Wisconsin's Governor Walker and the possibility of a recall

GAB has scanned all the pages of recall petitions against Governor Walker, and delivered them today to his recall campaign office.

This means the 30-day window for Walker to challenge signatures begins tomorrow (Saturday).

A little birdie, after a little prompting, sent me a couple of links, and I decided it'd be remiss to not share them here.


Seven of the doctors who gave out sick notes at one of the protests last year were reprimanded by the Wisconsin Medical Examining board.

In identical agreements with each doctor, the Medical Examining Board noted that each of them provided work excuse notes to patients without adequately documenting the interaction in their records. Dr. Sujatha Kailas, the board's chairwoman, said in a statement the board couldn't determine whether the doctors examined the protesters to justify the excuses.

Besides the reprimands, the board ordered the physicians to take four hours of continued education in medical record-keeping. They also must reimburse the Department of Safety and Professional Services, the state agency that oversees the medical board, for the hundreds of dollars in costs of the board's proceedings against them.

As I noted originally, it sounded like this was a spontaneous action by doctors who were trying to help. I think it was a well-intentioned mistake, but this reprimand seems entirely appropriate.

(I know, it's kind of an awkward fit for this thread, but there's not really a better home for it.)


This post is an analysis of Wisconsin's finances. That link was sent with a claim this vindicated Walker's budgetary decisions. It reads to me mostly like a plea for the state to use GAAP, which I think is reasonable, but I'd love to hear an assessment from any of our resident economists. The highest praise for Walker I see in writeup is

What this means according to state budget experts is that, entering the 2013-15 budget period, Wisconsin would have no “structural deficit” for the first time since the mid-1990s. Lawmakers would be able to prepare a budget with an eye to future opportunities, rather than past obligations.

A poll (warning, PDF) done last week by Marquette University shows Governor Walker with a lead over several of his most-likely challengers.

Press release for poll[/url] (warning, PDF)]The poll finds Walker ahead of Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett by a 50 percent to 44 percent margin. Walker leads the only announced Democratic candidate, former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk, with a 49 percent to 42 percent margin. Walker leads former Congressman David Obey by 49 percent to 43 percent. Janesville Democratic State Senator Tim Cullen receives 40 percent to Walker’s 50 percent. While Walker consistently leads his Democratic opponents, the size of the lead is within the poll’s margin of error for all but Cullen.

So, the pollsters admit that the margin of error in all cases except a matchup against Tim Cullen exceeds Walker's lead. Additionally, their methodology oversamples conservatives (41% of poll respondents self-identified as conservatives, vs. 36% in exit polling from 2010, which was a terrible year for Democratic turnout), undersamples union households (21% of poll respondents, vs. 26% in exit polling in 2010 - again, a terrible year for Democratic turnout) and demographically skews far older than the state as a whole (76.4% of poll respondents were over 45, as opposed to 35.3% over-45 in the actual population).

Still, even a flawed poll doesn't mean these results are good news. Walker definitely has a solid core of backers whose support seems unshakeable, and continues to raise money hand over fist. The recall election will be a huge challenge. I think it's doable, but getting a million signatures should definitely not be taken as a sign that we can rest on our laurels or that any of the potential Democratic challengers should be picking out drapes for the Governor's mansion. Russ Feingold is the only candidate who I think would easily beat Walker, and he's said repeatedly that he's unwilling to run.

Well, I don't have enough information to evaluate the claim that Walker is improving his state's finances from a GAAP perspective, I will say this... it is absolutely critical that any complex fiscal entity use GAAP accounting, or something even more strict.

There are two basic kinds of accounting: cash-basis, and accrual basis. In cash-basis accounting, you think about cash in today versus cash out today. This is the kind of accounting that humans have been doing since the invention of currency, pretty much, maybe earlier. But it's terribly flawed; say you take out a million dollar loan, in exchange for which you will repay $1.1 million over 10 years. To cash basis accounting, you just made a million dollars, and then mysteriously, for the next ten years, you'll be losing $110,000. Damn, what a head-scratcher. (the real figures wouldn't be so round, I'm just using them for illustration.)

One of the largest advances in the understanding of finance was the creation of double-entry bookkeeping, or accrual accounting. Very simply, in accrual accounting, you maintain an overall balance sheet of assets versus liabilities. If you take that $1 million loan, in an accrual system, you immediately show a net loss of $100,000, with cash on hand of $1,000,000. This reflects the true fiscal reality of what you just did -- increased your cash, at a significant cost. You're in WORSE shape than you were, but in cash accounting, you LOOK better. Only in accrual accounting does your balance sheet correctly show that you've just hurt yourself.

Now, if a government does that, and turns around and blows that money on crack and hookers, everything looks copacetic if it's using cash-basis accounting. It took a million dollars in, and spent a million dollars, and the budget was balanced! Yay, our politicians rock. But, hmm, later years don't look as good, but these politicians may be gone by then. And if they're still in power, they can always borrow some more, maintaining a "balanced budget", make their payments, and get more hookers and crack. Damn, our politicians are wonderful, the budget is always balanced!

Now, if they put that million bucks into something that will, say, generate $1.2 million over the next ten years, then they're using the debt in an intelligent way. But they're running a risk that the investment might not pay off, or of course it might surprise them, and do better than they expect. So there's some real judgement calls in how to enter these figures onto a balance sheet; they can be extremely optimistic and record a future asset of, say, $1.5 million, and claim that they're running a surplus, or they can be pessimistic and anticipate a loss.

GAAP is a bunch of really arcane and complex rules for when and if you can record profits and losses to your overall balance sheet. Basically, it tries to be as accurate as possible, and it has lots of little rules and sub-rules to cover abuses that people have committed using balance sheet accounting in the past. So far, at least, it's the best overall system we have for representing the true fiscal position of a complex entity -- but note that even GAAP can't stop outright lying. One example of that is 'off balance sheet' entities, which is a way of moving expected losses to someone else's balance sheet, and then acting all surprised when monstrous bills come due from your subsidiary. It's my understanding that this was one method Greece used to maintain the fiction that it was in much better shape than it really was, but I don't know details.

Cash basis accounting is just too simple for any entity of any real size. Governments, being both very complex, and having the ability to enter into extremely long-term deals, need to use accrual accounting. Any government much past township size using cash-basis accounting is lying, full stop. With entities this complex, the two terms, "cash basis accounting" and "lying", are direct and literal synonyms.

So, yes, you should be holding Wisconsin to GAAP standards. This is absolutely required if you want to know the truth of what's going on, and even then, you can STILL be deceived. If GAAP accounting says things are okay, they might be okay.... but if it says things are wrong, they're almost certainly wrong.

edit: reworded the example paragraphs pretty heavily.

That's a remarkably clear and concise write up of a complex topic - thanks, Malor!

If there's data I could track down that'd make it possible for folks to judge the claims in that blog post, I'm happy to give it a shot.

Three developments I wanted to share:

First up, word that the John Doe investigation may also be touching on potential corruption in the bidding process for renting office space for government workers.

Investigators are looking for signs of bid-rigging or other misconduct as representatives of the privately owned Reuss Federal Plaza vied unsuccessfully in 2010 to keep the department offices, according to sources familiar with the case. The offices had moved in 2005 to the blue tower, 310 W. Wisconsin Ave., in a $3 million deal.

In December, the real estate broker for Boerke Co. who spearheaded the Reuss effort in 2005 and 2010 was arrested and jailed overnight on allegations of failing to cooperate with the ongoing John Doe investigation. The broker, Andrew P. Jensen Jr., faces an order to talk to prosecutors Wednesday.

John Hiller, one of Walker's highest-ranking campaign aides, said he worked on behalf of the building's owners on the 2005 deal. An official told the newspaper that he also had a role in the 2010 effort.

In 2005, Schlitz Park - which had housed the offices for 20 years - won an initial bid for the offices. But records show a rushed, last-minute rebid resulted in the Reuss group getting the $3 million deal.

The late bidding prompted protests from developer Gary Grunau, who argued the bids were miscalculated and his was the lowest by $500,000. Ultimately, Grunau dropped the matter.

Ultimately, the county decided against going with any private office space options, which probably makes any prosecutions from this arm of the investigation unlikely, though it doesn't reflect well on Walker's tenure as Milwaukee County Executive.


There's a good (albeit partisan) writeup about why the email from Governor Walker is so damaging to the administration's claims that Walker knew nothing about the illegal campaigning happening just outside his office.

That is not the disturbing part for me though. Nor am I disturbed by the “we can’t get caught again” aspect of the email (as opposed to a more appropriate “no one can do this, it’s illegal” flavor).

Rather, it’s the combination of two things. One, as Jud Lounsbury has pointed out, is that Walker sent this email to Tim Russell, who was at the time Director of Housing for Milwaukee County. Russell, who was being given a direct order here–”no laptops, no websites, no time away during the workday”–had zero supervisory authority over the county employees who are now in trouble for campaigning, Wink and Rindfleisch. (Indeed, Rindfleisch seems to have been hired–by whom, we don’t know UPDATE: according to the complaint, by Russell himself–expressly to campaign, surprising her actual boss Tom Nardelli when she showed up for her first day of work and claiming later than half of her job was “policy for the campaign.”)

If Russell was not the boss of Wink and Rindfleisch, and instead worked in a completely different building in a completely different department, how did Scott Walker know that Russell was the one to quash the political activity at work? There is no other plausible explanation other than that Walker was aware of Russell’s role in generating campaign product on work time, and that Walker knew Russell was still organizing that activity.


As mentioned earlier, the GAB has already scanned all the Walker recall petitions, and delivered them to Walker's campaign office. As part of their ongoing efforts to ensure transparency throughout the process, the GAB originally planned to post all the scans online yesterday. A laudable goal, but since the scans include name and address information, there are privacy concerns. A number of people (including survivors of domestic violence) have come forward declaring that posting their information could place them at risk. Given that there were assaults on the petitioners during the signature-gathering process, it's not impossible that folks could be at risk of violence. Indeed, there are already signs that voter-intimidation forces are spinning up:

IMAGE(http://www.bluecheddar.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/I-wll-be-getting-your-info-off.png)

It's a tough balancing act. In general, I want the most transparency possible when it comes to government - but I'm very wary of putting people in jeopardy for exercising their right to participate in the political process.

Our Attorney General, J.B. Van Hollen, called a press conference today demanding the public release of petition data.

"The integrity of the election process depends on openness and transparency," Van Hollen said. "I believe the public should have access to the recall petitions. If there are any issues about disclosure, we are ready to work with GAB to resolve those issues so that as much information as possible can be made available as soon as possible."

It's probably worth mentioning that J.B. Van Hollen, though he's been pretty much in lockstep with the Walker administration, does have a history of supporting government transparency.

"Access to open meetings and public records is an essential component of effective citizen oversight of the workings of our democratic government. Raising awareness, sharing information, and promoting compliance with open meetings and public records law is part of the ongoing mission of the Department of Justice." - J.B. Van Hollen, [Capital Times, September 12, 2007]

"As the state's chief law enforcement officer, I am deeply committed to promoting compliance with Wisconsin's open meetings and public records laws." - J.B. Van Hollen, [Capital Times, March 16, 2009]

"Nothing captures the essence of American democracy better than 'government of the people, by the people, for the people,' and a citizen's access to public records and meetings of governmental bodies is a vital aspect of this principle. That is why, as your attorney general, I am deeply committed to promoting understanding of, and compliance with, Wisconsin's open meetings and public records laws. Educating the public and public employees on these laws is one of the most important parts of that goal." - J.B. Van Hollen, [Capital Times, August 29, 2010]

To the best of my knowledge, the only time J.B. Van Hollen came out in robust opposition to open meetings or public records disclosure was when he argued in State v. Circuit Court for Dane County / Ismael R. Ozanne v. Jeff Fitzgerald that 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 was properly passed, though §19.97(3) was clearly violated along the way.

[Edit to add: I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that there will be no shortage of "outraged" Walker supporters whose signatures are found on the petitions, though it won't be enough to invalidate the recall. I'll make a further prediction that no small portion of those "outraged" supporters signed the petitions, with the intent to subsequently claim fraud.]

Breaking news from local reporter Jessica Arp, via Twitter.

GAB says they will release recall petitions without redacting any information #wirecall

GAB: "we have concluded the balancing test of Public Records Law favors disclosure of the entire recall petition without redaction"

GAB: Few processes in the electoral system or elsewhere are more public than the signing of recall petitions against state elected officials

GAB: Petition signers chose to participate in public process of initiating recall election of the Governor as well as other officeholders...

GAB: ...and any concerns regarding their personal safety and privacy may not have been considered when signing a petition. #wirecall

Ultimately, GAB will post recall petitions on their website later today.

So, no removing even just the address portion for survivors of domestic violence. I suspect this won't end well.

I dunno. I'm in favor of public disclosure. Someone hunting another person has other resources available, like DMV records. I think people engaging in political action should be at least identifiable. Otherwise, we get into the scenario where no one has to reveal any political actions they take, because privacy is king.

Like I said, I'm generally in favor of public disclosure, but I do think that folks with reasonable safety concerns should be excluded.

For comparison, in Wisconsin survivors of domestic violence can petition to be removed from the public voter rolls.

GAB website[/url]]Electors who are victims of domestic abuse, sexual assault or stalking have the option to be listed confidentially on poll lists per s.6.47, Wis. Stats. An individual is eligible if he or she has been granted a protective order that is in effect, have an affidavit which is signed by a sheriff, chief of police, or district attorney which verifies that the individual was a victim and continues to be threatened, the individual resides in a shelter, or the individual submits a statement signed by an authorized representative of a domestic abuse or sexual assault victim service provider. The name and address of the protected individual is not disclosed on the poll list but instead the voter presents a voter identification card with a unique identification serial number given to him or her by the municipal clerk.

I agree that transparency is important, which is why I'd prefer that only the addresses be redacted, and only in those cases where there's a demonstrated risk (using the criteria in Wisconsin law §6.47 would be a reasonable place to set the bar, I think).

Moot point, since the lists are going up tonight.

I think the prior example we had was that monetary sponsors of the California ban on gay marriage claimed that they should not be exposed because the very exposure of their positions would put them in danger. The argument leads to the idea that political positions should be private to prevent someone from being attacked for them.

Without meaning to underestimate the seriousness of the situation, if I were hiding from someone, I would not put my address on a form that will go to the state. That seems unwise, if there truly is a danger to my person or property. Of course, fugitives do it all the time, so I guess it's just human not to think it over.

Robear wrote:

I think the prior example we had was that monetary sponsors of the California ban on gay marriage claimed that they should not be exposed because the very exposure of their positions would put them in danger. The argument leads to the idea that political positions should be private to prevent someone from being attacked for them.

To play devil's advocate on your first point: aren't you a fan of Corporations' donations to political parties being transparent? Shouldn't we allow them to be private to prevent them from boycotts or other backlash from the public?

Without meaning to underestimate the seriousness of the situation, if I were hiding from someone, I would not put my address on a form that will go to the state. That seems unwise, if there truly is a danger to my person or property. Of course, fugitives do it all the time, so I guess it's just human not to think it over.

A legitimate question: So you are saying that people that have something to fear, like domestically abused spouses, should give up participating in the political process.

I don't see inconsistency between Robear's two points that both voters' information and corporate donations should be transparent.

Seth wrote:

I don't see inconsistency between Robear's two points that both voters' information and corporate donations should be transparent.

Whops, reading comprehension fail, in the first paragraph I thought he was arguing for hidden voter information, even though in the second paragraph he obviously wasn't. And I knew he wasn't.

Regardless, my second question stands.

Robear wrote:

I think the prior example we had was that monetary sponsors of the California ban on gay marriage claimed that they should not be exposed because the very exposure of their positions would put them in danger. The argument leads to the idea that political positions should be private to prevent someone from being attacked for them.

Without meaning to underestimate the seriousness of the situation, if I were hiding from someone, I would not put my address on a form that will go to the state. That seems unwise, if there truly is a danger to my person or property. Of course, fugitives do it all the time, so I guess it's just human not to think it over.

Except of course Wisconsin law already acknowledges that making some people's address a public record through poll lists poses an unacceptable risk to their safety. While I expect there will be some violence from hotheads targeting folks for being "union thugs", I'm ultimately willing to accept that risk as being significantly less-bad than having an opaque political process. The people covered by §6.47 are a different matter. These are people for whom simply disclosing their address can pose unacceptable risk. The argument is that we don't need to conceal the fact that they've signed, only their residence data - because the simple act of revealing their address puts them in real danger. This is, in fact, why Wisconsin law §6.47 exists.

I'm very confused by the implication that domestic violence survivors signing the petition was somehow a foolish decision, whose consequences could have been foreseen in advance. Do you think it's unreasonable that a survivor of domestic violence, who qualified for protection under §6.47, would have the expectation that his/her address would be redacted, in exactly the same way as it's handled for polling records?

Like I said, it's a moot point, since the petitions are now posted - but I still think the GAB caving on the address-redaction issue is a mistake.

Robear wrote:

I don't think we make the entire list private because there might be a tiny percentage of people who would find their addresses used against them somehow. I think if you're hiding for your safety, you've likely got bigger issues than signing a petition.

This seems to be my week for folks responding to arguments I'm not making.

To (hopefully) clarify: my position is that the entire set of petition records should have been released, with redactions only for address data, for those citizens who qualify for protection under §6.47.

To play devil's advocate on your first point: aren't you a fan of Corporations' donations to political parties being transparent? Shouldn't we allow them to be private to prevent them from boycotts or other backlash from the public?

I was citing the argument, not supporting it. I think they should take their lumps.

A legitimate question: So you are saying that people that have something to fear, like domestically abused spouses, should give up participating in the political process.

No, I think they should think twice about whether putting their current address in open records would be wise. If not, then perhaps they should avoid the petition for reasons of personal safety, not as a policy of disenfranchisement.

I don't think we make the entire list private because there might be a tiny percentage of people who would find their addresses used against them somehow. I think if you're hiding for your safety, you've likely got bigger issues than signing a petition.

Edit -

Except of course Wisconsin law already acknowledges that making some people's address a public record through poll lists poses an unacceptable risk to their safety. While I expect there will be some violence from hotheads targeting folks for being "union thugs", I'm ultimately willing to accept that risk as being significantly less-bad than having an opaque political process. The people covered by §6.47 are a different matter. These are people for whom simply disclosing their address can pose unacceptable risk. The argument is that we don't need to conceal the fact that they've signed, only their residence data - because the simple act of revealing their address puts them in real danger. This is, in fact, why Wisconsin law §6.47 exists.

I'm very confused by the implication that domestic violence survivors signing the petition was somehow a foolish decision, whose consequences could have been foreseen in advance. Do you think it's unreasonable that a survivor of domestic violence, who qualified for protection under §6.47, would have the expectation that his/her address would be redacted, in exactly the same way as it's handled for polling records?

Well, I didn't know the above. But how do they verify the claim? How do they enforce it? And how do they *secure* the process?

As to the latter, I'd have that expectation if I knew about the law. Given that I didn't, no, I would not just expect to hang my personal safety on a hoped-for redaction. Make sense?

I would expect the information to be kept the same as polling records; in fact, I almost used that as an example in my first reply here.

And I agree with that, especially since there's a law in place. I thought you were arguing the general case, that's all. No big deal, just a misunderstanding.

Robear wrote:

And I agree with that, especially since there's a law in place. I thought you were arguing the general case, that's all. No big deal, just a misunderstanding.

Yeah, looks like you must have missed this post, which laid out the argument and mentioned the relevant statute.

Yes indeed.

The District 4 Court of Appeals has overturned the earlier Waukesha Court ruling in Friends of Scott Walker v. Brennan (PDF of today's decision). This takes primary responsibility for challenging signatures away from the GAB, and places it back on the incumbent, which is what's required by the statutes - namely §9.10(2)(g):

Wisconsin State Law §9.10(2)(g)[/url]]The burden of proof for any challenge rests with the individual bringing the challenge.

Also, breaking news about the John Doe investigation from local reporter Jessica Arp, on Twitter:

Statement from Walker campaign says Gov Walker will be voluntarily meeting with MKE Co. DA John Chisolm. Doesn't say when.
Gov. Walker says he's also hired two attorneys "to continue aiding the inquiry." Says no public $ will be used to pay for it.

So, Governor Walker will be meeting with the John Doe investigators, and has retained two lawyers for his defense to help with the investigation. Anyone want to place bets about which firm those lawyers are from? My money's on Michael Best & Friedrich.

[Edit to add: looks like I would have lost that bet. Text from Walker's press release follows]

Madison, Wis. - The Friends of Scott Walker campaign released the following statement today from Governor Scott Walker regarding the Milwaukee County District Attorney's ongoing investigation:

Over the last 20 months, District Attorney John Chisholm has been conducting an examination of issues in connection with former employees of Milwaukee County. Throughout that time, our campaign has cooperated with requests for information.

My cooperation in this matter extends beyond a willingness to supply any and all requested documents. I have already said that I would be happy to sit down with the people looking into these issues and answer any additional questions they may have. To make that point clear, last year, my representatives voluntarily contacted Mr. Chisholm's office to arrange a time to discuss any outstanding issues. I will be voluntarily meeting with Mr. Chisholm.

To assemble additional background information, I hired counsel to insure that I am in the best position possible to continue aiding the inquiry. These attorneys, Mike Steinle and John Gallo, have been reviewing a great deal of material from the past few years, but no public money has been used or will be used for these purposes.

While all of us need to let this matter run its course, I will continue to cooperate and provide any appropriate information that is requested.

If not, then perhaps they should avoid the petition for reasons of personal safety, not as a policy of disenfranchisement.

You realize that this means that you can be disenfranchised by assholes, right?

Quote:

If not, then perhaps they should avoid the petition for reasons of personal safety, not as a policy of disenfranchisement.

You realize that this means that you can be disenfranchised by assholes, right?

It turns out that you, like me, missed a law that protects these people, so they *don't* have to worry about it.

Yeah, on balance, that's probably right. In a perfect world, I'd rather have the names and addresses on petitions be hidden, because as long as the people involved are citizens, I don't see any legitimate need for anyone else to know who they are. But that's a huge 'as long as', and there's too much room for corrupt government officials to say, 'X thousand people signed this petition', and then for regular citizens to have no way to verify that.

So, in our imperfect world, that seems like a good compromise -- your name, address, and employer will be released unless you can show good cause for the address to be redacted. If you can demonstrate an actual danger to your safety, this means you can't be shut out of the political process because you justifiably fear the release of your personal information.

Malor wrote:
Robear wrote:

If not, then perhaps they should avoid the petition for reasons of personal safety, not as a policy of disenfranchisement.

You realize that this means that you can be disenfranchised by assholes, right?

I think there's a tough balance here. In general, I feel pretty strongly that the government should strive for maximum transparency - because sunlight is one of the best disinfectants we have for the political process. That said, there are obviously cases where making some information about citizens poses an unacceptable risk. The risk issue is further complicated by folks like the Prop 8 supporters who fought disclosure, fearing retaliatory attacks from (as near as I can tell entirely fictive) frenzied homosexual hit squads.

I'm still chewing this over, but it's reasonable for folks who have genuine safety concerns to be able to redact address information from polling records, public releases of petition data, and donation lists. As long as names (and employers, for donations over $100) are still released, and petitions including address information are available to the campaigns who are responsible for challenging invalid signatures, removing addresses seems like the best balance between safety and transparency.

[Edit: the original version of this post neglected to include the term "entirely fictive". Management regrets the error.]

Scott Walker's $100M Question - did misconduct cost the taxpayers of Milwaukee County and/or the state of Wisconsin big bucks in shady financing deals with Bear Stearns?

“Stifel Nicolaus & Co. Inc., a regional firm that has deep experience in refinancing, offered to handle the deal for $334,650 -- $90,000 less than Bear Stearns’ proposed fees on the original deal, envisioned as $115million.”

“The Bear Stearns executive behind that firm's bid helped Walker with a campaign fund-raiser in Chicago in January 2003; a month after Bear Stearns won the job and five months before the bond sale commenced.”

“Hurtgen, who knows Walker from Republican Party circles, used his contacts to help the county executive raise more than $25,000 in campaign funds from a small group of major GOP players in Chicago at two events in early 2003, said Walker and his campaign chief.”

This wasn't on my radar at all, and strikes me as an even bigger problem for the Walker administration than the charges of illegal campaigning (since Walker's whole shtick is that he's so passionate about fiscal prudence that he has to gut our educational system/public-sector unions/infrastructure/etc.).

Spoiler:

Edit to add: eagle-eyed readers may special guest appearances by Justice Prosser and Michael Best & Friedrich.

When do we get to the part where some "Democrat" burns down the State House? Because soon, some distraction will be needed... Anyone heard from James O'Keefe lately?

Presented in its entirety:

Milwaukee NBC Affiliate[/url]]Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says he voluntarily agreed to the Milwaukee County district attorney's request to meet with him about a secret investigation that so far has led to charges against five of Walker's former close aides and associates.

Walker made brief comments Monday after a public appearance in Waukesha. They were among his first following an announcement Friday that he would meet with District Attorney John Chisholm. Walker said no date has been set for the meeting.

The investigation has created a potential vulnerability for Walker, who faces a potential recall.

Walker says his lawyers are examining thousands of emails his campaign has turned over to the DA. He said he hired the lawyers because it would take him too much time to do that work.

The two lawyers Governor Walker has hired to represent him in the John Doe case (Mike Steinle and John Gallo) are both high-powered criminal defense attorneys. Gallo is a former federal prosecutor, while Steinle is regarded as the best criminal defense lawyer in Milwaukee.

I'm in favor of people getting adequate representation, but I have a hard time taking Walker at his word that those lawyers were just hired as administrative timesavers.

Also worth noting: Walker now admits that the meeting with investigators was at the DA's request. Walker had earlier tried to portray it happening as a result of his initiative.

Darlene Wink (mentioned upthread: misconduct, charges) pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges in a Milwaukee courtroom today.

As part of a plea deal with prosecutors, Wink agreed to provide information to prosecutors in the ongoing Doe probe. The deal calls for Wink to serve no jail time. Her sentencing was set for May 15. Prosecutors wanted the three months to question Wink, who would have preferred a swifter sentencing, said her lawyer, Peter Wolff.

Wink, using several email accounts while at work in the courthouse, worked for several months on a birthday fundraiser for Walker in late '09 that was canceled and replaced with "a holiday gala" fundraiser for Walker, a complaint says. She also worked on Walker fundraising in 2010, the complaint says.

In one email exchange in 2009, she asked friend and fellow Walker aide Timothy Russell how she could erase a document from an online chat session. Russell told her it would disappear from her computer when she logged out, though investigators were able to ferret it out.

"I just am afraid of going to jail - ha! ha!" Wink wrote.

She faces a maximum of six months in jail and $1,000 fine on each of the two counts. Wink agreed to provide information to prosecutors as part of a plea deal.

Potentially noteworthy: Wink's lawyer, the charmingly-named Peter Wolff, appears to no longer be asserting that Walker didn't know about the misconduct happening in his office.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

Darlene Wink (mentioned upthread: misconduct, charges) pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges in a Milwaukee courtroom today.

As part of a plea deal with prosecutors, Wink agreed to provide information to prosecutors in the ongoing Doe probe. The deal calls for Wink to serve no jail time. Her sentencing was set for May 15. Prosecutors wanted the three months to question Wink, who would have preferred a swifter sentencing, said her lawyer, Peter Wolff.

Wink, using several email accounts while at work in the courthouse, worked for several months on a birthday fundraiser for Walker in late '09 that was canceled and replaced with "a holiday gala" fundraiser for Walker, a complaint says. She also worked on Walker fundraising in 2010, the complaint says.

In one email exchange in 2009, she asked friend and fellow Walker aide Timothy Russell how she could erase a document from an online chat session. Russell told her it would disappear from her computer when she logged out, though investigators were able to ferret it out.

"I just am afraid of going to jail - ha! ha!" Wink wrote.

She faces a maximum of six months in jail and $1,000 fine on each of the two counts. Wink agreed to provide information to prosecutors as part of a plea deal.

Potentially noteworthy: Wink's lawyer, the charmingly-named Peter Wolff, appears to no longer be asserting that Walker didn't know about the misconduct happening in his office.

His blood runs cold; his memory has just been sold..

When's Wink's Playboy shoot?