Sampling the Strong Stew of Thoughts at Eckstein Hall Education Conference

Given the long list of controversial and major decisions to be made soon as the process of setting Wisconsin’s state budget for the next two years comes to a head, it was remarkable how much agreement there was among speakers at the wide-ranging conference on kindergarten through twelfth grade education policy Monday at Eckstein Hall.

“Pivotal Points: A Forum on Key Wisconsin Education Issues as Big Decisions Approach” brought together key figures involved in politics, schools, and education policy before a full-house audience in the Appellate Courtroom.

Yes, there were differences. But speakers covering a spectrum of views found a lot in common, including the need for stable, adequate funding of schools and stable, effective approaches to dealing with assessing students and tackling the challenges of schools where success is not common.

The four-hour conference opened with welcoming remarks from Marquette University President Michael R. Lovell and ended with something close to agreement by a Republican and Democrat involved in State Assembly education policy that “low performing” schools need support and help more than they need to be closed.

Continue ReadingSampling the Strong Stew of Thoughts at Eckstein Hall Education Conference

The Chief’s Lawsuit

220px-Shirley_AbrahamsonA lawsuit filed in federal court by a sitting Chief Justice of a state Supreme Court against her colleagues is certainly unusual, if not unprecedented.  The reaction to the filing of the complaint in Abrahamson v. Neitzel  by the mainstream media has ranged from viewing the lawsuit as comedy (The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: “Will the Real Chief Justice Please Stand”) to viewing this latest development as part of an ongoing tragedy (The New Yorker: “The Destruction of the Wisconsin Supreme Court”).  However, the legal question at the heart of the Chief’s lawsuit is actually quite interesting.

Does the new method for selecting a Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court take effect in the middle of the sitting Chief Justice’s term, or does it take effect upon the conclusion of the term of the current Chief?

Complicating the issue is the fact that an $8,000 salary differential exists between the position of Chief Justice and the other six Justices on the Court.  Removing Justice Abrahamson from her current position as Chief would result in the immediate loss of this portion of her salary.  Moreover, a mid-term reduction in salary appears to be prohibited by Article IV of the Wisconsin Constitution.

Continue ReadingThe Chief’s Lawsuit

Katie Maloney Perhach Discusses Her Leadership Role at Quarles & Brady

Marquette Law alum Katie Maloney Perhach discusses her leadership role at Quarles & Brady in this interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.  She is managing partner for the Milwaukee office and the chair of its Financial Institutions Litigation Group.

Continue ReadingKatie Maloney Perhach Discusses Her Leadership Role at Quarles & Brady