GAB’s Uneven and Inconsistent Rulings
The state board that enforces ethics and campaign finance laws Wednesday told Justice Annette Ziegler to disclose what is in her family’s blind trusts, but it let Supreme Court Justice Pat Roggensack keep secret her holdings in a trust created 12 year ago.
Both justices asked the Government Accountability Board to waive the full-disclosure requirement that was part of the law that created the panel. That rule is needed to avoid conflict-of-interest violations by state officials, board members said.
A blind trust is the most secure way of isolating a justice from his or her financial interests. Forcing a justice to break the trust only serves to provide opportunity for lawyers to petition to have a justice removed from more and more cases.
The GAB is an utter disgrace. I supported its creation. I was wrong. It should be tossed into the dustbin of bad ideas.
My oh my Owen how quickly you forget.
Apparently the GAB has not.
Gerald Nichol, a former Dane County circuit judge, said Ziegler has had “problems in the past understanding” conflict-of-interest rules, so her waiver request should be denied.
Shortly after being elected in 2007, Ziegler was reprimanded by her fellow justices for failing to step aside in cases involving West Bend Savings Bank - where her husband is a director - when she was a Washington County judge.
And then there is this;
Unlike Ziegler, Roggensack asked state officials how she should set up her trust, followed that advice and has complied with federal rules.
Seems like Ziegler still thinks the rules don’t apply to her.
As usual you paint only part of the picture.
Idiotic.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 18, 2008 at 0116 hrs
If there were such a thing as a journalist, someone would have inquired and reported if Ziegler’s blind trust meets federal rules, as Roggensack’s does.
If it does, she should tell the Accountables to stuff it. If not, she should disclose the basic elements of her holdings, but restructure the funds in a way that does comply with federal blind-trust requirements.
The stupidity remains - the holdings in a blind trust cannot be publicly disclosed because then they the holdings would no longer be (you fill in the blank children) b___d.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 18, 2008 at 0138 hrs
The West Bend Savings Bank cases didn’t have much “judicial determination” - they were “default” cases - defendant either puts forth the money & the case is resolved or a judgement is issued by “default”. Those kinds of cases are actually processed by court clerks & submitted to the judge for signature (and it is the responsibility of the judge to make sure that the process was followed - if so, there really isn’t any opportunity for judicial discretion to go against the default).
It would be interesting if someone would “backtrack” cases that some of the other judges ruled on to see if they had a financial interest in case that they signed off on default judgments. Seeing how the whole financial system was structured on collateralized mortgage securities, mortgage pass-throughs & money market funds holding collateralized securities, it is quite possible that we have judges that unwittingly ruled on cases like this.
That being said, as I read all of the details in the article, I can understand the concern that the trustee for the blind trust is a close relative.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 18, 2008 at 0759 hrs
Worst part is that they do everything in secret. How did anyone back this mess?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 18, 2008 at 0918 hrs
Ah, I see. Reveal them, but then it is no longer a blind trust and conflicts of interest can be charged. Smart, And that’s coming from judges?
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 18, 2008 at 0949 hrs
Elsewhere in the article it is mentioned that the main problem with Zeigler’s trust was her brother was the trustee.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 18, 2008 at 1125 hrs
Her brother as a trustee is a real problem. They should mandate a third party trustee. (There’s that mandate thing again!)
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 18, 2008 at 1204 hrs
Jack/John,
It’s her brother in law according to the article.
Here’s the thing.
The concern may be that the trust isn’t blind to the Ziegler’s, just the public. That’s a no..no.
Look she’s got most of a ten year term ahead of her, you would think that she would do whatever it takes to put this kind of crap behind her.
Unless there really is something to see here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 18, 2008 at 1218 hrs
I agree. Blind trusts are supposed to be just that; not partially blind. Can’t understand why she just doesn’t eliminate this distraction, unless she really does plan to rule in favor of her investments.
That said, however, my congressman (Sensenbrenner) refuses a blind trust, and frequently votes in favor of his investments. He owns $5 million in pharmaceutical stock and voted for the Medicare Part D Drug bill that will put $780 billion of taxpayer money in the drug industry’s pockets over the next decade.
That, even though we have drug stores on every corner, and they were already equipped to bill Medicare.
Why doesn’t congress fall under the same conflict of interest laws?
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 18, 2008 at 1231 hrs
I think they based their ruling using the “cheesecake” factor.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 18, 2008 at 1746 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134035
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 08:52 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 86
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 10:29 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).