State Bar of Wisconsin Return to wisbar.org Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission Decisions


[WP]

Office of the Clerk

WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS

110 East Main Street, Suite 215

P.O. Box 1688

Madison, Wisconsin 53701-1688

Telephone (608) 266-1880

Facsimile (608) 267-0640

Web Site: www.courts.state.wi.us

DISTRICT II

July 31, 2001

To:

Jack D. Walker

Douglas E. Witte

Melli, Walker, Pease & Ruhly, S.C.

P.O. Box 1664

Madison, WI 53701-1664

Brett C. Petranech

Kelly & Petranech

122 East Olin Avenue, Ste. 195

Madison, WI 53713

William H. Ramsey

Asst. Attorney General

P.O. Box 7857

Madison, WI 53707-7857

[Decision No. 29659-E]

[NOTE: This document was re-keyed by WERC. Original pagination has been retained.]

You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following order:

Commission, et al.

Before Nettesheim, J.

The issue in this appeal involves a proposal by the Racine Unified School District concerning in-service training for teachers. When the District and the Racine Education Association reached an impasse on the proposal, the District unilaterally implemented it. The dispute related to the parties' contracts for 1997-99 and 1999-2001.

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel has recently reported that a proposed contract between the parties was expected to be ratified on July 30, 2001. It appears that the issue presented in this appeal may be rendered moot by the settlement.

A matter is moot if a determination is sought which cannot have an effect on an existing controversy. See City of Racine v. J-T Enterprises of America, Inc., 64 Wis. 2d 691, 700, 221 N.W.2d 869 (1974). A reviewing court will usually decline to address moot issues. See State

ex. rel. Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Inc. v. JCRAR, 73 Wis. 2d 234, 236, 243 N.W.2d 497 (1976). All parties to this appeal are therefore directed to file responses on or before August 10, 2001, advising this court whether the proposed contract was ratified and, if so, whether the contract resolves the "in-service/impasse" issue addressed in the briefs.

Upon the foregoing reasons,

IT IS ORDERED that on or before August 10, 2001, the parties shall file responses advising this court whether the proposed contract was ratified and, if so, whether the contract resolves the "in-service/impasse" issue addressed in the briefs.

Cornelia G. Clark

Clerk of Court of Appeals

2