Secretary of state speaks out against continuing assault on the office

2013-01-31T11:00:00Z Secretary of state speaks out against continuing assault on the officeJESSICA VANEGEREN | The Capital Times | jvanegeren@madison.com madison.com

Political payback is how Wisconsin Secretary of State Doug La Follette describes the latest effort to strip duties from the office he has held since 1975.

“It’s hard not to see this as some sort of retribution issue,” La Follette says of a bill that would take away his office’s ability to publish bills and hand it over to another state agency. “The only reason they’re doing this is because they couldn’t get what they wanted immediately.”

And what Republicans, including Gov. Scott Walker, wanted in the spring of 2011 was for Act 10, the now famous and controversial piece of legislation that stripped most collective bargaining rights from public workers, to be published as quickly as possible.

Suddenly, the little-known duty of the secretary of state to publish a bill, thereby making it law, within 10 days of a governor signing it became a well-known fact that turned political.

Before the 10 days were up, a Dane County Circuit Court judge had issued an order blocking La Follette from publishing the bill on the grounds that Republicans had violated the open meetings law when passing it.

In June 2011, after the state Supreme Court upheld the law, La Follette again waited the full 10 days before publishing it.

“I didn’t hold back on publishing it. That’s a fallacy,” La Follette says. “By law, I have 10 days to publish and that’s how long we take with 99 percent of the bills that come through the office.”

Now, a bill sponsored by Sen. Glenn Grothman, R-West Bend, would permanently take the bill-publishing responsibility from the Office of the Secretary of State and turn it over to the Legislative Reference Bureau, the agency that drafts bills.

The Legislative Reference Bureau is the same agency Republicans turned to in order to publish Act. 10 when La Follette didn't publish it fast enough for their liking.

Republicans claim Grothman's bill, which passed the Senate on a 17-14 party line vote Tuesday and now goes to the Assembly, has nothing to do with politics.

“This bill should pass 33-nothing, and the reason it should pass 33-0 is that the people who run to enact state policy are the senators, the assemblymen and the governor.  ... It is not up to the secretary of state,” Grothman told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, added no one was “trying to pull a fast one.”

“We’re not trying to take any power away from Doug La Follette,” Fitzgerald told the Wisconsin State Journal after the vote.

The power and responsibilities of the Office of Secretary of State — and thereby of La Follette, who has held the office for nearly four decades — have been eroding for years.

The real duty drain began in the 1990s. That’s when former Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson created the state Department of Financial Institutions.

Many business-related activities formerly housed in the secretary’s office were subsequently moved to the new agency. The Walker administration further shifted responsibilities away from the office in the last legislative session when it moved its notary public and trademark duties to DFI.

No other state has a Department of Financial Institutions, making for frequent confusion when companies call to get information, La Follette says.

“We get calls weekly from people trying to find out how to incorporate or get a trademark,” he says. “We tell them to call DFI and they don’t know what that is.”

La Follette finished last in a four-way Democratic primary to take on Walker in the June gubernatorial recall election. During the race, he pitched his idea to get rid of DFI altogether. The idea was overshadowed by other issues, though.

Since then, he says, he talks about his idea "to anyone that will listen."

La Follette would like the state to consolidate a number of “business functions” in the Office of the Secretary of State.

These would include keeping the responsibilities and positions for notary commission functions — a duty held by the secretary of state in 47 other states — and trademarks/trade names functions — a duty held by the secretary of state in 46 other states — in his office.

The remaining banking and consumer affairs duties now in DFI should be moved to the state treasurer and the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Protection, La Follette suggests.

His ideas, he says, would save the state money through the elimination of DFI.

He says restoring his office’s responsibilities has nothing to do with him personally, but would be good for business. Now 72, La Follette says this is a goal of his before he retires.

“They’ve made it so they can appoint their friends to high-paying positions,” La Follette says of Thompson and Walker. “It’s all about power and control.”

Copyright 2015 madison.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(9) Comments

  1. Beingbucky
    Report Abuse
    Beingbucky - January 31, 2013 4:51 pm
    Wow, middle you have a low threshold for calling someone a liar. The time between when a bill is signed and published is easily verified. Do you really think an elected official would lie about something so easily verified? (Leaving Paul Ryan out of it for now). Have you done the research to justify your "he's lying" accusation? If the number turns out to be 95% was he lying or exaggerating?
  2. skippie
    Report Abuse
    skippie - January 31, 2013 3:48 pm
    Hey lafalot, you got what you deserved. Live with it.
  3. Report Abuse
    - January 31, 2013 3:01 pm
    the 10 days are not for judicial review. There is no reason not to immediately enact all laws that are passed by majorities of our reps in both houses and signed into law. Any law can be challanged legally at anytime before or after they are enacted.
  4. Report Abuse
    - January 31, 2013 3:00 pm
    He's lieing. At the time he was quoted as saying he planned to take the full 10 days because he didn't like the bill.
  5. Report Abuse
    - January 31, 2013 2:58 pm
    Just the opposite. Grothman Never said quick put the law into effect because a court will find it unconstitutional. Of course the liberals were going to challange it, but it Held up. The bigger issue was LaFollette who spoke out and said he would purposely Not enact it for the full 10 days because He didn't like it. He embarrassed himself.
  6. Beingbucky
    Report Abuse
    Beingbucky - January 31, 2013 2:22 pm
    Geez. So the legislature passes a new law and the governor signs it, and the law gets enacted ten days later? Isn't 10 days better than zero? I have no idea why states have a SoS office, but I REALLY don't get why Grothman felt he had to embarrass the person who didn't knuckle under when ordered to change the usual procedures with Act 10. "Quick, put the law in force because a court will find it unconstitutional" isn't smart public policy and neither is embarrassing the opposition when it isn't necessary. But Grothman and good policy are rarely in the same sentence, now that I think about it.
  7. NotleftorrightR
    Report Abuse
    NotleftorrightR - January 31, 2013 1:04 pm
    Mr.La Follette is claiming:

    “I didn’t hold back on publishing it. That’s a fallacy,” La Follette says. “By law, I have 10 days to publish and that’s how long we take with 99 percent of the bills that come through the office.”

    That clearly suggests that either he or his office are bearly able to function within the legal requirements of his office. Is Mr. La Follette claiming that his office is so understaffed or lacks the job skills to publish a law in anything less then 10 days? Why would someone who appears to be bearly able complete the job functions assigned to him now, claim that he should have more duties. Maybe Mr. La Follette should see what he can do to improve the effectiveness of his office before he goes looking for more work. Does he need more staff, more training, or what can be done to help him get his job done?
  8. Brenden
    Report Abuse
    Brenden - January 31, 2013 1:03 pm
    There are 3 parts of the gov't that balance each other out. I believe that the 10 days is a decent requirement to allow the judicial branch of government review the bill before it is published, not just the the legislature and Governor.
  9. jimri
    Report Abuse
    jimri - January 31, 2013 12:34 pm
    Dougie, you did this to yourself. Quit complaining, you delayed "by law" the 10 days you were able to - and now the legislature "by law" gets to thank you for it. If you thought this would end differently, you are brainless.
Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick

What's hot

Featured businesses

Get weekly ads via e-mail