Banker Bootcamp Deanne Koll, Bakke Norman

Breakfast with Bakke NormanDeanne M. Koll is an Attorney at Bakke Norman. Her talk is called, “Avoiding the Pitfalls of Collections.”

Panelists include:

Other Videos from the, “Banker Bootcamp” series.

Banker Bootcamp Dr. Logan Kelly, Center for Economic Research

Breakfast with Bakke NormanDr. Logan Kelly is the Director of the Center for Economic Research.

Discussing the economic outlook in the St. Croix Valley.
St. Croix Economic Development Corporation

Panelists include:

Other Videos from the, “Banker Bootcamp” series.

Banker Bootcamp Daryll Lund, Community Bankers of Wisconsin

Breakfast with Bakke NormanDaryll Lund is the President and CEO of the Community Bankers of Wisconsin. He is speaking on “The State of the Community Banking in Today’s Political Environment.

Panelists include:

Other Videos from the, “Banker Bootcamp” series.

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Act 10

A Federal Appeals Court upheld Act 10 “in its entirety.” This does not entirely settle the matter however, as the suit only addressed three areas of the law, and a separate lawsuit is winding its way through the state appellate courts, and no decision has been issued as of today. Thus we are sill in a holding pattern as to what parts of Act 10 will finally survive all the court challenges. You can read the Federal Court decision here.

For some analysis and background information on this decision, see Madison Attorney Nilesh Patel’s article on his website.

City Pier vs. Private Pier: City 1, Private Pier 0.

Equal Protection Argument Does not Fly Against City of Lake Geneva.

In Johnson v. City of Lake Geneva, the Johnsons were ordered by the City to reduce the length of their pier to 100 feet or less, as required by a City ordinance. Although the Johnson’s made a number of arguments, most failed because back in 1998, and again in 2007, they had signed stipulations agreeing to limit the length of their pier to 100 feet or, if the ordinance ever increased the length, to that new length limit. But interestingly, the City had created an exception for municipal piers, and indeed the City’s pier exceeded 100 feet. The Johnson argued that they must be treated similarly to the City, essentially that it was unfair for the City to exempt itself. However, the Court easily found that the City’s pier was for a public purpose, while the Johnson’s pier was for a private purpose, and thus the two were not “similarly situation” and no violation of equal protection occurred. Although on the surface this may seem unfair, in fact the “public purpose” of government actions often allows government to act in ways that a private party could not.