The Long Drawn Out Investigation and Attempted Prosecution of Lee Holloway's Ethics Case
Why Has it Taken so Long and Cost so Much?
Some have raised the question: Why has it cost the County so much money to try this case?
Let's review, shall we, the good Chairman’s legal maneuvering in the courts and within
November 2004
Milwaukee County Supervisor Joe Rice Files a complaint with the ethics board, alleging Holloway failed to include his ownership interest in certain real estate in his Statement of Economic Interests in 2003 and 2004. He further alleges that Holloway has discharged his official duties to benefit the
January 2005
The Milwaukee County Ethics Board meets to consider the Rice complaint. They decide to hire a retired judge, John Fiorenza, to conduct an investigation into the matter.
June 2005
Holloway files suit in circuit court seeking an injunction writ or other order to prohibit future proceedings of the Ethics Board. He argues that the investigation was neither reasonable nor properly authorized. He also claims that the Ethics Board's notice was inadequate that Fiorenza’s investigation was wrongfully looking at actions outside the statute of limitations.
The same day Holloway serves the Ethics Board and Fiorenza with the complaint; the Board adopts Findings of Fact and an official 90-count ethics complaint and files them with the Personnel Review Board.
One week later the circuit court holds a hearing on Holloway's suit and rejects his contention that the investigation was not properly authorized. The court does find that the Ethics Board's authorization was limited to investigating Holloway's failure to disclose items in his statement of economic interest. The court requires that the Personnel Board review the case and give Holloway a chance to respond.
September 2005
Holloway removes Roger Quindel, an outspoken critic, from the Finance committe. He replaces him with Supervisor Peggy West, a political ally.
October 2005
The Personnel Review Board meets to determine which allegations are lawfully before them.
The examiner, Attorney Michael Hogan, rules that the investigation and ensuing complaint were within the scope of the ethics code and that all alleged violations that predated the filing of the original Rice complaint would be heard on the merits
December 2005
Holloway files a second lawsuit to limit the scope of the investigation. This time he names the Ethics Board and Personnel Review Board as defendants. His two suits are consolidated into one.
Less than a week later Holloway asks the court for a stay and to restrain the Personnel Board's actions against him. He also seeks to have certain subpoenas squashed.
The court grants Holloway's motion "insofar necessary to permit Hearing Examiner Michael Hogan sufficient opportunity to review and rule on Holloway's objections."
January 3, 2006
Hogan hears Holloway's motions. Holloway argues that the Personnel Board should dismiss all allegations, with the exception of the two allegations in Rice's original complaint. He further argues that as an alternative the allegations should be narrowed to those asserted to have happened within three years of the filing of the original Rice complaint. He again argues that the subpoenas be squashed or limited to some extent.
Hogan rules that The Ethic's Board investigation, complaint and amended complaint were duly authorized. Hogan further determines that the Ethics Board may investigate and include allegations beyond the original Rice complaint that Fiorenza discovered during his investigation.
January 18, 2006
The parties return to circuit court. After holding a hearing, the court orders the Personnel Board proceedings can continue. However they also will review whether alleged violations that predate the Rice complaint by more than 3 years are properly before them.
January 23, 2006
Holloway asks the circuit court for a stay pending his appeal of the January 18th order and all related proceedings.
February 1, 2006
After a hearing, the circuit court denies Holloway's motion for a stay. Specifically, they conclude that Holloway had not made a strong showing that he was likely to succeed on appeal. They further conclude that any harm Holloway may suffer was slight in comparison to the public's interest in seeing the proceedings through to a prompt conclusion.
February 2, 2006
Holloway turns to the court of appeals for relief.
The same day, ten members of the
FYI, The effort to remove Holloway as chairman never materializes after the Attorney General fails to back up her initial views that such a move is legal by issuing a formal opinion.
February 20, 2006
A Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter quotes Holloway as saying: “I'm not being reimbursed (for legal fees). I'm broke,” Holloway said. “My understanding is they've spent a ton of money. I can't imagine their money will last.”
February 28, 2006
In the midst of maneuvering to oust Holloway as Chairman, West publicly gushes over her patron; comparing Holloway to recently deceased civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks.
March 7, 2006
Appeals court denies his appeal.
March 13, 2006
Ethics Board announces they will need $150,000 in additional funds to run and prosecute the case.
April 6, 2006
The
April 7, 2006
Ethics Board Chairman John Carter and Vice Chair Maria Monreal-Cameron resign in protest over the Finance Committee pulling the rug from underneath them.
10 Comments:
You could have mentioned that the Rice complaint alleged two possible violations and probably could have been dealt with in a month. Instead, the board went looking to start WWIII. But don't let the facts stop you.
Anon, you need to read this post. Fraley DOES point out Rice had two points in his complaint and that the ethics board issued a 90 count charge.
It looks like HOagan or the Courts could have cut this thing back down to managable size but wouldn't do it. its too bad, we'd have had some answers by now.
Why isn't holloway being charged with fraud? not in a county board but in court. am i bing naive about this?
that's the point -- the DA and the US Atty investigated and found that Holloway didn't break the law. But a couple of unelected, unaccountable goofs on the ethics board decided the county should spend a quarter million dollars making a third run at the guy.
The US Attorney indicated the allegations were from beyond the statue of limitiations for criminal prosecution. He did NOT say Holloway was innocent.
Hell, even Holloway admits he took 165 thousand dollars in money from a anti poverty agency, while maintainng ownership of the property he supposedly rented then sold.
The ethics case is not within criminal court and is not subject to the same limitations. This is about County ethics laws, not criminal charges.
Finally, to call John Carter and Maria Monreal Cameron goofs while defending the honor of Holloway? Put down the pipe, and get yourself into rehab as soon as you can.
Your comments about the US Atty and what Holloway admits shows that you either aren't paying attention to the facts or just don't care. Your facts are wrong.
And Cameron becoming a shill for CRG shows that this was not about a government board enforcing the law, it was her personal crusade. Can you imagine a disappointed prosecutor from either McCann's or Biskupic's office headlining a political rally to whine about it??
As for Carter - he drove the Board over a cliff and wants to be indignant about it? Give me a break.
OIC affiliate charged over payments
Holloway firm was paid for building that never changed hands, records say
A real estate firm headed by Milwaukee County Board Chairman Lee Holloway and his wife was paid $165,000 by an affiliate of Opportunities Industrialization Center of Greater Milwaukee for a building that never changed hands, according to federal charges filed Wednesday.
The Holloways kept the money, but the sale was never completed, and the social service agency never took possession of the building, the charges say.
Despite that, OIC also filed a federal block grant application -- which contained at least three forged documents -- seeking $245,000 to renovate the building, falsely claiming the deal was on the verge of completion, according to court records.
Although the grant was denied, felony charges were issued Wednesday against the Garfield Foundation, an OIC affiliate, in connection with the payments to the Holloways' company, Webb Investments.
Holloway, his wife, Lynda, and Webb Investments have not been charged for accepting the money in several separate transactions between 1994 and 1998. Under federal law, the statute of limitations for most crimes committed by individuals is five years.
http://64.241.242.253/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20041216/ai_n11004841
actually, if you listen to carter, the us atty said that holloway was a good man and that others were to blame.
holloway said he sold the building and got the money but that the OIC affiliate never took the building. according to the JS on Saturday, that issue has been resolved and they are undoing the sale w/ holloway returning the money.
Holloway has also said that since getting the money for the building, he has never done anything with the building, rented it or tried to sell it, etc. If this was some sort of sham, why would he watn to keep a building that didn't do anything other than cost him taxes?
the federal case involved someone forging docs in the holloways names. if holloway and oic were doing something wrong together, why would they have forged his name?
Isn't Carter representing an official in Iron County who is in big trouble? Last I heard Carter tried to hold up that investigation? This is the guy at the head of the milw ethics board?
Post a Comment
<< Home