By of the

Madison - A majority of the state Supreme Court boycotted part of an administrative meeting Wednesday, believing Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson was improperly trying to take up an issue.

The development was the latest sign that the deeply fractured court will be discussing considerably less routine business in public.

In 1999, the court became one of the first - if not the first - high courts in the country to take up the bulk of its administrative matters in public. But in January, four of the seven members of the court voted to discuss much of its work behind closed doors.

Abrahamson wanted to write a dissent to that decision, and she contended the court needed to take a final vote on the matter in public on Wednesday, when court members would sign onto either the majority opinion or the dissent.

The court met in the morning publicly on some other matters and was to return at 1:30 p.m. to take up the final rule change that would close future meetings. The four in the majority did not show up.

Abrahamson convened the meeting at 1:45 p.m. She said she had received an email from Justice Patience Roggensack saying she would not attend the afternoon meeting as long as an "improper item" remained on the agenda.

"The court has made a decision about what can appear on an agenda or be discussed in conference and I will honor the decision of the court," Roggensack wrote in her email.

Abrahamson said she believed the matter had to be discussed publicly until it was finalized, at which point it would go into effect. She instructed Supreme Court Marshal Tina Nodolf to ask the majority justices to cast their votes from their chambers, and fifteen minutes later Nodolf reported the four had voted to finalize the new policy.

The minority then discussed the matter further and, when they were finished, the majority returned. All seven justices then discussed in public possible changes to Supreme Court rules, one of the few areas that will continue to occur in the open under the new policy.

Roggensack wrote the rule change closing Supreme Court meetings, saying it would help the court get decisions out more quickly. The others who sided with her, and boycotted the portion of Wednesday's meeting along with her, were Justices Michael Gableman, David Prosser and Annette Ziegler.

In dissent were Abrahamson and Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and N. Patrick Crooks.

"No good comes from secrecy in governmental affairs," their dissent said.

The court has been divided in recent years by personal and ideological disputes, which came to a head in June when Prosser and Bradley had a physical altercation in Bradley's chambers in front of all the other justices except Crooks. Bradley confronted Prosser face-to-face in an attempt to get him to leave her office and he put his hands on her neck in what he said was a defensive reflex.

Last month, the state Judicial Commission filed a formal complaint alleging Prosser violated the ethics code for judges during that incident. Prosser is asking justices to step aside in the case because of their personal knowledge of the case; if four or more justices recuse themselves, the case would end.

After the altercation, Abrahamson proposed the court deliberate on cases in public in the interest of transparency. All other justices rejected that idea, and Roggensack then proposed closing off much of what is done in public on administrative matters, such as discussing budgets and setting court policies.

A few matters will still remain public, and a majority of the court can decide to take up particular issues in the open, under Roggensack's plan.