Taking a Break

I will resume blogging April 2nd.

What Would Malcolm Baldrige Do?

Malcolm Baldrige was the former Department of Commerce Secretary who established criteria which is used extensively by public and private sector organizations to improve productivity and performance excellence.

The Doyle Department of Administration relies heavily on the criteria in their strategic planning management training documents, so I wanted to take a closer look at the Baldrige criteria in light of recent revelations about the Doyle Administrations’ ACE initiative.

Leadership—examines how senior executives guide the organization and how the organization addresses its responsibilities to the public and practices good citizenship.

Let’s see here, Gina Frank Reese denies ever discussing the Adelman contract with a panelist from the UW, DOA continues to stall on open records to the RPW, and Matt Miszewski is so busy traveling around the country telling everyone how great our ACE initiative is that other agencies have to wait a month or more to get their questions answered.

Strategic planning—Examines how the organization sets strategic directions and how it determines key action plans.

Here' s the plan. Was it followed?

Customer and market focus—.Examines how the organization determines requirements and expectations of customers and markets; builds relationships with customers; and acquires, satisfies, and retains customers

Oops, looks like DOA Administrator Pat Farley forgot who the customer was when he chewed out DOT Budget Director, Casey Newman for questioning the Silver Oak Solution Contract and “creating a public document.” Way to accept customer input., Mr. Farley.

Measurement, analysis, and knowledge management—Examines the management, effective use, analysis, and improvement of data and information to support key organization processes and the organization’s performance management system.

Looks like DOA was relying on ‘fuzzy math” when they calculated the projected savings associated with the Silver Oak Solutions contract. According to DOA Executive Assistant Sean Dilweg, the agency didn’t know what numbers to use so they relied on numbers provided by the vendor. Bad move, especially when you consider how Silver Oak Solutions cooked the numbers in New Mexico. Perhaps they should have asked their own budget shop to analyze this more carefully.

Human resource focus—Examines how the organization enables its workforce to develop its full potential and how the workforce is aligned with the organization’s objectives.

Well, the top dogs at DOA managed to align the workforce with the organization’s objectives with respect to the Adelman contract. It’s too bad they had to fracture a law or two to do it.

Process management—Examines aspects of how key production/delivery and support processes are designed, managed, and improved.

I think it’s safe to say that there was a breakdown in process management when it came to the state’s failed email consolidation program.

Business results—Examines the organization’s performance and improvement in its key business areas: customer satisfaction, financial and marketplace performance, human resources, supplier and partner performance, operational performance, and governance and social responsibility. The category also examines how the organization performs relative to competitors.

If business results are so important, why didn’t DOA benchmark these prices with surrounding states and why did Governor Doyle veto legislative oversight of the ACE initiative in the biennial budget?

Follow the Money

In 1998, a law was enacted requiring the Wisconsin State Elections Board to create an electronic filing system for campaign finance reports. The system which was implemented in July 1999 requires all campaigns with contributions in excess of $20,000 to file finance reports in electronic and hard copy form.

If you surf the SEB website, you’ll see that electronic campaign finance reports can be viewed and downloaded in an Excel spreadsheet format. This format allows you to sort the report by date of contribution, contributor name, occupation, employer and even conduit account name. This is precisely the kind of unfettered access that electronic filing was intended to provide, but Diamond Jim Doyle doesn’t like it.

So Doyle’s campaign created a program that exports their campaign finance data to a Word file which can not be sorted or manipulated in any way, and they make sure to shuffle all the contributions before exporting the data.

Well, we’ve found a way around Jim Doyle’s obstructionism and we want to share it. Whether you’re a credentialed journalist, an amateur detective, a disgruntled current or former state employee, or just part of the pajama brigade, here is a comprehensive Excel spreadsheet file containing all individual contributions reported by Governor Doyle this cycle.

Sort it, play with it, match it up with key dates like when a contract was signed or legislation was about to be vetoed. Follow the money and you may uncover the next big government scandal.


Good luck and enjoy!

Were Contracts Awarded for Cash or is it Just a Coincidence?

Since the Adelman Travel investigation began last year, a been handful of news stories have highlighted campaign contributions to Governor Doyle from employees of other state contract recipients.

My preliminary analysis of Doyle’s campaign finance reports uncovered several sizeable contributions from the employees of other state contract recipients. In addition, I found higher contributions totals than previously reported for some of the companies.

Berbee Information Network Corporation: Berbee employees have donated a total of $12.500 to Doyle since 2004. The company won a no-bid contract for $185, 700 in September of 2004 to do computer security work. In November of that year, Berbee won another $129,000 contract for network security consulting.

BearingPoint: Employees of this Virginia based technology consulting firm donated a total of $13,000 to Doyle with all but $1,000 donated in October or December of 2005. I have yet to find a contract between BearingPoint and the State of Wisconsin, but I did find a link between BearingPoint and Oracle Corporation. I also found this site advertising two consulting positions in Madison, Wisconsin. Perhaps BearingPoint is a subcontractor under the Oracle contract.

Charter Communications: Shortly after Charter won a no bid telecommunications contract in 2003, Doyle received a $5,000 contribution from the company’s Colorado based President. A subsidiary of Charter was given a three year extension on a $367,000 contract for distance learning. Doyle received an additional $2,000 in contributions from Charter employees in 2004 for a total of $7,000.

Crowe Chizek: Employees of this Indianna firm have made contributions to Doyle totaling $19,500 . The first contribution was made in June of 2004, not long after Crowe Chizek signed a contract with DOA to provide consultants for the state server consolidation process. Additional contributions were made in June and December of 2005. According to a September 2005 organization chart for the “Shared Information Services Implementation Project Team:”, several of the staff assignments were filled by Crowe Chizek consultants.

Equis Corporation: This Illinois company won a bid and was awarded a contract for $572,000 on April 4, 2004 to build a portfolio of state properties that could be sold as surplus or sold and leaseback to the state. The contract was amended by DOA Deputy Secretary Gina Frank Reese on 12/22/04. The amendment agrees to pay Equis a 25% commission on the gross proceeds of any sale brokered by Equis.

Equis Corporation employees have made a total of $22,500 and are currently listed as co-brokers on the sale of DOA’s Thornton Avenue building.

Deloitte Touche/Deloitte Consulting: Employees made $11,400 worth of contributions to Doyle. All but one of the checks was written in August 2005. Deloitte provides auditing and consulting services and holds a gaming contractor certificate with the DOA Division of Gaming, Office of Indian Gaming and Regulatory Compliance.

Foley & Lardner: Former DOA Secretary and Doyle Campaign Chair Marc Marrotta’s firm received a $50,000 no bid contract with the Department of Commerce on November 4, 2004. Foley & Lardner employees have made a total of $166,540 to Doyle’s campaign, $66,000 from the firm’s conduit account.

IBM Corporation: Employees of IBM have given a total of $16,500 this election cycle. In February AP reported:

IBM won more no-bid contracts awarded from the state's three largest agencies than any other company over the past three years, according to the AP's review. The work was largely related to hardware maintenance and software purchases.

Around the time the company won those contracts, salesmen Daniel Meixelsperger and Mark Ronnie made a series of donations to Doyle's campaign totaling $11,100. Some of the donations were made within weeks of the company winning the no-bid contracts.

Mead & Hunt: Mead & Hunt received a no bid contract on $79,618 on June 30,, 2004. Employees of the Company have donated a total of $4,000.

Oracle Corporation: The State of Wisconsin entered into a $29 million dollar no bid contract with Oracle on May 11, 2005. Since that time, Oracle employees have contributed a total of $4,500 to Governor Doyle’s campaign. Doyle received a $500 contribution from an Oracle sales representative in 2003 for a total of $5,000.

Oracle software was also chosen for the state's email conversation project, but officials decided to dump the Oracle package and go back to Microsoft. Oracle Corporation was just awarded the $10 million dollar IBIS contract

SBC Global: SBC employees have donated a total of $21,735 since Doyle was elected in November of 2002. SBC employees made $10,375 in contributions between December 7, 2004 and February 11, 2005. A DOA memo dated March 3, 2005 announced that SBC won the contract to provide statewide network services.

One Word: Computers

There appears to be correlation between the consolidation of state computer services through the use of consultants, and the expansion of Governor Doyle’s campaign war chest.

Executives from the Indiana based firm of Crowe Chizek have made contributions to Doyle totaling $19,500. The first contribution was made in June of 2004, shortly after Crowe Chizek signed a contract to provide consultants for the state server consolidation project. Additional contributions were made in both June and December of 2005.

According to a September 2005 organizational chart of the “Shared Information Services Implementation Project Team:,” several of the staff assignments were filled by Crowe Chizek consultants.

DOA Brass Circles the Wagons While Doyle & Wineke Whistle Past the Graveyard

Scandal is in the air, and this time it’s not five years old.

No, this scandal is ripening on the vine every day, as the DOA Secretary’s office employs every stall tactic in the book to avoid fulfilling dozens of open records requests filed by members of the press and the Republican Party of Wisconsin. Now the Office of the Secretary is calling “come to Jesus” meetings in an attempt to plug the leaks.

Good luck. When you fire hundreds of state employees and replace them with expensive consulting firms, who write huge checks to the Governor’s campaign and then fail to get the job done, you should expect the place to be leaking like a sieve.

Looks like the Doyle Administration’s A.C.E initiative really stands for Access, Corruption and Extortion rather than Accountability, Consolidation and Efficiency.

More will be revealed.

In the meantime, Jim Doyle and Joe Wineke whistled past the graveyard this weekend.

Too Close for Comfort

Ironically I chose the title for this post prior to reading the story regarding jury deliberations that follows. I have to wonder if the jury would have taken more time if Judge Ebert had not hurried them along with the news he had plans to take a motorcyle trip.

Here's my post followed by the Channel 3000 story.

Many thanks to Charlie Sykes, Jessica Bucher and I Am the Force for their insightful posts regarding the verdicts against Scott Jensen and Sherry Schultz.

I spent the majority of the last three weeks inside Judge Ebert’s court watching this travesty unfold. Aside from observing oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in January this was my first time inside a courtroom.

I made the decision to invest the time because I really care about these people and wanted to be supportive. I had no idea how truly horrifying the whole experience would be.

We all knew the deck was stacked against Scott and Sherry when this trial began, but after watching Judge Ebert and the prosecutors collaborate to destroy any chance these two had to put on a defense, I no longer have any faith in the criminal justice system.

When I called Scott yesterday, he was in the middle of changing his son's diaper. I said it must be one of the more pleasant things he’s done in recent weeks.

Scott said he has been buoyed by the support of friends, family and the community that re-elected him twice since the charges were filed against him.

Now it’s time for those of us who are frightened and angry to do whatever we can to help Scott and Sherry. Scott and Sherry both have significant legal bills and have established legal defense funds.

Sherry Schultz Legal Defense Fund
Murphy Desmond
Manchester Place
2 East Mifflin Street, Suite 800
Madison, WI 53703

Scott Jensen Legal Defense Fund
Stephen J. Meyer
Meyer Law Office
10 E. Doty St. #507,
Madison, WI 53703


CHANNEL 3000

http://www.channel3000.com/news/7948156/detail.html

Jensen Jury Foreman Calls Experience Intense Jury Felt Empathy For Defendants

POSTED: 10:16 pm CST March 12, 2006UPDATED: 10:58 pm CST March 12, 2006

MADISON, Wis. -- Steve Struss called his experience on the Jensen jury, "intense," knowing at every moment one man's future rested in their hands."All the jurors took notes to pay attention and stay awake," said Struss. "We chewed a lot of gum and ate a lot of candy."Over the course of two weeks jurors heard stories from 41 witnesses.When it came time to make a decision, Struss led the 12 as the jury foreman.

"We didn't take a lot of breaks," said Struss. "Even when we ate dinner, they'd bring it in and we'd eat a little bit and get back to work, even as we finished eating."
While public opinion might be easy to form when you're on the outside looking in, on the inside it took hours of deliberation because the decision had to be unanimous.

"A majority would be for guilty but quite a few would be for not guilty on the first votes on each of the counts," said Struss.That meant pulling out and reviewing notes on what witnesses said, then discussing the specifics of the charges and whether those specifics were met in the hopes of swaying someone either way.

"The pressure, the weight of that on us was quite intense," said Struss. "We had a lot of people with headaches, a lot of people with upset stomachs. It was taking a physical toll on us by the end."

It took 17 hours of deliberation to get the five guilty verdicts.And while it was a relief to hand down the verdicts, jury members said they would keep a part of the case with them forever.

"It was quite difficult for a number of jurors," said Struss. "There were tears shed because we felt empathy for the two defendants."The final two counts took most convincing for jurors.
In fact, Struss admits at one point he was ready to write a note to the judge of a hung jury. Instead, the charges were clarified and eventually 10 people swung from a vote of not guilty to guilty.

And Twice on Sundays...

One of those ever-courageous folks who anonymously uses the comment section to spout off and take irrelevant and mean spirited personal shots at people, has challenged someone to defend Scott Jensen’s co-defendant Sherry Schultz.

There is simply no other way to say this: Sherry Schultz got screwed.

Not only was she just doing her job like countless other Republican and Democratic staff members who skated, and unlike Tanya Bjrok, Ragu Devagaptapu, and many others, Sherry was never offered immunity or a slap on the wrist. And Sherry did provide legitimate and valuable services to legislators and their staff and the State Elections Board.

Sherry Schultz was the person Kevin Kennedy and his staff at the State Elections Board relied on to resolve errors in the campaign finance reports of Republican legislators. Likewise Sherry was the person Republican legislators went to for help in completing their reports and Kennedy himself testified that Sherry’s questions were often so sophisticated that only he and his legal counsel, George Dunst could address them.

During his cross examination of former SEB Board Chair, Don Millis, Korte tried to make is sound as if the SEB staff could answer any question that comes along, the real problem is that they don’t know what questions to ask in the first place. Remember that Kennedy also testified that the SEB has never received a report that does not have errors. And I’m sorry, but with the SEB staff reporting from 7:45 am – 4:30 pm Monday through Friday, when are issues regarding campaign finance reports suppose to be resolved?

Today Paul Tessmer testified about the electronic campaign finance reporting system that he developed with the assistance of Sherry Schultz. Tessmer later donated the program to Kennedy and the SEB so it could be used to fulfill their statutory requirement to develop an electronic reporting system. And Kennedy utilized both of their expertise in educational sessions.

Sherry Schultz provided the state with many hours of legitimate and valuable state service prior to 1998 and during her most recent appointment.

Ragu never did a lick of legitimate work and he got off with some civil forfeitures. Tanya broke all kinds of laws including destroying evidence and running an illegal third party organization on state property. She broke numerous laws in both houses of the legislature and was allowed to plead guilty to one misdemeanor and pay a fine of $250. And she never paid the state back for any of the $24,000 in legal fees it paid on her behalf.

Yes, I will defend Sherry Schultz, every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Random Thoughts for Reform-Minded Reps

Unlike the vast majority of really smart people who like to talk smart about the Jensen trial, I was in the courtroom for all but two days of testimony so far.

The prosecution’s nit picking about certain activities in the Capitol have raised questions in my mind, as well as my home, as to what is and is not permissible behavior in the State Capitol.

For example:

1. Can lobbyists and other private citizens discuss political fundraising in the Capitol if there are no legislators or staff directly involved?

2. Is it ok for a registered lobbyist to deliver girl-scout cookies his wife sold to legislative staff weeks earlier at another location? (We erred on the side of caution and I delivered the cookies myself. Is that ok with you Mr. Blanchard?)

3. Can fundraising invitations be delivered --- (in a plain sealed envelope) --- to a legislator’s Capitol office so they can be sent home with the legislator at the end of the day?

4. If the plain envelope is given to the legislator outside the Capitol, can he carry it into the Capitol to take home at the end of the day, or does he have to put it in his vehicle before going back into the building? And if his vehicle is parked on state property, does the existence of the envelope and its contents constitute fundraising on state property?

Ridiculous questions, yes. Irrelevant question, no.

Brian Blanchard and Roy Korte made much ado about Scott Jensen's now infamous “mail bag.” The canvass Land’s End satchel has been used by Jensen for years to carry a variety of state, political and personal items between his home in Waukesha and the Capitol and other Madison locations. Jensen sometimes carried campaign contributions from Waukesha to Madison in the bag, and fundraising thank you letters as well as other political items were often placed in the bag at Jensen’s Capitol office to be taken home at the end of the day.

Last summer, I delivered home-made ginger snaps to Jensen’s office for his birthday. I was told the cookies would go home with him in the mail bag. Am I a cookie criminal?

During his cross examination of former Jensen scheduler, Jodi Tierney, Korte insinuated that discussing and scheduling political events on state time was also inappropriate. I would have thought the one man - one calendar rule would apply.

And of course Korte and Blanchard just couldn’t get over the fact that legislators discussed campaigns when they met in the Capitol. Jensen said it’d be pretty hard to get a bunch of legislators in a room without the subject of campaigns coming up. Politics is often the only thing these people have in common. Should they really be required to leave the Capitol to discuss it?

Before legislators give some bureaucratic agency the power to investigate their actions, I hope they have a very clear understanding of what is and is not allowed under the Dome, along with commonly accepted definitions of words like fundraising, political, and campaign. Spell it out, because there will never be a shortage of petty people on both sides of the aisle ready and willing to harass and embarrass you and your friends.

I would also caution them against referring complaints to a legislator’s local District Attorney. Remember last January when Democrats in Waukesha County filed a baseless complaint against Scott Newcomer with District Attorney Paul Bucher in an attempt to embarrass them both.

No matter what kind of reform package legislators pass, it’ll never be enough to satisfy the goo goos, and the rest of the world still doesn’t care enough about ethics and election reform to base their vote on it.

Just make sure the cure isn't worse than the disease.

The Defense Rests

Today Scott Jensen took the witness stand to tell his side of the story. It was nice of the Judge to let him do that since he pretty much shut down every other attempt Jensen made to put on a defense.

Jensen spent about two and a half hours on direct examination and at least three more hours on cross. If you like Scott Jensen, he was at his best, and I have to believe even a Dane County jury found him to be both likable and credible.

He answered every question he was asked without hesitation, and to Prosecutor Roy Korte’s dismay, he even answered a few questions he wished he’d been asked. He more than held his own while Korte chewed up another three hours beating his poor dead horse beyond all recognition.

Now, I know all the ankle biters out there will complain that Jensen is just a slick politician, and it’s really no surprise that he was good on the stand. Whatever.

A trial is an adversarial process, a legal war. This trial is not about right or wrong. It’s not about anything resembling clear justice, at least on the part of the prosecutors.

This trial is about politics, and Brian Blanchard’s need to mount a few Republican heads on his wall in order to counter the prosecution of Chuck Chvala and Brian Burke. Notice how Blanchard let Chvala plead to the one felony of the eighteen he was charged with that was most similar to the charges against Jensen?

Why not distinguish Chvala’s actions from the Caucus activities and acknowledge how widespread political activity had been at the Capitol? Then focus on reforming the system rather than making an example out of a handful of people.

Jensen did get a trial, though I’d be hard pressed to say it was fair. Judge Ebert did not allow witnesses to testify about customs and past practices in the capitol, or the activities of the Assembly Democratic Caucus during the very same time frame for which he is charged.

The prosecution claims those arguments are merely an attempt at jury nullification. The truth is that the state could not prove “intent to obtain a dishonest advantage” by Republicans, when the Democrats employed a nearly identical arsenal. It’s not Scott Jensen’s fault that the opposition never learned to shoot straight.

I am not defending the caucus system. Frankly the caucuses would have been near the top of my list of agencies to dump during the Kettle Commission in the early 90’s. The point is that everyone was doing it for decades, in the open without consequence, and only a handful of people are being held to account for it. Why? Because Brian Blanchard is a patsy Democratic District Attorney, and he can get away with it.

People have asked me what I think will happen when the case goes to the jury. I honestly can’t predict what twelve perfect strangers will decide, but I have no regrets about supporting Scott Jensen through this dreadful process. And I’m proud to be in the good company of Democratic State Representative Marlin Schneider, Supreme Court Justice David Prosser and Waukesha Circuit Court Judge Mac Davis who testified to Scott Jensen’s integrity today.

As for all you ankle biters: Just bite me.

Carrie’s Credibility

Last Thursday prosecutors questioned former Jensen staffer Carrie Hoeper Richard about everything from her first interview with Jensen and his Chief of Staff, Brett Healy, to her work in the Jensen office and her role as Treasurer of Taxpayers for Jensen.

Richard was hired in 1997 as a legislative aid to perform constituent relations.

Richard made a number of claims regarding her work in the Jensen office as well as the actions of the former Speaker. Many of Richard’s claims were discredited by her cross examination while others were refuted by four of her co-workers who testified for the defense.

For example Richard claimed she did little if any constituent relations work and spent the vast majority of her time working on Taxpayers for Jensen. Yet when asked about specific consultants who were paid to do much of the work she claims to have done, Richard could not specifically recall a single one.

In addition, Richard did not specifically recall any of the dozens of constituent relations issues for which she was responsible, even though Jensen’s attorney had stacks of paperwork to back it up.

Now I’m not buying her selective memory for a minute. Trust me, this woman remembers the name of the first kid who ever launched a shovel full of sand at her in the park. That was clear when Sherry Schultz’s attorney, Steve Morgan asked Richard if she had told people she was “insulted” that Steve Foti hired Sherry Schultz without consulting her first. Mr. Morgan wanted to know why a 26 year old constituent relations aide would expect the Assembly Majority leader to check with her before making a hire. Richard admitted she told people she was insulted but said she just thought she should have been informed before everyone else.

Richard’s most damning and least credible claim was that she witnessed Scott Jensen making campaign fundraising calls to lobbyists from his Capitol Office. This claim was refuted by Chad Taylor, Steve Baas, Brett Healy and Jodi Tierney, four staffers with more seniority and experience in the Jensen office. And it makes no sense that Jensen would do such a thing, given that he scheduled call time at the Republican Party of Wisconsin, and as Richard herself testified, did not raise money during the budget, in order to avoid any impropriety.

Healy, Baas and Tierney also testified to the fact that Carrie Hoeper Richard had a full plate of legitimate state work and she sought their assistance with it from time to time, and while she did volunteer to perform some work for Taxpayers for Jensen, it did not comprise a majority of her time and she was told by Jensen’s Deputy Legal Counsel, Chad Taylor, not to do it in the office.

Matt Miszewski, International Man of Mystery

Did you know the State of Wisconsin had a CIO? I had no idea until I goggled Department of Administration Administrator Matt Miszewski.

Turns out that CIO stands for Chief Information Officer, and Wisconsin’s is a bit of a celebrity. In fact he’s been quoted extensively in dozens, maybe hundreds of newspapers, magazines, corporation catalogs trade publications , throughout the United States and the world. One of the articles I found was written in Chinese.

Miszewski has also been invited to speak at numerous conferences and meetings hosted by public organizations and private corporations in places like San Diego, CA, White Sulphur Springs, WV, New Orleans, LA, and Ontario Canada. Last but not least, Miszewski is President of the National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO).

Miszewski is sought after to discuss the Doyle’ Administrations’ ACE initiative. ACE, an acronym for Accountability Consolidation and Efficiency, has included everything from revamping the state’s procurement procedures and travel contracts to the consolidation of the state’s electronic email service.

The travel contract has been problematic. First Orbitz.com pulled out of its contract when the state insisted the company charge a sales tax on all transactions. Then Doyle was forced to cancel the state’s contract with Adelman travel after an administrative official was charged with manipulating the bidding process to favor Adelman.

Last week the bottom fell out on the state’s email consolidation plan, another ACE project which has already cost the state more than $2 million dollars. So the CIO did what any good CIO would do, he threw the project manager under the bus. Werner Gade, who was responsible for day to day management of the project, resigned the same day Miszewski and Bablitch announced that they were ditching the email consolidation project.

I can’t help but wonder: would things have gone more smoothly if Wisconsin’s well traveled CIO had spent more time overseeing the consolidation of state resources and less time talking about it?

The Hour of 9:00 am Having Arrived…

Friday the prosecution called its final witness, former DOJ investigator Dave Collins to the stand. Collins was present for Scott Jensen’s first and only interview with Brian Blanchard in September of 2001. The interview was voluntary and took place at the offices of Jensen’s attorneys. Collins said he took handwritten notes of the interview which were destroyed after he dictated a summary of them for transcription.

The prosecution intended to use this testimony to show that Jensen had not answered their questions truthfully during that meeting. Ironically, Collins set the stage for the defense to illustrate how far apart the worlds of people like Scott Jensen and Brian Blanchard are, though their bases of operation are within walking distance.

In Brian Blanchard’s world, “state time” or business hours are from eight to five and the lunch hour runs from noon to one. Employees punch a clock or complete weekly time sheets, overtime is a four letter word, and meetings with well defined agendas are scheduled days in advance using an electronic scheduling system.

In Scott Jensen’s world, the work day could last from nine in the morning Wednesday until two o’clock Thursday morning. If lunch happens at all, it might just be pizza or sandwiches brought into open Caucus. Meetings with co-workers take place whenever time permits, wherever it’s most convenient and will likely cover a variety of topics that have little or nothing to do with one another. That’s because all of Jensen’s co-workers live in different areas of the state where they have families and quite often other means of employment.

And while Brian Blanchard has to face re-election every two years to keep his job, Scott Jensen not only had to face his own re-election, he had to consider how the choices he helps his caucus make will affect the political well-being of dozens of his colleagues throughout the state - in order to keep his job in leadership.

In Brian Blanchard’s world, fundraising is broadly defined as any discussion or activity related to campaign finances. To Scott Jensen, fundraising is not the same as talking about raising money, but rather it is the active solicitation of funds.

In Brian Blanchard’s world the terms political activity and campaign activity are one in the same. In Scott Jensen’s world, all activity is political, some political activity is campaigning and everything he and his colleagues do has the end goal of getting legislators re-elected.

For Jensen, his colleagues and their employees, state time is the 2000 hours required by the state for full time employment status. Campaign time is time above the 2000 hours for which compensatory or vacation leave time may be taken.

The world Scott Jensen entered in 1992 was already messy and unclear. There’s no question it got messier as time went on. The line between legitimate state business and pure campaign activity went from blurred to non-existent over the course of two decades.
Scott Jensen didn’t erase the line, and though some of his less stellar hires like Jason Kratochwill contributed to its demise, we know from the Assembly and Senate Democratic Caucus investigations that by 2000, the entire system was spiraling out of control.

Scott Jensen worked to reform the system by implementing a formal time reporting system and eliminating the four partisan caucuses. These reforms met strong resistance from his colleagues in both houses and on both sides of the political aisle, but they were eventually adopted in 2001. The following year, Jensen’s efforts were rewarded with three felony counts of misconduct in public office and one misdemeanor count of misuse of his public position.

Now some Republicans find it rather inconvenient that Jensen and former legislative staffer Sherry Schultz have decided to invoke their right to a trial. They bemoan the decision as self-centered, as if they have actual knowledge of the options Jensen and Schultz considered when making their decision.

I don’t know what either one of them was ever offered, but I do know their decisions were not entered into lightly. And I can tell you that this trial is raising questions with far reaching implications, especially in light of a legislative proposal to give new investigatory powers to a bureaucratic agency.

According to Kevin Kennedy’s testimony for example, in his view any discussion of the financing of campaigns in the Capitol is prohibited by state law. I wonder if he’d be willing to change the State Election Board’s hours of operation to accommodate people who have to work during Brian Blanchard’s “state time,” or else deal with the flood of calls each day between noon and one when legislators and staff take Blanchard’s standard lunch hour.

If Brian Blanchard is right, legislators and staff will have to leave the Capitol building just to have a conversation about a campaign. Why not rule out the discussion of sports and religion while you’re at it?

Still some Republicans would rather see Scott Jensen and Sherry Schultz fall on their 50 plus swords and accept whatever prosecutors offer, while their former colleagues hastily pass an ethics reform package and go home to start their re-election campaigns with a clean slate.

I think Brian Blanchard would find Special Orders particularly galling.

When a bill is “Special Ordered” in the legislature, it is scheduled to be taken up at a specific time on that day’s calendar, though it may be taken up at any time that day. Even if a bill scheduled to be taken up at 9:00 a.m is actually taken up at 11:00 pm, the Chief Clerk will artificially change the time of day by saying, “The hour of 9 a.m. having arrived….,” and debate will begin on the bill.

So if it’s 9:00 am at 11:00 pm, what time is lunch?

Cosh Provides Comic Relief

Former ARC staffer, Bill Cosh provided a little comic relief in the courtroom today.Cosh said he was not happy about having to testify or forking out $200 an hour for an attorney to represent him, and he referred to his first two meetings with investigators as "six hours of my life that I'll never get back."

It may not have been worth the price of admission, but Cosh did manage to get in a few licks at prosecutors and the media alike.Despite attempts by the prosecutors to shut him down, Cosh mentioned campaign activities in the Assembly Democratic Caucus at least three times.

Referring to a campaign check list, Roy Korte asked Cosh what it meant to "tailor" a nomination paper. Cosh said that the elections board provides the official form for nomination papers and both the Republican and Democratic caucuses would tailor the form for individual candidates by adding their picture and other information. If Korte really wanted to know about tailoring nomination papers, he should have asked Brian Blanchard.

Cosh told jurors he once took a Democratic candidate over to the Assembly Democratic Caucus so he could get the assistance he needed with his campaign. The prosecutors were not amused.

Of course no state examination would be complete without a question regarding Packer Badger schedules. It was here that Cosh offered valuable information not previously available to jurors. Due to the geographic location of the Butler campaign, the standard Packer/ Badger schedules were replaced by Packer/Badger Viking/Gopher schedules.

And Cosh took a shot at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s own Carey Spivak and Dan Bice. Cosh told Korte they were not reporters, but rather, “political gossip columnists.” I emailed the boys to find out how they felt about that characterization. Their response: “We've been called much worse ... just in the newsroom."

During cross examination, Cosh said there was a great deal of crossover between policy and campaign related activities, and that he has no doubt the state got more than its 2000 hours a year from him.

I don't doubt that for a second either.

Former Counsel Speaks Highly of Jensen and Cites Office Policies

Scott Jensen’s former Deputy Legal Counsel Chad Taylor told jurors the Speaker’s office had a policy that nobody was to solicit campaign contributions in the office or to promote legislation to advance a personal interest. He also said Jensen expected staff to take time off for campaign work.

"There was a clear policy of not soliciting contributions from lobbyists - from anyone - in the speaker's office using the phone'" he said.

Taylor testified that he saw Carrie Hoeper Richard making copies of campaign checks on the office photocopier and told her to stop. He said he did not think photocopying the checks was illegal, but he felt it was improper.

Taylor called Jensen “unimpeachable on truth and a true public servant” before prosecutors objected.

Taylor was just one of many witnesses to offer his sincere and heartfelt praise of Jensen’s character, even though he was the first and only witness called by the defense so far.

Prosecution Resorts to Witness Intimidation

For several days I’ve watched in horror and amazement as Brian Blanchard and Roy Korte fumble their way through the examination of witness after witness. Not only do the prosecutors seem unable to anticipate how witnesses will respond to their questions, they often seem to have no idea what to ask them.

Some witnesses have accommodated the prosecution’s ineptitude by offering specific information and details to extremely vague questions. Other witnesses have asked prosecutors to be more specific. Two of Wednesday’s witnesses provide an excellent contrast.

Blanchard’s entire line of questioning with former ARC staffer Carolyn (Hughes) Jahnke consisted of Blanchard repeatedly asking, “Do you remember anything else?” Jahnke contributed what she could remember after six to eight years.

But when legislative staffer, Rose Smyrski continually asked prosecutors to be more specific and had difficulty remembering what calls she placed on her calling card six years ago, Assistant Attorney General Roy Korte audibly sighed and threw his pen down on the table in protest.

Not only was this stunt intended to intimidate the witness who faces the treat of prosecution if she does not satisfy her immunity agreement, but it also served to prejudice the jury by suggesting that Smyrski was not being honest or forthcoming.

Smyrski, the mother of two young children, repeatedly said that she was nervous and tired from being up much of the night with her four month old baby. Smyrski had difficulty remembering many of these details when she was initially interviewed by investigators in 2001. Should it really come as any surprise that her memory is even worse now?

Smyrski eventually left the witness stand in tears.

So after five years of investigation, hundreds of interviews and reams of paper, prosecutors are still not sure what their case is really all about, and they expect their witnesses to help make it up as they go along.

And I thought it was the prosecution’s responsibility to ask specific questions in order to make their case.