At Issue

When Minds Meet, Working Relationships Are Formed

By Rep. Mark Green

In this time of great political change, when the role of government - its levels and branches - is being reexamined, the last thing lawmakers can afford is ignorance of how government works. This principle led the Assembly Judiciary Committee and the Wisconsin Supreme Court to an apparently unprecedented informational hearing, on April 16, 1997, about their respective roles and operations.

Participants approached the "get together" in the court chambers from two vantage points.

As Assembly Judiciary chair and a practicing attorney, I hoped our hearing would address my growing concern over the lack of legal expertise and experience in the State Legislature. Contrary to conventional wisdom, only about 10 percent of current Wisconsin legislators have a law degree - even fewer continue to practice law while in public service. As a result, the very institution that must review the judicial system's budget, help define criminal and civil procedure, and pass most of the laws judges are asked to enforce probably has less of an understanding of the courts than nearly any of its predecessors.

On the judicial system's end, Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson has undertaken an outreach project, making significant strides in shredding the veil of mystery that shrouds much of the judiciary's operations from public understanding. The April meeting with legislative representatives extended her outreach efforts.

Regarding the hearing itself, Judiciary Committee members were impressed by the personableness and warmth of Chief Justice Abrahamson and her colleagues. No longer merely names in the State of Wisconsin Blue Book or distant robed figures, legislators learned that the justices have senses of humor, hobbies and interests. Committee members also were relieved to learn that just as they had questions about the day-to-day workings of the court, the justices had a few questions about the routines and workings of the Legislature. This "personalizing" of the branches helped make the hearing a great success.

The committee learned firsthand how the justices decide which cases they will hear, which opinions each will write, and how published opinions are formulated and finalized. Given that committee members together with the justices represented both ends of the state's real lawmaking function, the informational exchange can only help enhance government operations.

Prior to the hearing, Chief Justice Abrahamson and the committee chair identified specific topics to help the committee address some of the issues that are coming its way - like reserve judge qualifications and judicial substitution. As a result, the justices spoke at length about the supreme court's rule-making powers and process. The legislators knew little about that facet of the court's work . . . the open meetings and deliberations that occur before any rules are adopted. These discussions helped the committee understand the intergovernmental significance of its approaching challenges.

Finally, on a more practical note, the committee learned how the Capitol's remodeling would affect the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the State Law Library. Law libraries sound insignificant to nonattorneys. By the end of the meeting, however, the need for complete access to library materials and the precision with which those materials must remain organized was clear to the legislators.

In summary, the coffee and bagels were good, but the company was better. Names and offices became people and colleagues. Challenges became more concrete and understandable, and opportunities for governing partnerships became more clear. Of course, a partnership is not a single event, but an ongoing relationship. To that end, the committee hopes meetings between the Legislature and the Wisconsin Supreme Court will become at least an annual event.

Wisconsin Lawyer