2000 WI 133

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports.

No. 99-3297-OA

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

FILED

DEC 28, 2000

Cornelia G. Clark

Clerk of Supreme Court

Madison, WI

Wisconsin Professional Police

Association, Inc., John Charewicz, David

Mahoney, Susan Armagost, Steven Urso and

State Engineering Association, by its

President, Thomas H. Miller, David

Buschkopf, Ross Johnson, Melvin

Sensenbrenner, Bernard Kranz and Thomas

H. Miller,

Petitioners,

v.

George Lightbourn, Secretary of the

Wisconsin Department of Administration,

Jack C. Voight, Wisconsin State

Treasurer, Wisconsin Education

Association Council, by its President

Terry Craney and its Vice-President, Stan

Johnson, and Donald Krahn, Margaret

Guertler, Gerald Martin and Phyllis Pope,

Respondents.

MOTION to dissolve injunction. Motion denied.

¶1 PER CURIAM.   On December 29, 1999, this court enjoined the Employee Trust Funds Board, the Department of Employee Trust Funds, and Eric Stanchfield, Secretary of the Department of Employee Trust Funds, as well as all petitioners and respondents in this matter, from implementing or enforcing 1999 Wisconsin Act 11 and 1999 Wisconsin Act 12 until further order of this court. The court thereafter granted leave to commence an original action. The original action was briefed by the parties and argued before this court on October 4, 2000.

¶2 On December 20, 2000, respondents Wisconsin Education Association Council et al. (WEAC) moved this court for relief pending final disposition of the appeal. Specifically, WEAC asked this court to dissolve the preliminary injunction with respect to four sections of 1999 Wisconsin Act 11, namely, Sections 12, 14, 25, and 26.

¶3 On December 23, 2000, this court ordered petitioners Wisconsin Professional Police Association, Inc. et al. and State Engineering Association et al. and respondents George Lightbourn et al. to respond to the WEAC motion by noon on December 27, 2000. They have done so, and objections have been set forth to each aspect of WEAC's motion.

¶4 We have carefully examined the motion for interim relief and the responses thereto, as well as the additional filing by WEAC, and we deny the motion. The moving party has not established grounds for granting the motion.

By the Court.¾The motion is denied.