State Rep. Jeff Wood was arrested for drunk driving yet again. I don’t think there’s a single soul in Wisconsin who’s shocked that Wood was arrested again, but I think it’s clear he needs to resign his seat in the State Assembly immediately so he can focus on addressing what’s clearly a HUGE problem with alcohol and possibly prescription medication/illegal drugs.
However, while I do think Rep. Wood should resign his seat in the Assembly to focus all his time and energy on addressing his demons, I think leadership in the Assembly should also take strong steps to get their own house in order when it comes to alcohol abuse, and as the Recess Supervisor notes, they could start with a few simple changes to their rules:
– Legislators are not permitted to serve alcohol at fundraisers, nor attend fundraisers or lobbying events at which alcohol is served. Think of it as a personal behavior code for people who need one. Plus, it ends these interest group drinkathons at various venues around the Capitol once and for all.
– A legislator who incurs an OWI conviction in office automatically surrenders their seniority within the body and is barred from holding a leadership position for two full terms following the conviction. That means giving up chairmanships and surrendering any additional staff that their seniority or position affords them.
– A legislator who incurs a second OWI conviction while in the Legislature is automatically expelled from the body.
Seems pretty common sense to me, and if legislators truly cared about setting a good example on how to change a drink-happy culture here in Wisconsin, they’d start with themselves.
Kinda reminds me of the Blago situation. What do you do when somebody lacks the decency to step down? And I have mixed views on legislation working to remove him immediately. Yes he certainly should be out – today. But it’s a dangerous precedent…where’s the line? Also, the argument…the people put him in, they should be the ones to get him out is compelling. Finally, the other complicating factor is that Woods has not been convicted yet. Sure we all know he’s guilty, but our presumption of innocence legal framework can’t have exceptions or it’ll fall apart.
While it’s problematic dealing with Woods, I think the idea of formalizing some rules so that it can’t hapen in the future is a really good idea. The second two points by RS are right on. I think his first point, about no alcohol at fundraisers, seems a bit overboard. Drunk driving is a huge issue for me and I support very strict enforcement & punishment. But I have no problem with legal alcohol consumption. Of course I’ll admit to never having been at any kind of political fundraiser so maybe if I had, I’d think otherwise.
Ultimately, I’m in agreement that if his constituents want him out now, they should initiate a recall effort. They’re the ones who should decide whether Rep. Wood should serve out the remainder of his term, not folks like Steve Nass.
And the key phrase is “if his constituents want him out now”.
Sometimes we think of “his constituents” as a single voice when it is often a chorus that may not be singing the same song.
A recall effort is a large undertaking that a handful may not have the money or time to perform.
Also there’s the limitation that a recall can’t take place until the individual has been in office for one year. So the recall process can’t even begin for Woods yet. Add in how long it actually takes to get the signatures and carry out the election, and you have a sort of a worst case scenario here. I don’t know – I can see the one year wait as being reasonable. That’s what is so tricky about this one for me. On the one hand, I believe Woods should be out – right now. On the other, I want to be consistent and follow a general set of rules that applies to all.
Actually, he has been in office for more than a year, so he could be recalled.
I would oppose establishing specific rules for ousting members. One simply cannot list all the reasons why a person should be ousted.
However, we should examine the process by which a member’s behavior is brought to a review, a recommendation, and a vote. There may be room to adjust that process that results in intiating more discussion and deliberation on a member’s behavior.
Locke, I am not confident that legal guilt or innocence of a crime alone should determine whether action should be taken by legislators to oust one of their own.
Some good points PB.
Yes, we can’t ever pre-determine every scenario. But I don’t know that that is a reason to prevent coming up with some of them. One thing I bring up often & try to consider is: is this a knee-jerk reaction to a very rare, edge-case situation? If that’s the case I think we’re generally better off waiting a little while to let emotions cool off and we can be more objective.
And I get where your coming from on your last point. But it’s just so problematic to say, well we know he’s guilty… We just don’t know with enough certainty. I’m not a big conspiracy guy (well in fiction it can be fun) but maybe a cop sets a politician up because he has a problem. I do think there are things an elected official can do that might not be illegal, but possibly still worthy of dismissal. It would certainly be an interesting discussion.
No alcohol at fundraisers? I don’t trust a teetotaler. This is Wisconsin, not Utah.
Zach, just because you don’t like Nass it doesn’t mean Wood should not be expelled. The recall process would not force him from office until the end of February at the earliest. The time to remove Wood is now.
Wiggy, I didn’t mention State Rep. Nass once in my entry, nor does it make a bit of difference that he’s the one who is pushing for the expulsion. I’d have expressed the same opinion of the attempt to expel Rep. Wood if it had been submitted by a Democrat, because I think it’s a slippery slope.
Zach, you have not mentioned the Wood is an Independent! We all know if he was a conservative you would have been shouting it as loud as you can with bolds and caps.
The one year is for the term and there is a time limit towards the end of a term.
Jeff, you’re such a cynic.