SHARE

By of the

Madison - The conservative bloc of the state Supreme Court voted Monday to keep more of the often-fractious court's discussions private.

Since 1999, the court has held public meetings on virtually all of its administrative matters, making it one of the first - if not the first - high court in the country to do so.

"This would be a mistake to retreat from giving the public the opportunity to see what we do and how we do it," Justice N. Patrick Crooks said during Monday's open conference. "Please don't do this."

But after almost two hours of discussion, he joined Justice Ann Walsh Bradley and Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson on the losing end of the vote. Justices Annette Ziegler, Michael Gableman, Patience Roggensack and David Prosser voted for the change.

Roggensack proposed rolling back the court's policy so that many issues will be discussed in public only if a majority of the court votes to do so. Monday she said her intent was to ultimately redirect more of the court's resources toward its core function - deciding cases and getting opinions issued on time.

"To sit out here and philosophize about issues is really not the best use of our time," she said, an apparent reference to the agendas and discussions largely controlled by Abrahamson.

The move comes after years of turmoil on the court that reached its nadir in June when two other justices got into a physical confrontation.

In the weeks after that incident, Abrahamson proposed that the court hold all of its proceedings, including deliberations on cases, in public. The court rejected the idea in September.

Bradley asked her colleagues what public policy would be served by keeping more discussion out of the public arena, and called for having a public hearing on the proposed change, which also was defeated by the same 4-3 vote.

Ziegler said the court needs to set its priorities, and that open conferences don't often reflect the good work the justices do on actual cases.

"The message gets lost when we come out and sit at this table. It's frustrating," she said. "We get bogged down on things that reflect poorly on the court as an institution."

Former Justice Janine Geske, who was on the Supreme Court when the conferences were first opened, said that she was disappointed in the decision.

"I'm really sad in this time of distrust of government and distrust of the court that they're not going to hold the conference so people can see them be present," said Geske, now a Marquette University law professor.

Geske said she didn't believe closing the court's meetings would save much, if any, time.

"I don't understand that. The court is still going to discuss the issues, whether it's behind closed doors or not," she said, echoing an argument Abrahamson made during Monday's debate.

Previously Supreme Court rules said "administrative matters are discussed at open conference as they arise."

Now, the only administrative matter that would automatically be debated publicly will be proposals to change court rules. All other administrative discussions, such as court policies and budgets, will be held behind closed doors, unless a majority of the court wanted to publicly talk about a particular issue.

The court is deeply divided, with the justices splitting 4-3 on some of its most important and politically charged cases.

Dust-up investigated

Relations turned particularly bad in June, when Bradley confronted Prosser face-to-face in her chambers and Prosser put his hands on her neck. All the other justices but Crooks were present during the incident.

No charges were issued after an investigation by Dane County sheriff's deputies. A separate investigation continues by the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, which oversees the state's ethics code for judges.

After the incident, Abrahamson made a series of proposals that she said could improve civility on the court. Discussion of those issues has at times taken hours, and some members of the court appear to have grown weary of them.

Several states, including Michigan, hold their administrative meetings in public, according to the National Center for State Courts.

But during Monday's discussion, Gableman described Michigan's high court as "in chaos" after adopting Wisconsin's open approach, and said it has since moved back to very limited public meetings.

Prosser did not contribute to Monday's discussion. When Gableman asked for his input before the vote, Prosser said, "I think it would be better if I didn't speak."