Solidarity eNewsletter (178K PDF), via a kind Linda Doeseckle email

MTI was again successful in challenging legislation forced through the Legislature by Governor Walker. Dane County Circuit Court Judge Amy Smith agreed with MTI’s argument that Act 21, as it pertains to the State Superintendent, is unconstitutional.
Act 21 was created to enable the Governor to control all state agencies’ creation of Administrative Rules. Historically an agency wrote a proposed Administrative Rule, sent it to the Legislature which held a hearing, and if no modifications were made, the Administrative Rule became law. Act 21 mandated that a Agency send a “proposed” Administrative Rule to the Governor, who could change it before it could go to the Legislature. Walker even forced his appointees to the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission to make the calculation of “base wage” for teachers even more restrictive than WERC had proposed.
MTI’s challenge to Act 21 was based on the fact that the State Superintendent is a Constitutional Officer – has been since 1848. Based on that, and that the Wisconsin Supreme Court previously ruled that the State Superintendent has the authority not only to “advocate, but (is) an officer with the ability to put plans into action”, MTI, joined by WEAC, claimed that as a Constitutional Officer the State Superintendent is equal to, not subordinate to, the Governor. Judge Smith agreed, and voided that part of Act 21, as it applied to the State Superintendent.
MTI was represented by Lester Pines, Tamara Packard and Susan Crawford, Cullen Weston Pines Bach.

Related: Wisconsin Education Rule-Making Battle: Should We Care? Yes; DPI Election Politics.