Legislative Update

"Failure to prevent and respond to indoor air problems promptly can have grave consequences for our teachers and students, including health problems, reduced performance and absenteeism."

Write your representative today. Make farting a felony!

Seriously, is there a cost estimate for compliance? 100 buildings? I'm imagining kids stumbling out of buildings all over the state, hacking and choking . . . Sounds like a very expensive over-reaction.

Don't you find it amazing that we oldsters survived all those years in those old asbestos-filled buildings?

And, 27 to 5? I guess there are just some sacred cows you can't vote against. Did anybody question any of the scientific data behind this?

Or do we just really need another law?

Mr. Sullivan,

You cite that we are the only state to not allow U-Turns, and only one of two states that currently don't have a law requiring personal safety devices as a reason for supporting.

If this is a criteria you use to decide what bills you should author, why have you not authored or supported any bills that allow for concealed carry? Wisconsin is one of only two states that currently do not allow it. I would appreciate it if you would support our second amendment rights.

Addendum to my previous post:
This bill was spearheaded by a handful of activists whose kids were affected by exposure to mold.
Here's a link to the required fiscal estimate:
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/fe/SB-41fe.pdf
It calls for mandatory cost increases at state and local levels that would not be "possible to absorb within agency's budget."
I have sympathy for people who suffer from the infrequent incidents. I question that a law creating a whole new regulatory and enforcement structure with "indeterminate" fiscal effect is the right answer.

I urge everybody to remember Senator Sullivan's accomplishments on pushing these bills through the Senate when the next election rolls around.

Izzie: Opening windows in the classrooms would have a tremendous effect at dispersing all the indoor pollutants in my humble opinion. It would also be a fairly cheap and fairly effective solution, also in my humble opinion. Maybe that's why you and I were able to get through school with no health problems years and years ago.

What ever happened to Senator Sullivan's psuedo-pledge to work to get photo-ID enacted at the polling places? He DID say that he supports photo-ID, but he also said that he didn't think it should be a Constitutional Amendment. Plenty of time has passed since Senator Sullivan's NO vote on the Photo-ID Constitutional Amendment to allow him to do SOMETHING to prove that he's really concerned about voter fraud. I'm absolutely certain he's as concerned about voter fraud as I am. Well, maybe not.

Apparently, enacting photo-ID isn't as important to Democrats as it is to those of us dumb taxpayers who think it would be very nice to have legitimate elections. A feeble 'for show' attempt at enacting this won't do. GET A BILL PASSED THAT WILL SURVIVE THE PREDICTIBLE DOYLE VETO, Senator.

Apparently, there are far more critical things for Senator Sullivan to put his name on such as allowing U-turns at controlled intersections (SB278) and naming 'cheese' as the official snack of Wisconsin (SB327).

http://www.leahvukmir.com

The legislation on air quality in the schools does not establish standards related to air quality in the schools. It doesn't establish a regulatory or enforcement structure beyond compliance with existing regulations. It establishes a task force that will study the problem and develop a model for districts to follow in managing indoor air quality. The legislation is needed because there is presently no protocol for addressing complaints. If the schools were handling problems, there wouldn't be a need for legislation.

Solutions to problems and complaints related to air quality would be up to the individual districts and schools and would depend on the nature of health hazards in specific schools. Clearly, schools that have problems with mold or seepage of sewage would have to fix the problems. Opening windows and hiring more janitors wouldn't help.

For whatever reason, allergies and asthma are on the rise among children as well as adults. People who are fortunate enough not be affected should try looking at the problem from the perspective of those of us who are. You might also consider the possibility that increases in respiratory diseases and autoimmune disorders might be the result of decades of exposure to environmental toxins. Children running out of buildings hacking and choking isn't the only possible consequence of daily exposure to polluted air.

The example of a neighbor punching someone as an intentional act is more difficult to prove a state of mind than the 3 year statute of limitations for negligence. A change now would also disrupt many years of precedent by the courts. The same is true of the UTurn law. UTurns are always dangerous anyway. The only advantage to prove an intentional act is to get punitive damages but most personal injury lawyers like myself will opt out and claim ordinary negligence instead of getting into mind reading. Maybe the groups sponsoring this law have something else in mind but I can't read their mind. Thanx Senator for giving the public a chance to be heard.

The example of a neighbor punching someone as an intentional act is more difficult to prove a state of mind than the 3 year statute of limitations for negligence. A change now would also disrupt many years of precedent by the courts. The same is true of the UTurn law. UTurns are always dangerous anyway. The only advantage to prove an intentional act is to get punitive damages but most personal injury lawyers like myself will opt out and claim ordinary negligence instead of getting into mind reading. Maybe the groups sponsoring this law have something else in mind but I can't read their mind. Thanx Senator for giving the public a chance to be heard.

Dick,

Why do I have the feeling that Senator Sullivan's wife was the one who was responsible for this SB278? I bet that she did an illegal U-Turn somewhere and was pulled over by a cop who gave her a traffic ticket. That's purely conjecture on my part, but I'd bet that the driving force behind this bill was something very similar to that. No other explanation makes sense to me.

An interesting thing about these comments is that three of them have now speculated something on the order of: “why are these bills being sponsored, and by whom?”
After I posted my comments on the indoor air quality bill, I thought about the parents of kids with severe mold sensitivity becoming enraged (or very discouraged) at hearing an argument against it.
But, one of the things that caused me to write was the way the supporters pushed this thing through. See http://www.schoolmoldhelp.org/content/view/1707/63/
There’s a photo of an air vent covered with mold at a Darlington school. My first reaction would be: don’t they have a maintenance staff? Or, aren’t there any existing policies or procedures that must be followed? I keep my ventilation filters changed at home, and I don’t even have a staff to handle it. Has a janitor ever been fired for incompetence or negligence? But, instead, our response is “let’s pass a law and appoint a state board to look into this.”
I’m not lobbying in favor of mold build-up, just trying to interject some common sense into the discussion. What have we become as a society if individual school districts with multi-million dollar budgets, boards, and superintendents with PhD’s can’t keep their schools clean and safe.

izzie wrote: "There’s a photo of an air vent covered with mold at a Darlington school. My first reaction would be: don’t they have a maintenance staff? Or, aren’t there any existing policies or procedures that must be followed? "

If they had policies and procedures, there wouldn't be a need for this legislation. The intent is to create model policies and procedures, including designation of a responsible staff member, for districts to follow. That's what this legislation addresses. Compliance could be simple, but it looks like the schools need a push from the Legislature and the DPI. That's the sad part.

The other bills make sense to me. The bill extending the statute of limitations for crime victims levels the playing field. The bill legalizing U-turns will make it easier to enter and exit businesses on divided highways like Hwy 100. They're no-brainers.

SOM's entirely unsubstantiated theory is that Sullivan sponsored the U-turn bill because his wife got ticketed. My theory is that these bills are responses to requests from constituents. I've been involved with introducing legislation in several states. That's how it often works.

I made very similar points in Senator Sullivan's initial blog about this topic, izzie.

I've used a very powerful chemical to eliminate the mold buildup around my shower recently. This chemical has a very scary name of "Sodium Hypochlorite" (Google it). This stuff works great, and no law told me that I had to use it.

A word of warning, don't, under ANY circumstances mix "Hydrogen Nitride" (Google that, too) with "Sodium Hypochlorite". If you mix these two dangerous chemicals, you will generate toxic Chlorine gas and that's definitely not a good thing to do to your lungs. Don't say that I didn't warn you. I don't think there's a state law prohibiting people from mixing these two dangerous chemicals, but perhaps there should be. Maybe there's a Senate Bill floating around the Legislature right now designed to do exactly that, but I'm not aware of it. Government is supposed to protect us from ourselves after all, isn't it?

Common sense is a wonderful tool when used correctly.

I fully admitted that my theory about the U-Turn legislation was completely unsubstantiated, so you're not really saying anything profound about that, tosaoutsider. I'm just trying to figure out why it was deemed to be a problem in need of a legislative solution in the first place.

It's clear to me that the impetus to get this bill passed into law originated from lazy and/or careless drivers who rarely pay attention on the road to plan their route to their destination properly. Think about all the lost revenue to local communities when their cops can no longer pull over out-of-state drivers for hanging an illegal U-Turn. This is particularly painful considering the recent reduction in state aid given to those same local communities.

This U-turn thing was NOT a problem in need of a Legislative solution.

I end up agreeing with you in a number of areas, SOM, because we’re both practical people, and have experienced accomplishing things absolutely on our own. But I grew up in a household where we had great hope in the power of government to make people’s lives better than they would be if we were just a bunch of warring tribes in a constant battle for survival of the fittest. My kids feel the same way.

I supported Jim Sullivan last election and probably will again. Leah will be a tough competitor because she’s a pretty smart and classy person, but I see her (like a lot of Republicans) as way too hung up on a couple of hot button issues that were considered outside the realm of politics until about a generation ago.

I like the fact that Sullivan writes this periodic blog and just lets us go at it. I’m sure he reads all the comments, and (I hope) good Democrat that he is, learns something from them and even changes his mind from time to time. Maybe next time he’ll have a slightly different take on an issue similar to this indoor air quality crusade. I’m not saying he/we shouldn’t be concerned about issues like that one – just that the proper response isn’t necessarily a new statute.

Main message to Jim: my approval of you has nothing to do with the number of bills you sponsor.

Izzie: I appreciate the fact that although you and I certainly have a different opinion on what hot-button issues are legitimate, we don't have to stoop to gutter-rhetoric to personally attack each other (unlike other un-named opponents of SOM). It gives you much more credibility than those other people have here.

Logistically speaking, what's the next step for Senator Sullivan? I mean, does he have to formally announce that he's a candidate for his Senate Seat or not? I haven't seen or heard ANYTHING from his office even hinting that he'll be running in 2010. Back in 2006, he probably figured he could sway a lot of middle-of-the-roaders who thought Reynolds was a quirky nut-job Bible-thumping whacko, but those same middle-of-the-road voters will now likely vote for Vukmir since the 'Reynolds-factor' is gone. I wonder if Senator Sullivan is sort of pulling a "Jim Doyle" since they both know that there are solid (R) challengers for both offices. In other words, the current (D) incumbents fear that they might actually lose! There's no way Doyle wants to have 'loser' attached to his legacy, and I'd bet that Sullivan is thinking along the same lines. This next election could likely be a referendum on the Obama Administration, fair or not.

You can't blame me for any of this stuff. I didn't vote for either of them. In fact, I may have voted more than once in 2006 and 2008 since the Democrats in Madison oppose photo-ID at the polling places. Please prove me wrong Senator; enact a VETO-PROOF Photo-ID bill to ensure the one-person:one-vote ratio in future Wisconsin elections. You voted against this when it really mattered despite the mandate of the general electorate in previous state-wide referenda on the subject. I have to show my Photo-ID at Pick 'n Save to buy a 6-pack of beer or rent a Blockbuster video for crying out loud (that's one of MY legitimate hot-button issues).

Speaking about legislative accomplishments, Senator, I see that you're listed as the author of SB375. This bill will, as I understand it, prevent the general public from learning about any particular individual's contact with the court system. This could be something as minor as a speeding ticket, or something not so minor as theft or burglary. Presently, the CCAP system also publishes the conclusion of those charges whether the defendant was found guilty or not.

Why are you attempting to prevent your law-abiding consituency from knowing about the criminal history, drunk driving history, or general contact of others in the court system? What harm is being done by leaving things the way they are now?

Jim Sullivan got some unwanted attention when he ALLEDGEDLY voted twice in the 2006 elections from Whitefish Bay at his parent's address AND in 'Tosa. The 'Tosa Clerk ALLEDGEDLY changed the voting records after the vote was cast so there'd be no record of this. That's old news and I only mention that to note the WHITEFISH BAY connection below...

There are several CCAP entries for a "Delinquent tax warrant" for JAMES SULLIVAN in Whitefish Bay here:

http://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetails.do;jsessionid=792F31545606A3700BE7B68142CAA096.render6?caseNo=2000TW007871&countyNo=40&cacheId=6E31A47419B66F7ACD55B10BF671A254&recordCount=143&offset=66

Look for all of the different court docket entries related to JAMES SULLIVAN's tax warrant. Was this his dad? Was it him? Is there absolutely no relationship at all between this particular Whitefish Bay JAMES SULLIVAN and State Senator Jim Sullivan? I pay my taxes and I've NEVER had a warrant out for my arrest, so I imagine it would be desireable to have this paper trail of JAMES SULLIVAN's delinquent tax warrant totally erased from public view. It's just a theory, but a good one.

The important part of SB375 is in the very first paragraph:
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB-375.pdf

I have a very common name. I just looked my name up in CCAP. There were 78 records, three of which were mine and all relating to a civil matter in which I was the plaintiff. The other 75 were for other people, some of whom had the same middle initial as mine and a few of whom had the same middle name. I just looked up John Smith, another common name, and got a message that my request couldn't be processed because there were more than 500 rows.

The game of gotcha that you and others play with CCAP is the reason the information should be protected. You're abusing it here and now. Other people abuse it. Somebody posted repeatedly on TTS, once, about a conviction that the poster linked to a school official. It was really somebody else's conviction. CCAP has been used to spread embarrassing personal information about a 'Tosa official. Using CCAP to spread vicious, potentially damaging rumors is too easy. It needs to be controlled. Innocent people need to be protected from rumor mongers like you.

I'm a rumor monger? Me? I disagree.

A 'rumor' would be if I were to tell everybody here that you have bad breath. You may or you may not have bad breath, but since I've never met you (as far as I know), I have no basis in fact to make that statement to others. THAT would be an example of spreading a rumor.

However, I thought I laid out a pretty interesting set of facts and drew a reasonable conclusion based on those facts. THAT, in and of itself is NOT to be confused with spreading rumors as you claimed I did in this and presumably many other instances.

You must hate to consider the possibility that I just may be right about Senator Sullivan's REAL, yet not quite transparent motives to introduce SB375 to eliminate people like me from doing basic research about court procedings on semi-prominent people. Admit it. My theory is completely plausible. I mean, if somebody that I was reasonably close to had a warrant out for their arrest for Delinquent Taxes, I'm not so sure I'd want to brag about it. I'd want to keep it as quiet as possible. Totally eliminating it from public view, as if it never happened, is the perfect solution. Bias is not evident in what IS reported, but rather what is NOT reported.

I always try think outside the box to figure out what the REAL story is on matters like this. Aren't you also interested in the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? The only problem is that the truth is quite often very embarrassing to those who don't want the truth exposed for all to see.

There may be absolutely, positively no relationship whatsoever between the JAMES SULLIVAN of Whitefish Bay referenced in this Delinquent Tax Warrant and our Senator Jim Sullivan. But, maybe there is... My money says that there is, but admittedly, that's just a reasoned opinion based on a collection of related facts.

Stubborn Old Geezer

Will the disinformation never cease...

Tax warrants are not the same as an arrest warrant. You don't get taken into custody on a tax warrant as your posting implies. Having a tax warrant is a mechanism that simply alerts the public (mostly potential creditors) that back taxes are owed.

CCAP in the hands of someone like yourself is a dangerous tool. I would never rely on CCAP to make such a broad assertion. It is flawed and frequently out of date.

How can you deny that you're a rumor monger? You're rumor mongering right now. That's the only truth that matters in this discussion. You represent yourself as a truth seeker, but you can't see the truth about your own behavior.

Again.........the public needs to be protected from people like you.

After reading the bill, I'm wondering where you're getting the idea that it will restrict public access to CCAP. It appears to be a bill protecting electronic transfer of juvenile records and other information that isn't supposed to be made public.

Having never had a warrant out for me for any reason, I am not familiar as to what warrants imply a pending arrest and which don't. To me, the terms 'warrant' and 'arrest' are synomous. You seem to know what you're talking about in this regard, Mortified, so I'll defer to your statement.

The 'out-of-date' generalization you made is incorrect, however. I alerted the local PD about a 2-day old bench warrant for one of my neighbors recently that I saw on CCAP. The cops had absolutely no clue about it. After they verified what I said was true (I was told that they're not 'connected' to CCAP), the punk was taken into custody for 'failure to appear'. In this case, CCAP was quick and accurate, but the other systems were slow. You doubt me? Ask any cop. As tosaoutsider said, "...the public needs to be protected from people like [me]".

Tosaoutsider, after further review, you're right and my theory isn't as solid as I had originally thought. Thank you for pointing that out. But, on the other hand, wouldn't you like to look up one of your young daughter's new boyfriends to see if he's had any contact with the law before she starts falling for him? Apparently, that won't be allowed any longer if Senator Sullivan's SB375 is passed into law.

I thought that ALL juvie records were closed to the public on CCAP, so I guess I'm really not sure what this new bill is intending to change. I've made numerous open records requests to the local PD and they routinely come back with names of the juvies involved blacked out. You don't think Senator Sullivan's trying to protect punk kids, do you? I saw a group of kids (fairly new to my neighborhood) being handcuffed and led to the back of a squad a few years back. I asked why, but the PD refused to tell me because they were too young. It would have been nice to know if it was for assault, or shoplifting. Those punk kids are long gone now, thank God.

I'm not sure I support SB375 or not. Do you? Why or why not?

Well back to the subject at hand. I like some of the things you penned senator, but most important in mind is getting the drunk driver laws changed. As Wisconsin drunks have become the brunt of Jay Leno's monologs like the lovely drunk mayor of Sheboygan and the ever popular State Rep Woods, plus there was another one, could we show that we are not a bunch of hicks that only know how to drink. Wisconsin is getting a rep as drunk, like Texas folks all run around with guns. Enough.

I generally agree with you CS, but you have to wonder why the State Senate thought that ADDING ANOTHER TAX TO LIQUOR PURCHASES was the right way to help pay for these new programs. The Assembly version did not have the Liquor Tax in its version of the Bill, but the Senate took the Assembly Bill and added a new Liquor tax to it. It was only after lots of law-abiding taxpayers voiced their objection to the Senate version that the Senators finally dropped their new tax and instead, put higher fines and fees in place THAT THE OFFENDER WOULD HAVE TO PAY. Now, isn't that the way it's supposed to be? It's a shame that the (D) Senate didn't take my and other people's recommendations on this blog to do exactly that beforehand. Apparently, we're not taxed enough in Wisconsin as far as the (D) Senate is concerned.

I still am wondering why confiscation of the repeat drunk driver's vehicle is apparently not even within the realm of consideration. That wouldn't pay for the new mandates entirely, but it WOULD reduce the exclusive dependence on the Wisconsin law-abiding taxpayer to fund these initiatives, don't you think? It would also have a practical effect of forcing those people to purchase a replacement vehicle if they want to drive again.

In my humble opinion Sen. Sullivan has raised the bar by informing the public .

There are laws for repeat OWI offenders to turn in their vehicle registrations and confiscate their vehicles, unless their are liens or other impediments. Law enforcement is always costly

A number of years ago, a good friend of mine was almost killed in a nearly head-on crash caused by a 4 or 5-time drunk driver (I don't remember the exact number) DRIVING THE WRONG WAY on that 2-lane ramp from EB I-894 to SB I-94 by the Airport! For whatever reason (luck?), he was able to swerve out the way quickly and 'only' get side-swiped by this drunk.

I went to the court proceedings for this thing to see what type of punishment was given to this drunk for nearly killing my friend. It wasn't much, trust me. It turned out that the drunk was driving his wife's car and as a result, it could not be confiscated. It's a very safe bet that this guy was driving his wife's car every previous time he was caught OWI because he KNEW it couldn't be confiscated. I'm sure all repeat drunk drivers know about this loophole, so they drive somebody else's car. No matter who's vehicle is being driven by the repeat drunk driver, it should be confiscated in my opinion. I rarely let anybody drive my car, but when I do, I don't let known drunks drive it.

Senator Sullivan introduced a 'Substitute Amendment #2' yesterday to this bill that, according to the Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau, "This substitute amendment eliminates the option of ordering the person’s vehicle to be immobilized or seized and sold at auction.". Looks to me like confiscation is officially off the table from now on thanks to Senator Sullivan's 'Substitute Amendment #2'. Am I wrong, Mr. Steinberg? Anybody?

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB66-SSA2.pdf

I'm a bit surprised at Senator Sullivan for putting this into his amendment after all the discussion about it on his own blog right here. Maybe he doesn't read the comments? Anything's possible. Nobody advocated for PREVENTING confiscation on his blog. A few, like me, have advocated FOR confiscation.