is earlier.

18 office expense account for the remainder of the legislative biennium.

22 SECTION 2. Senate rule 84 is amended to read:

5 any law enforcement officer in this state.

6 SECTION 3. Initial applicability.

From: Kreye, Joseph

PRELIMINARY DRAFT - NOT READY FOR INTRODUCTION

2011 SENATE RESOLUTION

4 without leave from two or more session days; and

11 the senate calendar which includes consideration of this resolution to Senator

13 to Senate Rule 13n; and

1 Whereas, pursuant to Senate Rule 13n, Senator Miller has an opportunity to

4 imposed on the senator; and

7 absent without leave; now therefore be it

13 office for immediate payment.

From: Kreye, Joseph

PRELIMINARY DRAFT - NOT READY FOR INTRODUCTION

2011 SENATE RESOLUTION

4 without leave from two or more session days; and

11 the senate calendar which includes consideration of this resolution to Senator

13 to Senate Rule 13n; and

1 Whereas, pursuant to Senate Rule 13n, Senator Miller has an opportunity to

4 imposed on the senator; and

7 senator is absent without leave; now therefore be it

13 office for immediate payment.

From: Kreye, Joseph

From: Richard, Rob

From: Lovell, David

David L. Lovell, Senior Analyst

From: Kreye, Joseph

From: Kreye, Joseph

Senator Mark Miller; absent without leave

ENGROSSED 2011 SENATE RESOLUTION

absent without leave.

absent without leave from two or more session days; and

to Senate Rule 13n; and

Whereas, pursuant to Senate Rule 13n, Senator Miller has an opportunity to

be imposed on the senator; now therefore be it

Mark Miller's senate office for immediate payment.

From: Anderson, Terry C.

From: Richard, Rob

Can we legally deduct the penalty from a senator's paycheck?

From: Kreye, Joseph

From: Kreye, Joseph

From: Lovell, David