Holloway Update

If the County Board had the guts to do the right thing several weeks ago, this case would still be very significant. This doesn't free them of their shame, however.

Had they done their job at least this drama wouldn't be impacting the Chairman of the County Board.

The MJS has the story today. From an article headlined: Holloway case hits obstacle.

After Thursday's vote, retired Judge John Fiorenza, the prosecutor hired by the Ethics Board, said he would stay on in the interim if his client desired.

"I do not leave clients in the lurch," Fiorenza said. "I'll continue to do what I have to do if they want me to."

Ethics Board member Daniel Hanley Jr., who spoke before the Finance Committee in Carter's absence, did not go as far as Carter in sizing up the impact of Thursday's vote. But he said funds were depleted, leaving the future of the matter in the County Board's hands.

Carter said he would talk to Fiorenza today but expressed doubt about the legality of the prosecutor continuing without expenditure authority to do so.

The full County Board meets next week but is not expected to take up the matter because it remains in committee.

Supervisors who supported the delay - Elizabeth Coggs-Jones, Michael Mayo Sr., Willie Johnson Jr., Peggy West - criticized the prosecution as excessive, unfair and overly costly. Mayo cited a personal objection, saying he felt he was treated unfairly when the Ethics Board prosecuted him in a case involving acceptance of gifts from pension-fund financial advisors. Mayo was fined $1,250 in that case.

"With our deficits, we can't afford this," said West, who called for the Ethics Board to detail how it had spent funds so far.

The four have backed Holloway as he has argued that it is premature for him to step aside until a finding of guilt or innocence is determined in the case.

Opponents of the delay - Ryan McCue, Gerry Broderick, Richard Nyklewicz Jr. - said putting the matter off could disable the prosecution and deny Holloway his stated wish to fully exercise his right to due process in fighting the civil charges.

"Justice delayed is justice denied," Broderick said.

The cost of the case has risen quickly as Holloway has filed multiple legal actions trying to stop, slow or reverse the ethics prosecution, including lawsuits against Fiorenza and the Ethics Board. He was unsuccessful in asking a state Court of Appeals to throw out the case.

Final hearing set for June

A final hearing on the Holloway case is set for June in front of county-appointed hearing examiner Michael Hogan. It could last two to three weeks. The $150,000 funding request - from the county contingency fund - was to cover ongoing fees for Hogan and Fiorenza. Holloway has a private attorney.

Neither man has billed the county yet for his work during this week's four-day hearing on whether the Ethics Board overstepped its bounds in accusing Holloway of dozens of violations dating as far back as 1994.

At the hearing, Jeremy Levinson, an attorney for Holloway, argued that the county ethics ordinance, board rules and past practice generally limited the board to reaching back only three years in its case against Holloway.

Fiorenza countered that the three-year prosecution clock on the older allegations didn't start running until the board became aware of the alleged violations last year after stories appeared in the Journal Sentinel. County Supervisor Joseph Rice then triggered the official probe by filing a formal complaint.

Hogan said he would likely make a ruling in about a week on whether to disallow the older allegations, which comprise about three-fourths of the 90 civil charges against Holloway.

"What this case is really about is the conflict of interest violations," Levinson said Thursday in an interview. "This whole thing has been about the OIC business."

OIC folded more than a year ago after its CEO was convicted in a kickback scheme involving state money funneled to former state Sen. Gary George.

The story continues, later:

Holloway, in testimony Wednesday, acknowledged having received the $165,000 from OIC affiliates. He also renewed his stance that he didn't think voting on OIC contracts with the county posed a conflict because the OIC pacts were part of a larger collection of social service pacts. He also said his vote mattered little in any case because those contracts were approved by unanimous or near-unanimous votes by the County Board.

Levinson, at the hearing Thursday before Hogan, acknowledged that Holloway's ethics statement were "woefully inadequate." But that didn't justify "unleashing the fury" of the Ethics Board, he said.

While Holloway is a man of "many skills, he is not a guy I'm going to ask to draft up a complex transaction," Levinson said. It would have made more sense for the board to work with Holloway to correct the shortcomings on his disclosure forms, "or maybe a slap in the head" alerting him to the problems, Levinson said.

For now. Focus your disgust on Holloway. Milwaukee County residents should share this story with folks you imagine will be outraged. And be prepared to do something about it.

This is not over yet. The long-term question is which County Board members get swept up (and out) in the aftermath of constituent anger.

The Holloway side is feeling quite confident that their strategy of bankrupting the prosecution has been successful.

We'll see.

I love it when politicians, of any political stripe, underestimate voters' intelligence and overestimate their apathy.

Stay tuned.