As the 2013-2014 legislative session enters its final stages, Assembly and Senate committees have been in the process of completing the work necessary to bring bills to the floor for votes.  I am happy to say that several committees have taken action on bills I have introduced.

On Tuesday, I testified before the Assembly transportation committee on behalf of Assembly Bill 234, a bill I introduced that adds the Wisconsin Veterans Tribute/Citizen Soldier Monument in Cadott to the list of veteran-related sites on state highway maps.  The Tribute, which is prominently located at the intersection of State Highways 27 and 29, honors America's veterans past and present, as well as the law enforcement officers, firefighters, and EMTs who protect us every day.  I introduced AB 234 at the request of former Sen. Dave Zien, and he and a number of other area veterans came down to Madison to testify in favor of the bill.

On Wednesday, the Senate government operations committee voted unanimously to recommend Assembly Bill 429, which I introduced at the request of the Wisconsin County Clerks Association.  As I mentioned in my last E-Update, AB 429 requires a person to be at least 18 years old in order to officiate at a marriage ceremony, and it also repeals an outdated bureaucratic requirement for out-of-state clergy who come to Wisconsin to officiate at marriage ceremonies.

I hope the Assembly transportation committee, of which I am a member, will hold a vote on AB 234 soon so that the Assembly has an opportunity to vote on it, and I also look forward to the Senate scheduling a floor vote on AB 429.

As many of you may know, this week also saw marathon hearings about two issues that have been much in the news and about which I have received many contacts in recent weeks.

On Monday, the Assembly and Senate mining committees held a joint public hearing on Assembly Bill 816 and its companion, Senate Bill 632, which are scaled-back versions of Assembly Bill 476 and Senate Bill 349.  Under AB 816 and SB 632, local governments would retain their authority to regulate new sand mines, but existing sand mines would be grandfathered in, subject only to ordinances (if any) in place at the time they began operations.

Although AB 816 and SB 632 may be an improvement over AB 476 and SB 349, which I opposed, I have serious concerns that the new bills may still tie the hands of local government too severely.  Local control is an important part of our state's system of government.  While some local governments may misuse their authority and impose unreasonable restrictions on sand companies, I do not believe that is the norm, and I do not think that a one-size-fits-all approach is the best solution to this issue.  The Wisconsin Towns Association originally took a neutral position on AB 816 and SB 632, but it has since come out against the bills.  Given all that, I am reluctant to support AB 816 and SB 632 in their current form.

The Senate mining committee has already voted (3-2) to approve SB 632, but the Assembly mining committee, of which I am a member, has not yet scheduled a vote on AB 816.  I appreciate all the feedback I have received so far.

The other major development this week was a Senate education committee hearing on Senate Bill 619, which would create a Model Academic Standards Board to develop and regularly review standards in English/language arts, math, science, and social studies. The board would be made up of members appointed by the superintendent of public instruction, the governor, and majority and minority legislative leadership.  The board may not include legislators, but it must include teachers, principals, parents, and at least one district superintendent. 

The board would submit its proposals to the state superintendent, who must take the board’s recommendations into consideration as he or she develops his or her own standards.  The superintendent in turn must submit those standards to the Legislature’s Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR).  JCRAR may either accept or reject the superintendent’s standards.  If JCRAR rejects the superintendent’s standards, it must introduce bills in the Assembly and Senate that incorporate the model academic standards board’s recommendations.  The board, the superintendent, and JCRAR must each hold at least one public hearing during their respective stage of the process. 

Neither the board, the superintendent, nor JCRAR may prescribe curricula – the proposals would remain standards.  I think it is important to point out that although legislative leadership will appoint members to the board, the Legislature would not take an active role in the development process until the superintendent’s standards come before JCRAR.  Beyond JCRAR, the Legislature would only get involved if JCRAR rejects the superintendent’s standards, which is not a foregone conclusion.

Both the Senate majority leader and the chairman of the Senate education committee have indicated that SB 619 in its current form does not have sufficient support among senators to pass.  At this time, it is unclear whether any amendments will be introduced that may improve the bill's chances of success in the Senate.  (On the Assembly side, the Assembly education committee had scheduled a vote on Assembly Bill 617, which had been amended to mirror SB 619, for February 20.  However, AB 617 was removed from the committee's agenda at the last minute.  The vote has not been rescheduled.)

As a member of the Assembly Select Committee on Common Core Standards, which held the hearings that inspired AB 617 and SB 619, I have been following these bills closely, and I will continue to do so.