The Role of the Wisconsin Attorney General in Charity Oversight: A Review of Past Practice, Current Law, and Their Implications

“The Role of the Wisconsin Attorney General in Charity Oversight:  A Review of Past Practice, Current Law, and Their Implications,” a program co-sponsored by the Law School and the Helen Bader Institute for Nonprofit Management at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, unfolded last Thursday in a packed room with an audience comprised of nonprofit executives, attorneys who counsel nonprofits, and, of course, students.  The lunchtime event began with introductions by Dean Joseph Kearney and the Helen Bader Institute’s Executive Director, John Palmer Smith.  Next, Barb Duffy, the Program Manager for Research at the Helen Bader Institute, set the stage by highlighting issues addressed in her article published last May in the Exempt Organization Tax Review.  The program’s three panelists included two attorneys from the Wisconsin Attorney General’s office, Steven P. Means and Charlotte Gibson, as well as a nonprofit legal scholar, Evelyn Brody.  The panelists addressed the Wisconsin Attorney General’s ability to oversee charities under current Wisconsin law, the practices of other state Attorneys General in charity oversight, and the recent Conserve School case.  Audio of the program is available on the Law School’s webcast page.

Continue ReadingThe Role of the Wisconsin Attorney General in Charity Oversight: A Review of Past Practice, Current Law, and Their Implications

Brown v. Board of Education as a Disputing Process Lesson

supreme courtLast week, we were privileged to hear Professor Michael Klarman speak on “Why Brown v. Board of Education Was a Hard Case.”  This was one of the most enjoyable and interesting talks I have heard in a long time.  I highly recommend it, and you can click here to get the webcast.  My guess is that this would still be as funny and insightful on the audio.   There were two particular points that he made in reviewing the history of the case that linked to conflict resolution theory that I want to highlight here.

First, Klarman noted that, contrary to typical practice, the justices facing the Brown decision did not take a straw poll at their first conference discussing the case.  In fact, as he notes, by his count, there would have been only four votes to overturn Plessy at the beginning and nothing near the unanimity that the Court presented in its decision the following year.  What was the import of not taking this poll?  As Klarman notes, this allowed the justices to change their mind and to preserve fluidity in their thinking.  In other words, the justices did not lock themselves into an opening position that then they would feel necessary to defend throughout the discussions. 

The impact of publicly locking yourself in to an opening position is problematic, as we know. 

Continue ReadingBrown v. Board of Education as a Disputing Process Lesson

Criminal Appeals Conference Podcast

I had a great time at the Criminal Appeals Conference here on Monday and Tuesday, with an impressive line-up of speakers covering a wide variety of topics, from the historical development of the harmless error doctrine to the dysfunctional handling of death penalty appeals in California to federal sentencing appeals to the failure of appellate courts to make use of the science on eyewitness identification (among many other topics).  A podcast of the Conference is now available here.

Continue ReadingCriminal Appeals Conference Podcast