While 'it was her job to do this' applies in some cases, it certainly does not apply here.
...A judge had disagreed with the local county saying it was wrong to make the man move his house. The appeals court overruled the judge. The state Supreme Court was unanimous in its decision siding with the judge and allowing the man to not have to move his house.
Although she was not listed on court documents as the attorney of record, and while acknowledging the decision was fair, Kloppenburg was interviewed by the media and praised the case for reinforcing the rights of the state to enforce shoreline zoning codes. She said the case “’reconfirms the paramount interest of the state, of all of us, in the protection of our waters through shore land zoning.” (Wisconsin State Journal, July 2, 1998.)
Much more telling is Kloppenburg's confusion over the question 'who sets public policy?' and her lobbying efforts on behalf of DNR.
Kloppenburg has also been at the center of opposing state Legislative attempts to rein in the power of the DNR and state Department of Justice when it comes to environmental enforcement (she has supported the DNR’s greater pursuit of power in court). In some of those cases, which reached the state Supreme Court, incumbent Justice David Prosser disagreed with Kloppenburg, who argued for the DNR to have more power, and the Legislature to have less, when it came to disputes between the state and private landowners.
Public policy is set by the Legislature and/or the Executive branches. It is executed by the agencies, and when the public policy changes, the agencies must execute those changes.
It is unseemly for State agency lawyers to lobby legislators for "mo' power!!" insofar as such lawyers are public servants, not public masters.
At least, that's the way it should be.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment