Zac Schultz:
After the whirlwind extraordinary session, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said Republicans didn’t get a fair opportunity to tell the public what the bill does outside the media. Joining us now from Green Bay to talk about what the bill does is Representative John Nygren, co-chair of the Joint Finance Committee who joins us from Green Bay. Thanks for your time today.

John Nygren:
Good afternoon Zac. Good to be with you.

Zac Schultz:
Now the full language of the extraordinary session bills weren’t available until late last Friday. You held a hearing on Monday, floor on Tuesday, voted Wednesday. If you wanted more time to talk about the bills to the public, why didn’t you slow down the process?

John Nygren:
Well, I mean, I think that is a fair recap of the way things happened. I just don’t know that that’s outside the normal legislative process, especially when you’re dealing with Joint Finance. When they do go through Joint Finance, the amount of research and information that is provided by Legislative Fiscal Bureau, Im not sure that any bill that goes through that process hasn’t been properly vetted. So regardless of whether we got a fair shot in the media or not, I believe these bills were properly vetted.

Zac Schultz:
Youve described this as rebalancing the power between the governor and the legislature. Most of the changes in this bill give the legislature more oversight on things like administrative rules, gubernatorial appointments, changes to state and federal programs. Is this the legislature’s version of the veto?

John Nygren:
I think what this is, you mentioned rebalancing of power. Some of these things, I believe 24 of the 35 different measures, were either already acted on by the legislature. I know a number of them were in the state budget. They were either codifying existing practice. They’re addressing federal or state court action or, as you said, providing some type of legislative oversight over administrative action. I don’t know that I would call it a veto, but this is the role of the legislature. And Tony Evers has committed to working with the Republican legislature. This gives us a fair shot to actually do that in a balanced way. He comes in with a great deal of power, especially when you look at the veto pen that he has. One of the most powerful in the nation. I guess our view moving forward, we didn’t address that veto authority at all in this special session. What we’re looking at moving forward is should bills that have passed the legislature, both houses, signed into law by the governor, should an incoming governor have the ability to undo those with a stroke of the pen and we don’t believe so.

Zac Schultz:
Now, there’s a change in here that says the Joint Committee on the Review of Administrative Rules can now suspend rules created by state agencies multiple times even if the legislature doesn’t pass a law to override the rule. So essentially this committee run by legislative leaders can permanently suspend agency rules? Is that accurate?

John Nygren:
I believe that is accurate. But just remember why the administrative rule process exists. It exists to address laws that have been passed by the legislature to address other statutes that it might apply to, et cetera, to make them work within the administrative process. Legislative intent has to be an important part of that conversation. We’ve experienced a number of cases over the years where the administrative rules and the legislative intent are nowhere near what where they should be.

Zac Schultz:
Now, another part of the bill deals with the WEDC and the final version of the bill keeps Republicans in control of the agency until next September. Only then can Tony Evers select his own CEO. Why that time line?

John Nygren:
I think that’s for continuity. I mean there’s a number of contracts that are pending as we speak or being worked on as we speak. Tony Evers has kind of taken a hostile approach to WEDC, even though in my area of the state has been widely successful. So he’s going to have his opportunity, his day, to be in charge of making that appointment. But in the meantime, as we work through these contracts that are pending, we thought there should be some continuity.

Zac Schultz:
Now, WEDC has oversight on the Foxconn deal. What’s in the works between Foxconn and the state legislature between now and September that you wouldn’t want Governor Evers to be able to alter or change?

John Nygren:
I’m personally not aware of any type of conversations going on between those two entities. I do know — I believe I saw on the news today that Governor Walker mentioned that WEDC is working with Kimberly-Clark. Kimberly-Clark, a company that has a facility in my hometown of Marinette. Of course, I want to see Kimberly-Clark stay in Wisconsin. That’s a perfect example of how that continuity of relationships and positions need to continue between now and when Governor Evers takes office.

Zac Schultz:
Another big set of changes has to do with the legislative authority over the attorney general. Essentially Josh Kaul won’t be able to pull out of the federal lawsuit threatening the Affordable Care Act and he can’t even settle a case without the legislature’s consent. Is that a separation of powers issue? Do you think that will be subject to a lawsuit?

John Nygren:
Well, I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s lawsuits involved with these changes. Yet I would say something that kind of took me by surprise is there are no constitutional powers given to the AG. The only powers that are given to the attorney general’s office are given to them by the legislature. So having us be involved in those conversations I believe is completely appropriate.

Zac Schultz:
Now, a few years ago, the legislature tried to require gubernatorial approval of agency rules created by Tony Evers when he was superintendent of public instruction. The Supreme Court stuck that down because he’s a constitutionally-elected official. Is that a similar parallel to the attorney general? Do you think that will be at the heart of any lawsuit?

John Nygren:
Well I mean, I think — we, the action on the — dealing with DPI, we basically left current law in place. I think we’ll let the court case play out and see where it goes. But I do believe that giving Tony Evers the same expectations for when it comes to dealing with his Department of Public Instruction as we gave to Scott Walker is completely appropriate.

Zac Schultz:
All right. Representative Nygren, thank you for your time today.

John Nygren:
Always good to be with you Zac. Thank you. Have a good weekend.