Some time ago, I was on Charlie Sykes ’ Sunday morning TV show with Scott Jensen . I was about to respond to a question and suddenly remembered, as I looked toward Jensen, that he was one of the group of indicted politicians I wanted to suggest was contributing to the public’s disgust with government. It was a surreal situation. Jensen’s inclusion on the pundit panel spoke volumes about the attitude of Republicans (and their sympathizers, like Sykes) toward the longtime Assembly Speaker.
After former Senate Majority Leader Chuck Chvala was indicted, Democratic colleagues mostly distanced themselves from him. By contrast, many Republicans continued supporting Jensen after his fall from grace. Sykes had never believed Jensen would be indicted and always took pains to suggest that Chvala’s crime was far more serious. By continuing to feature Jensen as a guest pundit, Sykes was sending the TV public a message that Jensen hadn’t done anything wrong.
Jensen was the one politician in the caucus scandal who didn’t plead guilty and didn’t seem to think he had done anything unethical. Dane County Attorney General Brian Blanchard cited this attitude in suggesting that Jensen be given a harsher punishment, and Circuit Court Judge Steven Ebert obliged, sentencing Jensen to 15 months in jail, more than any other politician convicted in the caucus scandal. That in turn evoked outrage from Jensen’s GOP friends.
In some ways, the Republicans’ attitude is understandable. Jensen is a likeable, very smart politician who may have been more responsible for getting state GOP candidates elected than anyone else over the last 16 years. The Republicans owe him and would like to find some way to help him.
All of which helps explain why Mark Green, the GOP gubernatorial candidate, seems so unwilling to separate himself from Jensen. Green was part of the Assembly GOP team led by Jensen and someone Jensen touted to reporters as a future star. Testimony in the caucus case shows that Green got some help from legislative staff for his campaign for state representative, and that help was also requested for his race for U.S. Congress. Like most state Republicans, Green has reason to be grateful to Jensen.
So when Green was asked whether he would consider pardoning Jensen, he couldn’t bring himself to say no. His answer to Frederica Freyburg of Wisconsin Public Television on May 19 began with “Good Lord” and then tiptoed around, offering vague platitudes. Incredibly, when given a second chance last week by the Journal Sentinel’s Spivak & Bice , the Green campaigned flubbed the question yet again. Green’s campaign manager, Mark Graul , would not rule out a pardon, saying instead, “It would be inappropriate to comment on something that hasn’t worked its way through the judicial process.
So yesterday I called Graul to offer the campaign a third chance. Graul e-mailed me this quote from Green: “I cannot see any scenario under which I would pardon Scott Jensen .” To buttress this point, the campaign noted that under the current process, a governor can’t pardon someone until five years after the conclusion of a person’s entire sentence.
But Article V, Section 6 of the Wisconsin Constitution also allows the governor the power to grant commutations — to reduce the length of someone’s sentence. This would seem to leave a loophole for Green to simply commute Jensen’s sentence, rather than issuing a pardon.
The easy way for Green to end this controversy is to just say no – under no circumstances would he give any legal break to Jensen. But remarkably, Green refuses to do so. “This is an ethics no-brainer,” Gov. Jim Doyle’s campaign spokesperson, Melanie Fonder , crows, “and Green has failed it not once, not twice, but three times.”
Green’s loyalty to Jensen could be very damaging. At a time when there is bipartisan disgust by voters with the many politicians convicted for various corruptions, a vague message about ethics won’t do. Green has foolishly let this issue fester for weeks and has given Doyle a huge opening for attack ads. It is still early in the campaign for governor, but this may ultimately be cited as one of the biggest blunders of the race.
Postscript, 1 p.m., June 6: Green campaign manager Mark Graul called and now has this to say: “There would be absolutely no situation under which Mark Green would give Scott Jensen commutation.”
Why a Regional Tax Won’t Fly
Given that I was the first to propose a regional cultural tax a decade ago, it pains me to say that a similar idea floated last week by civic leaders is a non-starter. It’s not going to happen.
The theory behind the idea is simple, as I noted in an Endgame column for Milwaukee Magazine back in the mid-1990s. Institutions like the Milwaukee Public Museum or Milwaukee County Zoo are regional attractions: Sixty percent of zoogoers and 57% of public museum patrons come from outside the county. So it makes sense that some kind of regional tax would support those attractions. In the 1960s and 1970s, the zoo and public museum were moved from a city subsidy to a county subsidy, in recognition that their audience was suburbanized. As the audience has spread further into the exurbs, it makes sense for the government to adapt by providing multi-county support for these attractions.
The model I proposed was Denver’s, where voters in the area rallied behind the symbol of the polar bear, the most popular attraction at the zoo, and approved a 1/10 of 1 percent sales tax for regional cultural institutions.
Behind the scenes, area arts lovers like Jill Pelisek got the support of former Gov. Tommy Thompson for this idea in the 1990s, but he backtracked after the furor over Miller Park, and its five-county sales tax soured citizens on any regional tax.
So here comes Pelisek and others again, this time touting a seven-county tax to support cultural attractions.
That would be a hard sell under any circumstances but is impossible now because of the county pension scandal. As long as the zoo and public museum are liable for any pension payments to county retirees, no voter from outside the county will agree to a tax to support these institutions.
There are other cultural groups with no connection to the county or its pension benefits that also have a regional audience: the Milwaukee Art Museum (55% of patrons come from outside the county) and Milwaukee Ballet (51% from outside the county). The Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra and Milwaukee Repertory Theater are other examples. But any attempt to sell a regional tax for such groups could not include the zoo and public museum until these institutions become completely independent from the county and free of all liability for retiree benefits.
Even if a regional tax proposal was completely separated from Milwaukee County, it still would have little hope of passage unless business leaders from the region worked to sell the idea. Business leaders have often argued that nationally recognized groups like the symphony help attract corporate talent to Milwaukee. There is clearly a connection between regional economic development and a region’s quality of life. But local government officials are inevitably loyal to their own county or municipality and cool to any regional tax. Only business leaders can transcend this provincialism. Unless they make a tremendous effort to sell citizens on thinking regionally, the idea of a cultural tax will go nowhere.
