Gerard Randall has
served on the University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents since 2001 and has
become increasingly concerned about a lack of scrutiny of certain public
projects. He points to the UW-Milwaukee dorm deal I wrote about last week as a
prime example. Though created by the private nonprofit UWM Real Estate
Foundation, this is, for all practical purposes, a public project, he says.
“The university is going to run it. They’re going to staff it. They’re going
to collect the residence hall fees. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a
duck, it’s a duck,” he says.
Unlike other real estate deals, he adds, the project entails no risk for
developers because the university can guarantee revenue flow and full occupancy
by students. As such, a public bidding process might lead to the university
getting a better deal. Instead, Randall says, the deal was done quietly and
there’s no paperwork to show if other developers even got a chance to bid.
As I noted last week, several companies chosen to do this project have
donated to Doyle: KBS Construction donated some $43,000; engineering firm
Graef Anhalt Schloemer & Associates donated some $19,500; and
relative pikers, Eppstein Uhen Architects, gave a mere $3,600.
Randall concedes that he is no friend to Gov. Jim Doyle. Doyle tried
to replace Randall as regent, but the state Senate refused to approve the move
and Randall declined to resign; he will serve until 2008.
Critics of my story (including the university, whose response can be found in
our letters section) have argued that the companies were chosen for this project
by the lead contractor, Capstone Development, and this had nothing to do with
Doyle. But UWM officials did credit the state Department of Administration with
helping with the project. The state also awarded the UWM dorm deal with a
$100,000 “Blight Elimination and Brownfield Redevelopment Grant” from the
Department of Commerce. Doyle touted the deal in a press release, suggesting
that the grant would “promote economic development” (which seems like a stretch
for a student-housing project).
Another interesting connection to this project was the city planning
director, Bob Greenstreet, who is also dean of the UWM School of
Architecture. The city has been very helpful to this project, using the city’s
Redevelopment Authority to issue $30 million in bonds for UWM’s foundation. The
Redevelopment Authority, though an “independent corporation” created by state
statute, is run by a board appointed by the mayor, gets city-approved block
grant funds and relies on staff support from the Department of City Development,
where Greenstreet works.
All told, the project is a cozy one. True, the donors to Doyle also give to
Republicans and know how to play the insider game. There is no evidence that
Doyle suggested which contractors to use and no proof he’s done anything
illegal.
But that is also true of every other deal involving the governor that has
generated front-page headlines in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
What distinguishes this one is there was no public bidding process and thus no
way to know if insiders got what Randall dubs a “sweetheart deal.” This story
may not deserve the front page either, but surely the public deserves to read
about it.
That seems to be the conclusion of the Associated Press, which picked up the
story last week, generating coverage in newspapers and TV stations across the
state. Even the Chicago Tribune ran the story. But the Journal
Sentinel’s editors told readers who asked about this that it really wasn’t a
story.
Mark Green’s Credibility Gap
In a Sunday story, Mark Green told the media he planned to finish his
campaign without spending the $467,844 in federal campaign funds he transferred
to his campaign. Both the state Elections Board and a Dane County judge ruled
that the transfer of funds was illegal; Green wants the state Supreme Court to
consider his appeal.
It sounds very upright that Green won’t spend this money. But on August 30,
after the Elections Board made its ruling, his campaign spokesperson, Mark
Graul, told the press that the $467,844 had already been spent. So what are
we supposed to believe at this point?
Green’s campaign used a similar strategy in 2005 when he was asked if he
intended to return the $30,000 in tainted campaign money from disgraced former
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. “That money has been since spent, so
there is no contribution to return,” Graul told the press. In fact, Green
ultimately relented and gave back the money, in the form of a $30,000 donation
to charity.
Green now says the $467,844 in illegal federal campaign dollars is being kept
in a “separate account,” pending the court decision. But if it turns out that he
already spent the money, as Graul claimed two months ago, we won’t know until
after the election anyway. At this point, it’s difficult to know which statement
by Green and company to believe.
Jessica Spins Another One
In November 2005, Milwaukee Magazine published a “Pressroom” column
about Jessica McBride, calling her blog a “provocative” column that had
become “a must-read for many politicos, journalists and other predominantly
conservative bloggers.” McBride agreed to sit for a photo for the article and
had no criticism to offer.
This month, the magazine covered McBride again, concentrating on her WTMJ
radio show. McBride, however, has now decided that the magazine is biased. She
did a blog item, headlined “Spot the Slant,” suggesting that the questions asked
by columnist Erik Gunn were somehow slanted.
As a former reporter, McBride is surely aware that reporters often ask
questions they don’t believe and may ask things that seem ridiculous, all in the
pursuit of the most revealing responses by the subject. The real issue is, how
accurate is the column Gunn wrote? McBride has nothing to say about this,
instead concentrating her fire on a trivial rundown of the questions asked by
Gunn. What next, a critique of the socks he wore?
McBride concludes by telling us that Gunn’s feature story on the governors’
race in the October issue of Milwaukee Magazine was slanted. “His
‘dominant frame’ seemed to be that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is
covering Jim Doyle too aggressively and that this is biased because they didn’t
cover Tommy Thompson the same way,” she writes.
Huh? Gunn’s feature was 5,000 words and 79 paragraphs long, with three
paragraphs examining the question of media bias. The dominant frame for the
story was why such a negative campaign was being conducted by two guys with very
similar idealistic roots.
That is obvious to anyone who read the story (and we received not one
complaint of bias from readers or representatives of the candidates). McBride’s
wildly inaccurate charge raises anew the question Gunn’s Pressroom column asks,
whether her style “simply reinforces a post-modernist media world in which
objective reporting or instructive commentary is passé and it’s just all spin
all the time.”
