Final
Revision?
Budget
proposal would eliminate Revisor of Statutes Bureau
By
Jack Zemlicka
jack.zemlicka@wislawjournal.com
May
28, 2007
“If
I had to use one adjective to describe what we do, it would be ‘arcane,’”
said Wisconsin Revisor of Statutes Bruce Munson.
For
more than 100 years the Revisor of Statutes Bureau has been responsible for editing
and publishing state statutes, annotations and administrative codes, as well as
numerous less publicly visible tasks including indexing and archiving.
“The
bureau has operated for 100 years and specialized in the business of editing statutes
and code, as well as focused on presenting the information to the public in an
easily understandable and comprehensive way,” said Munson.
But
a provision in the 2005 state budget called for the elimination of 38 legislative
agency positions and the Revisor of Statutes Bureau could be one of the primary
cuts.
“Part
of the implementation of the last budget called for a reduction in employees and
a review of the legislative agencies led to this recommendation,” said state
Sen. Fred Risser (D-Madison).
A
drafted proposal would cut the five current full-time staff positions and about
$1.78 million. The bureau had 11 personnel in 1990 when Munson took over as revisor.
On
May 10 the Joint Committee on Legislative Organizations (JCLO), of which Risser
is co-chairman, unanimously approved submission of the proposal as a budget amendment.
The proposal is now awaiting discussion in the Joint Finance Committee, and pending
approval will be attached to this year’s budget.
“It’s
a very realistic thing and we’re not feeling very comfortable about it,”
said Deputy Revisor Bruce J. Hoesly, who became aware of the potential closure
in March.
Transfer
of Duties
Should
the Revisor Bureau be eliminated, its workload will not. The JCLO proposal calls
for the duties to be split amongst the Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB) and
the Joint Legislative Council (JLC).
According
to LRB Chief, Stephen R. Miller, his department would assume the bulk of the revisor’s
responsibilities. He also expected the transition to be relatively smooth given
the LRB’s current obligations, which include the drafting of bills, amendments
and resolutions.
“It’s
seems a logical fit which makes a lot of sense,” said Miller, who noted that
many states have combined drafting and revision departments. “This isn’t
something to be taken lightly, but I’m confident we can keep the level of
service just as high, and maybe even improve on it.”
With
a current staff of 54, Miller did not anticipate hiring additional personnel to
handle the increased workload.
The
same would be true in the JLC, which currently has 28 full-time employees according
to staff director Terry C. Anderson.
“The
JCLO proposal would have us pick up publication of the administrative register
which is a bi-monthly publication that lists any emergency rules or rules hearings
and notices relating to the rules promulgation process,” said Anderson.
Anderson
noted that the JLC currently is involved with the rules clearinghouse which is
a legislative revue of agency rules and notices, so the additional responsibilities
would not be completely foreign.
“We
certainly feel we can take on the duties, if that those are the wishes of the
Legislature,” said Anderson.
While
both Miller and Anderson appear receptive to the merger, Hoesly and Munson have
reservations, which extend beyond the potential elimination of their jobs.
“I
haven’t seen a mass movement in opposition of the proposal, but there are
questions as to how seamlessly the transition will be made, especially with no
revisor personnel expected to transfer into either department,” said Hoesly.
Munson
noted that one of the advantages the Revisor Bureau has is the ability to remove
itself from the legislative action process, a luxury that will be difficult for
the LRB and JLC, which draft and review legislation.
“It’s
a valuable perspective because we don’t think in terms of being part of the
institution,” said Munson “Our goal has always been specialized, in
that we want to present the law to the public in an understandable and comprehensible
way.”
If
adopted in the biennial budget, the proposal would not go into effect until Jan.
1, 2008 so there would be time between its inception and adoption for training
according to Anderson.
Still,
Munson characterized the work done in the Revisor’s Bureau as a philosophy,
not just a job.
“The
work we do is learned over the course of years,” said Munson who joined the
bureau in 1977. “There is no law school class or how-to manual to teach what
we do. It’s a mind-set.”
Bar
and Court Impact
Along
with keeping legislation readable for the general public, the Revisor Bureau works
with the State Bar and members of the judiciary during the editorial process.
Supreme
Court Commissioner Julie Anne Rich encounters the bureau on a regular basis with
regards to Supreme Court rules and said elimination of the department would be
“a real loss.”
“The
revisor’s office does a tremendous job and their expertise and professionalism
greatly facilitates my work for the court,” said Rich. “I think it is
fair to say that every individual or organization that submits a rules petition
also benefits because the revisor is instrumental in ensuring that the petitions
and any resultant rule changes are in correct form for publication.”
The
Wisconsin State Bar has a vested interest in the Revisor Bureau’s as well.
President-elect Thomas J. Basting noted that the bureau allows the Bar’s
Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Books Division to access PDF files of the statutes
downloaded from its Web site to update practice books.
Although
the Wisconsin State Bar has yet to publicly support or oppose the proposal, Basting
acknowledged the valuable services provided by the bureau and hoped they would
continue.
“While
the State Bar takes no position on which legislative support agency should provide
this and other services currently delivered by the Revisor of Statutes Bureau,”
Basting said, “we believe it is essential that whoever is assigned the duty
of compiling and editing statutory changes into the Wisconsin Statutes have adequate
staff and resources to do so in a timely fashion and that it continue to provide
free access to files containing the statutes for all to use.”
If
revisor responsibilities were divided, Miller pledged the LRB would work with
the courts and State Bar.
“If
this passes, we will approach the courts and the bar to see what there interests
are,” said Miller.
