It was billed simply as a “get to know one another” event, a reception hosted on May 10, 2000 by the newly chosen Common Council president, Marvin Pratt.
Pratt had just been elected president of the 17-member body by his fellow aldermen, and as his first act as leader of the council, he wanted to thank the aldermen who supported him and mend fences with those who had not. But instead of paying for the event out of his own pocket or campaign fund, Pratt turned to four prominent Milwaukee lobbyists to finance the event held at the Velvet Room, a swanky martini bar Downtown.
The move backfired.
“It was a terrible event that set a terrible tone for the council,” says one alderman who refused to attend even though he had supported Pratt for Common Council president. “It basically showed the young aldermen on the council that if you needed something done, go find a lobbyist and they would pay for it. It was very inappropriate and a horrible way for Marvin to start his new position.”
Hosted by Moira Fitzgerald of Broydrick & Associates; Joel Haubrich of We Energies Corp.; Buddy Julius, then of the Metropolitan Association of Realtors; and Phillip Levis, then of the Metropolitan Association of Commerce, the lobbyist-funded reception startled several aldermen who were used to Pratt’s predecessor, retired Ald. John Kalwitz. Kalwitz ran the Common Council for 12 years and was regarded as a seasoned and savvy politician.
“Kalwitz wasn’t perfect by any means, but he would have never hosted an event like that, paid for by lobbyists, because of the message it sent,” says the alderman who boycotted the reception.
The reception quickly exposed what some observers say was Pratt’s bad judgment and inexperience as a leader. Now, with the stakes on the rise, Pratt’s immediate challenge is to turn that reputation around.
When Mayor John Norquist announced he would resign January 1, 2004, Pratt’s stock jumped sky high as the man who would inherit the job.
For Pratt, who declared his candidacy for mayor in February 2003, Norquist’s decision couldn’t have come at a better time. Two weeks earlier, former Congressman Tom Barrett stepped into the mayor’s race and leaped to front runner. Speculation – and support – continues to center on African-American Sheriff David Clarke, a potentially popular candidate who could draw conservatives as well as black voters away from Pratt.
But most troublesome to Pratt has been the mess in his own backyard. On Pratt’s watch as council president, federal investigations of criminal wrongdoing engulfed City Hall. The probe resulted in the indictment of three Common Council members, with two of them – Ald. Rosa Cameron and Ald. Jeff Pawlinski – resigning from the council in shame. Cameron began an eight-month prison sentence in April, while Pawlinski’s plea bargain agreement recommends an eight-month prison sentence. He will be sentenced in August. The third alderman charged in the federal probe, Paul Henningsen, was convicted in June of stealing nearly $25,000 from his campaign fund and falsifying records. He will be sentenced in September.
Not since the mid-1980s, when Ald. Richard Spaulding was forced from office because of charges of extortion and accepting bribes, have federal prosecutors focused their microscope on 200 E. Wells St.
“This place has been in a frenzy since the feds came in,” Ald. Thomas Nardelli, a mayoral candidate, told Milwaukee Magazine during the peak of the investigations in early 2003. “Aldermen and staff are using pay telephones in the lobby because of fear their office phones are being tapped by the FBI. No alderman will meet in his or her office alone because of fear that the person you are talking to is working for the FBI. It is just nuts up here right now.”
It was the 57-year-old Pratt’s hope to use his position as council president as a stepping stone to the mayor’s office, a short distance from his own on the second floor of City Hall. But with the federal investigations dominating the news over the past year, the spotlight – and much of the fallout – has fallen on Pratt. Though he hasn’t been accused of wrongdoing, the man in charge has been stained by the scandal nonetheless.
One Milwaukee lobbyist compares Pratt to a substitute teacher brought in to finish out the year for an unruly class – in this case 16 fellow aldermen. “He’s milquetoast. The bad kids know it and have been taking advantage of this,” says the lobbyist. “And when you have someone that soft in charge, even the good kids are acting up by the end of the semester.”
As Pratt pursues a high-profile quest for mayor, his reputation precedes him.
Lack of Leadership
Born in Dallas, Texas, Pratt was raised by his single mother after his father died when he was young. The family moved to Milwaukee in 1959, when Pratt was a junior in high school. He graduated from North Division and enlisted in the Air Force in 1962, serving four years. Today he’s a major in the Army Reserves. He and his wife, Dianne, have two children and three grandchildren.
After the service, Pratt worked several manufacturing jobs and in 1972 received a political science degree from Marquette University. He later worked in the office of Mayor Henry Maier as a graduate assistant while attending the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Pratt first ran for the council in 1984 against North Side Ald. Roy Nabors, accusing him of not spending enough time on district concerns. Pratt lost but ran again in 1987, when Nabors stepped down. Before his election, he was president of the AFSCME union local that represented about 50 public employees in the assessor’s office, where he spent 12 years as a property appraiser.
Pratt ran successfully for re-election four times. But with his ascension to Common Council president three years ago, questions about his leadership skills began to emerge, handicapping his bid for mayor. A powerful position, the council president appoints all of the committees, runs the meetings and sets the tone for the rest of the aldermen.
“Marvin’s leadership has been abysmal,” says one longtime alderman. “Marvin was running for mayor from the first day he got the job, and that meant he couldn’t piss anyone off. So instead he decided to try to make everyone happy. But you can’t do that in politics and get anything done.”
Ald. Don Richards, a 15-year veteran of the Common Council, says Pratt “has been a very personable gentlemen who has worked hard to get people to work together. But he has had his challenges in recent years.”
John Tries, a Milwaukee lobbyist and former chief of staff to Mayor Norquist, says Pratt is a “laid-back” leader who some aldermen and others have been able to take advantage of. “His personality is such that he is not a head-pounder or a forceful guy who is out front or who will reach across the table and grab you by the throat,” says Tries. “And some people can take advantage of that type of leadership.”
One example of Pratt’s desire to get everyone to like him, says a City Hall source, occurred when he was campaigning for Common Council president, a position he’d coveted for years. Though he had the votes to beat Nardelli for the post, Pratt went to Nardelli just days before the council voted to cut a deal that would ensure a unanimous vote. The price? Pratt would appoint Nardelli chairman of the Public Safety Committee and would appoint Nardelli’s allies, Pawlinski and Ald. Annette Scherbert, to lead the Utilities and Licenses Committee and Public Improvements Committee, respectively.
“It was so important for Marvin to win the position unanimously so it looked like everyone supported him that he put his enemies as the chairs of three important committees,” says the source. “It’s nice to want to be liked by everyone, but that is not the way politics is played. You’ve got the position won, you don’t go make a deal with your enemy and give them what they want.”
At the time, Nardelli said he dropped out so his supporters could get key committee positions. “I decided we can’t win,” Nardelli said then. “I think what happened was some people jumped because they wanted to get something for themselves. That’s the nature of the sometimes demoralizing political game we play.”
Pratt had been burned in a previous attempt to win the post of council president. In 1992, Pratt and Nardelli had also faced off. When the council met, Pratt had lined up seven votes, Nardelli eight. Meanwhile, Kalwitz brought only two votes to the table, his own and that of then Ald. Robert Anderson.
The winner, to everyone’s surprise, was Kalwitz. In the end, Nardelli put his support and votes behind Kalwitz. And in turn, Nardelli was named head of the Finance and Personnel Committee.
Sitting On His Hands
While Pratt has been interviewed by the FBI, no one faults him directly for the illegal actions of Cameron, Pawlinski and Henningsen. But political insiders say Pratt’s lax style and laissez-faire attitude have left the council without a true leader.
As evidence of his lack of political will, observers point to Pratt’s refusal to remove Henningsen as chair of the powerful Zoning, Neighborhoods and Development Committee after Henningsen was indicted in January and his refusal to ask him to resign after his conviction.
By contrast, Pratt removed Cameron from the Community Development Block Grant Committee shortly after media reports questioned the use of block grant money for a community group run by Cameron’s daughters. Pawlinski resigned as chairman of the Utilities and Licenses Committee the same day he was charged.
But, Pratt, a longtime friend and ally to Henningsen, did not demand his resignation. Instead, there were several days of negative news stories and a scathing editorial in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
For his part, Pratt says he wanted to let Henningsen decide when he would resign but says he was in constant communication with him, urging him to pull the trigger quickly. “I know it was something that had to be done, but I wanted to let [him] do it with some dignity,” says Pratt.
After Henningsen’s conviction, Pratt delayed for several days before asking Henningsen to resign his council seat. When he finally did ask, Henningsen refused.
Pratt’s mayoral aspirations took another hit in late June when he mishandled the hiring of Marc Nedbeck, a campaign spokesperson, shortly after Norquist announced he would leave office early. Pratt ended up firing Nedbeck after less than a week, first from his part-time job as one of the alderman’s aides and then from his campaign job when it was discovered that Nedbeck had misstated his political experience. Pratt also admitted that he never checked Nedbeck’s résumé.
It’s the job of the council president to keep the aldermen in line, says former Ald. Bill Drew, even if it means calling them into his office for a private talk or removing them from a committee if they have acted inappropriately. Drew was Common Council president from 1972 to 1974 and is now chairman of the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission’s highway expansion subcommittee.
“You have an obligation to step in to protect the integrity of the body in the public eye,” says Drew. “You have to ensure that the public perception of the Common Council is one of trust and guard that image. The president has a duty to set the tone for the other aldermen.”
Kalwitz, who has followed the City Hall indictments from his retirement home in Bullhead, Arizona, says he was shocked and disappointed by the actions.
“During my 32 years on the Common Council, there were only three instances where an alderman’s actions were called into question,” he says. “I’m not sure there was anything I would have done as council president that would have prevented some of the things that have come to light in recent months. You can’t follow the aldermen around all day and tell them how to act. But you have to establish an environment that everyone can work within. I had very little patience for people who could not get along with their colleagues or tried to take advantage of the system.”
There were several times during his tenure that Kalwitz says he had to step in to stop an alderman from pursuing an issue or to mediate a dispute. He remembers trying to stop former Ald. Michael McGee from expressing his personal agenda on the council floor and working out a disagreement between Henningsen and Ald. Mike D’Amato in the late 1990s.
“There is an acceptable standard of decorum you sometimes have to remind people of,” says Kalwitz.
Pratt says he has tried to run the council as Kalwitz did but stresses that council members are adults and ought to be able to manage themselves.
“If you ask me who my model is when it comes to leadership, I would have to say Kalwitz,” says Pratt. “I let people operate fairly independently. For the most part, the issues we deal with are specific to an aldermanic district, and I believe the alderman that represents that area should be able to run their own district.”
Pratt places the blame for the problems at City Hall on each of the individual aldermen who has been caught by federal investigators. “There have been some people around here that have lost track of the high moral ground,” he says. “People have become passive over time. You have to remind them constantly about their duties and responsibilities and how to go about doing their job.”
In the case of Cameron, political observers say she was caught trying to take advantage of the system to benefit herself and her daughters. In the case of Pawlinski, it apparently was a matter of trying to run in the fast lane. The young up-and-comer seemed to let the ego-stroking job – and access to cash – go to his head, living large and appearing regularly on TV talk shows. And in the case of political veteran Henningsen, several political observers say they were surprised by his actions but place some of the blame on his well-publicized battle with alcohol.
Carl Mueller, a Milwaukee public relations executive who was Mayor Norquist’s chief of staff for several years, defends Pratt, saying it was not the Common Council president’s job to ensure that aldermen were not breaking the law.
“The leadership does not take on the job of policing how aldermen are using their campaign funds,” he says. “I think Marvin is a lot like Kalwitz in the way he runs the Common Council. Neither of them were strong-fisted leaders. They are both very low-key leaders. They are both able to get the votes when they need to.”
But Tries says the main difference between Kalwitz and Pratt is that if aldermen got out of line, Kalwitz would call them into his office and let them know exactly what was wrong and what should be done to fix it. Pratt, on the other hand, will talk to an alderman but in a more conciliatory tone that leads some to not take him seriously.
“Some people have tried to take advantage of him,” says Tries.
Nardelli places some of the blame at the feet of the media, which have lost interest in much of what was going on at City Hall over the last several years. He says other than the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, none of the other media have had reporters that consistently covered City Hall. They only show up for the occasional press conference or ribbon-cutting. And with the merger of The Journal and Sentinel in the mid-1990s, the newspaper has only one reporter covering City Hall.
“When people around here saw the media stop paying attention,” says Nardelli, “some of them stopped paying as close attention to the rules.”
The Lobbyists’ Role
Another factor cited as to why the problems occurred at City Hall is the constant presence of lobbyists, who, by definition, try to persuade aldermen to support their clients. This has further tainted the legislative system, says Pratt.
“There is so much interaction between lobbyists and council people that I think it goes too far at times,” he says. “You have to be so cautious and avoid any appearance of quid pro quo. This is not about true friendship, which is what some aldermen believe. It is about wanting something from you and being nice to you to try to get it. You have to remember, it is not you that is important, it is the office you hold.”
Pratt says he goes to great lengths to avoid any suggestion of impropriety with lobbyists.
“Lobbyists don’t really visit me that often,” he says. “They tend to go to other aldermen’s offices more often. They must have more luck in those offices.”
Kalwitz himself was known for his close relationship to lobbyists, especially to former Waste Management executive Bill Katzman. Several local lobbyists say it was common knowledge that if you wanted something from Kalwitz, you would talk to Katzman first.
Yet Kalwitz, too, laments the role lobbyists play and the unremitting need to raise funds for re-election campaigns. “The constant pressure to raise money is what really stopped me from running for higher office,” he says. “I always felt awkward doing that. The less I had to do that the better.”
Aldermen have complained publicly that state and federal election laws are not clear on the exact uses of campaign funds, which has allowed an aggressive federal prosecutor – U.S. Attorney Steve Biskupic – to make a case that past prosecutors may have disregarded.
State Elections Board campaign auditor Dennis Morvak says state law is broad and not “real specific” when it comes to defining an appropriate political expense.
“The statutes state that campaign contributions may be used for political purposes, but then they do not list any specific purposes in detail,…” says Morvak. “It’s a wide-open door and leaves it in the hands of the candidates.”
Lobbyist Mueller also attributes the aldermanic problems to a new U.S. attorney. “This was very unusual to have this intense of investigation, complete with the use of the FBI,” says Mueller. “There was no serious graft or corruption. But you had a new U.S. attorney who wanted to hang some scalps on his wall, and the best scalps to hang are those of an elected official.”
Mueller says the ever-increasing number of fundraisers and the amount of money needed to wage a campaign has left many politicians sitting on large campaign funds. And with the lack of scrutiny on the local level, some politicians have stretched the line on what they can spend campaign money on – from dinners for their campaign staff to personal gifts for friends.
“When you do something once and nobody says anything, it becomes easier to do it the next time,” he says. “It is like Pinocchio. You start heading down the wrong road. The only people that can complain are the campaign contributors, and they aren’t going to say anything.”
Pratt says he is pleased with the council’s reaction so far to the federal probe. With Ald. D’Amato, he introduced and worked to pass a bill that will require aldermen to submit bank statements with their regular campaign finance reports.
“We are trying to repair the image of this body and I think we’ve taken a few steps in the right direction,” says Pratt. “But until all of the court proceedings are over, there is still going to be some lingering effect.”
Leadership Style
But again and again, insiders point to Pratt’s indecisiveness. In fact, several aldermen and lobbyists say he frequently votes the way the last person who talks to him before the vote requests.
Other aldermen complain that Pratt will promise them he will vote one way on an issue, then change his mind at the last minute and switch his vote.
“When John [Kalwitz] gave you his word, you knew he would follow through,” says one alderman. “But with Marvin, you have no idea what he is going to do. It has blown up on me several times and it makes me so mad. That is not the way you operate as an alderman. Your word has to be your bond; otherwise, no one will trust you.”
Lobbyists and aldermen point to the fact that Pratt lost the two biggest issues he’s chosen since becoming president – the attempt by Channel 12 to place a communications tower in Lincoln Park, which was defeated despite Pratt’s support, and the Common Council’s reappointment of Milwaukee Police and Fire Commission Chairman Woody Welch by Norquist over vehement objections by Police Chief Arthur Jones and Pratt.
Another example was the debate over whether the City of Milwaukee should sue the lead paint industry in an attempt to force paint companies to pay for the cleanup of old lead-based paint in city homes. The cleanup price tag could top $100 million, with at least 40,000 homes, mainly in the central city, considered most at risk.
Instead of sticking with one side of the debate, Pratt went back and forth trying to get a deal, says one lobbyist involved in the issue. The problem, says the lobbyist, was there was no way a deal was going to be worked out between the two sides.
Pratt even worked to delay the vote several times. At one point, he sought an extra 45 days, hoping the extra time would be used to get extra money – from the paint industry or the federal government – for local cleanup efforts.
“It was a complex issue [with] no middle ground,” says the lobbyist. “He really tried to make everyone happy, but on this issue, that was not going to happen. I would have preferred if he had just chosen a side and stuck with it. It would have been easier to work the issue if I would have known where he stood.”
Pratt’s committee assignments have also bewildered some observers. While the appointments are watched most closely by City Hall insiders and lobbyists as a sign of who’s up and who’s down, they have an everyday effect on how smoothly the council runs, how aggressive it is in taking on the administration and how various issues are handled – if they are brought up at all.
Nardelli says that when Pawlinski was chosen as chairman of the Utilities and Licenses Committee after the 2000 election, Pratt put four new aldermen on the committee, even though Pawlinski had no experience running the panel. The committee is very important because of its role in reviewing liquor licenses and the occasional attempt to close down a bar or tavern that has had crime problems.
“It made no sense and it ended up hurting the way the committee operated because no one had experience dealing with licensing issues,” says Nardelli.
Pratt admitted his appointments to the Utilities and Licenses Committee did not work out. He says he made several changes, even putting his confidant, Ald. Fred Gordon, and himself on the committee for a while.
“We definitely had some growing pains,” he says. “But I’ve made some changes and tried to make it work better. It definitely was the committee I got the most complaints about.”
Similar to Kalwitz, Pratt says he used a questionnaire sent to aldermen to determine what committees they wanted to be part of. He estimated he followed their personal choices in about 75 percent of the cases and tried to “create good fits.”
While Kalwitz may have asked aldermen on which committees they wanted to serve, he appointed only his allies as chairmen, making sure he had a majority on each of the panels to ensure the passage of legislation when needed, say observers.
“He wanted to make sure when he needed something, he could go to someone and get it done,” says Tries. “That may not be pretty, but that is the way politics works.”
Other Scandals
In August 2002, Ald. Gordon’s girlfriend, Stephania Archia, called 911 to report that the alderman had been kidnapped at knifepoint by his former girlfriend. Archia later was charged with obstructing a police officer by providing false information.
During criminal proceedings on the 911 call, City Hall officials found out that Gordon had gotten Archia a job as a City of Milwaukee lobbyist at a salary of $51,400 a year. Archia later left the position.
When reports of Gordon’s relationship and Archia’s job became public, Biskupic apparently took notice and sent his investigators to City Hall, initiating the probe of the Common Council.
Sources say federal investigators interviewed Gordon and his aide, who pointed federal prosecutors in the direction of Ald. Cameron. Cameron ended up admitting using money for the Williamsburg Heights neighborhood group, run by one of her daughters, on her 2000 election campaign.
Also mentioned as a factor contributing to the rampant illegalities within the Common Council are the well-publicized problems of John Norquist. The mayor emptied his campaign fund to help pay off a settlement with an ex-aide, Marilyn Figueroa, who accused him of sexual harassment. At the same time, he announced almost two years before the next mayoral election that he would not run for re-election, making him a lame duck just halfway through his fourth term.
Without a strong mayor in place, aldermen were free to do what they wanted on issues without fear of retribution from the mayor’s office. But even so, most political observers say the Common Council led by Pratt has not taken advantage of the weak mayor by pushing its own budget and agenda.
“Marvin Pratt did not step up when the opportunity presented itself,” says Jeff Fleming, a former aide to Norquist and now a public relations executive. “Instead of putting himself above the mess, he has ended up being lumped in with all of the aldermen who have been tarnished. He needed to come forward with a reform package, but instead he has only been nipping at the edges.”
Part of the problem for Pratt, says Fleming, is that he has not surrounded himself with good political advisors.
“I don’t know who is advising Marvin Pratt on political vision,” says Fleming. “The most important thing right now is to be able to convey to the voters a message of where Milwaukee is going to be at the end of the next mayoral term.”
Aldermen, too, are looking for new leadership on the Common Council.
“We clearly need a strong leader who will take positions that are forceful and thoughtful and collaborate with other aldermen on major issues,” says Ald. Michael Murphy, who says he intends to run for council president next April. “We need a strong leader who can address the challenges facing our city.”
Pratt’s Missteps
For his own part, Pratt has made some glaring mistakes. There was the Summerfest incident last year when Pratt received a citation for trying to scalp tickets to the Eagles concert at the main stage. In March, Pratt cast the deciding vote approving a liquor license renewal for Junior’s Sports Bar and Grill on the same day he was to hold a fundraiser at the tavern located in his district. Pratt called the timing “coincidental.”
And in May, Pratt was accused by local PR executive Todd Robert Murphy of attending the NCAA Final Four in March as a guest of a Boston food catering firm that was bidding on a contract from the Wisconsin Center District Board, of which Pratt is a member.
Pratt denied the allegation, saying he purchased his tickets from Marquette University. He has vowed to sue the catering firm and Murphy for slander, using some of the strongest language ever heard from him.
“These statements are ridiculous, and I will make sure they are held accountable for them,” he says.
Tries says he has seen a more forceful, assertive Pratt in recent months, especially in response to personal attacks.
“Marvin’s personality has always been to be a ‘nice guy’ leader,” says Tries. “But he seems to have made the decision that he is not going to sit back and take it anymore.”
The big question is, will a change in leadership style come too late?
Pratt has been successful in the past at raising campaign funds. But in the city’s first open mayoral race since 1988, the field of candidates has grown substantially since Pratt first hinted at becoming Milwaukee’s first African-American mayor.
Even when elevated to the high-status job of mayor, he will have little time to make his mark. Meanwhile, in the months leading up to his new role, he’ll be under much greater scrutiny from the media and the public.
“He’s only going to have two Common Council cycles to try to get something through to prove his leadership abilities,” says Geoff Hurtado, a former city and county official who now runs his own municipal planning firm. “It is going to give him a bigger platform to speak from, but more people are going to be listening, so he is going to have to say and do things that make a difference.”
John Finerty, a Milwaukee real estate attorney, says Pratt will be “stepping into the hornet’s nest” on January 1, having to implement a city budget that is expected to include major cuts in employees and services if revenue sharing is trimmed by the state.
“This is going to be a major test of Marvin’s leadership skills,” says Finerty, who has City Hall ties. “He’s going to be involved in putting together the budget as Common Council president, so there are going to be no surprises. And whatever he does, he is going to get criticized by his opponents. This is his opportunity to try to shine.”
Adding to Pratt’s urgency, his reach for the golden ring is an all-or-nothing proposition. Come April 19, 2004, the end of the current term for city officials, his tenure as acting mayor, as Common Council president and as alderman will come to a close.
Mark Kass is editor of Milwaukeeworld.com, former director of information and community education for MMSD and former managing editor of the Milwaukee Business Journal.
