Fitz Suggests GAB Reform
I agree, but I don’t think it goes far enough.
The GAB was created in 2007 with broad bipartisan support in the Legislature in reaction to anger over how its predecessors, the Elections and Ethics boards, were working.
Ethics Board members were all appointed by the governor and officially nonpartisan. There was no pretense of nonpartisanship on the Elections Board, whose members were appointed by the governor, political parties, the state Supreme Court and legislative leaders of the state Assembly and Senate.
The Ethics Board was frequently derided as being weak and ineffectual while the Elections Board was seen as being too partisan.
But Fitzgerald said the GAB should look more like the Elections Board, with partisan political appointees.
That approach, he said, “seems to strike more of a balance than what we’re up against now.”
Too often, Fitzgerald said, the board defers to recommendations made by GAB staff. The judges don’t have enough information to go against the staff, so they typically side with them, he said.
I supported the creation of the GAB as a better alternative, but they have proven to be a farce. The flaw with something like the GAB is the fiction that members appointed to such a board are, or can be, truly non-partisan. Everyone has biases and strains of partisanship. This is something our Founding Fathers knew well and we should apply their same remedy. Instead of trying to find the elusive “non=partisan” to sit on such a board, balance the membership with partisans from all sides. And then create a good system of checks and balances on the board’s actions. Such a system works regardless of who is in power (yes, the Republicans will not always be in charge) and can serve the citizens of Wisconsin well.
Agreed, and if we are unable to find people who are ethical enough to put justice and fairness above party loyalty or ideology, we are in big trouble.
Posted by hsgbdmama on December 03, 2012 at 2015 hrs
The majority of the current board are former Republicans.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2012 at 2145 hrs
and…
Posted by Owen on December 03, 2012 at 2154 hrs
Owen—“I supported the creation of the GAB as a better alternative, but they have proven to be a farce. The flaw with something like the GAB is the fiction that members appointed to such a board are, or can be, truly non-partisan. Everyone has biases and strains of partisanship.”
So please tell us Owen (or anyone) how would “partisan political appointees” by a (D) or an (R) make the GAB “less partisan” in the future? Provide me with your position if possible.Moreover, in what specific ways has the GAB “proven to be a farce”? Is this characterization truly legitimate? How?
The concept of the GAB was approved unanimously by every (R) in the Assembly and Senate. The GOP in particular preferred that retired judges be named to the GAB.Two of the current six members were vetted by Walker himself. Is anyone suggesting that he made an error in judgement in their selection, that he was ultimately bamboozled due to their supposed “biases”?
Two other members served in the Assembly as Republicans.
Another member was originally appointed to his first position as a judge in his career by a Republican governor (Tommy Thompson).
The last member, it appears has not demonstrated a direct link to a political party.
Yet…Fitzgerald and others claim that these Republicans who serve on the GAB are generally partisan—basically, part and parcel to the Democrats.
Were not these political appointees—David Deininger, Michael Brennan, Gerald C. Nichol, Thomas Barland, Thomas Cane, Timothy Vocke—originally recognized by (R)‘s, especially Fitzgerald, in particular as being “fair-minded” throughout their legal careers? Did anyone express significant reservations about the credentials and/or potential biases of these prospective members at that time?
Really, Fitzgerald only realized now that these six GAB members are indeed not “impartial”, that in essence, he was hoodwinked because he and others lacked the information about their backgrounds?
Give me a freaking break…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2012 at 2343 hrs
So please tell us Owen (or anyone) how would “partisan political appointees” by a (D) or an (R) make the GAB “less partisan” in the future? Provide me with your position if possible.
It wouldn’t, but at least we wouldn’t have the farce of “non-partisanship” we have now. As Owen so aptly stated, everyone has biases, so, instead of ignoring them, it seems to make sense to recognize and allow for them.
Aside from that, whether or not the current board is partisan isn’t really the point. The GAB simply has too much power without any sort of accountability.
I think the board could be recreated by having each party select members based on an established criteria, and I wouldn’t limit the pool of candidates to judges.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2012 at 0804 hrs
At this point, support of the GAB is a litmus test to indicate the radical left.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2012 at 0818 hrs
I think the board could be recreated by having each party select members based on an established criteria, and I wouldn’t limit the pool of candidates to judges.
Personally, I don’t see what a bunch of retired Reserve Judges (who have not lost a reelection, thus “retired”) know about the mechanics of elections. I would suggest that a significant percentage of the GAB membership should be nonpartisan elected or appointed municipal clerks with at least 5 years of experience. Since county clerks are elected in November, there could be a partisan/nonpartisan mix of that part of the board.
Someone mentioned in an earlier comment that the appointees were former Republicans. I wouldn’t be too sure of that, since Doyle has only been out of office for a couple of years, and I believe GAB terms are longer than that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2012 at 0843 hrs
Please expand upon your “checks and balances.” Aren’t the checkers and balancers vulnerable to partianship and bias?
I suppose you don’t ever watch football because if bias is impossible to eliminate, then any attempt to obejectively officiate an NFL game is nothing but a deceptive farce.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2012 at 1537 hrs
I always find it funny when people who have made partisanship their hobby say it’s impossible for others to be non-partisan. It’s like how racists claim everybody is at least a little racist. The alternative is completely inconceivable to them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2012 at 1619 hrs
I find it funny that Owen cannot or will not answer the question or provide examples of how a group of 6 Republicans is biased?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2012 at 1630 hrs
I find it funny that Owen cannot or will not answer the question or provide examples of how a group of 6 Republicans is biased?
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
From the GAB website:
The Government Accountability Board is comprised of six former judges who serve staggered, six-year terms. Board members are appointed by the Governor, and serve part time, receiving per diems of $445.15 per meeting.
All of the judges are Doyle appointees, two of which were reappointed by Gov. Walker since his election. Exactly how do you construe these judges as, “... a group of 6 Republicans…?”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2012 at 1830 hrs
Duke,
See post 4—2 vetted by Walker, another 2 originally served in the Assembly as Republicans and one originally appointed by Tommy.
Also, show me the bias.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2012 at 1921 hrs
Anothervoice… You should probably familiarize yourself with the appointment process. Walker chose the lesser of evils with his appointments.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2012 at 2013 hrs
Right because a couple of ex Republican Legislators and a bunch of judges who wrote checks to Republicans running for office are obviously biased for Democrats. This is just embarrassing, when we Republicans think the answer to losing an election is trying to game the system is it any wonder why voters do not trust Republicans.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2012 at 2200 hrs
I find it ironic that some of the posters here who tell liberals to stop blaming Bush for our current national problems are the same ones who blame Doyle for our current state problems.
The advice that was given to said liberals by those same posters…grow up!
I also find it remarkable that there is such sudden scrutiny regarding the GAB. I would surmise that the smallest percentage of Wisconsinites had a clue that the GAB existed, let alone could they identify its members, until about a year ago, when the (D) and (R) spin machines went hash in their efforts to demonize its purpose.
Cynical—“As Owen so aptly stated, everyone has biases, so, instead of ignoring them, it seems to make sense to recognize and allow for them.”Hello, anyone home? IF the GAB is so biased in the first place, then let them make their decisions. Its members are just taking Owen’s advice.
Cynical—“Aside from that, whether or not the current board is partisan isn’t really the point. The GAB simply has too much power without any sort of accountability.”
Since when? I believe that every (R) voted for the creation of the GAB. So, back then, they never considered this “possibility” that the GAB would have such authority. Sure! Besides, was it not the purpose to grant the GAB that power?
Duke—“Personally, I don’t see what a bunch of retired Reserve Judges (who have not lost a reelection, thus “retired”) know about the mechanics of elections.”Right, because several GAB members never ran for public office as a judge, or are even able to comprehend the election process due to their stunted intellectualism. /sarcasm
Mike—“At this point, support of the GAB is a litmus test to indicate the radical left.”Proof? Evidence? Back up your accusation.
Mike—“You should probably familiarize yourself with the appointment process. Walker chose the lesser of evils with his appointments.”
Again, proof or evidence? No, that would require work on your part.
From JSOnline, June 2011
“Gov. Scott Walker has appointed Judge Timothy Vocke of Rhinelander to a seat on the state board that oversees elections and ethics”...“Judge Vocke’s deep commitment to upholding the rule of law and years of experience on the bench will make him an excellent addition to the GAB,” Walker said in a statement released by his office.Moreover, Judge Gerald C. Nichol, has impeccable credentials by all accounts.
https://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=45481&TEMPLATE;=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm
So, Mike, was Walker lying about the credentials of Vocke and Nichol? Who else could Walker have chosen besides these two individuals if they were “the lesser of two evils”? Please, do tell us all.
Republican Senator Mike Ellis of Neenah, who was instrumental in creating the GAB, was caught off guard by Fitzgerald’s comments. “I’m amazed at this statement,” said Ellis. “We need to make sure our elections are regulated by law, not the politicians.” Legislators including Fitzgerald voted to establish the GAB in 2007, but the Republican leader now complains the agency is not working as it should, and lacks an “independent voice.”“We tried our best to de-politicize the regulation of elections, and that’s why we created the Government Accountability Board,” said Ellis, who added that he had not spoken with Fitzgerald regarding the issue. “Before we tear down the house and build a new one, we have to make sure that whoever’s going to be in charge of our elections do it fairly, without political bias.”
Again, someone, anyone, tell me specifically how these long-standing Republicans on the GAB are favoring Democrats in their decision making process. I’m all ears.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2012 at 2308 hrs
Greencarman, no one will tell you how the GAB favors Democrats because there is no evidence—not even Owen—see post 10.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2012 at 0946 hrs
Yep, you’re right, anothervoice.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 09, 2012 at 0957 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 45
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2013 07:37 pm
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).