If the Milwaukee International Film Festival were itself a movie, it would be a dark comedy.
Melissa Musante, its former volunteer coordinator, recently e-mailed supporters to let them know the festival, which always ran in September, is on for 2009, but offered no clue as to what’s happening in 2008. Philanthropist Chris Abele, who is now overseeing operations, says there won’t be a full-fledged 11-day festival this fall, but the group may put on some smaller events while gearing up for a 2009 festival. Insiders say the protracted negotiations with the festival’s founder, Louis Fortis, the publisher and owner of the Shepherd Express, fatally delayed the planning for this year’s festival.
When I first reported in early May on problems at the festival, I was attacked in an “Open Letter to Bruce Murphy” published online by the Shepherd Express. The letter, bizarrely enough, was written by the weekly’s “operations and finance manager,” Matt Astbury, rather than by Fortis, who founded the film festival, was its sole board member and oversaw its staff. Astbury declared there were no problems whatsoever at the festival and “there will absolutely be a 2008 Milwaukee International Film Festival, and 2009, 2010, 2011– you get the idea… There will always be plenty of funding for such an event.”
Two weeks later, Astbury confirmed the funding was gone and Fortis had laid off the festival staff, specifically operations director Kyle Heller, artistic director Jonathan Jackson and program coordinator T.J. Fackelman. Major funders like the Herzfeld Foundation and Abele’s Argosy Foundation had cut off the festival’s funding. At issue was Fortis’ demand for payment of debts he claimed the festival owed the Shepherd: Fortis said he wanted $100,000 while others say it was as much as $250,000, much of it for ads that ran in the Shepherd.
The resulting negotiations resulted in Argosy and Herzfeld paying Fortis $54,000, in return for which he would relinquish control of the festival. So Abele rehired the three key festival staffers and the Milwaukee Art Museum agreed to operate as the nonprofit of record for the festival.
Ah, but it turns out Fortis has not agreed to give up the name of the festival. One source tells me the Herzfeld Foundation offered $5,000 for the name but Fortis declined. Abele would say only that the festival’s leaders are now searching for a new name. Hmm. How about the Really Truly Global Milwaukee Film Festival?
Rumors are now flying that the Shepherd may put on its own festival. So are we now going to have two international film festivals? I’m not sure, but when Astbury last e-mailed me, he offered a hint to the contrary.“I will say that it would be difficult to start a film festival from scratch without the knowledge and skills possessed by Mr. Jackson, Mr. Heller, and Mr. Fackelman,” he told me.
Since this redoubtable threesome is now employed by Abele’s group, and since they’re the only ones with funding, I’m guessing they will be the only ones putting on a film festival. Now all they need is a name.
Update 4:30 p.m., July 22nd: Fortis called me and flatly denied he’d received any payment from Abele or the Herzfeld Foundation. Furthermore, Fortis said, he has not agreed to any payoff figure to relinquish the festival. “We have no agreement,” he says. Going further, Fortis said that even without the festival’s staff, he may try to launch a limited film festival this fall. In short, if Abele and company intend to do their own film festival, they will clearly need a different name – or will have to up their offer to buy Fortis out.
Update 9:40 a.m., July 23rd: As reported in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Abele’s group has chosen the name Milwaukee Film. One of my readers, however, offered (anonymously) an excellent alternative: the Fresh Coast Film Festival.
Update 11:10 a.m., July 23rd: (Whew) Abele informs me that Milwaukee Film is simply the title of the new non-profit group he’s created. The name for the festival has yet to be determined. Feel inspired? Send me your suggestions and we’ll publish the proposed names here.
Supreme Court For Sale?
After state Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler was defeated by challenger Michael Gableman in the April election, some liberal supporters of Butler declared it was time to change the system and begin appointing rather than electing justices. Conservatives laughed it off as sour grapes. They had a point.
But the recent Supreme Court decision awarding a $265 million tax refund to the Menasha Corp. – a decision that could mean refunds for some 240 other companies that have filed similar claims – raises serious questions about the court’s independence.
The decision was championed by the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, which wrote a friend of the court brief. The WMC spent some $2 million to elect Justice Annette Ziegler in 2007, and she wrote the majority decision. Regardless of the merits of the decision, this is a huge conflict of interest and it suggests, nay shouts to the average citizen that the court has been bought.
This has nothing to do with liberals versus conservatives or Republicans versus Democrats. For starters, it was the administration of former Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson that first turned down Menasha Corp.’s request for a refund in 1998. Governors of both parties didn’t want to lose the money.
And consider the impact of this decision. When the state loses hundreds of millions in business taxes, it will replace this as it always does, through more property and income taxes on individuals. This will fall on Democratic and Republican citizens alike.
True, the decision tended to line up the court’s conservatives against liberals. But it also had a liberal who faced a conflict along with Ziegler. The WMC spent $1.8 million to defeat Butler. Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause in Wisconsin, argues that both Butler and Ziegler should have recused themselves from ruling on this case.
So where then does it stop? At what point does the court become ineffective because of constant recusals, or so tainted that it begins losing the public’s support?
In the past, I’ve suggested the solution is public financing for Supreme Court candidates. But blogger Rick Esenberg took me to task, noting that a public financing system would do nothing to stop outside spending by groups like the WMC or its liberal counterparts. He’s right. The state could never give candidates enough public financing to equalize the obscene level of spending by the WMC. And even if it did, the WMC could simply up the ante. Big business has proven that this kind of spending is a very good investment, buying sympathetic state Supreme Court justices and attorneys general across the country.
Yes, there has always been spending of this kind, but the last five to 10 years have seen an exponential increase in targeted spending by big business. This spending is legal and qualifies as freedom of speech. So what reform can possibly prevent judge-buying? I don’t like the idea, but it may be that appointing justices is the only solution.
The Buzz
The Sunday New York Times did a story on how cities are moving more to foot patrols to save on the cost of gas. Government budgets are getting killed by rising gas prices and the cost of the police department is by far the biggest killer for the city of Milwaukee. There might be lessons here for Milwaukee and other municipalities in this area.
And the Sports Nut translates Ned Yost into English. High time.
