District letter to Waukesha DA

Here’s a copy of the letter the district wrote to Waukesha District Attorney Brad Schimel.

I was also able to confirm that the district did not alert the press to the issue. That means a reporter must have read it here first.

Update – 6:30 p.m. – Well, I’ve been told I’m wrong. You’ll have to read the comments to put it all together.


  1. Cindy, do you think we’ll ever hear who placed this ad? I know it wasn’t any of the prior “Vote No” group who was careful to comply with the letter of the law during the last referendum.

    And now there are people on both sides claiming the ad supports both the “vote yes” and “vote no” position. If the intent of the advertiser was to promote a position, they did it poorly and wasted their money, since both sides are claiming it supports their position. So I guess there’s some justice meted out already, despite what Mr. Schimmel decides NOT to do.

  2. Well, I’m not telling, and it sounds like MJS advertising isn’t telling, so unless Schimel subpoenas them for a copy of billing information, I don’t think so.

    I was equally frustrated, Winegirl, about the approach and feel the same way about it muddying the issue. But, as Kathryn pointed out, it is the ultimate statement of free speech.

    What I find even more fascinating: despite all of the laws governing our elections, now more than ever it is obvious that anything goes.

  3. BrkfldDad says:

    Ah, but you did say you didn’t know how much this ‘guy’ paid, so can we assume we’ve narrowed to a male ignorant of election laws?

  4. Well, I think she already knows then Dan.

  5. Gosh, don’t we want her reading? Don’t we want community reporters keeping an eye on what’s happening? Don’t we like that Cindy is part of what’s happening? I know I’m being slow again, but I don’t get this.

  6. Kathryn, I’m cranky that the MJS picked up a story without saying where it was first published. They’ve done it before, but this is the first time since I’m no longer “owned” by the company that prints the paper. I’ll live, but it’s still fun to tease Lisa since we know she reads.

    Clear enough?

  7. Eh-yup.

  8. Lisa Sink says:

    This is against my better judgement. But to tease you back, Cindy, Gibson personally told me about the district’s letter to the DA before I saw it on your site.

  9. I was sure there was a perfectly logical answer.

  10. Lisa Sink says:

    But you definitely posted it first.

  11. BrkfldDad says:

    Well, they finally found out and released an article on it just now. http://www.jsonline.com/watch/?watch=1&date=3/17/2008&id=37081 Can’t believe it was Jim, find that pretty funny, know him well. Article fails to mention that he has another son, sophomore who plays hockey/lacrosse, as well as a middle school daughter. Maybe he’s mad they aren’t building a district owned rink with the referendum proceeds!

  12. Woohoo! Everyone knows now and my conscience is clear. I’m generally not very good with secrets, but I kept that one.

    My understanding is that Mr. Hollowell contacted the DA voluntarily last Friday.

  13. Scott Berg says:

    So, how do we know if you REALLY knew that Dr. Hollowell was the author?

    It would be very much in character for you (in my opinion, which is based on many years of watching you manipulate people) to bluff, knowing that a DA would ferret out the information and make it public eventually just so that you could say “I told you so!”

    What, now comes the accusation of conspiracy theory. But what about all your posts today about why routine finance matters are being considered at (gasp!) a finance committee meeting?

    Let’s see, you knew the ad was illegal, you (claimed) you knew the author, you bragged about not telling… Would that qualify as obstruction of justice? Being a good citizen in cooperating with investigations? You were very quick to turn in Dave Marcello, who you clearly dislike, but not this guy. Hmmmmm.

  14. Well, Scott, I see you still read. Thanks! I guess you’ll just have to trust me. You know, like you did when I got televising the Council meetings passed after you had tried for years…

    I don’t know this guy. And I don’t understand your reference to Marcello.

    By the way, routine matters are no longer routine when they are two months early. Also, I said the bonds were to be considered at the Common Council meeting, not the Finance Committee meeting.

    PS The DA never asked. I don’t think your fantasy about “obstruction of justice” applies here.

  15. It’s hard to believe that a jerk like Scott Berg is a public official who ever got re-elected! What’s wrong with the voters in his district? Sleeping?

  16. Or scared of Brookfield Bernstein, recycling paparazzo, so-proud-to-live-here-because-not-everyone-can-afford-it Alderman Berg?