By of the

Madison — Gov. Scott Walker's administration no longer is collecting dues on behalf of state unions and, as of Sunday, is charging employees more for their pensions and health care, even though nonpartisan legislative attorneys say the changes are not yet law.

Backing up the administration, the state Department of Justice argued that the new law - which eliminates most collective bargaining for public workers - is in effect and asked a judge to vacate a restraining order against the law. Meanwhile, a Dane County prosecutor asked a judge to declare that the law is not now in place.

Highlighting the different legal interpretations, some local governments are not implementing the new law for their employees. Officials with the City of Milwaukee and Milwaukee County said they are waiting for answers from courts before making any changes on benefits and union dues.

The dispute over the new law goes before a Dane County circuit judge on Tuesday, and higher courts are ultimately expected to rule on it.

State workers began paying more for benefits starting Sunday, Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch said Monday in a conference call with reporters. They also no longer are being billed for union dues, and those changes will show up on checks issued April 21, he said.

Employees working for the Legislature are also now being charged more for benefits, said an aide to Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau).

That comes even though an attorney for the Legislature has concluded the law probably has not taken effect, as spelled out in a memo Monday to Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha).

The law requires most public workers to pay at least 12.6% of their health care premiums and half the cost of their pensions - 5.8% of pay for most state employees.

The plan to curtail collective bargaining drew massive protests at the state Capitol, prompted Senate Democrats to leave the state for three weeks in an effort to block the bill, and brought national attention to Wisconsin.

Local governments wait

As Walker's administration took steps to put the law in place Monday, some of the largest local governments in Wisconsin declined to do the same.

"We're going to hold off until we receive more definitive word from the courts," said Bill Zaferos, a spokesman for interim Milwaukee County Executive Marvin Pratt.

The City of Milwaukee also isn't making changes, said Jodie Tabak, a spokeswoman for Mayor Tom Barrett.

Madison City Attorney Michael May issued a memo to city officials telling them to take no steps to implement the law because it is not in effect. The memo said the Legislative Reference Bureau acted beyond its legal authority when it published the law.

Courts will rule

Three cases are continuing over the new law, leaving the courts as the final arbiter of whether the law is in effect, whether it was adopted properly and whether aspects of it are constitutional. Huebsch said he would abide by court rulings if he is ordered to stop implementation of the law.

Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne, a Democrat, filed a complaint this month to block the law. He contended that a committee of lawmakers violated the open meetings law when it approved the measure, which was a key step to advancing it to the GOP-controlled Assembly and Senate.

Republicans argue they did not violate the meetings law.

Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi on March 18 said Ozanne's case was likely to succeed and blocked Democratic Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the law.

But on Friday, the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau - which was not under the court order - published the law.

The director of the reference bureau, Stephen Miller, said Friday that statutes required him to take that step, but that he does not believe the law takes effect until the secretary of state acts.

Last week, the Department of Justice appealed Sumi's temporary restraining order. The appeals court panel said the state Supreme Court should take the case, but the high court hasn't ruled on whether it will take it.

On Monday, the Department of Justice asked to withdraw its appeal, saying the law had now been published. It also asked Sumi to vacate the temporary restraining order, withdraw Tuesday's hearing and dismiss La Follette from the case.

Ozanne, meanwhile, asked Sumi to declare that the reference bureau's actions did not constitute publication of the law under the state constitution and that the bureau is subject to and had violated the restraining order. He further asked the judge to order the reference bureau to remove the act from the Legislature's website.

At issue now is the process of publishing laws, and how duties are split between the reference bureau and the secretary of state.

The secretary of state must designate a publishing date that is within 10 working days of the governor's signing of a bill, and the reference bureau technically publishes it. The secretary of state then arranges to run a notice that the law has been published in the official state newspaper, the Wisconsin State Journal.

The law takes effect a day after the publishing date designated by the secretary of state.

La Follette had named Friday as the day to publish the law - 10 business days after Walker signed the bill March 11. Once Sumi issued her restraining order, La Follette sent a letter to the reference bureau rescinding Friday as the publication date.

But the Department of Justice argued La Follette doesn't have the power to do that and the reference bureau was required by law to publish it. The reference bureau would have to publish it even if the secretary of state didn't name a date, the department argued.

"Put simply, no action by the secretary of state is required for an act to be published," the filing to the appeals court said.

La Follette, DOJ at odds

In one of the strange twists of the political and legal saga, La Follette disagreed with the Department of Justice lawyers representing him. He said the law doesn't take effect until he acts.

"I think it's very dangerous for the Department of Administration and governor to proceed based on that theory" that the law has taken effect, he said.

Arguments are scheduled for 8:30 a.m. Tuesday in Ozanne's case, on whether a preliminary injunction should be issued. But the dispute over publication of the law adds a new wrinkle that the judge could take up.

Ozanne's witness list consists of 22 people, including police officers, top legislative staff, La Follette and Barca. Barca was on the conference committee that approved the law March 9, and during it screamed at Republicans to halt the meeting because he believed they were violating the open meetings law.

Jason Stein of the Journal Sentinel staff contributed to this report.