Monday, July 12, 2010

  1. I’m overwhelmed by your thoughtful and critical commentary….... Care to indulge us as to why these are non-stories?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 12, 2010 at 2103 hrs


  2. Actually, the only “big” story involving those two is the anti-Walker push-polling going on from the Neumann camp.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 12, 2010 at 2138 hrs


  3. Greg,

    Funny you should mention anti-Walker push polls.  I received a call last night from a Utah telephone number that began like a standard political poll but as we proceeded with the questions, wording of each question became increasingly negative regarding any one but Scott Walker.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 13, 2010 at 0648 hrs


  4. Your silence is golden, Owen. In the past, you seemed quick to point out when Doyle administration was involved in no-bid contracts. Why are these non-stories? Enlighten us, oh wise one.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 13, 2010 at 0820 hrs


  5. I’d say they are both relevant stories.

    Since I support Walker for governor, the no bid contract is the item I scrutinize more closely.

    It does not look like there was any impropriety here. The firm was recommended by committee and approved by Walker. I have been critical of the Doyle administration for these kinds of things in the past, but the impending safety hazard and short timeline required make this particular situation one in which a bidding process could have endangered lives. I HATE no-bid government work, but this situation justifies it.

    I would like to know just what they are doing for $300K though, and I think that if campaign contributors are given work like this, it should be closely scrutinized.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 13, 2010 at 0835 hrs


  6. On the Neumann thing, apparently he admitted it, and is going to pay the taxes he owes.

    That’s a hell of a lot more than we can say for certain congressman, or our Secretary of the Treasury.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 13, 2010 at 0931 hrs


  7. George:

    Walker’s no-bidder was due to the parking garage falling down and the 5 week waiting period for bids was deemed was too long. Were further inspections needed? Probably not.
    Then there’s Doyle’s multi-million dollar, no-bid contract for choo-choos for which we have no tracks. 

    Dare to compare?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 13, 2010 at 0935 hrs


  8. I HATE no-bid government work, but this situation justifies it.

    ...I think that if campaign contributors are given work like this, it should be closely scrutinized.

    Couldn’t agree more.

    I’m guessing the ability to issue no-bid contracts was intended to be used in the case of emergencies.  This certainly qualifies.

    That being said, I wonder how many other firms were considered, and whether or not they were contributors.

    As far as the Neumann thing goes, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t he basically transfer the properties to himself?  Yes, he should have known better, but on the sleaziness scale I give this “scandal” about a 2.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 13, 2010 at 0937 hrs


  9. I read that the company that got the no-bid contract was initially nixed “because the firm had a minor role in the later stages of the $30 million construction project in the early 1990s.” And it was nixed by Walker. So why did this other guy suggest it and then Walker reverse his position and say it was ok?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 13, 2010 at 0949 hrs


  10. bajaskier - does the fact that the winner of Walker’s no-bid contract was also a major contributor mean anything?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 13, 2010 at 0952 hrs


  11. “First, his company failed to hold the properties for at least three years, as required under state law, before transferring them to a related company. The exemption also applies to property transfers from a business to a shareholder, not from one corporation to another.”

    These are pretty cut & dry rules—what kind of incompetence would screw these up?  Admitting the mistake only confirms an inability to follow basic instructions. Yeah, let’s put him in charge.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 13, 2010 at 1001 hrs


  12. In one other odd twist, Neumann and his son both signed documents over the past 1½ years as the top official at MN Holdings.

    For instance, in July 2008, Matt Neumann signed a deed saying he was the company president. Less than two weeks later, his father listed himself in another document as the MN Holdings president, a title Matt Neumann reclaimed on yet another deed on Aug. 14, 2008.

    The annual report filed with the state Department of Financial Institutions has the candidate’s son as the company president; it lists no other officers.

    “Business owners can change titles as many or as few times as they wish,” Lato said.

    Real estate attorneys agreed, but they said they couldn’t explain what was happening.

    Mark Neumann last signed a document saying he was company president on Nov. 1, 2009, less than two months after signing a document as the firm’s vice president. His son claimed he was the president again in another deed on Nov. 11, 2009.

    Maybe he’ll sign some bills at Lieutenant Governor, too!

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 13, 2010 at 1004 hrs


  13. The Neumann issue (misapplication of tax code) reminds me of a similar “non-story”:

    http://www.bootsandsabers.com/index.php/weblog/permalink/paid_for_commute/

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 13, 2010 at 1008 hrs


  14. George:

    Yes it does, and it’s relevant. I question whether any major contractor hasn’t contributed to both sides.

    Then there’s DFoyle.
    Week 1: 1st half of campaign “donation”
    Week 3: Contract awarded
    Week 5: 2nd half of campaign “donation”
    Time and time again.

    Seems it’s all ok when Doyle does it. You didn’t respond to the choo-choo issue either.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 13, 2010 at 1024 hrs


  15. No-one seems to question WHY Neumann (or any other business) should have to pay a fee (read tax) to transfer property to himself. Gee, and I wonder why businesses are leaving Wisconsin?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 13, 2010 at 1027 hrs


  16. I’m with bajaskier on why Neumann needs to pay a tax to transfer his own property.  In addition he has to waste his time figuring out exactly when he bought each one, what time of day he transferred it, etc.  I’m surprised he didn’t have to calculate the phases of the moon into the tax.  And then there are penalties and interest if, God forbid, he makes a mistake.

    Right now Mr. Doyle’s dealings trump Scott Walker and Mark Neumann’s combined but the stories about Doyle are held to a different standard.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 13, 2010 at 1119 hrs


  17. Couldn’t agree more.

    I’m guessing the ability to issue no-bid contracts was intended to be used in the case of emergencies.  This certainly qualifies.

    That’s my take as well. If you believe the situation merits an exception, go ahead. But it should most certainly be reviewed after the fact -  and the truth will out. At least as much as I’ve seen, a review of this situation will show no malfeasance - everyone was demanding a safety audit - and quick. The company selected had a history and experience that made them well suited to deliver what is needed in the tight timeline required. And as far as the contributions - it seems pretty clear that they give money to incumbents from both parties and that it’s unlikely that played any role.

    But again, an after-the-fact review should be done in all cases like this to make sure.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 13, 2010 at 1226 hrs


  18. Per the linked article, the company was at first suggested by Walker, but later nixed because they performed work on the structure in the 1990’s.

    Then this other guy suggested they do the work and Walker reversed his position. Why?

    When you perform work on something and then are later asked to review it, you are not an independent reviewer, regardless of how much or little work you may have done. One could claim bias on any findings.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 13, 2010 at 1324 hrs


  19. And as far as the contributions - it seems pretty clear that they give money to incumbents from both parties and that it’s unlikely that played any role.

    Actually, with 40,000+ going to Doyle in the past, I would say that the campaign money had everything to do with it.  Every politician will approve of the donor for the no-bid contract.  The only (not) surprise here is that only Walker’s name is attached to the headliner.

    Then this other guy suggested they do the work and Walker reversed his position. Why?

    Then this other guy suggested they do the work and Walker reversed his position. Why?

    I believe Walker did not reverse his position on this.  Graef was originally put forward by Walker to look specifically in to the parking structure collapse.  Then it was shown that they had an interest in that work so were disqualified.  The no-bid contract they were just awarded was for inspecting other county buildings.  You are confusing two different topics.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 13, 2010 at 1350 hrs


  20. Both Inspec Inc., the lead forensics consultant on the O’Donnell probe, and Graef USA, which is examining other buildings, were hired on no-bid emergency contracts.

    This is from a related article at JSOnline. 

    Looks to me like Graef is not involved in the O’Donnell project.  The contract apparently was issued for inspection of other county structures.

    You leftys can get your shorts unbundled now.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 13, 2010 at 1352 hrs


  21. Thanks for clearing that up Tuerqas. Nice to see someone could answer a question without letting the partisan bs get in the way unlike cynical.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 13, 2010 at 1506 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.