Additions to Donald Fish Deposition

CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMPLAINT

BEFORE THE WISCONSIN STATE ELECTIONS BOARD

DONALD FISH,: Complainant
Against ElBd Cpt. 01-14
DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF WISCONSIN,: Respondent.

According to George Dunst, of the State of Wisconsin Elections Board, I am allowed to make additions, in writing, to my deposition taken on January 28, 2002. The following are part of those additions. A second set of additions to my deposition will be provided in the coming weeks.

This first set of additions to my deposition is, for the most part, information recorded in a journal I kept, beginning June 7, 2000, during part of the period in question. I believe the information presented here will significantly add to the detail I have presented to the Board.

A subsequent set of additions to my deposition, to be provided to the Board in the coming weeks, will provide: (1) corrections to names misspelled by the court reporter, (2) corrections to statements misreported by the court reporter, and (3) any additional information relating to questions asked at the deposition.

All the allegations and statement made below are true or are believed by me to be true, and they are based on personal knowledge and documents in my possession. Additionally, all of the allegations and statements made below are stated under the same oath taken at the beginning of the deposition.

ADDITIONS FROM MY JOURNAL

To round out the information I have provided the Board concerning my Complaint, I am providing most of the text from a journal I kept starting June 7, 2000. A few entries have been omitted for lack of relevance, but the bulk of my journal is presented here. Some punctuation, grammar, and spelling errors have been corrected to enhance clarity and readability. Additionally, a few entries have been updated to provide greater clarity, completeness, and accuracy.

WRITTEN JUNE 7, 2000: It is a little after nine o’clock, on the evening of Wednesday, June 7, 2000, and I am starting this JOURNAL to record the details and my impressions of concerning events occurring in recent weeks and months as well as any related events and impressions that may occur in the weeks and months to come.

The Coordinated Campaign of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin (CC/DPW) has employed me, since April of 1998, in the position of Voter File Manager. My job description, from a CC/DPW document called the 1998 PLAN, as approved April 22, 1999, by the CC/DPW Table, the governing body of the CC/DPW, states on page 12:

“To retain and build upon the successful transition of bringing the voter file ‘in-house’ during the 1998 election cycle, the Coordinated Campaign will keep in place a full time Voter File Manager. The Voter File Manager will be directly responsible for the maintenance and enhancement of the voter file. Moreover, the Manager will be responsible for dissemination of all product to both members and pre-approved sales. Other responsibilities include:

Working with the Legislative Campaign Committees in setting up completion timelines
Exploring and researching all enhancement phases of voter file construction
Working with the CC Director in oversight of all product sales
Creating more user friendly applications of the file
Providing consulting to DPW and other campaigns on database and computer needs and maintaining relationships with allied members over voter file and database management needs.”

A voter file database is a computerized list of voters in a jurisdiction, in the case of the CC/DPW, the State of Wisconsin. It includes voter history, political data, home telephone numbers, ages, names, addresses and other personal information and demographics of voters and supporters, including campaign donors. Its main use is to target voters for contact through political electioneering efforts, including fundraising, persuasion and get-out-the-vote programs—and the CC/DPW’s 1998 voter file database program was given much of the credit for the November 1998 Democratic victories by U.S. Sen. Russell Feingold, U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin and the Wisconsin State Senate.

This brings me to the ‘concerning events’ —over the past years, including during the current election cycle, the CC/DPW has been involved with an operation to divert resources from State of Wisconsin taxpayers into CC/DPW campaign efforts. I first learned about this operation two winters ago from Tanya Bjork, Executive Director of the Assembly Democratic Caucus, at a meeting I had alone with her, at her office, during or about January or February 1999.

I initiated the meeting with Ms. Bjork because I knew her well and I wanted to begin the process of easing the Legislative Democratic Campaign Committee (LDCC—as well as other acronyms—which is made up of the Assembly Democratic Campaign Committee (ADCC—as well as other acronyms) and the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee (SDCC—as well as other acronyms)) out of the voter file database development loop as an effort to improve voter file database quality control. It should be noted that, before this time, I considered LDCC involvement in the 1998 election cycle as problematical for quality control reasons exclusively.

When we started to talk about my concerns, however, she stopped me cold and told me it would cost too much. I disagreed, saying it would only mean a difference of the CC/DPW paying for it instead of the LDCC—but Ms. Bjork then informed me that I was incorrect. She explained the State of Wisconsin taxpayers are actually paying for much of it because Legislative Democratic Caucus office accounts are used to make data purchases and Legislative Democratic Caucus office staffs are used extensively for voter file database data entry and to process information. Ms. Bjork also said this practice occurred during the 1998 cycle as well. I did not question her more about this because I was afraid of creating animosity between us—but Ms. Bjork herself said directly it was “not legal,” and I immediately became concerned about being involved so directly with such activity.

Over subsequent months I learned more about how the operation works. In targeted legislative races where there is a Democratic incumbent, orders of electronic data and paper polling lists are made using corresponding Democratic legislative office accounts or a Legislative Democratic Caucus account. In Wisconsin, voter data is available in one of two ways. For about sixty percent of the state, electronic databases are purchased as public information from municipality and country governments. For the remainder of the state, photocopies of polling lists must be purchased as public information from county governments and data entered by the purchaser. There is usually a financial cost, often significant, at each step of this process.

The LDCC decides which jurisdictions to target for voter file database development, and the CC/DPW takes responsibility to process the remainder of the state. As an additional part of the operation, voter data for targeted areas with Republican incumbents as well as other database development tools, such as telephone numbers and address hygiene software, are acquired through a combination of:

Legitimate LDCC purchases and in-kind donations of data and software
Having data entry performed by the Legislative Democratic Caucus or the office staff a Democratic legislator
Making data and software purchases, or borrowing data or software, through the State of Wisconsin or one of its divisions.

In the late-summer or early-fall of 1999, I visited Daniel Langer, an information systems specialist for the Assembly Democratic Caucus (and a State of Wisconsin employee) at his office. During this visit, he gave me a tour of the workspace of the Assembly Democratic Caucus office staff, where it was pointed out to me twice when staff members were working on data entry for a legislative voter file database. Back in his office, Mr. Langer further demonstrated the data entry computer application developed for this part of the operation. It looked like a basic lookup/data entry program written in MS Access. I remember there were related tables, a browse screens and a basic lookup/data entry screen involved with the application.

I was told by Mr. Langer that in both the Assembly and Senate, Legislative Democratic Caucus office staff use this or a similar computer application to look up names from polling lists to see if they are already in the voter file database and append current data, and add voters that are not. There is one record per voter and most records include the voter’s name, address, home telephone number, voting history and sometimes other information, such as date-of-birth and voter registration date. There is also room for other political data, including donors, volunteers, lawn sign locations, nomination paper signers and partisan identifications.

According to Ms. Bjork and Andrew Gussert, Executive Director of the Senate Democratic Caucus, considerable additional time is spent by Legislative Democratic Caucus office staff and the staff of Democratic legislators, identifying deceased voters and updating and information in existing records.

When the Legislative Democratic Caucus office staff and the staff of Democratic legislators are finished with their work, the information systems specialists for the Legislative Democratic Caucus process the data entered voter data and purchased electronic voter data into district-level voter file databases and transfer the completed voter file databases to the CC/DPW Voter File Manager, by way of an e-mail attachment, or by means of removable media, such as CD-ROMs or floppy disks. The files usually arrive at the CC/DPW in one of four formats: delimitated text, fixed-length text, DBF or MS Access. The current Legislative Democratic Caucus information systems specialists include:

Mr. Langer
Ms. Roller: Rachel Rollel, an information systems specialist for the Senate Democratic Caucus (and a State of Wisconsin employee)
Ms. Weix: Branda Weix, an information systems specialist for the Senate Democratic Caucus (and a State of Wisconsin employee)
Mr. White: Michael White, an information systems specialist for the Assembly Democratic Caucus (and a State of Wisconsin employee)

It is notable that this operation is mentioned in the 1998 PLAN several different times. These include:

Page 12: It states the Voter File Manager will work “with the Legislative Campaign Committees in setting up completion timelines.”
Page 13: “As practiced in 1999, updating voter history on the file will be done by three parties: (1) the SDCC, (2) the ADCC, (3) the Democratic Party of Wisconsin.” (Note “1999” was mistyped and should have read “1998.”); Later on the same page is says the CC/DPW will “meet with LDCC’s to determine who’s collecting what (both electronic and paper).”
Page 15: “In 1999, the Coordinated Campaign Voter File Manager will work with the Leg. Campaign Committees in enhancing this process.”
Page 27: This section specifically addresses how the LDCC will receive credits and re-sale commissions as payment for turning the voter file databases over to the CC/DPW. According to the “LDCC FUNDING” agreement presented on this page, the ADCC and SDCC each receive a $5,000.00 credit on their CC/DPW cash commitment in both 1999 and 2000, a 15 percent commission on voter file database re-sales by the CC/DPW and a 100 percent commission for LDCC recruited voter file database re-sales. Of special note, it states, “This agreement is predicated on the free flow of information. The LDCC’s will turn over all voter file data (including non-CC ids) to the Coordinated Campaign as it is completed and will receive enhanced CC voter files (including CC ids) as completed.”

It deserves observing here that the arrangement described above is actually completely legal, as stated. It is completely legal for the Legislative Democratic Caucus to put together databases for constituent contacts, and it is also completely legal for the LDCC to put together databases for voter contacts. The problem is when these activities are one in the same, particularly when some of the collected data is realistically only useful for political electioneering, such as voting history, voter registration date, donors, volunteers, lawn sign locations, nomination paper signers and partisan identifications. The more preponderant issue, however, is that there is no clear distinction between the Legislative Democratic Caucus and the LDCC—in effect, Ms. Bjork and Mr. Gussert are also the unofficial directors of the ADCC and SDCC respectively, and those Wisconsin employees under their charge are required to perform unofficial secondary political duties as well, sometimes as a primary part of their position. In most cases the only paying body is the State of Wisconsin, however, resulting in a significant subset of the LDCC resources being provided by the Wisconsin taxpayers, by way of the Legislative Democratic Caucus, in clear violation of state laws regarding misuse of elective office as well as state and federal laws regarding campaign finance reporting.

This blurring of the distinction between the Legislative Democratic Caucus and the LDCC is well illustrated in a document that was given to me, in a set of documents, by Paul Tewes, 1998-1999 CC/DPW Director, when he left the CC/DPW in the spring of 1999 to join the Gore 2000 campaign for President. It is a three-page spreadsheet assigning voter file database development responsibility for an unidentified election cycle, probably 1996 or 1998. At that time 16 Assembly Districts were assigned for processing by the LDCC, but 31 are specifically assigned to Legislative Democratic Caucus office staff and another 12 are purchased as electronic databases, usually paid for out of Legislative Democratic Caucus expense accounts. A newer spreadsheet from February 1999 shows a similar pattern for the current election cycle.

This blurring is also well illustrated in a database turned over to the CC/DPW, in June of 1998, by the Senate Democratic Caucus. It is the voter file database from Senate District 28, and the structure clearly includes data that could only be considered political, including donor information as well as polling information indicating partisan, candidate and constituency group preferences. There is handwriting on this document that probably comes from Ms. Weix.

This blurring is finally well illustrated in an April 5, 1999 telephone list of CC/DPW Table members. Contact numbers are provided for the ADCC and SDCC, but the telephone numbers listed are for the Assembly Democratic Caucus and Senate Democratic Caucus.

It is unclear exactly how long this practice has been going on, but a document from 1996, also from the set provided by Mr. Tewes, indicates it goes back at least to the 1992 election cycle. It is interesting how many documents, from the set provided by Mr. Tewes and since then, refer to a voter file database relationship with the Legislative Democratic Caucus and not the LDCC. For example, a document faxed to the CC/DPW by Jeff Ely, a Washington, D.C.-based political database consultant, on March 9, 1998, suggests the CC/DPW “decide early which of the cities and towns are to be acquired apart from the caucuses.”

Telltale signs of the operation may also be found in public information. CC/DPW state and federal campaign finance reporting, if legitimately filled out, will show expenses for voter file database development of a minority of the state, even though it has a state-wide program, while most of the remainder of the state is accounted for in Legislative Democratic Caucus office expense reports and timesheets—there will be little or no overlap.

Estimates of the amount of taxpayer resources devoted to this operation are difficult to calculate, but I have no doubt that a value of at least $750,000.00 can be attached since 1992. With respect to the 2000 cycle alone, I would calculate resources worth no less than $250,000.00 are involved, and about the same amount for 1998.

The voter file database operation, however, does not appear to be the only one of its type or even the most costly. Many have told me that fundraising has also been performed using telemarketers paid for by Wisconsin taxpayers. The Benjamin Group, a small fundraising company located on State Street in Madison, I am told started this way. I also remember the SDCC renting a small space at DPW’s offices, however, I never saw anyone work in the office, and items I would store on the desk there were never moved. This office was probably set up so the SDCC has paperwork indicating rented space away from government buildings if they are ever called to produce such a document. I do not know what the ADCC does about this.

The Legislative Democratic Caucus masks the illegal operation in other ways as well. For example, those involved in the activity, particularly the Executive Directors and information systems specialists, are asked to set up non-government e-mail accounts, such as from Yahoo or MS Hotmail, on their government-issued computers. In one February 11, 2000 e-mail from John Krause, former Executive Director of the CC/DPW, he tells me to e-mail Mr. Langer at a non-government account saying, “we should use this e-mail for him instead of the state one.” Also in a June 1, 2000 e-mail from Ms. Pirozzi, addressed to me and many government employees involved with the CC/DPW, it states, “If you have a government email address, please set up a hotmail or yahoo account soon; they are free.”

Mr. Langer, Ms. Weix and Mr. White were usually good about using non-government e-mail accounts when transferring Legislative Democratic Caucus voter file databases to the CC/DPW Voter File Manager (which rather than mask the activity may actually better show the LDCC knew they had something to hide), but Ms. Roller apparently did not get the word and used her State of Wisconsin e-mail account for the transfers. In a September 22, 1999 e-mail she states, “As requested from Julie Laundrie, I am reordering the City of Middleton that I had sent you with the first batch of files last week,” and “let me know when you receive this email so I can call Senator Erpenbach’s office and let them know you have the file.”

What does this all mean? One thing it means is that U.S. Sen. Russell Feingold’s 1998 election campaign, which he claims was based on the high ideals of campaign finance law reform, and did not use soft money, was helped in substantial part with unreported and illegal contributions from the Wisconsin tax coffers to the CC/DPW. It also means this activity is continuing as I write these words.

My job description gives me direct responsibility for updating the voter file database, and I in no way want to participate in this illegal activity. I knew when I learning about it I needed to tread lightly, however, because it could have caused serious problems for me if I alarmed the politicos with issues of illegal activity. I realized there were more roundabout and safer paths to the same goal. Therefore, because I had already been indicating I wanted the CC/DPW to take over complete voter file database development for the 2000 cycle, to improve database quality control, my solution then would be to expand my efforts in this area since it would achieve the same result: no involvement of State of Wisconsin dollars and resources in my direct “responsibility for maintenance and enhancement of the voter file,” as stated in my job description.

My efforts took many forms in 1999 and the first part 2000, including everything from trying to raise the needed funds from legitimate sources, such as millionaire and Democratic U.S. Sen. Herbert Kohl, to approaching the CC/DPW Table with a direct request to change the policy. At one point I had accomplished my goals—WEAC and the Wisconsin AFL-CIO agreed to legally cover the costs through in-kind donations and/or market-rate exchanges of data. I knew this deal fell through, apparently through the lobbying of the LDCC, however, when Sara Rogers of the AFL-CIO e-mailed me saying, “I assume that you will check with the respective LDCC’s for appropriate data purchases.”

The most I could obtain from the CC/DPW Table after this was an agreement that the information system personnel of the Legislative Democratic Caucus, and myself, along with the guidance of John Stocks, a chief political director for WEAC, should develop a set of voter file database standards as an approach to upgrade data quality. Standards, however, were never established because, since the activity would mean continued participation in a conspiracy, I was not fully cooperating with the information system personnel employed by the Legislative Democratic Caucus.

My efforts went on until April or May of 2000 when I realized I was going to have to follow a new path. Really all I could do now was refuse the involvement of the Legislative Democratic Caucus on the grounds that the relationship for me constituted a conspiracy to violate the law by illegally diverting Wisconsin tax dollars and resources into CC/DPW political election campaigns. This was easier to plan than implement, however, because by then I knew the group I was working with seemed to share a culture that believes anything you can get away with is okay because the main object is winning—they seem to think the laws, many of which they helped write, were designed for others, and they were above the law. Therefore, I proceeded cautiously and waited for the right opportunity. One arose today, June 7, 2000. These are the details:

Late this afternoon, starting at or about 4:15 p.m., and extending to or about 6:30 p.m., I was in a meeting where the conspiracy came up. Included at the meeting were Ms. Bjork, Mr. Gussert, Mr. Langer, Ms. Pirozzi, Ms. Roller, Teresa Vilmain, a main Wisconsin contact for Gore for President 2000, Ms. Weix, Mr. White and a representative from the Sen. Herbert Kohl 2000 campaign who I do not know. JoAnna Richard was participating by telephone for Atty. Gen. Doyle.

This was a committee on voter file database development that was setup by, and reports to, the CC/DPW Table. During this meeting there was a great deal of direct and free discussion about the Democrat’s illegal operation. By this time, of course, this was not news to me—but it was clearly news, and surprising, to Ms. Vilmain, who even made several jokes about it including one as the meeting was breaking up. “Will state taxpayers be getting a credit next year for supplying the data,” she asked looking at Ms. Bjork and Mr. Gussert.

I picked the period after this meeting to express my legal concerns with the individual just over me, Ms. Pirozzi. Before this day, I had talked about my legal concerns only on a limited basis because of the sensitivity of the issue. I did, however, verbally discuss the issue, in a limited way, with at least nine people involved with the CC/DPW, but not recently with most and not in-depth with any. These individuals include: Ronald Domini, a political director for AFSCME; Charles Gonzales, Campaign Manager for 4th CD Congressman Jerry Kleczka; Douglas Hill, aid to 7th CD Congressman Dave Obey from Wausau; Ron Kind, 3rd CD Congressman; Joe Parisi, Dane County Clerk; Teresa Spring, Chair of the DPW; John Stocks, Mr. Tewes and Mr. Young.

After the meeting tonight, before 6:45 p.m., I had a conversation lasting no more than five minutes with Ms. Pirozzi, on two streets directly in front and near the DPW’s offices. I told her directly about my legal concerns and after a few minutes of additional discussion, I said I was “too upset to continue our conversation,” and that “we should speak further in a day or two.” Then I went to my automobile and drove home, 2984 Chapel Valley Road, about twelve minutes away.

Then, at 7:11 p.m. tonight, Ms. Pirozzi telephoned me at my home. We again briefly discussed my legal concerns, and I directly told her, “I would not be part of the conspiracy.” I did, however, agree to discuss the issue further with her at DPW’s offices, 222 State Street, at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning.

WRITTEN JUNE 8, 2000: I arrived for my meeting with Ms. Pirozzi, at DPW’s offices, just before 9:00 a.m. this morning, but Ms. Pirozzi had not arrived yet. After waiting for about half an hour, Ms. Pirozzi still had not arrived for our meeting—but Ms. Spring did arrive, and we talked about my legal concerns, alone in her office for a few minutes. However, our conversation concentrated on a more pressing issue for Ms. Spring, an unrelated lawsuit threatened this morning against the DPW by U.S. Rep. David Obey. Nevertheless, during this conversation, I did tell Ms. Spring, “I was being asked to break the law by the Coordinated,” and that “I have told Angelique I would not comply.” Ms. Spring turned emotional and began crying. (It should be noted that Ms. Spring was under additional pressure because her father was emitted into a nursing home the day before.) She then asked me “not to make a final decision now.” I agreed to this because of her emotional state, but I have no intention of changing my mind.

At just after 10:00 a.m., Ms. Pirozzi still had not arrived, and I left DPW’s offices by automobile to talk in person with Mr. Stocks, at his office, about the threatened lawsuit. I arrived at WEAC’s offices, 33 Nob Hill Drive, at about 10:20 a.m., and signed in—but Mr. Stocks was not available. I then called Ms. Spring from the lobby of WEAC and had a conference telephone call with her and Ms. Pirozzi, mainly continuing my discussion with Ms. Pirozzi from yesterday evening. Near the end of this conversation, Ms. Pirozzi told me directly that “things would be worked out,” and that I “would not have to break the law.” “We will do it the way you want,” she said to me as she left the conference call.

After the conference telephone call ended, at about 11:00 a.m., I saw Mr. Stocks was now in his office, and I knocked on his door. We talked for a few minutes about the threatened lawsuit and my personal legal concerns as well as some unrelated topics. During our conversation, Mr. Stocks told me that Ms. Vilmain was “on my side” because “she does “not want any ethical issues to cloud the Gore campaign.” He further suggested that I call Ms. Vilmain to thank her for her support. I requested her telephone number, which he gave me, and agreed to his request. At the end of the meeting, shortly after noon I believe, Mr. Stocks advised me to “protect myself legally by taking notes, explaining my concerns and the steps I was taking to resolve them.” I said I would do this, though I did not tell him that I already started this JOURNAL last night.

Late this afternoon or early evening, Ms. Pirozzi telephoned me or I returned a voice mail message. During our telephone conversation, Ms. Pirozzi set up another meeting with me at 1:00 p.m., Monday, June 12, 2000. In between Ms. Pirozzi said she would be attending the DPW’s State Convention in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Also during this telephone conversation, Ms. Pirozzi reiterated I “would not be asked to break the law.”

WRITTEN JUNE 12, 2000: I arrived this afternoon for a scheduled meeting with Ms. Pirozzi, at DPW’s offices, just before 1:00 p.m., but I found she was meeting with Mr. Young. When Ms. Pirozzi was finally available shortly after 2:00 p.m., I helped her with some of her information systems computer concerns, and then we moved to DPW’s conference room for a private meeting lasting about one hour.

Early in this conversation, Ms. Pirozzi handed me a CD-ROM disc with recent Milwaukee City and Madison City voter history. She said she “got this for” me and seemed to be implying it was legally obtained. I was reluctant to believe this since Mr. Langer mentioned he had this data at the June 7 meeting, but I took the disc and did not mention my concerns at that time. (It should be noted that tonight I looked at the CD-ROM and found a document from Mr. Langer indicating this was more illegally obtained data.)

Later in our conversation, Ms. Pirozzi said I could repurchase the electronic data previously illegally turned over to the CC/DPW by the Legislative Democratic Caucus. However, she then told me that redoing the data entry previously illegally turned over by Legislative Democratic Caucus would be too costly and would take too much time. Like Ms. Spring last week, Ms. Pirozzi then suddenly broke into tears and said if I did not go along, “we would loose the elections.” She then told me Ms. Bjork and Mr. Gussert had “worked it out to show that the data entry was done on volunteer time.” She then paused and said, “even though we know it wasn’t.” Ms. Pirozzi finally told me, “this would have legal cover.” I told her, “I don’t think this will fly,” but I did not push my position because of Ms. Pirozzi’s emotional state. At the end of our meeting, I told her I would “think about” what she asked me to do, and that “I would talk with some people I had confidence in.”

Throughout the remainder of the day, I talked with four people about my legal concerns as well as related developments of recent weeks. I began each conversation asking them to keep our conversations of this issue strictly confidential. All agreed, including:

Mr. Domini: Was reached in the late this afternoon or early evening
Mr. Stocks: Returned my call at 8:33 p.m.
Mr. Tewes: Returned my call at 8:42 p.m.
Ms. Vilmain: Returned my call at 8:59 p.m.

In the conversation with Mr. Stocks, he specifically suggested, as a possible option, my leaving the CC/DPW and pursuing outside consulting contracts with WEAC through him as well as consulting contracts with other. He also reminded me that we talked about this before. He is correct—Mr. Stocks and I have discussed contracting with WEAC before, and last winter in Milwaukee I even met with WEAC’s lawyers about it. I have also provided a limited amount of paid independent consulting to WEAC in the past, all with the full knowledge of the CC/DPW.

Early in the conversation with Ms. Vilmain, we discussed my call with Mr. Stocks, and I specifically told her, “I have been asked by John Stocks to think about leaving the Coordinated.” Ms. Vilmain then specifically asked me “how much it would cost for (the CC) to do the data entry legally,” and if I would “stay if we got the money to do it.” I told her I would certainly stay, and that it would cost about “$30,000 to $40,000 depending on the vendors we used and how many records we decided to target.” At the end of our conversation, Ms. Vilmain agreed to work on alternate funding the next day and call me with an update. I consider this significant progress.

WRITTEN JUNE 13, 2000: At about ten o’clock this morning, I talked with Ms. Pirozzi via telephone. We discussed briefly my conversation with Ms. Vilmain last night, but Ms. Pirozzi quickly changed the topic and told me that she “heard through the grapevine” that I was “thinking about leaving the Coordinated instead of breaking the law.” I admitted to the telephone conversation with Mr. Stocks and told her “staying and breaking the law were not an option for me.” However, I also made it clear that Ms. Vilmain was trying to come up with additional funds, and that my “leaving was dependent on finding other work.” Ms. Pirozzi then said she has “contacts,” and that she “would be willing to help me find another job” —I did not take her up on this. At the end of the telephone call, Ms. Pirozzi told me she would like a final answer soon saying she “wanted a smooth transition” and wanted “the computers and all the disks owned by the Coordinated returned as part of the transition.” I told her, “I would expect to do this as part of any transition.” All of a sudden I am starting to feel a lot of pressure to quit.

Shortly after this conversation, I telephoned Ms. Spring on her Cell telephone and updated her on where things stood. I told her again, “I could not participate in a conspiracy to break the law,” and that I may be looking for other work—but I also made it clear that I had “high-hopes that Teresa Vilmain will find the extra money.” I called Ms. Spring, because of the “grapevine” mentioned by Ms. Pirozzi, and I wanted her to learn any information from me and not through another. Ms. Spring took the news very well and said she would be available as an employment reference, and that “we should get together on Monday” after she returned from a short vacation with her family.

At about noon today, I went to Mr. Domini’s office at AFSCME to talk to him about possibly doing consulting work for AFSCME. He said he would let me know more the next day and would talk to Sara Rogers about also working with the Wisconsin AFL-CIO.

At 5:13 p.m. I received a call back from Mr. Gonzalez to discuss doing consulting work for his campaign—Jerry Klezka for re-election as 4th CD Congressman.

At 5:40 p.m. I received a call back from Ms. Vilmain, but it was a disappointment. Her interest in keeping me with the CC/DPW seemed to have changed. She lets me know the additional $30,000 to $40,000 needed to do the data entry legally would probably not be available. Why the change overnight?

Another interesting aspect of my conversation with Ms. Vilmain is how she said Ms. Bjork told her “the data entry work is shown as volunteer work on time sheets,” and that she “has no reason to not believe Tanya (Ms. Bjork).” (It should be noted that I now suspect time sheets were probably changes as part of the cover-up explained by Ms. Pirozzi yesterday. Additionally, I thought Ms. Vilmains comments sounded a lot like talking points—she seems to have forgotten what she heard and joked about at the June 7, 2000 Voter File Committee meeting.)

At 8:30 p.m. I talked with Ms. McDonald. The conversation lasted about ninety minuets and mainly involved unrelated topics, however, I did tell her confidentially about my legal concerns and asked her about doing database consulting work for, 5th CD Congressman Tom Barrett, for whom she volunteers. She said she would get back to me.

WRITTEN JUNE 15, 2000: I had a telephone conversation with a Chicago business attorney, Aaron Ball, today for about a half hour. This was set up by Mr. Hill, who was a close friend of Mr. Ball, as a confidential consultation regarding my rights. Mr. Ball’s advice seems odd, however, when he told me that since the information transferred to me by the Legislative Democratic Caucus “started its life as public information and can be used for legitimate constituent services, it is probably legal for the caucuses to transfer it to you.” I told him that I have received contrary advice from two other attorneys, and that not only do the Legislative Democratic Caucus get paid for the data, they act in a hush-hush manner, including using outside e-mail accounts for data transfer; but this did not affect his position. Strange advice. Maybe it is only worth what I paid for it: $0.00.

WRITTEN JUNE 22, 2000: I received a curious e-mail from Ms. Pirozzi today where she said, “You don’t have to be here at 9:00 am tomorrow. We do have to meet on Monday to develop a transition timeline for the next two weeks.” Since I have not resigned yet, what is she talking about a “transition” already for?

There was also a very curious thing earlier in the week. I think it was Monday morning. I had a short conversation on the street in front of DPW’s offices, with a friend of mine, Scott Tyre, who is also Ms. Bjork’s boyfriend and roommate. While we had not discussed my legal concerns before, I have discussed them very little and only in confidence, he brought it up and we had a short confidential conversation about my legal concerns. A short time into the conversation he said to me, “you know all that is public information.” I reminded him that the Legislative Democratic Caucus wants payment for this data, which took him aback a little, but he responded that the money was not paid yet and would only be illegal then. (It should be noted that I am now somewhat concerned that my confidential consultation with Mr. Ball may not have been confidential at all.)

Towards the end of the same conversation, Mr. Tyre also said he thought he could still work things out so I “could stay and everything would be done legally.” He even told me he would get me a raise. I said he could try, but I was not really very encouraged—after all, he lives with Ms. Bjork, which Ms. Pirozzi does as well.

After my conversation with Mr. Tyre, I told Ms. Spring in her office about what Mr. Tyre wanted to do, but she was no more optimistic that I was.

WRITTEN JUNE 29, 2000: I set up a lunch with Ms. Spring tomorrow, to give her some completed voter file databases and to make a transition timeline for my departure. Like Ms. Porozzi’s e-mail last week, this is not good because I have not resigned yet—but it looks I am not being given a choice in the matter.

I should note here an occurrence from last week, Wednesday I think, that I did not report because it did not seem important at the time. I had a meeting with Ms. Spring, alone in her office, about my search for new work. Feeling some pressure I told her, “my goal was to have contract signed with WEAC and enough others, by the end of next week, when you get back from your trip.” She then asked, “would that make your last day about July 15th?” I responded, “Yes, if I sign the contracts next week.” During part of this meeting, Mr. Young was asked by Ms. Spring to sit in, including a segment where I described by concerns about the conspiracy.

(It should be noted here I was not really as optimistic as I may have sounded to Ms. Spring, but I feel under a lot of pressure to quit now, and I needed to buy some time—but in no way did I guarantee a resignation, and she knows I am the victim in this situation, and I am trying to do the CC/DPW a favor and alleviate the situation. On the positive side, I do think contracts will come through eventually, but probably not next week—I just need to be careful during the transition not to ruffle too many feathers. I do not think the big guys are very happy with me right now.)

Then on Tuesday of this week, I had a telephone conversation with Ms. Pirozzi, where she wanted to setup a transition timetable for my departure on the 15th. I told her directly, “I have not quit yet,” and that “the 15th was just a goal,” and that I was “clear with Terri about this.” Ms. Pirozzi said, “no, you have quite twice, once to me and once to Terri.” I then clearly explained to her once again, “I have not resigned so if there was a misunderstanding before, it is clear now.” Ms. Pirozzi did not say anything for a few seconds, and feeling a little put off by our conversation so far, I reminded her that “this was about illegal activity,” and that “this was not just my wanting another job,” and that “I was trying to do (Ms. Pirozzi and the CC/DPW) a favor.” Ms. Pirozzi then startled me when she said, “it wasn’t illegal, this is all public information.” I then reminded her, “there is a document where we agree to pay the campaign committees for the data with credits and re-sale commissions.” To this she responded, “that document is for political purposes and not a legal contract.” The conversation was getting very intense when Ms. Pirozzi then started telling me she was not satisfied with my work on the voter file database and that the CC/DPW “had to move on.” The conversation ended when Ms. Pirozzi said she had to take care of something else and that we should talk more about it later.

Later the same day, Ms. Pirozzi sent me e-mail asking me to come in at 10:00 a.m. the next morning to continue our discussion. She also said, “I know you are working hard and I appreciate it.” I responded that I was feeling sick with a migraine headache, which was not true, but I needed time to figure out what to do. It seems apparent now, even if I do not resign, I will be terminated and they will just say I resigned.

After hanging up with Ms. Pirozzi, I made attempts over the next few days, eventuality all successful, to reach Mr. Gonzales, Mr. Hill, Ms. McDonald, Mr. Stocks and Mr. Tewes by telephone. I confidentially explained to them that Ms. Pirozzi has given me my last day, July 15th, that I considered this a ‘termination,’ and that I would appreciate speeding up contract negotiations I was considering individually with each of them. Things look promising for work with most of these people eventually, so my concern is not severe, but I prefer not being pushed out like this. I also discussed this with Peter M. Reinhardt, the employment attorney I have been consulting, who said I should make sure my position is in writing to the CC/DPW.

There is one other event, from the last week, that was curious and a little unsettling. I received a telephone call from Mr. Stocks who said he heard from Ms. Pirozzi that I was “trashing the Party” when I told people the previous week that I was terminated. I was taken aback somewhat because the WEAC contract is very important to me and nowhere near signed, which I am sure is why Ms. Pirozzi called Mr. Stocks with the complaint. I told Mr. Stocks, “there must have been a misunderstanding with one of the people I talked with.”

(I had better not use the word ‘termination’ anymore or anything like it—I cannot risk loosing the WEAC contract.

It should be noted that I make the following observations on why I do not accept the new position of the CC/DPW, that the data transferred is true public information:

There is an agreement between the CC/DPW and the LDCC that provides a credit and a re-sale commission to the LDCC specifically for payment for transferring the voter data to the CC/DPW. If this were public information, would not payment go to the State of Wisconsin and not the LDCC?
I can find no place where this data is listed as public
There really is no way to justify the entry of detailed voter history, voter registration date, donor information, volunteer information, partisan identification information, and the like, a time-consuming process, for any purpose other than political campaign electioneering and fundraising
If these lists were really put together for constituent contacts and services, the Legislative Democratic Caucus would not data enter names from polling lists. Currently, the Caucuses must devote at least 15,000 hours on voter data entry alone each cycle to get the work done. Instead, they could purchase the data through a list vendor. The best source is probably the DOT file, for about $1,200 I think, which gives the names and addresses in electronic format for all residents of Wisconsin with a current drivers license—a much more complete list compared to a voter list. After all, far more people drive in Wisconsin than vote and very few voters do not drive—and non-voters are legislative constituents as well. Furthermore, you can also purchase names of residents from telephone and utility companies, among other sources, all of which would be a better source than voting data
Even if this were public information, it would have to be reported as campaign in-kind income at the state and/or federal level to be legal, which it is not
No one had the idea that this is public before the middle of this month. The technical personnel working for the Legislative Democratic Caucus use non-Wisconsin e-mail accounts to transfer data to me, clearly showing they have something to hide. Additionally, on June 12, 2000, Ms. Pirozzi tried to convince me that Ms. Bjork and Mr. Gussert had “worked it out to show that the data entry was done on volunteer time—even though we know it wasn’t,” so I “would have legal cover.” If it was just public information, why then was there a need to cover things up on the weekend of DPW’s state convention?
Ms. Bjork told me directly that it was “not legal.”

This redefinition of the data as public information seems closer to ‘spin’ than reality. But it definitely complicates things for me. And it looks like I have hit a nerve, and people involved are trying to politically position themselves. I will see what Ms. Spring says at lunch tomorrow before I worry too much.)

WRITTEN JUNE 30, 2000: I had lunch today with Ms. Spring, and I did not give her a letter of resignation, as she thought I would. Instead I gave her a letter saying that I was not resigning. I put it in an envelope, in a CD-ROM case, with a CD-ROM of data I was supplying to Ms. Pirozzi that day. I told her there was a “document in the CD case,” but she just put it to the side and said she had some things for me and handed me some unrelated papers.

The letter, which she did not open at our lunch, said the following:

“June 29, 2000

FROM: Donald Fish, Voter File Manager

TO: Terri Spring and the Coordinated Campaign of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin

To make sure there have been no misunderstandings from our previous conversations, I am writing this letter to Terri Spring and the Coordinated Campaign. In past weeks, as a response to considerable pressure from the Coordinated Campaign to alleviate the current situation, I said I would look for other work and leave the Coordinated Campaign if I secured enough other work. Last week I told Terri Spring in her office that I would give a notice of resignation only if I secured contracts this week with Jerry Kleczka, Dave Obey, Paul Tewes and WEAC. This has not occurred, this is NOT a resignation and I have NOT resigned verbally in the past. If there was any misunderstanding before, there now should be none, and there is still more than two weeks until the July 15, 2000 last day that has been decided for me. I also note that I am currently and continuously available for assignments now and after July 15, 2000.

I want to also make it clear to you and the Coordinated Campaign that I have received legal advice that the Coordinated Campaign is asking me to participate in an illegal conspiracy by accepting voter data from the Legislative Democratic Caucuses. I should also make it clear to you that on June 12, 2000 the Coordinated Campaign tried to involve me in a cover-up to hide the fact that political electioneering work was being assigned to Legislative Democratic Caucus staff—this conspiracy involved improperly presenting Legislative Democratic Caucus data entry work as volunteer work.

Sincerely,

Donald E. Fish”

Since Ms. Spring did not read the letter, I explained to her verbally what was in the letter. Ms. Spring’s response was that, “there are resignations and there are unofficial resignations.” I wanted to say, “but only the official ones count,” but I held my tongue. I remember Ms. Spring commenting that she felt the data transfers were “trivial” and akin to “driving a few miles over the speed limit.”

(For the first time, there is no question in my mind that political election politics has become involved in my employment situation, probably including the DNC and Gore campaign; and I had better tread lightly for now. I agreed “to provide a smooth transition” now and deal with the legal issues later.)

During our lunch she agreed to the following as part of the transition:

Ms. Spring would act as a filter between the CC/DPW and me so I could avoid the internal office during the transition
Ms. Spring agreed to pick up the CC/DPW’s property from my home office on July 7th instead of earlier as requested by Ms. Pirozzi
I told Ms. Spring my health was down due to recent pressures, and she agreed to a vacation starting July 7th and continuing until my last day
As a final expense reimbursement Ms. Spring agreed to pay two-thirds of my home-office telephone and Internet expenses since, the last time I claimed in the winter of 1999, as well as for some software and other minor expenses I have incurred recently.

(Things are mixed up in politics now, I do not know who to believe or trust. I would not be surprised if Ms. Spring was fishing for a calendar date during our talk in her office last week, maybe on the advice of an attorney or the DNC. She was not getting one so she said “July 15th” and conveniently forgot the caveats:

I said I would give written notice at the time of my resignation
I said I would resign only if I was successful in finding other work.)

WRITTEN JULY 7, 2000: Ms. Spring and Mr. Young stopped by, early this afternoon, to pick up the computers, printers and miscellaneous property of the CC/DPW. I made it easy for them, and next Voter File Manager, by making sure everything was organized and well documented.

It is now time for me to get my consulting business going. I am sure things will work out with WEAC soon. My biggest problem is that I do not have adequate computer technology at my home-office for the business. Mr. Stocks said he will pay for it as part of a start-up fee in our contract, but wanted to see if others would also share in the expense, through start-up fees, before he would pay for the whole amount. I have told him the total expense would be about $7,000.00 for the main hardware and an approximately equal amount for related software, including telephone numbers and an address hygiene application.

WRITTEN JULY 15, 2000: It is about half past five o’clock in the morning, on my last day of working for the CC. Mr. Stocks promised we would sign contracts by today, but we have not made final arrangements yet. I have received copies, however, and I am sure it will be any day now. But it does looks like tomorrow will be my first day of unemployment since I was a kid.

WRITTEN JULY 18, 2000: I finally signed a contract with Mr. Stocks and WEAC. It is for $3,000.00 per month for the next ten months—I was hoping for a full year but, nevertheless, I think this is the start of better things.

WRITTEN JULY 25, 2000: This morning I received e-mail from Mr. Domini’s secretary who asked me to call Mr. Domini on his Cell telephone. I left a message on Mr. Domini’s voice mail, and he returned my call at 12:02 p.m. Actually, I was delighted to hear from him because I had been talking with him about contracting with AFSCME. Unfortunately, that was not what the meeting was for. Apparently during a move, the CC/DPW discarded or lost some voter data I had worked on, and to this date have been unable to find it. (I think Ms. Pirozzi threw it out because she thought it was evidence of the conspiracy, but I have no evidence of this.) Mr. Domini, who said he was sent from a meeting of the CC/DPW Table, asked me if I could help them locate the missing data. I told him I told the CC/DPW before, “there was no more help I can offer.”

I should point out that this was not the first I heard of this issue. In fact, I let the CC/DPW know that the data was missing several weeks before and once again more recently, on July 7, in writing; and I told Mr. Langer, during a telephone call I received from him July 19, 2000, at 8:04 p.m., that I had no further help to offer.

(Actually, shortly after I had the conversation with Mr. Langer, one day after I signed the contract with WEAC, I received a telephone call from Mr. Stocks complaining about the missing data—this is another example of trying to influence me with Mr. Stocks, my only income at this point.)

Mr. Domini then told me that the CC was sure I had kept copies and directly told me, “if you want to continue living here, I need to tell you that those at the Table suggest you find a way of solving this problem.” Immediately after hearing this, I told Mr. Domini that this “sounded like a threat.” I then said I wanted him to set up a meeting between myself and some members of the CC Table; all members except Ms. Bjork, Mr. Gussert and Ms. Pirozzi. It was my belief at this time that somehow, if the others in the CC/DPW knew what was going on they would do something about it. Mr. Domini said he would comply. I was very angry with this meeting, and I let Mr. Domini know this as he was leaving.

A couple of hours later I contacted Mr. Domini to inquire about the meeting with the CC/DPW, however, to my amazement he told me, “the data was found,” so there was no need for the meeting. Of course I was suspicious of this, and during a second telephone call with Mr. Domini that day, he admitted the data was not found, but told me that because he believed a meeting with the CC/DPW would be “unproductive.” We then had a conversation where he explained to me that the CC/DPW Table members are employees “with no job security working for the biggest egotists in the country, and it is not in their self interest to change course.” “They will never agree to do things your way,” he said. Mr. Domini then directly told me that I “could probably prove in court that the data transactions are not legal, and I do not encourage you to do so,” but noted he believed “the issue was small in the scheme of things.”

This afternoon, I also had telephone conversations, two I believe, with Ms. Spring, where I expressed my anger about the CC/DPW’s threat and told her, “I would file a lawsuit if the Coordinated does not discontinue this behavior.” Ms. Spring told me that she was not at the CC/DPW meeting with Mr. Domini, and that she thought Mr. Domini “was acting on his own.”

(I should note that Mr. Domini is one of my closest associates, and I think that was why he was sent to see me. I am sure he was not happy about doing it. I do not believe Mr. Domini would have done this on his own. He is a friend, and I would still consider doing business with him.

I am not exactly sure what the CC was threatening here—it is a little unclear—but it was definitely threatening to me—particularly since my consulting business is just starting up, and I do not want any problems. But are they threatening to run me out of town, to keep business from me or what? And is it just about the lost data or are they also warning me to keep quiet about the conspiracy?)

Some notes about recent other events: I have part of the new computer equipment I need in my home-office now, and I am already well progressed on developing a campaign to let Democrats here and around the country know about my new company: Donald Fish Data Management, specializing in voter file databases and other political database management for Democratic campaigns and labor unions. I have no business beyond WEAC yet, but I have just started.

WRITTEN JULY 26, 2000: I had another telephone conversation with Ms. Spring today. I told her my statements were more for others involved with the CC/DPW, to make them think twice about threatening me again, and that I did not plan on suing her or anyone else. She told me, “I will keep an eye on (the CC/DPW).”

WRITTEN SEPTEMBER 9, 2000: I have not had much to report lately—especially no additional business prospects, not even calls about prices, and I have a lot of direct mail out there. People who know me well will not even return my telephone calls—and everyone else in the business is up to their ears in work. I am just twiddling my thumbs. Maybe I am on a blacklist or maybe the CC/DPW has been too little discrete with an employment matter—I have not forgotten Mr. Domini’s July 25, 2000 visit.

One positive thing that has happened recently is that I established a relationship with Practical Political Consulting (PPC) who is putting together an independent voter file database for Wisconsin. It is actually a much more comprehensive voter list than the CC/DPW have—PPC uses digital imaging for entering data, rather than data entry, to reduce costs and increase accuracy and coverage.

I am putting together a count book for the PPC data to present, to Mr. Stocks next week, at a meeting we scheduled, for 10:00 a.m., September 13th. I hope to sell him some data to update WEAC’s own voter file database.

WRITTEN SEPTEMBER 13, 2000: Mr. Stocks and his assistant, Gail Gonzales, stopped by my home-office to discuss the potential purchase of some of my PPC voter file database records to supplement WEAC’s own voter database. I put together a count book for them last weekend. There were a couple of interesting things said during this meeting. First, Mr. Stocks mentioned, “things became even more involved after you left.” He did not elaborate further. He also mentioned that the CC/DPW probably “did not want to risk it anymore” and would probably start using PPC voter data instead of that from the Legislative Democratic Caucus.

I also received a return call from Ms. Spring today at 4:56 p.m., where I discussed the new PPC data, and I suggested I have PPC give her a presentation. Ms. Spring responded that a presentation might be a good idea, bust should probably wait until after the November election.

WRITTEN SEPTEMBER 16, 2000: I received a call from Mr. Stocks who said Ms. Spring called him and told him that she thought I might be selling CC/DPW data and not PPC data. I assured Mr. Stocks that I was not, and I am sure he believed me. Mr. Stocks then said I “should not worry about this,” and that he “would take care of the problem.” I cite this as yet another example of Mr. Stocks, the controller of my wallet size, being used to influence me.

WRITTEN OCTOBER 14, 2000: I believe I have acted as nobly as I could in this situation I found myself over the past one-and-a-half years, and I do not regret any of my actions based on what I knew at the time. However, I do think I have been naïve at times. I was most naïve to think people were dealing with me squarely and trusting them—after all, this is politics. For example, I now realize that in all probability my contract with WEAC, for which I make $3,000.00 per month and have virtually no work to do for it, was just a part of a cover-up—a way to keep me happy enough for a while—any maybe even obstruction. I also realize Mr. Hill was probably setting me up with the call to Mr. Ball—and there are a lot of other examples of this naïveté.

My biggest regret is how my friends, particularly the labor unions, have put their blinders on about this situation. I am afraid, however, everything in my situation is mixed up in politics. After all, the only reason the Legislative Democratic Caucus does this is because the data they provide gives them control and power—they were given the opportunity to buy the PPC data earlier at almost any price they wanted, but I am told State Sen. Charles Chvala turned it down. This is not Ms. Bjork and Mr. Gussert’s idea, it started long before they took charge—it is the brainchild of our elected legislators, particularly State Sen. Charles Chvala and State Rep. Shirley Krug.

Now I have thrown a hammer in the operation and I have made the politicos restless. I would not be surprised if I have been blacklisted—certainly events of recent weeks points to one: I have spent quite a bit of time and money on a direct-mail campaign with absolutely no results—and even friends will not return my calls.

I realize that I have no other choice now except to try to recover some of the damages from the CC/DPW, and I am seeing an employment attorney here in Madison about it next Wednesday. I am not the type to see an attorney, but I see nothing for my career in the future as a result of this activity. I need to find a way to start over.

I hope some good can come from all of this. I do not think those involved with this are bad people, but misguided people who made some poor decisions under pressure. They are absorbed in a culture that thinks this is okay as long as they win. Hopefully these events can have a positive impact in changing this culture.

WRITTEN ON OCTOBER 21, 2000: Yesterday, at 1:07 p.m., Mr. Stocks called me from his home to make an appointment to see me about some WEAC work. The Wisconsin Senate District 32 race is tighter than expected and may be needed for the Democrats to retain a majority in the State Senate. I told Mr. Stocks that I would help him develop a persuasion/get-out-the-vote effort for the election as long as it was for a WEAC special expenditure—which is covered by my consulting contract with WEAC. I made an appointment for him at 2 p.m. today. It should be noted here that, over the last two months, I have asked Mr. Stocks at least twice for WEAC projects—I would calculate I have had 16 hours of project-work since signing the contract on July 18th which, at that rate means I am getting about $600.00 per hour.

Mr. Stocks arrived late for our meeting at about 3:30 p.m., and we discussed how we could use new political ID information, some WEAC purchased and some legitimately purchased by the CC/DPW, and WEAC’s internal voter file database to get out the Democratic vote in Senate District 32. It should be noted that, in 1998, WEAC purchased a copy of the 1998 CC/DPW voter file database and ID information for approximately $115,000.00—to my knowledge this was purchased by WEAC in good faith before they became aware from me about the illegal source of much of the data.

During our discussion Mr. Stocks told me that once again this year he bought a copy of the 2000 CC/DPW voter file database, and he wanted me to “append any new information to the WEAC voter file with it.” I must admit that I was a bit shocked here. I told him, “My life has been ruined because of this voter file and you are mixing me up with it again.” And then I told Mr. Stocks that, “because we both know taxpayer money has gone into the voter file you bought, I will need to get a legal opinion on this.”

Mr. Stocks then told me, “Then I’ll cancel the contract.” I then reminded him that, “Our contract specifically says I do not have to do anything against the law,” which led into a short discussion, maybe better described as an argument about the issue. Mr. Stocks then reminded me that the ID information from the CC/DPW “is based on the voter file” and that the “WEAC voter file on your computer is just as illegal as the new one.” “I’ll push that,” he said.

I told Mr. Stocks, “Because the ID information itself is legally purchased and properly reported by the Coordinated, I did not consider it illegal to use.” With respect to the WEAC voter file database purchased from the CC/DPW in 1998, I told Mr. Stocks that, “to the best of my knowledge you purchased it in good faith and did not know about its illegal data sources at the time;” to which he agreed saying, “I didn’t know.”

Other than these arguments, I kept telling Mr. Stocks that I needed to get a legal opinion. At one point he said, “I can’t wait for that, the election is in two weeks.” To this I responded that I would agree to use the data temporarily until I received a legal opinion if he “would sign a letter taking full responsibility.” At this point he decided he would only get me “the IDs for now,” and wanted to change the subject back to Senate District 32 strategy.

The remainder of our discussion was very cordial, and Mr. Stocks agreed to drop off the CC/DPW ID information and some polling data tomorrow as early as possible.

I should admit the discussion with Mr. Stocks has got me thinking. I should probably also get a legal opinion on the CC/DPW ID information and the WEAC voter file database on my computer. Maybe I need to get a letter signed by WEAC taking responsibility for these. Also from Mr. Gonzales since we are using CC/DPW IDs in his work.

WRITTEN ON OCTOBER 23, 2000: Mr. Stocks did not contact me yesterday, but he left a message saying he tried to stop by this morning while I was out. He also said he was traveling to La Crosse, Wisconsin to help with WEAC’s Senate District 32 efforts. (I was gone this morning between about 8:30 and 10:30.) At 10:50 a.m. I received a call from Mr. Stocks, while he was on the road, telling me to contact Ms. Gonzales for the materials he wanted to get to me. I finally received the materials from her at my home at approximately 3:30 p.m. today. They included some polling data and a CD-ROM from the CC/DPW with what were described as ID information. Later it turned out to be ID information and the entire CC/DPW voter file database.

WRITTEN ON OCTOBER 24, 2000: I received a 10:31 a.m. telephone call today from Ms. Gonzales asking me to send part of the new WEAC voter file database to a pollster. Since I have not received a legal opinion on using the data yet, but was concerned about confronting WEAC directly about this yet, I decided to delay my transfer of the data to the pollster as long as possible. On legal advice, I sent by taxi delivery a copy of the CD-ROM Ms. Gonzales gave me yesterday to insure WEAC has anything they need in hand before their deadline of 10:00 a.m. tomorrow—without my direct involvement in the data transfer to the pollster.

WRITTEN ON NOVEMBER 20, 2000: As requested by my attorney, these are details on involvement of elected official as they relate to the issues discussed in this JOURNAL as well as a few details about events not recorded earlier.

November 1998. Just after the November 3, 1998 election, Ms. Spring, Mr. Kraus (who at this time was working in Sen. Kohl’s office), Ms. Antone and I met at lunchtime at a restaurant on the highway between Madison and Milwaukee, I think in a municipality called Johnson Creek. I remember the restaurant was a large, round structure on the right side going towards Milwaukee. We talked about 90 minutes on how the CC/DPW could try to cover more of the rural areas which were left off the 1998 voter file because of the high expense of data entering poll lists. Sen. Kohl was running the following year and apparently preparations were being made at this time.

November-December 1998. I was asked to attend a meeting, in Milwaukee, on planning for the 2000 election cycle. At this time, I do not think I had decided if I was staying with the CC/DPW, but apparently they wanted my input on the planning anyway. The meeting took place in the meeting room of a hotel, I think not far from the airport, and included the participation of Sen. Feingold (on the telephone), Sen. Kohl, Rep-elect Baldwin, Rep. Barrett, Rep. Kind, Rep. Kleczka and Rep. Obey. There may have been other elected officials at the meeting, but I cannot identify any because I was still new at the time and did not know many elected officials.

Also in attendance were Ms. Spring, Mr. Tewes and a number of staff working for the state or federal government. I specifically remember there were people representing labor, the Assembly Democratic Caucus and the Senate Democratic Caucus. There were two people representing Atty. Gen. Doyle, but I do not know if they worked for the government or the Doyle campaign. The staff I can identify are Mr. Kraus, Mr. Hill, JoAnna Richard, the Executive Director of the Senate Democratic Caucus, the Executive Director of the Assembly Democratic Caucus, whose name I do not know, and I think Ms. Antone. Mr. Gonzales was there, but I do not think he worked for the government.

The meeting was held during the workweek and lasted most of the morning and maybe part of the afternoon. I was driven to the meeting by Ms. Richard. We arrived at the meeting late because we got lost, and I took a seat at the end of the table where I was hoping not to receive much attending. I sat next to Mr. Kraus, who was sitting next to Sen. Kohl. Rep. Obey was running the meeting, and I was introduced as soon as I sat down. Mr. Tewes and I were given much of the credit for the success of the 1998 elections, and I received applause from those participating in the meeting.

I remember the next person to speak was Sen. Feingold, who said he thought the voter file “worked better this year than in any year before.” Sen. Feingold then talked about expanding the voter file coverage in the rural areas and asked if “Chuck had responded to my proposal?” Ms. Richards responded that, “It looks like Chuck will sign off on assigning staff one hour of data entry per day.” The Assembly Democratic Caucus director responded that she was sure they would be doing something similar. Rep-elect Baldwin spoke next and supported expanding voter file coverage in the rural areas.

Most of the remainder of the meeting involved a discussion of finances. I think one of the objects of the meeting was to convince Ms. Spring, Mr. Tewes and myself to continue with the program. There was one other time when I came up in the meeting. Rep. Kleczka asked me if I as going to take a position with the Assembly Democratic Caucus. I said “no.” I remember wondering why people we pushing this (this was the third time I was asked this question) since I could not understand what difference it would make financially. Of course, I now know why.

Spring 1999. Just after Mr. Tewes announced to me that he was leaving the CC/DPW, I received a call from Rep. Kind, I think on his Cell phone from a car. He knew Mr. Tewes and I were very close, and he was concerned that I may leave as well. I talked with Rep. Kind briefly about my concerns regarding the use of state resources and facilities in voter file development, and Rep. Kind assured me that “we will be moving away from this.”

Early 2000. In late 1999, I lost the vote of the CC/DPW Table to take over the voter file completely. They only allowed me to set higher standards for voter file content. I put off negotiating these standards with the Caucuses until a point I could stretch it no further—this actually became a big issue at the time and Mr. Stocks started acting as the middle man. At the negotiation meeting with the Assembly Democratic Caucus and the Senate Democratic Caucus staff, held at the Party offices, State Sen. Chvala came to the offices; and I saw Mr. Stocks, who was at the meeting sitting to my left, jester with his arm, ‘go away,’ to State Sen. Chvala through the glass as he said, under his breath and turning to me slightly, “he’s going to ruin everything.” State Sen. Chvala then opened the door to the conference room we were meeting in, stuck his head in the door, said “work it out,” and then left as quickly as he came. I think this was done to put pressure on me. Someone told me this is the only time they remember seeing State Sen. Chvala at the Party offices.

Late-winter 1999. I had a telephone conversation with Joe Parisi regarding using voter lists developed by the legislature in the spring elections. I mentioned that I was concerned about the source of the lists and suggested I develop new lists for the election. Mr. Parisi agreed this would be better but said he believed “there would not be enough time.”

June 2000. When all this was hitting, I ran into State Rep. Pocan and State Rep. Richards, I think, on State Street just in front of the CC/DPW office; they were going up to the CC/DPW offices. It may have been on the same day or even at the same time as the conversation with Mr. Tyre. The conversation I had on the street was initiated by me, was very short, covered my concerns but did not receive a response from them, and they ended it right away.

June-July 2000. In looking at my Journal, I see I did not include information about the calls I made, to four legislative offices, to test the idea that the voter lists received were public information. These offices include State Sen. Chvala, State Sen. Erpenbach, State Rep. Plouff and State Rep. Pocan. These were offices I knew maintained political voter databases, and using the alias Tim Hunter, I asked for copies of their voter lists. I was informed by them that legislative offices did not keep voter lists; and when I asked where I could get them, I was told I would have to contact the counties and municipalities involved to get it.

WRITTEN ON MARCH 8, 2002: It has been over one year since my last JOURNAL entry. Since that time, my attorney, Robert J. Kasieta, and his assistant Patricia Carney, developed an extensive civil lawsuit against the DPW, among others, essentially revolving around an unlawful termination claim and claims of fraudulent use of federal tax money for campaign purposes. After considerable research and several rewrites, it was nearly ready to file last June. Just before filing, however, Mr. Kasieta asked me if he could discuss my lawsuit with State Sen. Chvala, who he was acquainted with, and who would be representing the DPW and the others against whom complaints would be filed. I agreed. After two or more meetings, between my attorney and State Sen. Chvala, it was reported back to me that State Sen. Chvala was very aggressive and handled the situation by making several threats, including saying that:

The DPW would provide a witness to testify that I would sit in the DPW’s offices for six or eight hours a day, in a catatonic state, rocking back and forth
If I should win a judgment against the DPW, the Party would avoid paying damages by filing for bankruptcy and/or changing its name
That I would be extensively investigated and my computer hacked into
That efforts would be made to foil any business I would attempt to build.

Soon after these meetings, my attorney told me he would not file my lawsuit, even though months of work were devoted to it, and my attorney burned my bridges.

Since coming forward about these, and other issues, more than $30,000 in salary, bill, and reimbursements have not been paid to me, including over $16,000 owed by Rep. Kleczka and almost $2,000 owed by the DPW. This has led to serious debts and eviction actions. I have moved to California, where I hope to start anew.

RESTATEMENT OF COMPLAINT

I, Donald Fish, allege the above-named entity violated Wisconsin Statutes § 11.12 by not lawfully recording or reporting one or more political campaign contributions, each exceeding a value of $10.00. I further allege the above-named entity violated Wisconsin Statutes § 11.24 by intentionally accepting or receiving one or more political campaign contribution from funds or property not belonging to the contributor. I finally allege the above-named entity violated Wisconsin Statutes § 11.36 by soliciting or receiving from one or more state officers or employees one or more political campaign contributions or services while the officer or employee was or the officers or employees were engaged in official duties.

RESTATEMENT OF REQUEST FOR ACTION

I believe the information provided in this Complaint warrants an investigation of the allegations sited, and I ask that appropriate enforcement actions be taken. Additionally, if in the course of investigating this Complaint, evidence of violations of Wisconsin Statutes other than those sited in this Complaint is found, or if evidence of other violators is found, I ask that appropriate enforcement actions be taken on those violations or against those violators as well.

According to Mr. Dunst, the Board will provide a copy of these additions to my deposition to the respondent, so a copy has not been mailed.

VERIFICATION

I, Donald Fish, being first duly sworn, on oath, state that the allegations and statements in this addition to my deposition are true based on my personal knowledge except those allegations and statements stated on information and belief, which I believe to be true. I further state that the allegations and statements in this addition to my deposition are stated under the same oath taken at the beginning of the deposition.

Signed: March 12, 2002

DONALD E. FISH
(Complainant’s signature)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ): ) ss
LOS ANGELES COUNTY )

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12th day of March, 2002.

(NOTARY SEAL)

RICHARD HOPPE
(Signature of person authorized to administer oaths)

Click HERE to view the signed verification page (PDF).