Aswidely expected, the Milwaukee County board voted 11-4 to override CountyExecutive Chris Abele’s veto of their changes to the pension plan, which would grandfatherin pensioners who had taken county advice on their retirement accounts,even though the county was providing not-quite-accurate advice.
Whatwasn’t expected is that tea party Supervisor Deanna Alexander would makeexplosive allegations about some sort of secret information swirling around theCourthouse. [UPDATED: See Alexander's explanation below.]
Alexanderwas supportive of veto override up until recently, which is sort of interestingbecause she usually votes in lock step with Abele, giving him right-wing coveron the board.
Here’swhat Alexander told her fellow supervisors:
“Afew days ago I published an op-ed piece in the Journal Sentinel highly supporting the board’s past position that’sbeen vetoed today, based primarily on the notion that it’s the most fiscallyresponsible position to take for the county. Mainly because we have been advised,or at least the advice that I have heard so far, was that Milwaukee County engagingin litigation brought against us on this issue would face like my colleagueshave alluded to, class action lawsuit, before a jury, outside the statute oflimitations, that we would have relatively very, very little chance ofsucceeding and prevailing.”
Then she rails against the media. The JournalSentinel, along with Urban Milwaukee and right-wing talk radio, have beenpushing really anti-board, anti-pension pieces on this issue, instead of dealingwith the realfacts at hand, which is that Scott Walker knew about the mess but failed tofix it, and that Abele’s proposed fix would lead to costly and hopelesslawsuits, and that the board now has been called in to save the day and is stuck with the negative media coverage. But Idigress.
Afterexplaining why she had supported overriding Abele’s veto but was now having a change of heart, Alexander continued:
“Thereality is I have had more information brought to my attention in the past fewdays. I’ve been told that the county executive’s office did not receive thesame legal advice that this board received. I’ve also been told that some ofthe attorneys advising us were themselves beneficiaries of the system that wewere voting on. I’ve been unable to find answers or resolve to these issues andI’ve been unable to get answers to any of these questions. Therefore, on behalfof the public interest, I do have to support the veto because I don’t think itwould be responsible to move forward with these drastic types of changes withouthaving the full information before us.”
Shesaid she’d issue a press statement and full explanation later today.
“That is quite an allegation of secret information," Board Chair MarinaDimitrijevic said and invited the county's attorney to defend himself.
Corp Counsel Paul Bargren denied Alexander’s accusations.
Dimitrijevic then gave Alexander another chance to explain herself.
“Indulge the body if you have special information,” Dimitrijevic said.
Alexander said that she had explained herself, “in partiality I just did."
Interestingthat the JournalSentinel’s take on Alexander’sallegations only provides half the story and that Bruce Murphy’s blog doesn’t mentionthem at all.
Alsointeresting is that it was Alexander who made these allegations. She’s beenAbele’s closest ally on the board and a tea party and right-wing talk-radio darling with tons of ambition, and it was sort of surprising that she brokeaway from both the county executive and the right-wing talkers and showed some independence in initially overriding the veto.
Of course, that didn’t last long.
If this is just a political stunt to get Alexander out of a jam, then she’s terrible. But if she truly does have damning evidence about the county, then she should have just come out with it during today’s debate.
UPDATE: Here's a statement from Alexander, denying that she made any sort of allegations during Tuesday's board meeting. You be the judge:
“My initial vote to move forward with ordinance changes to save the County from the greatest potential for financial losses related to the pension buy in / buy back program was entirely dependent upon relying on the legal advice we had received, and that the ideal choice of another route in dealing with the problems was not an option.
“When information was brought to my attention over the few days before and the very morning of the vote on the veto, that lead me to reasonably question how much reliance I could place on that advice, I followed through with my commitment to the public by taking that information into account and I revised my decision.
“I would like to make it clear that my announcement to revise my position due to these concerns should never have been taken in such a way as to accuse Attorney Bargren of wrongdoing, or as if there is some “secret” courthouse legal scandal; to do so would be an incorrectly exaggerated interpretation.
“My concerns about the advice we received were not able to be verified by the time of the vote, and after consulting with outside counsel and my constituents, it became clear that if the pensioners were to pursue litigation, the best decision was to allow the judicial system to craft answers to the County’s complex issues. The fact that all Supervisors moved their original votes from the time these errors were discovered to the positions taken by the majority in the veto override vote, and that Supervisor Borkowski joined me in revising our own positions, should demonstrate to the public what a very difficult decision we faced.”
