SAVES TAXPAYERS DOLLARS

Governor: “’John Matthews, Thompson’s chief of staff, said … eliminating the office would save about $350,000 over two years.’” Wis. State Journal, 2/16/95

Response: “This is a low cost program and it has stood up for the public as it was designed to do.”  Attorney General Jim Doyle. Milwaukee Journal, 2/19/95

The taxpayer “saving” by eliminating the office with two fulltime attorneys and staff over two years amounted to .00001166 (about one one thousandth of one percent) of the $30 billion budget.  This represents less than $0.05 (a nickel) per Wisconsin citizen per year.  Compare to the $1.5 billion budget of DOT, $437.5 million budget of DNR, $288.6 million budget of DILHR and $57 million budget of DATCP --- four state agencies the Public Intervenor is charged to watchdog.
 

PUBLIC INTERVENOR REPRESENTS ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS

Governor:  “Matthews said Thompson … proposed eliminating the office because on many occasions the intervenor’s office has filed lawsuits against the state on behalf of well-funded environmental groups.”  (Wis. State Journal, 2/16/95)  “They are state-financed lawyers for the environmental movement,” [Governor’s media spokesman Kevin] Keane says in explaining the Governor’s decision.”  (Milw. Journal, 2/19/95)

Response:  The Public Intervenor office has never represented environmental groups or their interests in courts or any other forums.   The Public Intervenor represents, as required by law, “public rights in the water and other natural resources of the state.”  Environmental groups represent their members’ interests in lawsuits, and do not necessarily represent “public rights” in our natural resources.  You did not have to be a member of an environmental group to get help from the Public Intervenor.  “Public rights” in our natural resources are not the special interest of environmental groups or private individuals --- public rights are shared by all.  The Public Intervenor has sometimes differed with environmental groups on issues, including mining, groundwater and pesticide regulation.

Wisconsin environmental groups are not wealthy and depend on underpaid staff and volunteers.  At the time the Intervenor Office was abolished the 3 largest statewide groups had few legal staff: Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade had one unpaid volunteer attorney and Citizens for a Better Environment had one and a half attorney positions, one serving as director (obviously busy) and the other doing policy advocacy (not suing in courts.)  Sierra Club - John Muir Chapter had no staff attorneys and was forced to seek pro bono (donated) attorneys for rarely-filed court cases.
 

PUBLIC INTERVENOR DUPLICATES DEPT. OF JUSTICE AND PRIVATE ATTORNEYS

Governor:  “There are plenty of lawyers in the Department of Justice or private attorneys which can file such lawsuits,… he [Governor Thompson] said.”  (Green Bay News Chronicle, 2/15/95)

Response:  Department of Justice lawyers do not represent “public rights” in state natural resources.  They represent the agencies the public intervenor occasionally sues.   Private attorneys represent the interests of their private clients and do not represent “public rights.”  Only the public intervenor represented “public rights” in the state’s natural resources.
 

IT MAKES NO SENSE FOR THE STATE TO SUE ITSELF

Governor:  “’The Governor doesn’t believe it makes sense for the state to pay lawyers to sue the state,” Keane said.”  (Milw. Journal, 2/19/95)

Response:   It makes all the sense in the world.  This was what the legislature had directed the Public Intervenor to do since it created the office in 1967.

“[Attorney General Jim] Doyle says the office has saved the state money over the years.  ‘It has proved to be extremely cost-effective to have an intervenor question the policy decisions of state agencies before they had gone too far in implementing them.  …  If the agencies had gone on in some of these cases, they most certainly would have faced more costly lawsuits from environmental groups.  The intervenors have helped to correct certain activities before they grew into a major liability for the state,’ Doyle said.”  (Milw. Journal, 2/19/95)

In the 1952 Muench v. Public Service Commission case, the state supreme court upheld the right of the state Conservation Department to sue the state Public Service Commission over the latter’s licensing of a dam on the nationally renowned Namakagon River in order to protect public rights in state waters.   There, Justice Curry wrote:

“To hold that the Public Service Commission should not only decide between conflicting interests … but should also represent the state in protecting public rights, would make the commission both judge and advocate at the same time.  Such a concept violates our sense of fair play and due process…”

This checks and balances system envisioned by the Legislature in the creation of the DNR has been lost with the Public Intervenor abolished.

- more about the Public Intervenor -