NOW:53045:USA01489
http://widgets.journalinteractive.com/cache/JIResponseCacher.ashx?duration=5&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.wp.myweather.net%2FeWxII%2F%3Fdata%3D*USA01489
12°
H 14° L 3°
Clear | 17MPH

Legislative Update

Fairness for Victims Act, Sullivan, Tort, Intentional Harm, Department of Transportation, DOT, Motorcycle Safety, Roads, U-turn, Personal Flotation Devices, Children, Indoor Air Quality, Schools

Four bills that I authored passed the Senate last week. Read about each piece of legislation below:

Senate Bill 182: The Fairness for Victims Act

Right now, if you are injured as a result of another person’s negligence, you have three years to file a lawsuit. But if someone hurts you in an intentional act, you only have two years to take action. That means if you slip on your neighbor’s walk, you have a three-year window to file suit. But if your neighbor punches you in the face, you have only two years.

It seems counterintuitive to essentially cut a break to a wrongdoer in the case of intentional harm. This bill will level the playing field by giving victims of intentional and unintentional acts three years to file suit.

The bill was inspired by stories of unjust treatment for victims of intentional harm, including a high profile case in 2004 where delinquents spread plastic wrap from one side of the road to the other on a darkened street.  Two bikers crashed their motorcycles as a result. The victims filed suit a little over two years later, expecting the usual three year statute of limitations that applies in most accident cases, only to learn they had missed the statute of limitations deadline simply because the delinquents’ act was intentional.

Due to financial and other barriers to the courts, it can sometimes take several years to prepare for and file a claim, even when a victim has a strong case.   

Senate Bill 278: U-Turns

This bill will help clear up congestion and confusion on Wisconsin roadways. Current law prohibits a driver from making a U-turn at a controlled intersection, even when there is no sign specifically prohibiting U-turns. Wisconsin is currently the only state to completely prohibit U-turns at controlled intersections. 

Senate Bill 278 will allow drivers to perform U-turns at controlled intersections unless there is a sign specifically prohibiting it.  Making traffic laws easier to understand is a major component in making our roads less dangerous. Legalizing U-turns where safe will also allow for lower traffic congestion and better access to businesses.

Senate Bill 162: Personal Flotation Devices for Children

This bill is a mirror of the federal regulations that require all children twelve or under to wear a lifejacket in federal waterways.  It would require all children under ten to have a lifejacket on if the boat is in motion (not tied up or stationary with an anchor) in all Wisconsin waters.

Wisconsin is currently one of only two states that do not have a lifejacket requirement for children.

Senate Bill 41: Indoor Environmental Quality

Senate Bill 41 will help give schools a protocol to follow when dealing with indoor environmental quality issues.  It requires the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) to convene a task force to develop a model management plan for indoor environmental quality in public and private schools.  Using the DPI plan as a model, school districts will be able to adopt a plan that best meets the needs of their community.

28 states already have laws regarding indoor air quality in schools, and it is important to help schools in Wisconsin solve their indoor air quality issues.  An informal survey and records requests from the Wisconsin Department of Commerce and the former Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services identified almost 100 school buildings with concerns about indoor environmental quality. 

Failure to prevent and respond to indoor air problems promptly can have grave consequences for our teachers and students, including health problems, reduced performance and absenteeism.  This legislation has support from the Association of Wisconsin School Administrators, the Wisconsin Association of School Boards, the Wisconsin Association of School Business Administrators, the Wisconsin Council for Administrators of Special Services, and the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC). The bill passed by a vote of 27 to 5.

All of the above bills will now head to the Assembly.

Welcome to our new commenting system.
  • You can register through your Facebook account, sign on with your Facebook password and use the same photo and screen name. If you don’t want your account tied to Facebook, you can keep your registration through our site.
  • You can now personalize your Journal Sentinel account with a photo even if the account is not tied to Facebook.
  • You can now reply to comments. Replies will be threaded to make conversations easier to follow.
  • You can continue to sort comments according to oldest first, newest first, and most thumbs up.
  • Your comments are archived on your own page.
  • Please notify us if you see personal insults or other irresponsible comments. We reserve the right to eliminate any comments and block any commenter who is not civil and respectful of others.

Discussion guidelines | Privacy policy | Terms of use

Limit of 2000 characters, 2000 characters remaining

Sort by
  1. A number of years ago, a good friend of mine was almost killed in a nearly head-on crash caused by a 4 or 5-time drunk driver (I don't remember the exact number) DRIVING THE WRONG WAY on that 2-lane ramp from EB I-894 to SB I-94 by the Airport! For whatever reason (luck?), he was able to swerve out the way quickly and 'only' get side-swiped by this drunk.

    I went to the court proceedings for this thing to see what type of punishment was given to this drunk for nearly killing my friend. It wasn't much, trust me. It turned out that the drunk was driving his wife's car and as a result, it could not be confiscated. It's a very safe bet that this guy was driving his wife's car every previous time he was caught OWI because he KNEW it couldn't be confiscated. I'm sure all repeat drunk drivers know about this loophole, so they drive somebody else's car. No matter who's vehicle is being driven by the repeat drunk driver, it should be confiscated in my opinion. I rarely let anybody drive my car, but when I do, I don't let known drunks drive it.

    Senator Sullivan introduced a 'Substitute Amendment #2' yesterday to this bill that, according to the Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau, "This substitute amendment eliminates the option of ordering the person’s vehicle to be immobilized or seized and sold at auction.". Looks to me like confiscation is officially off the table from now on thanks to Senator Sullivan's 'Substitute Amendment #2'. Am I wrong, Mr. Steinberg? Anybody?

    http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB66-SSA2.pdf

    I'm a bit surprised at Senator Sullivan for putting this into his amendment after all the discussion about it on his own blog right here. Maybe he doesn't read the comments? Anything's possible. Nobody advocated for PREVENTING confiscation on his blog. A few, like me, have advocated FOR confiscation.
  2. There are laws for repeat OWI offenders to turn in their vehicle registrations and confiscate their vehicles, unless their are liens or other impediments. Law enforcement is always costly
  3. In my humble opinion Sen. Sullivan has raised the bar by informing the public .
  4. I generally agree with you CS, but you have to wonder why the State Senate thought that ADDING ANOTHER TAX TO LIQUOR PURCHASES was the right way to help pay for these new programs. The Assembly version did not have the Liquor Tax in its version of the Bill, but the Senate took the Assembly Bill and added a new Liquor tax to it. It was only after lots of law-abiding taxpayers voiced their objection to the Senate version that the Senators finally dropped their new tax and instead, put higher fines and fees in place THAT THE OFFENDER WOULD HAVE TO PAY. Now, isn't that the way it's supposed to be? It's a shame that the (D) Senate didn't take my and other people's recommendations on this blog to do exactly that beforehand. Apparently, we're not taxed enough in Wisconsin as far as the (D) Senate is concerned.

    I still am wondering why confiscation of the repeat drunk driver's vehicle is apparently not even within the realm of consideration. That wouldn't pay for the new mandates entirely, but it WOULD reduce the exclusive dependence on the Wisconsin law-abiding taxpayer to fund these initiatives, don't you think? It would also have a practical effect of forcing those people to purchase a replacement vehicle if they want to drive again.
  5. Well back to the subject at hand. I like some of the things you penned senator, but most important in mind is getting the drunk driver laws changed. As Wisconsin drunks have become the brunt of Jay Leno's monologs like the lovely drunk mayor of Sheboygan and the ever popular State Rep Woods, plus there was another one, could we show that we are not a bunch of hicks that only know how to drink. Wisconsin is getting a rep as drunk, like Texas folks all run around with guns. Enough.
  6. Having never had a warrant out for me for any reason, I am not familiar as to what warrants imply a pending arrest and which don't. To me, the terms 'warrant' and 'arrest' are synomous. You seem to know what you're talking about in this regard, Mortified, so I'll defer to your statement.

    The 'out-of-date' generalization you made is incorrect, however. I alerted the local PD about a 2-day old bench warrant for one of my neighbors recently that I saw on CCAP. The cops had absolutely no clue about it. After they verified what I said was true (I was told that they're not 'connected' to CCAP), the punk was taken into custody for 'failure to appear'. In this case, CCAP was quick and accurate, but the other systems were slow. You doubt me? Ask any cop. As tosaoutsider said, "...the public needs to be protected from people like [me]".

    Tosaoutsider, after further review, you're right and my theory isn't as solid as I had originally thought. Thank you for pointing that out. But, on the other hand, wouldn't you like to look up one of your young daughter's new boyfriends to see if he's had any contact with the law before she starts falling for him? Apparently, that won't be allowed any longer if Senator Sullivan's SB375 is passed into law.

    I thought that ALL juvie records were closed to the public on CCAP, so I guess I'm really not sure what this new bill is intending to change. I've made numerous open records requests to the local PD and they routinely come back with names of the juvies involved blacked out. You don't think Senator Sullivan's trying to protect punk kids, do you? I saw a group of kids (fairly new to my neighborhood) being handcuffed and led to the back of a squad a few years back. I asked why, but the PD refused to tell me because they were too young. It would have been nice to know if it was for assault, or shoplifting. Those punk kids are long gone now, thank God.

    I'm not sure I support SB375 or not. Do you? Why or why not?
  7. How can you deny that you're a rumor monger? You're rumor mongering right now. That's the only truth that matters in this discussion. You represent yourself as a truth seeker, but you can't see the truth about your own behavior.

    Again.........the public needs to be protected from people like you.

    After reading the bill, I'm wondering where you're getting the idea that it will restrict public access to CCAP. It appears to be a bill protecting electronic transfer of juvenile records and other information that isn't supposed to be made public.
  8. Stubborn Old Geezer

    Will the disinformation never cease...

    Tax warrants are not the same as an arrest warrant. You don't get taken into custody on a tax warrant as your posting implies. Having a tax warrant is a mechanism that simply alerts the public (mostly potential creditors) that back taxes are owed.

    CCAP in the hands of someone like yourself is a dangerous tool. I would never rely on CCAP to make such a broad assertion. It is flawed and frequently out of date.
  9. I'm a rumor monger? Me? I disagree.

    A 'rumor' would be if I were to tell everybody here that you have bad breath. You may or you may not have bad breath, but since I've never met you (as far as I know), I have no basis in fact to make that statement to others. THAT would be an example of spreading a rumor.

    However, I thought I laid out a pretty interesting set of facts and drew a reasonable conclusion based on those facts. THAT, in and of itself is NOT to be confused with spreading rumors as you claimed I did in this and presumably many other instances.

    You must hate to consider the possibility that I just may be right about Senator Sullivan's REAL, yet not quite transparent motives to introduce SB375 to eliminate people like me from doing basic research about court procedings on semi-prominent people. Admit it. My theory is completely plausible. I mean, if somebody that I was reasonably close to had a warrant out for their arrest for Delinquent Taxes, I'm not so sure I'd want to brag about it. I'd want to keep it as quiet as possible. Totally eliminating it from public view, as if it never happened, is the perfect solution. Bias is not evident in what IS reported, but rather what is NOT reported.

    I always try think outside the box to figure out what the REAL story is on matters like this. Aren't you also interested in the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? The only problem is that the truth is quite often very embarrassing to those who don't want the truth exposed for all to see.

    There may be absolutely, positively no relationship whatsoever between the JAMES SULLIVAN of Whitefish Bay referenced in this Delinquent Tax Warrant and our Senator Jim Sullivan. But, maybe there is... My money says that there is, but admittedly, that's just a reasoned opinion based on a collection of related facts.
  10. I have a very common name. I just looked my name up in CCAP. There were 78 records, three of which were mine and all relating to a civil matter in which I was the plaintiff. The other 75 were for other people, some of whom had the same middle initial as mine and a few of whom had the same middle name. I just looked up John Smith, another common name, and got a message that my request couldn't be processed because there were more than 500 rows.

    The game of gotcha that you and others play with CCAP is the reason the information should be protected. You're abusing it here and now. Other people abuse it. Somebody posted repeatedly on TTS, once, about a conviction that the poster linked to a school official. It was really somebody else's conviction. CCAP has been used to spread embarrassing personal information about a 'Tosa official. Using CCAP to spread vicious, potentially damaging rumors is too easy. It needs to be controlled. Innocent people need to be protected from rumor mongers like you.
Load more comments View all comments Back to top

Page Tools

  • Share

advertisement

Latest Posts