Tobacco Documents Online

February ].6 1984 M~4ORANDUM TO: FROM: Michael J. Kerrigan~ Michael F. Brozek RE: SB80 Assembly Floor Vote Michael, this is a report in narrative form regarding the events of February 14, 1984 surrounding the Assembly action on SB80. I am enclosing an amendment by amendment breakdown, copies of the amendments, the February 15, 1984, January 9, 1984 and February 9, 1984 memos concerning p~nning and strategy for our efforts against SB80. From a strategic standpoint, it was imperative that we fu]]y_~d~zstand our situation with regard to the support that SB80 had in the lower house. During two previous sessions the Assembly passed much tougher versions of this bill and in consideration of the political climate surrounding the "smoking issue" we knew that it would be difficult to defeat this bill. As in our numerous conversations with Legislative Counsel, Jim Wimmer, and consistent with our strategy t~ "amend, amend, amend, beat the clock" the first order of business was to force SB80 back to the Senate for concurrence which could only be done by.the addition of substantive amendments. In our previous conversations we acknowledged the dangers that we faced with this strategy. A strategy such as this hinged on the inclusion of an amendment strong enough to render the bill virtually ineffective without causing our opponents to entrench themselves in an "all or nothing" posture, thus accom- plishing the task of forcing Senate concurrence and si~multaneously "watering" down the bill. We return to our basic dilemma; how can we defeat SB80 and/or, if defeat is not possible, how do we render the bill ineffective? For several weeks prior to the vote constant meetings were in progress with our floor leaders in preparation for Assembly action. This included the drafting by our Legislative Reference Bureau of nearly forty amendments to be used, as needed, on the floor for strategic purposes in controlling the flow of debate and the tide of legislative opinion. We selected Assistant Majority Leader Richard Shoemaker (D), Menonomie, and Minority Leader TommyThompson (R), Elroy, to lead the charge for the industry during floor debate. Both Thompson and Shoemaker,as well as Jim Wimmer and myself, were aware of the fact that the votes did not exist for total defeat of this legislation. They concurred with our decisions to press for an amendment that would exempt private offices and the workplace. It was fully understood that failing that, every effort and every tactical introduction of amendments was to be used to prevent a snowballing effect propelling an una~anded SB80 to the Governor's desk. T!22080122

To: M. J. Kerriga~ Page 2 2/16/84 Although not in vocal or visible positions, we also met with legislators that we consider crucial to our efforts to amend the bill legislators who openly supported the bill but at the same time were wiil~n~ to be "accomodating" to our concerns in our efforts to force Senate action. Three in particular became instrumental in garnering the votes necessary to accom- plish our strategy of inserting a private office/workplace amendment: Representative Walter Kunicki (D), Milwaukee, Majority Leader Gary Johnson, (D), Beloit, and Representative John Robinson (D), Wausau. We relied heavily on the personal relationship enjoyed by our lobbyist Paul Sicula and Rep- resentative Walter Kunicki. Mr. Sicula literally "lived" with Representative Kunicki for three weeks prior to floor action in order to maintain his support and more importantly his considerable debating skills in our efforts to insert a workplace amendment. We understood the difficulties in dealing with Rep- resentative Kunicki in that Kunicki was a co-sponsor of SB80, a registered nurse, chairman of the Assembly Health Committee and committed to passage of SBSO. Representative Gary Johnson, through his long-standing relationship with Jim Wimmer, was the essential "voice of reason" in our efforts to amend this legislation. On Tuesday, February 14, 1984 at 2:30 P.M. the speaker called the reading of SB80 and debate was initiated. It was important from our standpoint to give the perception of power in dealing with members of the opposition. To put it more indelicately we feel that we were able to bluff our opponents into . thinking that we had far more support than we did for the passage of a work- place amendment. We threatened to come in with "four dozen amendments" and stay there all night if we had to if the workplace/private office amendment was not passed. The scene shifts to the Assembly floor for the main attraction became the active debates between Representative Jeffrey Neubauer (D) Racine, the Floor Leader for proponents of SB80 and Representative Richard Shoemaker, (D), Menonomie, Floor Leader for the opponents of SBSO. It's a funny feel-ing when you have to face the moment of truth after many months of preparation. We realized our position was weak and that a weak vote on Assembly Amendment i could only topple our house of cards. So, armed with our "four dozen or so" amendments we made it clear to the opposition that we were prepared to "stand and die" on this issue. The coalition of Representatives Kunicki, Johnson, Thompson, and Shoemaker and and agreement by Representatives Thompson and Shoemaker to reduce the number of amendments to be introduced was the main ingredient in our garnering 63 votes out of 97 on the crucial Amendment 3 to Amendment I - workplace/ priv&te office amendment. From that point on, the debate became a free flow of traditional pro and con arguments that both you and I have heard for many years in the halls of this particular legislature. After three and a half hours the smoke cleared and the following exemptions to SB80 were included in the engrossed version of the bill: 1. private offices 2. taverns 3. restaurants seating under 50 people 4. restaurants holding Calss B liquor licenses or beer licenses (or both) if intoxicating beverages account for more than 50% of gross receipts 5. bowling alleys 6. workplace (factories, manufacturing facilities, ass~zbly facilities, etc.) T122080123

To: ~4ichael J. Kerri gan Page 3 2/16/84 7. correctional institutions, jails, lock-ups 8. public or private offices occupied exclusively by smokers 9. rooms or halls used for private functions 10. an entire room or building maybe exempt from these regulations by merely posting a "smoking permitted" sign Additionally, a tactical maneuver was utilized forcing a two week delay in Senate consideration of SB80. I. will review Senate options with you personally and in writing at another time. CONCLUSION: Remaining consistent with our strategy to amend, amend, amend,/beat the clock, SB80 was successfully amended, rendered even more unenforceable and thrown back to the State Senate for "another kick at the cat". We will discuss our Senate strategy during the next 24 hours. As always, Mr. Jim Wincher, our Legislative Counsel conducted himself with style and class and professionalism. I refer back to your Admiral Rickover statement "why not the best" when describing Jim Wimmer. And I want to particularly commend Paul Sicula for his vital presence in assuring victory on the workplace amendment. ~,IFB/jmr T122080124