Or, at least I hadn’t been until I showed up at a state Assembly hearing last week in my usual garb – slacks, a shirt and tie – only to be informed by an attendant that the rules require adding a jacket to the ensemble. I wanted to tell him that a reporter is usually doing pretty well if he wears socks and has bathed in the past week.

Instead I watched as he gave me a warning and wrote down my name, no doubt to give him something to check against in case I ever reappeared in a dishabille state. Fortunately, a few of the other reporters admitted to being guilty of the same transgression.

We should have all known better.

In a February announcement of Gov. Scott Walker’s budget address, held that same month, the state Capitol Sergeant of Arms warned members of the press corps that a new dress code had been adopted. To make sure we didn’t overlook the most important point, she used not only italics, but also bold letters, to insist that everyone who comes to the Assembly “dress appropriately, which has traditionally been considered to include a coat and tie for men and appropriate attire for women.”

It appears she meant it.

Now, I’m not opposed to the Legislature’s attempt to raise the standard of dress. But this experience has raised a few questions in my mind. For one, why do the rules specify that men must wear a jacket while letting women get away with “appropriate attire?” Is it that men are so much less attentive about their appearance that they can’t be trusted to take the necessary steps to avoid looking like slobs when they walk the halls of power? Probably.

But what about the effect this rule will have on reporters’ budgets? It’s well known we don’t make huge salaries, and lawmakers are often solicitous about ensuring their policies don’t drive workers out of the state. So how about a tax credit to offset the required addition to our wardrobes?

Finally, what about the Dalai Lama? Granted, if he shows up in usual robes when he addresses the Assembly on Tuesday he should receive the same warning I did. But they should also mark down his name just in case “His Holiness” ever has the audacity again.

It’s not as idle of a question as one might think.

State Rep. Knudson, R-Neenah, actually posed it from his seat on the legislature’s Joint Finance Committee when representatives of WisDOT came before that body in March to discuss the state’s 2013-15 transportation budget.

Specifically, Knudson wanted to know what Mark Gottlieb, WisDOT secretary, would do if he had to cut $200 million from the nearly $1 billion in borrowing called for by Gov. Scott Walker’s transportation budget proposal. Here’s Gottlieb’s answer.

There’s at least one big difference between the plan put forward in the letter and one WisDOT released last week in response to a Legislative Fiscal Bureau report estimating the governor’s original budget would lead to a $63.5 million deficit in the state’s transportation fund. It’s that the $200 million Knudson talked about had to come out of planned borrowing, whereas the deficit foreseen by the fiscal bureau could be gotten rid of in various ways.

That difference helps to explain why the plan shown in the letter would result in nothing besides delays in the construction of new roads. Much of the borrowing proposed by the governor would go toward “megaprojects” in and around Milwaukee, the Zoo Interchange taking up about $300 million on its own.

According to the letter, WisDOT officials are hesitant to delay the completion of either the interchange or the Hoan Bridge, a recipient of $200 million under the governor’s budget. The projects, Gottlieb writes, are too important to public safety, traffic flow and the economy to be pushed back.

Another of WisDOT’s priorities is on maintaining highways. That means the only way left to reduce borrowing is to cut or delay new projects, which is exactly what Gottlieb’s letter proposes doing.

Compare that with WisDOT’s plan to close the $63.5 million deficit, which the Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee is to take up in coming weeks. True, its goal would be met by some delays to scheduled repairs and projects – a part of the Zoo Interchange would be delayed but the entire project would still be completed by 2018 – but not nearly as many as called for in the letter. Much of the savings would instead come from cuts to employee positions and spending on things such as local roads.

It was unclear by the time this blog was written whether, in light of the plan put forward by Gottlieb’s letter, Knudson or any other lawmaker is actually in favor of cutting $200 million from the budget’s transportation borrowing.

But for anyone who is, WisDOT’s letter makes at least one thing clear: If transportation borrowing is reduced without compensating increases in gas taxes or some other type of revenue, the savings will probably come at the expense of new roads.

That was the cause of concern David Miller, associate vice president of capital planning for the University Wisconsin system, cited last week when asked about the possibility that Wisconsin lawmakers would shift more of the cost of a list of university construction projects onto the UW system’s budget. Miller would watch later the same day as members of the state Building Commission voted to delay by a month approvals of six university construction projects, a decision that came into response to the news that the UW system had about $648 million in its unrestricted cash reserves by June 30, the end of the state’s fiscal year.

Miller declined to say what sort of precedent he thinks might be set, but it was clear the source of his concerns was the possibility that lawmakers might decide the UW system’s large reserves warrant shifting more of the cost of UW projects from the state’s budget and to the university’s. Information from the Department of Administration, though, helps to shed a little light on what might be the source of anxiety.

According to an email from the department, the money the state puts toward academic buildings usually comes from borrowing that is paid off using the state’s general fund. If the university, though, wants to reduce the amount of debt needed for a project – which presumably might help advance a start date – it can use its own cash.

Of the six proposals for which lawmakers delayed a vote this past week, three are to be paid for in part by the university.

But what if those contributions were to become less voluntarily in the future and it instead became standard practice for the university to put cash toward every building project undertaken in the UW system? Therein, it seems reasonable to suppose, lies Miller’s concerns.

It’s one of those 58 proposals in the governor’s 2013-15 budget that have been marked by the Legislative Fiscal Bureau as policy items, rather than fiscal items. As such, it must compete for attention with a host of other matters, many of them subjects of fierce debate: An expansion of the state’s school-voucher program, a plan to collect DNA from crime suspects on arrest, a loosening of the rules governing the rent-to-own-industry, among others.

Lawmakers’ energies, in other words, are being tugged in other directions.

It’s also easy to see why, in the arguments about what should be removed from the budget, few, if any, lawmakers have pointed to the proposed change to single-prime contracting. It’s a fairly technical matter, one that would have most state construction projects worth more than $185,000 overseen by a single general contractor. Under the current system, multiple-prime contractors – mechanical, electrical and plumbing companies – now operate independent of each other and are managed separately by the state.

The proposed change, meant to make construction projects easier to manage, initially drew opposition from only one group, the Associated General Contractors of Wisconsin. And even that has been dropped.

So no one should really be surprised if lawmakers, seeing that no continuing opposition from any of the parties that would be directly affected, are inclined to let so technical a proposal stay in the budget. And that’s what they appear poised to do.

A list of items marked as policy and removed from the budget by the two chairpersons of the legislature’s Joint Finance Committee – state Rep. John Nygren, R-Marinette, and state Sen. Alberta Darling, R-River Hills – did not mention single-prime contracting. That’s as strong of a sign of any that it is likely to stay in the budget, although with some slight amendments.

But a lack of controversy in no way diminishes the importance of the proposed switch to single-prime contracting. If the change were approved, the bulk of the nearly $1.45 billion in construction projects the state Building Commission has recommended be undertaken over the next two years would be delivered through single-prime contracting.

The proposed work includes a nearly $197 million replacement of WisDOT’s Hill Farms State Office Building Complex on Madison’s west side, a $32 million addition the University of Wisconsin’s Babcock Dairy Hall on the Madison campus and a $43 million Meat Science and Muscle Biology Laboratory for the university. The system the state uses to oversee these projects is ultimately meant to ensure general contractors, subcontractors and, perhaps most importantly, taxpayers are all treated fairly when this work is bid out.

So even though single-prime contracting may be being overshadowed by other issues this session, let’s hope that lawmakers haven’t taken that as a sign that it should not be treated seriously.

But instead of the late King’s famous question – “Can’t we all just get along?” – the thoughts of state Rep. Dana Wachs, D-Eau Claire, came out as a declaration: “We’ve got to get along.”

Wachs was expressing frustration after it had become apparent Republicans on the committee were likely to vote down both of the amendments he had proposed to tort-reform bills being considered that day. The second of those amendments was so great a compromise that it left nine-tenths of the original proposal intact, contended Wachs’ Democratic colleague, state Rep. Evan Goyke, D-Milwaukee.

Not so, said the Republicans. Wachs’ proposal, they said, would completely undermine the legislation’s purpose.

The bill, Assembly Bill 139, has to do with the state’s informed-consent law. As now interpreted by the courts, the law requires doctors to tell patients of alternative treatments and diagnostic tests that a reasonable patient could be expected to want to know about.

Assembly Bill 139 would exclude diagnostic tests from that requirement. Wachs, through his amendment, was trying to have them restored.

In offering it, Wachs pointed out that he was leaving in the bill another huge change from current practice: a proposal to switch from the state’s “reasonable-patient” standard to a “reasonable-doctor” standard. If passed, the change would mean that doctors would no longer have to guess what sort of medical information reasonable patients would want to receive, instead making them only responsible for providing what could be expected from a reasonable doctor.

Though any bill including that switch would probably still be opposed by many Democrats, Wachs said he would support Assembly Bill 139 as long as his amendment were adopted. What more of a compromise, he asked, could Republicans ask for?

“It’s time for us to start cooperating and getting along,” he said. “This can’t go on forever. This state is not served by this.”

The Republicans on the committee, though, contended there have been cases of cooperation in recent times. As one example, state Rep. Jim Ott, R-Mequon, cited the likelihood that Republicans would drop their support for another tort-reform bill, Assembly Bill 29, which had also drawn opposition from Democrats.

And Samantha Kerkman, R-Powers Lake, reminded the committee that the state has gone through times when the current balance of power between the two parties was reversed. She said she can remember seeing many a Republican-sponsored amendment go down at the hands of Democrats when the Democrats were in the majority.

In other words, although everyone agrees that compromise is a fine thing, it’s not something you can expect when you’re in the minority.

Among a series of state budget corrections the Department of Administration released Wednesday is an item meant to clarify commercial uses of land owned by the Department of Transportation. In a review of the governor’s initial proposals, the state Legislative Fiscal Bureau had said the budget would give WisDOT permission to enter into contracts allowing commercial activities on department property in return for fees or services.

That, the correction states, “was not the governor’s intent.”

Questions about the proposal came up at budget hearings in the past month. WisDOT Secretary Mark Gottlieb then told lawmakers the real goal was to let the state collect money from sponsors who wanted to put their names on rest stops, parking lots or other state property. He said he did not expect the sponsorships to bring in a lot of cash but thought they could still help pay for various transportation projects.

“It’s not going to solve our revenue problem,” Gottlieb said. “But it’s a way to creatively get some more revenue into the system.”

The proposed correction will now go before the Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee, which has just finished a series of hearings on the governor’s budget and will soon begin considering budgetary amendments of its own. My guess is that the recommended change, being a matter of fairly little consequence, stands a fair chance of being adopted.

So even if you can’t start selling hamburgers at a rest stop, you probably will be able to put your name on it.

Dan Shaw is the new author of the Capitolisms blog. Check back often for his views on the news coming out of Madison.

The benchmark improvement is evidence the industry has passed its lowest point, though some of the gain is likely due to a mild winter that has helped construction, Ken Simonson, AGC’s chief economist, said in a released statement.

While Wisconsin gained 4,200 construction jobs from December to January, it was not among the 28 to post a year-over-year increase as its 90,000 jobs tally in January is still below the 2011 mark of 93,500.

According to the AGC, Pennsylvania added the most construction jobs (13,000) between January 2011 to 2012, while North Dakota had the largest percentage gain (16.1) in adding 3,600 jobs during the same time period.

On the other side, Florida lost the most industry jobs since last year with a 21,500-job decline, followed by Illinois with 9,500.

For a breakdown by state, visit http://www.agc.org/galleries/news/State_Empl_201201-Alpha.pdf.

Gogebic Taconite LLC, in a released statement Tuesday night, said that with the Senate’s 17-16 vote against Assembly Bill 426, the company would no longer pursue a Wisconsin iron mine in northern Wisconsin.

While Republicans hold the slight majority in the 33-person Senate, conservatives have been unable to persuade Sen. Dale Schultz, R-Richland Center, to support the mining legislation, with Schultz being the lone Republican to vote against the proposal Tuesday.

According to The Associated Press, Assembly Republicans passed a bill in January that would require the Department of Natural Resources to make a permit decision within a year. But it also would wipe out contested case hearings, which are quasi-judicial proceedings conservationists and other members of the public can use to challenge DNR decisions along the way to final approval, the AP reported.

It also would allow mining companies to offset damage they may cause to wetlands by restoring or enhancing water bodies anywhere in the state. And it would limit lawsuits challenging permit violations and divide an ore sales tax 60-40 between the state and local governments; currently 100 percent of the revenue goes to local governments in mining areas.

Schultz has criticized the proposal from fellow Republicans because it doesn’t restore public challenges to permit decisions or protect the environment, according to The Associated Press.

Tuesday night, Rep. Robin Vos, R-Rochester, who co-chairs the state’s Joint Finance Committee, released a statement criticizing Senate Democrats for failing Wisconsin refusing to see a clear need for jobs in the state.

Gogebic wanted to dig an open-pit mine in Iron County. The company has reported it would have created about 700 jobs with the first phase of the mining operation lasting 35 years. It said the average base salary of a mine worker would’ve been $60,000.

After the failed vote, Sen. Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald pulled the bill back for Republicans to continue working on the measure, but with the legislative session ending Thursday, legislators are running out of time to approve changes.

But then again, with Gogebic’s announcement Tuesday night, the legislators might not be compelled to seek a compromise on the bill.

Assembly Bill 421, which would add time limits for the state Department of Natural Resources to respond to requests for marine construction, is slated for debate on Tuesday when the Assembly reconvenes.

I’ve covered various forms of this legislation during the past nine months, beginning with a similar proposal from state Rep. Jim Steineke, R-Kaukauna, in June.

I followed up again on the bill in September, but by winter the Republican-controlled Legislature had switched to a more comprehensive form of the bill introduced by Sen. Neal Kedzie, R-Elkhorn.

There was some confusion at the time as to why Kedzie’s bill popped up in December, covering changes already proposed by Steineke. I wrote about Kedzie’s version late last year HERE.

Steineke said his bill had been incorporated into Kedzie’s, though he didn’t completely understand why the Legislature couldn’t move forward with his bill.

At the time, Kedzie said his proposal had been part of a year-long initiative to make changes to the DNR’s permitting process and he wanted his version to go forward instead.

While the Assembly will take up Kedzie’s proposal Tuesday, the state Senate has yet to schedule its version of the same proposal, Senate Bill 326.

VIEW THE LEGISLATURE’S CALENDAR

The Assembly passed Senate Bill 368, which makes it easier for developers to build in wetlands, despite amendments and objections from many democrats.

Senate Bill 368 creates a 30-day permit review standard for the state Department of Natural Resources when considering applications to build in or near a wetland. The bill, which was authored by Sen. Neal Kedzie, would also allow the DNR to consider mitigation as a first option when reviewing applications, rather than a last resort. Mitigation occurs when an applicant agrees to restore or create a wetland when damaging another.

State mitigation law requires restoration or improvement of 1.5 acres of wetland for every acre disturbed by a permitted project.

Democrats were not happy with the bill in its original form. An amendment proposed by Rep. Penny Bernard Schaber, D-Appleton, would have made any project that builds in a wetland ineligible for any financial assistance or loans from the state.

Rep. Brett Hulsey, D-Madison, offered another amendment that would’ve required the DNR to analyze the risk of flooding of every individual permit building applicant that will affect more than one acre of a wetland in vulnerable areas.

“Quit kicking flood victims in the teeth every chance you get,” Hulsey told the Associated Press. “Because that’s all this bill does.”

The debate hit a lull in the Assembly after only a half-hour. Speaker Pro Tem Bill Kramer, R-Waukesha, called for a voice vote. Republicans control the chamber, reducing the vote to little more than a formality. No Republicans even rose to defend the measure.

Democrats demanded Republicans redo the vote with a roll call to get every lawmaker’s position on record. Rather than vote again on the floor, Kramer agreed to accept a list of how each Democrat would have voted and record it in the Assembly journal.

The proposal now heads to Walker, who has supported the measure, for his signature.