Milwaukee County Board Censures Supervisor Lynn De Bruin

The Milwaukee County Board recently voted to censure Supervisor Lynne De Bruin for releasing sensitive information to the media from a "closed door session".

According to several accounts, behavioral health administrator John Chianelli told the County Board that co-ed facility may increase the chances of sexual misconduct among patients, but it was a trade-off since it reduced the overall violence that's characteristic of predominantly male facilities.  After an open-records request was filed by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, De Bruin released a four-page letter critical of Mr. Chianelli divulging some of the meeting's details.

So frustrated was Lee Holloway that he sponsored a measure to censure De Bruin, a type of reprimand that hasn't been issued to a County Supervisor in decades.  The censure was decided by a 13-6 vote with all county supervisors present.  The question now is, was De Bruin wrong?

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel doesn't think so.  They believe that the County Board violated an "Open Meeting Law" by holding a closed-door session on a "substantive issue regarding public health policy". Managing Editor George Stanley told El Conquistador that they were still exploring the best route to take with their attorney, and that they may ask the state authorities to get involved.  More on this as it evolves.

An Exchange of Views Shows a Philosophical Struggle with Full Public Disclosure

The censure raises a few important questions.  Should some sessions rightfully be hidden from the public?  And if so, does De Bruin's exposure of confidential information violate some sort of ethical code or standard?

When questioned by El Conquistador, County Supervisor Chris Larson had this to say about the closed-door session:

"the closed session meetings we had did little to assure me that comprehensive and corrective action were being taken despite pressing questions by me and fellow supervisors. Now that the documents are public, it's clear to all what was clear to us then: the closed session meetings were focused more on trying to avoid lawsuits by hiding information than on trying to correct the actual action that would instigate a lawsuit"

According to Larson, the county's meeting didn't exactly occur on noble grounds.  And he seems to suggest that the lack of proper action validated the release of De Bruin's letter.

Although County Supervisor Mark Borkowski comes to the same conclusion, he took a different route to get there.  Borkowski believes that closed door sessions are necessary for instances like say labor negotiations, but he drew the line in De Bruin's case because it pertained to the "human condition" that involved life and death.  Borkowski was likely referring to the 22 year old pregnant woman who was raped at a county facility last summer.

"Those attending closed sessions agree to keep the information in confidence under the state statutory exception to the Open meetings Law. In the case of this meeting, the closed session was held to consult with legal counsel about potential litigation."

Notice that Rice mentions the "state statutory exception to the Open meetings Law."  De Bruin stated she released the letter because the media had filed an open-records request.  Rice, however, seems to suggest there is a statutory exception that permits De Bruin to deny the open-records request, but she just chose not to.  In other words, De Bruin went out of her way to release information even though she was exempted by state law.

Each County Supervisor had a unique take on the issue, but the most interesting response came from Supervisor Joe Sanfelippo.  While Larson focused on the meeting's illegitimacy, Borkowski focused on the human condition, and Rice stressed law and procedure; Sanfelippo pointed to the timing of the release.  According to Sanfelippo, allegations of sexual assault are very serious, but they still "require a thorough investigation conducted in an appropriate manner".  Furthermore, Sanfelippo said

"The proper time for releasing information is at the conclusion of the investigation after all the facts have been discovered. Any release of information prior to that point only fuels speculation and provides fodder for those interested in advancing an agenda rather than investigating and fixing a problem."

Sanfelippo is right on one important point.  Public disclosure is best served after an investigation.  Sanfelippo's point does not quarrel with the release of information per say, but with the timing of the release.   

Conclusion

It was Thomas Jefferson that said the free press is a key to a functioning democracy.  They keep the government informed about what the people are thinking, and they keep the people informed about what the government is doing.  It is a delicate symbiotic balance between what the people deserve to know and what the government is obligated to withhold. 

Depending on the situation, the media can either be the public's best friend, or they can be the public's enemy.  Does anyone recall when Geraldo Rivera broadcasted the covert location of American troops during the war in Iraq? 

But the De Bruin controversy isn't quite the same.  Although I agree with Sanfelippo that the premature release of information can spark political battles, I would rather error on the side of knowing what my government is doing than being kept in the dark.  And I also agree that it is better to complete an investigation before information is released, but we need to weigh the costs against the benefits.  Unless it can be proved that De Bruin's letter harmed the county or legitimately stymied an investigation, De Bruin should not have been censured.

Kilkenny Returns, and We're Not Sure Why

In January of this year, Blogger Cindy Kilkenny decided to take her Fairly Conservative blog offline for a much needed timeout.  In June, she re-engaged the public seemingly reinvigorated by what some might describe as a rather blinding hatred of Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker.  It took all but 9 days before Kilkenny began blaming Walker for everything wrong in her life including waste being dumped into Lake Michigan (not sure how she made that connection).

Fairly Conservative has quickly become the Online Stalker of Scott Walker, a position formally held in low esteem by none other than her new best friend, Chris Liebenthal.  Kilkenny published a post "Walker antics land him front page, above the fold" where she accused Walker (without a shred of evidence I might add) of engaging in a "pay to play" scheme with engineering firm, Graef-USA.  And in typical Capperesque conclusion, she wrapped up her post saying, "Scott Walker has more baggage than a pack mule - or is that donkey?  There's no way I'd trust the man to be governor." Well I suppose if one presumes a criminal action in order to prove it, then the case is closed.  Unfortunately, merely willing something to be the case doesn't always work.

Interestingly, when a blogger mentioned that Neumann didn't pay $20,000 in transfer fees on his properties, Cindy swept it under the rug as a "mess up in a private business."  (I'm not that sure defrauding the government is a private matter.)  So what we have is an accusation against a guy she doesn't like that didn't have a shred of evidence, and a dismissive defense of a guy she likes, whose "mess up" has been verified by the media and confirmed by Neumann himself.  No bias there, right?

Kilkenny seemed to soften her stance a bit by saying that if Walker wanted to avoid the appearance of impropriety, then he should have avoided behavior that created such appearances.  Only one problem, Walker didn't make the decision to hire Graef-USA.  Public Works Director Jack Takerian made the decision with the approval of the Architecture and Engineering Department.  Walker said he felt comfortable with it, and it was done.  If she doubts it, she can call Mr. Takerian (Public Works Director) or Kent Lovern (Chief Deputy District Attorney) to confirm it.

No Bidding for Political Gain?

And as if making a fool of herself wasn't enough, she accused Walker of engaging in a no-bid process so he could have an "all clear report before September's primary".  Again, Kilkenny has her facts wrong.  The no-bid contract was accepted, from what I can tell, for two principle reasons.  First, it was accepted to reassure the public that the county was actively involved in expeditiously ensuring public safety.  And second, it was accepted because Graef has a superior knowledge and a more extensive experience with our county buildings.  Even long-time Walker critic, Lee Holloway, couldn't argue with that. 

I know that Kilkenny cannot see past her own cynicism, but a 15 year old died because a county building was unsafe.  Waiting 6-8 weeks for bids by multiple engineering firms is not wisdom, but sheer folly.

Oddly, Kilkenny is not hesitant to make accusations about a public figure based on nothing more than imagination.  And one would think her experiences as an alderman/alderwoman would make her rethink being a public attack dog.  Note to Cindy, how would you feel if people began, once again, lying about your record?  Does Alderman Scot Berg ring a bell? 

When a reliable Walker critic like Lee Holloway and political opponent like Mark Neumann call for immediate action on safety inspections, a light bulb should go off in Cindy's head that perhaps she doesn't know what she's talking about.  Fairly Conservative?  No, try Fairly Inaccurate.

Is the Local News Media Biased in Their Coverage?

Earlier this week, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter Dan Bice wrote a piece headlined "Major Walker Contributor Got No-Bid Contract".  The purpose of the article is to link Scott Walker to a possible "pay to play" scheme with Graef-USA, an engineering consulting firm based out of Milwaukee.

After a slab of concrete fell from the O'Donnell Parking Garage and killed 15 year old Jared Kellner, Milwaukee County shut down the site and gave Graef-USA a no-bid contract to perform county-wide safety inspections.  Graef has been charged to oversee the inspection of nearly 100 county buildings using several subcontracting firms to do the work.

Dan Bice discovered that Graef-USA contributed more than $14,000 to Walker's campaign in the past 8 years.  The implication is that politics might be involved in Walker's decision to hire them.  Bice did concede, however, that when it comes to politicians, Graef-USA seems to be an equal-opportunity contributor, contributing large sums to Governor Doyle and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett. 

Evidently, what wasn't reported was that Governor Doyle approved a no-bid contract for $650,000 with Graef-USA to inspect the Hoan Bridge this October.  The story about Walker giving Graef a no-bid contract was front page news, but the story about Governor Doyle, written by reporter Tom Held, was buried in the local section of the paper with no mention that Graef had contributed more than $40,000 to Doyle's campaign chest.

El Conquistador contacted reporter Tom Held and questioned why this information wasn't included.  He said that since Dan Bice had already reported on Graef's political contributions, he chose to focus on "more immediate news".  He also said he didn't include the information because he was working with "a limited amount of space".     

This underscores a serious problem with the local media, and it sends a message that when a Republican gives work to a politically active firm, it debuts as a premier story in the state's largest newspaper; but when a Democrat does the same thing, it's underplayed and relegated to the local section lacking newsworthy details.  Many people who read the story on Doyle did not connect the dots that Doyle used the same firm Walker did for a "no bid contract".

It doesn't take many words to include the fact that Doyle, who received $40,000 in campaign contributions from Graef-USA, gave them a "no-bid contract".  That took 15 words, so I'm quite confident that space restrictions didn't play a key role in the decision.

County Supervisors Dimitrijevic and Weishan Join the Political Fray

Compounding the problem, two Milwaukee County Supervisors issued a press release criticizing Walker for giving a no-bid contract to Graef-USA since they were involved in the O'Donnell Parking Garage construction in the 1990's.  Supervisors Marina Dimitrijevic and John Weishan said in a joint statement,

"We are also concerned that Graef-USA Inc, a firm that has contributed to County Executive Scott Walker’s gubernatorial campaign, was awarded a no bid contract. Even though a lot of the work is being subcontracted, the fact remains that County dollars are being funneled through Graef, which was one of the contractors involved in building the O’Donnell Parking garage in the first place. How can we expect them to provide unbiased reports in light of that fact?"

El Conquistador contacted Walker's office to confirm Graef-USA's involvement in the original construction of the O'Donnell Parking Structure.  Fran McLaughlin, the county's communications director, said that Graef did not play a role in the original construction of the O'Donnell Parking Garage, but rather they were "brought in to review structural documents when problems were discovered" near the completion of the project.

Using Graef did not pose a conflict of interest.  The Department of Transportation and Public Works requested Graef-USA to do the work because of their "familiarity with all county buildings".  The choice to use Graef did not originate with Walker, but instead with Public Works Director Jack Takerian.  And the decision was approved by the county's Architecture and Engineering Department. 

When El Conquistador asked why Milwaukee County chose to do a "no-bid" contract with Graef, McLaughlin stated that "Public safety was the sole concern for acting quickly without waiting for bids" and it was "precisely why the Chairman of the County Board announced the inspection team plan with the County Executive in a joint statement on June 30th."  McLaughlin also told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that if the decision to hire Graef was political, County Board Chairman Lee Holloway, a frequent critic of Walker, would never have supported it.

But Dimitrijevic and Weishan's press release complained about being kept in the dark.  They claimed to know less about the county's contract with Graef and "the scope of the work being performed" than the media.  Whether or not Dimitrijevic and Weishan were kept in the dark seems obvious since they were unaware that Graef didn't participate in the original construction of the O'Donnell Parking Structure.  They were also unaware that it was Jack Takerian, not Scott Walker, that made the decision to contract Graef for emergency inspections.

Their joint press release almost makes one wonder if there was a good reason they were kept in the dark.  Perhaps some tragic events are best left to those who won't make a public mockery or a partisan spectacle of an already sensitive issue, or perhaps they knew as much as they needed to know.

But not all the County Supervisors were left in the dark.  When El Conquistador contacted County Supervisor Joe Sanfelippo and asked him about the no-bid contract, he explained

"Graef has been awarded a contract to inspect other County owned facilities and at the direction of Milwaukee County is utilizing several other local area engineering firms to get this work done as quickly as possible to assess the safety of all Milwaukee County structures. While I am not a fan of no-bid contracts in the public sector, I am in full agreement of utilizing the no-bid process in this instance because doing so has resulted in this important work being started at least eight weeks sooner than would have been possible had the bid process been implemented."

When we asked him his thoughts about his colleague's joint statement criticizing Walker, he stated

"In their rush to feed their addiction to blame Scott Walker for everything they perceive to be wrong in Milwaukee County, my two colleagues failed to learn the facts before making their unfortunate and inaccurate press release. The fact is, Graef is not involved in the ongoing inspection of the O'Donnell Park parking structure. An engineering firm by the name of Inspect is conducting that investigation.

If my colleagues where really interested in learning the facts as their press release claims, all they would have to do is pick up the phone and call Jack Takerian as I did. Of course, that would not have satisfied their real intent. "

Conclusion

The current events surrounding County Executive Scott Walker and subsequent news coverage makes one question the power of the media to shape public opinion.  Newspapers and television may not overtly cover the news in a subjective or partisan way, but what stories they choose, when they choose them, and what facts are made available can affect the way people reconstruct the world around them.   When readers or viewers assimilate the news, they should ask themselves if there is another side to this story.  By doing that, perhaps we can filter out the differences between news and political advocacy.