|
News
|
|
Written by Ozaukee Press Editoral Board
|
|
Wednesday, 10 February 2010 15:55 |
Laying off prosecutors counties depend on to handle crime would be an unacceptable way for the state to deal with a budget shortfall, labor disputeBelieve District Attorney Adam Gerol when he says Ozaukee County’s system of justice would suffer if the state lay offs one of the three prosecutors in his office.
“We would not be able to keep up with our caseload,” Gerol told Ozaukee Press last month. “Some crimes that are charged in state court would simply have to be dealt with as ordinance violations. Already we’ve had to ratchet up the threshold for criminal charges because of the workload.”
Gerol’s concern, which is shared by prosecutors throughout the state, was triggered by a Dec. 30 letter from the Wisconsin Department of Administration notifying the Association of State Prosecutors of its intent to lay off assistant district attorneys in counties throughout Wisconsin.
The other shoe has yet to drop, but state officials said they will announce their plan to address a $1.3 million shortfall in the state prosecutor’s budget shortly. For now, those officials are not saying how many prosecutors are in danger of losing their jobs or which counties will be affected.
The issue is, in part, the product of a labor dispute between the Association of State Prosecutors, the union representing 424 assistant district attorneys, and that state over the number of furlough days prosecutors should have to take. The union is accusing the state of unfair treatment and state is threatening layoffs.
It’s difficult to tell how much of the state’s layoff threat is bargaining hyperbole, but the consequences of counties like Ozaukee having to make do with one less prosecutor is serious enough to warrant concern.
According to the state’s own formula, district attorney’s offices throughout Wisconsin are understaffed. Ozaukee County is no exception. The DA’s office here has functioned with three prosecutors since 1978, when the third circuit court was added, but the state formula, based on the number of serious crimes prosecuted, calls for more than four.
The argument that reducing the number of Ozaukee County prosecutors would compromise our local justice system is an open and shut case.
The pace of the court system, often not that terribly swift now, would bog down. Victims would have to wait longer for justice and the restitution they rely on to make them whole. The accused would be left waiting for their day in court and a ruling on their fate.
Serious cases — violent crimes, drug cases, identity theft and other forms of fraud — would tax prosecutors to the limit, leaving them to choose between devoting less time to comparatively minor cases or giving short shrift to the types of crimes that most offend society.
Perhaps most important in a relatively low crime county such as Ozaukee, prosecutors would have less time to vet accusations before deciding whether to issue charges. Prosecutors will tell you the easiest thing they could do is to sign off on the constant stream of police reports that land on their desks, but an important, albeit hidden, check on the justice system is prosecutorial discretion.
Complicating the issue is the fact district attorney’s offices straddle the line between county and state control. Ozaukee County voters elect their district attorney and Ozaukee County taxpayers cover some of the costs of the office. But it is the state that pays the salaries of prosecutors and thereby exercises a great deal of control over the local justice system.
It would be unacceptable for the state to resolve its budget problems by laying off prosecutors and essentially telling counties to deal with the problems that result.
The fact is, this issue boils down to an argument over three unpaid days off work and a budget shortfall in the district attorneys’ budget of $1.3 million — $1.3 million in a state that was faced with a $6 billion shortfall last year.
The district attorneys’ budget has already been cut by $7.7 million, to $87.5 million. Trimming it by another $1.3 million isn’t going to solve the state’s profound financial challenges, but it will affect how crimes are prosecuted.
State officials should find a way to fund the shortfall without laying off prosecutors, then, with the cooperation of assistant district attorneys’ union, work out any labor disputes in a way that won’t be an injustice to taxpayers who expect an efficient and effective system of justice. |
|
|
News
|
|
Written by Ozaukee Press Editoral Board
|
|
Wednesday, 03 February 2010 15:28 |
Saukville has some good options for dealing with constitutional objections to its Nativity scene, but bringing in cartoon characters shouldn’t be one of themThe news just gets worse for the Village of Saukville’s beleaguered Nativity scene as insult is piled on injury. First the display was banished from Grady Park after a complaint from a group called Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Now village officials are talking about bringing it back next Christmas in the company of some secular Christmas characters like Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer and Frosty the Snowman in an effort to make it more constitutionally acceptable.
Presumably Frosty and Rudolph would not be in the creche itself looking over the manger or next to the robed and crowned three kings, but merely putting these cartoonish characters near the Nativity scene is enough to mock the solemnity of the display.
The Nativity scene, after all, is a symbol of something as far removed from the commercialization of Christmas as can be imagined—the birth of Jesus Christ. For Christians, this is the essential meaning of Christmas. For people of any faith, or no faith, it can have meaning as a reminder of the historical roots of Christmas. In any case, it is not to be trivialized by surrounding it with made-for-profit characters.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State might have applied some of the tolerance it stands for and let Saukville’s small step over the dividing line between church and state slide. But the group pressed the issue, and it has legal precedent on its side when it maintains that the government-sponsored creche violates the First Amendment.
Many Saukville officials and residents do not like this one bit. That’s understandable, but it should be recognized that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution invoked here to ban a religious display by government also serves to protect freedom of religion for every citizen.
So what’s the village to do?
One attractive option is to take St. Peter’s United Church of Christ up on its offer to put the village’s Nativity scene on the church grounds next to Grady Park. The creche would be close to where it’s always been, and church-state purity would be assured.
If it is determined to make an end-run around constitutional objections the village could elect to sell the Nativity structure and characters to a church or other organization for, say, a dollar and then lease some land in Grady Park to the buyer as a site for the display. It would take careful vetting by the village attorney, but it might work.
A third alternative is to do nothing—keep the creche in storage and leave it to the private sector to provide Nativity scenes.
Neither the Constitution, the courts nor groups that zealously police the separation of government from religion have any say over private religious expression. Any citizen and any business can put a Nativity scene on private property, and in fact many were visible around Saukville this past Christmas. Adverse reaction to outside interference in the village’s choice of Christmas displays could result in more creches than ever, ensuring that there would be ample opportunity to view this beloved symbol of Christmas throughout the community.
None of these options would be difficult or expensive. And any one of them would be preferable to recruiting Frosty and Rudolph to save the creche at the expense of stealing its dignity. |
|
|
News
|
|
Written by Ozaukee Press Editoral Board
|
|
Wednesday, 27 January 2010 15:22 |
It’s debatable who wins from the Supreme Court’s ruling on political ads, but there’s doubt about who loses—the American people
Big wigs of the national Republican party were reported to be hoping the U.S. Supreme Court would rule that corporations can spend as much money as they want to elect or defeat candidates. The court did exactly that last week in a decision that may prove to be a classic validation of the aphorism about being careful about what you wish for. The impact of this radical ruling will affect candidates of every political stripe, Republicans as well as Democrats, and while those who benefit from the decision will vary from election to election, those who lose most will always be the same: the American people.
Reacting to the decision, State Sen. Mike Ellis, a Republican from Neenah, said, “I think it’s a sad day for democracy.”
Ellis had just seen a bill that would prevent corporations and unions from spending their funds to influence elections in Wisconsin, which he sponsored and which was passed by the State Senate two days before the court ruling, rendered null and void.
Wisconsin is just one of many states whose efforts to resist the corrupting influence of unrestrained spending on elections will be frustrated by the court’s decision.
The high court discarded long-standing precedents in ruling that the government may not prohibit political spending by corporations on behalf or against election candidates. The 5-4 court majority based the decision on the contention that the Constitution gives corporations the same First Amendment rights as people.
This is a novel and creative interpretation of the Constitution by a panel that includes several justices who were described as strict constitutional constructionists when they were appointed. The Constitution does not mention corporations, which are organizations created under state laws for the sole purpose of making money.
Holding that the freedom of corporations to spend money to influence elections is equivalent to the right of people to speak to support or oppose candidates is in reality an anti-free speech decision that will have the practical effect of diminishing the First Amendment rights of citizens—for the voices of individuals will have less chance to be heard amid the din of unrestricted political advertising by corporations.
The decision opens a spigot at the end of a pipeline of money from companies and labor unions (also freed from spending restrictions by the court) that will deluge election contests. If there is one indisputable axiom of American politics, it is that money gets results.
It does that not just by getting candidates elected or defeated, but by influencing representatives in office. Consider the bludgeon the court decision gives lobbyists, who can now say to members of Congress and state legislators: Vote our way or the corporations or unions we represent will spend whatever it takes to defeat you in the next election.
This is political corruption, but the justices in the majority obviously don’t get that. No wonder U.S. Sen John McCain criticized the “extreme naivete” revealed by members of the court in hearing the case that led to the decision.
Wisconsin has had a law on its books for 104 years banning corporations and unions from spending their money on ads aimed at electing or defeating candidates.
That law, like the potential law passed by the State Senate last week, has been voided by the Supreme Court. Perhaps the best the Legislature can do now is salvage the part of the Senate bill that requires disclosure of the names of those who pay for election ads.
At least then the public would know who’s trying to buy an election. |
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 57 of 62 |
