Rule-Making Notices
Notice of Hearing
Administration
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to ss.
16.004 (1) and
227.11 (2) (a), Stats., the Department of Administration will hold a public hearing on the emergency rule and proposed permanent rule to amend Chapter
Adm 2, relating to use of state buildings and facilities.
Hearing Information
Date: Friday, February 21, 2014
Time: 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Location: St. Croix Room CR 136
WI Department of Administration
Building
101 East Wilson Street, 1st Floor
Madison, Wisconsin 53713
Appearance at Hearing and Submission of Written Comments
Interested persons are invited to appear at the hearing and present comments on the proposed rule. Persons appearing may make an oral presentation but are also urged to submit facts, opinions and arguments in writing as well. Facts, opinions and argument may also be submitted in writing without personal appearance. Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted to:
Donna Sorenson
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 7864
Madison, WI 53707-7864
Fax: (608) 267-3842
The deadline for submitting comments to the Department is 4:30 p.m. on February 24, 2014.
Availability of Rules
Analysis prepared by the Department of Administration
Statutes interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
The department is the managing authority of numerous state properties and is required to “Have charge of, operate and maintain . . . the state capitol building . . . and such other state properties as are designated by law." s.
16.84 (1), Stats. “The department shall promulgate under ch.
227, and shall enforce or have enforced, rules of conduct for property leased or managed by the department." S.
16.846 (1), Stats. Additionally, “the managing authority of any facility owned by the state . . . may permit its use for free discussion of public questions, or for civic, social or recreational activities." s.
16.845 (1), Stats. Further, “Whoever does or attempts an act for which a permit is required under this section without first obtaining a permit may be fined . . . or imprisoned . . . or both." S.
16.845 (1), Stats.
Related statute or rule
Summary and plain language analysis
The objective of the rule is to obtain compliance regarding use of State facilities, including the capitol building. This objective will be achieved by codifying historical department practices and more clearly detailing certain provisions of the administrative code as informed by judicial interpretations.
Section 1 codifies the historical practice of the state capitol police in enforcing the law in legislative areas upon invitation by the Legislature.
See 1971 Act 183.
Section 2 codifies historical categories of permits granted by the Wisconsin state capitol police, defines the categories, and defines “spontaneous event," which is a mechanism allowing for expressive activity in response to unforeseen and newsworthy events.
Section 3 makes clear that although the Wisconsin state capitol police may enforce the law in any area of the building, at the invitation of the legislature, the legislature retains management authority over areas reserved for its use in the capitol building. Additionally, section 3 codifies the historical practice of the Wisconsin state capitol police of granting permits to any person, and not only to any “governmental body or official, or any nonprofit, fraternal, religious, or veterans' organization."
Section 4 codifies historical practices with respect to the grant and denial of permits, and extends those same protections to the new category of events held under advance notices, as providing such protections naturally arises out of the recent settlement agreement. Further, section 4 creates as categories of use `spontaneous events' and `advance notices' for the reasons set forth above. Moreover, section 4 allows for use of the capitol building's rotunda by 12 or fewer persons without notice and without constituting a “spontaneous event" within the meaning of this chapter. Finally, section 4 codifies the department's policy on severance clauses and appeal procedure.
Section 5 codifies the historical practice of the Wisconsin state capitol police of resolving conflicts of use on a first-come first-served basis. This section provides that the department may publish content-neutral guidance limiting or explaining any potential imposition of charges arising out of the use of State facilities. The section codifies the historical practice of the Wisconsin state capitol police of not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation in the use management of State facilities.
Section 6 provides that permitting requirements for exhibits shall not be applied to persons who simply wear clothing bearing an expressive message, or who simply hold signs bearing an expressive message, provided that the sign is of a certain size.
Section 7 clarifies that a person who creates a hazardous condition is subject to citation under the existing code. Section 7 further clarifies that hazardous conditions can be created by the deployment of not only holiday trees and holiday decorations, but by similar exhibit items that are not related to a holiday.
Section 8 clarifies that there is no conflict between s.
Adm 2.08 (1) and s.
Adm 2.11, in accordance with standard rules of legal interpretation, and places a reasonable limitation on the retention of items by the Wisconsin state capitol police.
Section 9 clarifies existing prohibitions against conducting or participating in events occurring without permits. Prohibition against participating in events is redefined in accordance with recent settlement. Clarity to the sub-section is sought by separating the violations for conducting such events from violations for participating in such events into separate sub-sections. The potential offense of occupying space is clarified by removing excess language from the paragraph. Additionally, introductory statements, which do not constitute elements leading to a citation, are moved to the appropriate introductory clause for the section. Finally, a new paragraph is added, codifying a decibel limitation currently found in policy, and lowering it in accordance with an expert witness report commissioned by the Wisconsin Department of Justice.
Section 10 continues the attempt to clarify existing prohibitions against unauthorized events by simplifying the arrangement and using newly defined terms. Section 10 also improves protections for the public by eliminating an alternative rationale for prosecution.
Section 11 also continues the attempt to clarify existing prohibitions by eliminating language that, substantively, is now located in other portions of this subsection. The result is a sub-section that is less complicated to read and interpret.
Summary of and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulations
Existing federal regulations vary by agency, state, and facility, and are too numerous to permit meaningful comparative analysis. However, the department notes that no protests or the like are permitted within the United States capitol building, and that persons attempting to do so have been successfully prosecuted under the federal criminal code.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
All adjacent states have similar administrative code provisions. Illinois requires permits for demonstrations or other events to be submitted at least 48 hours in advance of the use, unless the requestor can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the cause of the event was unknown or resulted from changed circumstances. Michigan does not permit demonstrations or other activities without written authorization. Michigan also requires written authorization for displays, and requires that such requests “normally" be submitted 30 days in advance. Likewise, Minnesota requires a written permit, with the State and the applicant reaching agreement on topics including, “security, police protection, liability for damages, and cleanup of areas" prior to issuance of a permit. Iowa also requires a written application and approval by written letter or a memorandum of understanding signed by the event director.
Effect on Small business
The proposed rule changes will have no impact upon small businesses.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The proposed rule will not affect small businesses.
Fiscal Estimate
Modification of the existing rules should decrease the costs of gaining compliance with the rules by reducing the number of issues currently subject to litigation. In the long term, modification of existing rules to conform to practice and to expand the legally recognized categories of permitted users should increase the legitimacy of the permitting process for the general public, leading to greater voluntary compliance and reduced costs.
Summary of Economic Impact Analysis
The rule modifications are expected to have no economic impact. A copy of the Economic Impact analysis may be obtained from the agency at no charge by contacting Donna Sorenson at the contact information listed on the first page of this Notice.
Small Business Regulatory Coordinator
Joe Knilans
Telephone: 608-267-7873
Contact Person
Andrew Hitt
Department of Administration
101 E. Wilson Street, 10th Floor
Madison, WI 53702
(608) 266-1741
June 14, 2013.
