Jeff Wood, practically a saint
State Representative Jeff Wood countered the efforts to oust him from the state assembly with an amendment to the expulsion resolution that listed the arrests of every state legislator since the birth of the republic, pointing out none of them were expelled.
Wood actually drafted a wildly entertaining 12-page amendment to Nass’ resolution, in which he basically states his case to stay in the Assembly. Wood goes through virtually every case in the last 50 years in which a legislator had a run-in with the law, and points out that none of them were sanctioned by the Assembly. (He fails to point out, however, that none of them are currently serving, and many of them were out of office shortly thereafter. Also, if you read through the offenses, none posed a threat to human safety in the same way as three OWIs did.)
On the second to last page, he cites a poll done by his local newspaper that says 57 percent of respondents believe no action should be taken against him, then he attacks Steve Nass, and finishes with this:
Resolved by the assembly, That Representative Jeffrey Wood not be held to a different standard than partisan legislators within this institution and based on the facts of this controversy the assembly takes no further action and the special committee on ethics and standards of conduct is hereby disbanded.
I understand the brewery workers in Chippewa Falls might be reluctant to see a regular customer punished, but the state does have an obligation to expect a higher level of conduct from their state legislators. Just because the legislature did not live up to its obligations in the past does not excuse Wood’s behavior now. And, oh by the way, we’re not exactly talking about The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. We’re talking about a five-time OWI loser who is lucky he didn’t kill anyone.
Which makes the behavior of Representative Steve Nass even more inexplicable today.
Rep. Mary Hubler today delayed scheduling an exec on a resolution seeking to expel Jeff Wood from the Assembly until after the committee she chairs can first hear from Rep. Steve Nass, who proposed kicking him out.
Nass, R-Whitewater, did not attend today’s hearing, instead sending the committee overseeing the expulsion resolution a memo on Tuesday dismissing some of Wood’s defenses against being expelled.
Hubler, D-Rice Lake, and Rep. Tony Staskunas, D-West Allis, expressed their disappointment that Nass chose not to show up for the hearing, saying they wanted to ask him questions about his expulsion resolution.
Nass aide Mike Mikalsen attended today’s hearing and said afterward that Nass did not show up because of what he called a “circus atmosphere” in which Wood was allowed to cross examine anyone who chose to testify in favor of the expulsion resolution. Assembly rules grant anyone targeted in an expulsion resolution that opportunity, treating the hearing somewhat like a trial.
What did Nass think was going to happen when he authored the resolution? Is Nass serious about seeing this through or not?
The answer to the question is No.
Nass is right, but the point is meaningless.
[Reply]
Clown decries “Circus Atmosphere.” Expensive sideshow goes on without him.
Why is Steve Nass wasting our money?
[Reply]
James Wigderson Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 9:23 am
“…wasting our money?”
Seriously? Have we suddenly started paying legislators by the hour? And what’s a cleaner government without Jeff Woods worth to you? Or was all that rhetoric I’ve been hearing over the years about good government and the evils of drunk driving just so much talk? This guy is a five-time (yes, five) OWI, and one of his arrests include a bust for marijuana (by the way, who gave it to him?). Since he did not have the decency to resign, how long do the residents of Wisconsin have to tolerate his presence in the Legislature? What will it take to see him go? Will he have to kill someone first?
No, not one minute longer. Send him out.
[Reply]
john d hyland Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 9:56 am
Let’s also not forget that the last two of his five arrests involve prescription drugs – not alcohol – that he was taking under a doctor’s prescription and, because the lab has not yet issued an analysis, we still have no idea whether the levels in his blood were within therapeutic range. What we do know is that the test showed zero alcohol in his blood in these last two cases.
If the residents of his district want him to go they can start the recall process – the fact that they have not should be controlling. Also consider that if the legislature expels him that district will be unrepresented until a new member is sworn in January.
[Reply]
James Wigderson Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 11:26 am
1. Yes, the constituents can start a recall process. However, as i have pointed out in this space before, a recall of a state assemblyman is ridiculous because of the time frame involved. At this point, by the time the recall would take place we would would be a few months from replacing Wood anyway. Expulsion can take place as quickly as the legislature wants it to.
2. The “unrepresented” constituents are being poorly represented now, and by such a person that casts aspersions upon the character of the people he is meant to serve, as well as the entire legislature.
3. The legislature as a whole is damaged by his continued presence, whether Wood’s constituents agree or not. Therefore, his colleagues have an obligation to expel him.
I need to make a correction to the blog entry posted about the history Rep. Wood set forth in his amendment. The comments stated: He fails to point out, however, that none of them are currently serving, and many of them were out of office shortly thereafter.
The amendment to the resolution identified the thirty + legislators (and the list was only assembly member, not senators, there are more than 20 of them) who were charged with 1st offense OWI or msidemeanor and felony crimes while serving in the legislature. Most did not resign. Significantly, the three assmebly members charged in the caucus scandal in 2002 (you remember, pay for play – selling the office for campaign contributions – somewhat directly related to their official duties)
each served the rest of their term without anyone moving to expel them. Foti and Ladwig did exactly what Rep. Wood is doing – they said they won’t run again and served their full term. Jensen served multiple terms before resigning – only after being convicted of felony charges. Where was the indignation then?
[Reply]
James Wigderson Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 11:39 am
It needs to be noted that Hyland is Representative Wood’s attorney.
On the Jensen point, it needs to be noted that Jensen’s trial was thrown out, and there is a real possibility that he will be acquitted at a second trial, or that the case may never go back to trial. Hyland conveniently neglects to mention that his client has already admitted his wrong doing publicly and has been convicted now three times.
As for Wood’s supposed promise that he will not seek re-election, let’s go over some of the lies he’s already told.
At the time of his third arrest, Wood said he had been arrested for OWI once before. This was not correct. He was arrested for OWI twice before, and had other run-ins with the law.
Wood said he would not contest his third arrest for OWI. That was not true, and he fought until he reached a plea bargain in the case that resulted in the marijuana charge getting dropped. By the way, who gave him the marijuana?
Wood said he would not even hire an attorney. Wood now has two attorneys. One for the OWI arrests, and one to fight the expulsion.
Hyland in his comments wants to make the prescription drug arrests somehow less serious that the alcohol-impaired driving arrests. Really. If he had killed someone, would Hyland say, “It’s okay, the drugs were prescription?”
At some point the legislature has a responsibility to police itself, the entire reason that it is possible to expel a member. If anyone deserves expulsion, it’s Hyland’s client, and he deserves it now.
[Reply]
grumps Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
I think you mean, “Jensen’s attorney found a loophole.” That’s the phrase that Justice Gableman uses
[Reply]
James Wigderson Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
I always liked the phrase, “A man is entitled to a fair trial.” So far, he has not had one, and innocent until proven guilty seems to be a lost concept when its someone that the Left despises.
I’ve got a couple of questions…
What Assembly members were charged with pay-to-play? That sole distinction belongs to Chuck Chvala, whose wife still enjoys employment for the current Senate Majority Leader.
If memory serves me correctly, the Assembly-related Caucus Scandal revolved around directing staff to do campaign-related work on state time; while Jeff Wood’s attorney may think that is a distinction without a diference, I assure him, the public gets it. After all, EVERY member of the legislature uses their office for electoral advantage – newsletters, e-mail updates, maps, Blue Books. If those are crimes, then I’m certain Jeff Wood is just as guilty as anyone.
Moreover, I notice that Jeff Wood was elected – AS A REPUBLICAN – in 2002. Presumeably, he received help from Madison and the state GOP. Can Jeff Wood say for fact that he did not enjoy the help of the Republican Caucus (which was operating illegally per Jeff Wood’s allegations) along with the Democratic Caucus?
If he can, that’s great. If not, any word uttered by Wood or his attorney regarding the Caucus Scandal is hypocritical and actually bolsters the argument, per his own proposed amendment to the resolution of expulsion, that he needs to join the ranks of his tainted colleagues.
[Reply]
I love Hyland’s argument that the Assembly is a dirty, crooked place, so why should we suddenly start having moral standards now?
I love it because using the same logic, it means I don’t have to clean the bathroom. It’s already a biohazard area–why should I suddenly start cleaning it out? Yes! Thanks Hyland!
[Reply]
Are you sure you want to start all that “casting aspersion” stuff. That’s the very definition of a slippery slope. There’s a mechanism in place for getting Wood out of office. Let it work.
And what’s this “cleaner government” stuff? He was good enough for the WisGOP to run him. Is there a single whit of evidence that one thing has anything to do with the other? Will you now call for everyone accused of drunk driving to be fired?
You are absolutely right about Wood not doing the honorable thing. Why in the world would you expect that from him now?
[Reply]
so far Jeff Wood has not had a fair trial on two of the three pending cases – again, those involving substances that are not even known to the evidence yet because the lab testing is not finished. However, innocent until proven guilty seems to be a lost concept.
[Reply]
That is not my argument at all. The constitutional provision the resolution to expel invokes says that (1) each house may adopt rules of procedure, and (2) punish for contempt of those rules and disorderly behavior. There is no assembly rule that sets standards of behavior for legislators except when in debate on the floor . Since the speech and debate clause of the constittuion says that no member can be charged criminally or sued in civil court for what they say during debate, the only way to punish a member’s conduct during debate is by passing rules to control debate. If they violate the rule they may be found in contempt. What is contempt except disobedience of a rule. If they are disorderly during debate, then they may be punished by the house. That is the extent of the authority given by the constitution.
The fact that the only time the constitutional provision was invoked was for speech made on the floor of the senate during debate proves this. The fact that scores of legislators have been charged with crimes (crimes which occurred inside and outside the capitol building) and no one has ever moved to expel a single one also proves the point.
We do have moral and ethical standards for legislators – and these are enforced by election – not by expulsion. The members of the assembly or the senate may not like the conduct of a member but they do not have the constitutional authority to expel that member unless the conduct has violated a rule passed by the house. So far they have never passed a rule that says you cannot be charged with multiple misdemeanor offenses and serve in the assembly. Or that you cannot serve without having and showing good moral character.
You can rail against the fact that Wood chose to not resign, but short of a recall he cannot be forced out of office unless he is convicted of a felony – and then it’s automatic.
[Reply]
James Wigderson Reply:
March 6th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
1. John, if that wasn’t your argument, then why write, “Let’s also not forget that the last two of his five arrests involve prescription drugs – not alcohol – that he was taking under a doctor’s prescription and, because the lab has not yet issued an analysis, we still have no idea whether the levels in his blood were within therapeutic range.” if you are not going to make the argument, then don’t make the argument. Clearly you’re being disingenuous here.
2. The wording of the section in question: “SECTION 8. may determine the rules of its own proceedings, punish for contempt and disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two−thirds of all the members elected, expel a member; but no member shall be expelled a second time for the same cause.” You’ll note it does not limit the conduct to the Assembly floor.
As the LRB describes the section, “Legislative rules of proceedings can be found in the federal constitution and in almost every state constitution. In this regard, the Wisconsin Constitution is unexceptional. This legislative power is an expansive power and its scope is not limited to legislative autonomy on matters relating merely, say, to the passage of legislation. According to Mason’s Legislative Manual, ch. 1, sec. 3.4, the power “extends to determination of propriety and effect of any action taken by the body in the exercise of any power…” Rules of proceedings are much more than simply rules governing parliamentary debate.”
[Reply]
James Wigderson Reply:
March 6th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
In other words, it is typical of other constitutions, including the federal constitution, and I think we can all agree the federal constitution allows for the expulsion of members for conduct beyond the legislative chambers, no?
Hyland complains that there is no specific rule against a member of the legislature serving with three OWI convictions and two more OWI arrests pending, as well as other offenses committed. Yes, we are in uncharted waters here. Wood did not shoot a man in Reno just to watch him die. But neither should the legislature continue to allow such a menace to the public safety to serve in public office lest we watch him kill someone so the legislature can watch them die on a police dashboard cam.
As for whether innocent until proven guilty is a lost concept, which confession of his client’s shall we replay for him?
[Reply]