• >>> Home
• Campaign Finance Complaint
• Reply to the Democratic Party of Wisconsin
• Additions to Donald Fish Deposition
• Answer to State Elections Board Questions
• Answer Two to State Elections Board Questions
• Evidence: Documents 31–47
• Evidence: Documents 48–64
• Evidence: Documents 65–67
• Evidence: Documents 68–70
• Letter to the State Elections Board
• Email to Sen. Darling and Rep. Wasserman
• 12-Step Program for More Ethical Government
• Donald Fish Public Statements
• Contact Donald Fish

Reply to the Democratic Party of Wisconsin

CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMPLAINT

BEFORE THE WISCONSIN STATE ELECTIONS BOARD

DONALD FISH,

Complainant

Against                                                                        ElBd Cpt. 01-14

DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF WISCONSIN,

Respondent.

The following statements are true or are believed by me to be true, and they are based on personal knowledge and documents in my possession. A numbering system is employed for easy reference. All abbreviations from my Complaint are carried over to this Reply without restating.

GENERAL STATEMENT

1. I make the following five general statements about the respondent’s Answer to my Complaint.

1.1. First, it is striking how the respondent relies, as their main defense, on claims about a genuine distinction between the legislative caucuses and committees. In the light of the recent Election Board decision regarding the caucuses, the evidence that led to it, and the personal knowledge and documents I present, I believe the respondent makes a very weak argument. In my reply, I will liken this to claiming to have sailed on the Titanic in 2001—the ship has already sunk.

1.2. Second, almost as regularly, the respondent claims the information involved in my complaint was public information. As I will state later in my Reply, I have personal knowledge this is not true, and until I complained about this conduct in June of 2000, the information received was never referred to, in any way, as public information; and until that time, it was made clear that the primary purpose of this information was political. Additionally, there was a wide difference in the ADC’s and SDC’s handling of the information received by the CC compared to what is reasonable under the state’s open records law.

1.3. Third, I was discouraged by the respondent’s refusal to answer many of my statements by claiming I did not meet the pleading requirements of ElBd 10.03(3). My Complaint is highly detailed, and I believe it more than shows probable cause, which is the true requirement of the complainant. I further believe the respondent provides a false reading of the administrative code sited in an attempt to avoid or delay providing full answers.

1.4. Fourth, also interesting is an admission by Sen. Kohl’s office that they had information state resources were illegitimately being used for their 2000 campaign, and Sen. Kohl and his campaign apparently did nothing about it.

1.5. Finally, and most distressing, is the fact that the respondent’s Answer to my Complaint may be valueless because it was sworn to by Steven Kean (hereinafter, ‘Mr. Kean’), who, to the best of my knowledge, was not employed by the DPW at any time in question, and it is therefore difficult to understand how Mr. Kean can have personal knowledge of what he claims to be true. I will point to this once again below, in paragraph 5.5, but I believe this applies to the weight that should given the respondent’s entire Answer.

REPLY

2. Paragraph 1.1; respondent’s General Statement. “Fish was to solicit and receive information from the Assembly Democratic Campaign Committee or the Senate Committee.”

Reply

2.1. This is not true. I have personal knowledge that the DPW was aware of the violations sited in my Complaint. In fact, this was a way of life for the DPW. Apparently using government resources for political purposes has grown into a culture in Wisconsin, and the DPW was fully vested in this culture and considered using legislative caucus employees and resources, as well as other government employees and resources, for political purposes, a standard operating procedure. Recent media reports have revealed stark pictures of this culture for the entire world to see, and I believe my Complaint should be considered in the light of all this evidence.

2.2. This evidence clearly shows the legislative caucuses and committees have morphed into single entities. The caucuses do exist on paper, but it appears the distinction goes little further. The staffs and resources of the caucuses appear to be, for the most part, the staff and resources of the committees. For example, I remember a CC meeting, in spring 2000, at the DPW offices, where an ADC official even offered to have the ADC staff, for payment, data enter the voting information the CC was responsible for.

2.3. After I informed a CC official, first on June 7, 2000, and a DPW official, first on June 8, 2000, that I would refuse to engage in this conduct, I found myself no longer employed by the DPW. I believe I was terminated because I would not go along with the Party in its engagement of the violations sited in my Complaint.

2.4. Apparently the Election Board agrees there is little or no genuine distinction between the legislative caucuses and committees, considering an agreement recently secured by them resulting in stiff fines for this conduct and the complete dismantling of the caucuses.

2.5. In the light of the Election Board decision, the evidence that led to it, and the personal knowledge and documents I present, I believe the respondent is making a very weak argument when they rely, as their defense, as they do here, on claims about a genuine distinction between the legislative caucuses and committees. This is something like claiming to have sailed on the Titanic in 2001—the ship has already sunk.

2.6. Also see 3.1-3.19, 4.2-4.4, 9.2, 13.1, 14.1, 15.1, 16.1, 17.2, 20.2-20.3, 21.1-21.2, 23.2, 24.2, 25.1-25.4, 26.1-26.3, 27.1-27.2, 28.1, and 30.1-30.3, all below.

2.7. The respondent uses the ‘legislative committee claim’ time and again in their Answer to my Complaint. For shorthand, I will refer back to this paragraph in my Reply, rather than repeat the counter arguments presented in 2.1-2.6 above.

3. Paragraphs 1.2-1.4; respondent’s General Statement. The respondent states, “The information obtained was public information and the cost of accumulating this information was born by the affiliates of the Coordinate Campaign. Therefore the information received for the Party’s voter file was not a ‘contribution’ within the meaning of Wis. Stats. § 11.01(6)(a).” And, “Because the information accumulated was public information Wis. Stat. § 11.24(5) is not applicable.” And, “To the extent any information was requested from public employees while they were engages in their official duties, that information was public information available to anyone. Although Fish was accumulating the information for a political purpose, the furnishing of that information to Fish by public employees was done within the scope of those employees’ employment and pursuant to their obligation to furnish public information to the citizenry. Under these circumstances, Wis. Stat. § 11.36 is not applicable.”

Reply

3.1. I believe Wis. Stat. §§ 11.24(5) and 11.36 are applicable and that the information received were contributions within the meaning of Wis. Stats. § 11.01(6)(a). I have personal knowledge the respondent’s claim that the information received by the CC was public information is not true. I was informed directly by individuals involved that this conduct was not legal, and I have witnessed efforts by the CC to closely coordinate these activities. Furthermore, until I complained about this conduct in June 2000, the information received was never referred to, in any way, as public information; and until that time, it was made clear that the primary purpose of this information was political.

3.2. In early 1999 an ADC official informed me that part of the master CC statewide voter database was unlawfully acquired using state resources and that this activity was continuing to occur. A few days later, a DPW official informed me the DPW was not lawfully recording and reporting the information received as campaign contributions. (See my Complaint, ‘Final statement of knowledge and belief.’)

3.3. After I complained about this conduct in June of 2000, the claim that the information involved was public information was not immediately sited. This was only claimed after attempts to compromise with me failed. In fact, on June 8, 2000, I was informed by a CC official that I would no longer have to be part of these activities. However, on June 12, 2000, this official took back this commitment and further told me ADC and SDC officials had “worked it out to show that the data entry was done on volunteer time” and not on state time. I immediately rejected this, and within a few days, the CC official and others began telling me, for the first time, that the information involved was legal because it was “public information.” (See my Complaint, ‘Final statement of knowledge and belief.’)

3.4. Light was even made of this conduct. At a voter file meeting on June 7, 2000, at the DPW offices; also attended by ADC and SDC officials and employees, a CC official, and representatives from the campaigns of Doyle, Gore, and Kohl; there was direct and free discussion about this conduct and that it was not legal. Much of this discussion was prompted by the Gore representative, who was not already aware of this conduct and seemed surprised and genuinely concerned. Several times the Gore representative referred to this conduct with sarcastic remarks about how the taxpayers were paying for campaign efforts. I specifically remember a remark at the end of the meeting from the Gore representative, said in a humorous tone, and directed to the ADC and SDC officials, “Will state taxpayers be getting a credit next year for supplying the data.” (See my Complaint, ‘Final statement of knowledge and belief.’)

3.5. Light was also made at a lunch meeting I had with a DPW official on June 30, 2000. While we were discussing this conduct, the official commenting that these activities were “trivial” and likened them to “driving a few miles over the speed limit.”

3.6. Furthermore, these activities were planned and coordinated at high levels. I attended a meeting in a conference or meeting room of a Milwaukee hotel, I think not far from the airport, in late 1998, shortly after the election. The meeting was held during the workweek and lasted most of the morning and perhaps part of the afternoon. I remember Sen. Feingold had to attend the meeting by telephone because, I think, he was about to go on vacation. I believe he was present for only about half the meeting. Others I remember attending the meeting were Sen. Kohl, then Rep-elect Baldwin, Rep. Barrett, Rep. Kind, Rep. Kleczka, and Rep. Obey (who ran the meeting); government employees from the staffs Sen. Kohl and Rep. Obey; ADC and SDC officials; and representatives from the CC, DPW, union labor, Atty. Gen. Doyle, and Rep. Kleczka, as well as other participants I do not know.

3.7. Early in this meeting, there was discussion about using the ADC and SDC again in the development of the 2000 CC voter database. Tentative plans were made to have the ADC and SDC staff start data entering and processing voter information earlier than in previous elections as well as to increase the concentration on data entering and processing voter information from the rural areas. At one point the SDC official informed the meeting that the SDC had decided to have staff members devote one hour per day to data enter voting history from the 1998 election. The ADC official suggested that they would likely do the same thing.

3.8. However, even without the light of this personal knowledge, other facts make the respondent’s claim that the data involved was public information unbelievable. Most of these relate to the wide difference in the ADC’s and SDC’s handling of the information received by the CC compared to what is reasonable under the state’s open records law. The respondent claims the information received was the same as available to anyone, but in fact, the information received, by the CC from the ADC and SDC, resulted from an extraordinary relationships that, in effect, produced a virtual pipeline of state-owned data expressly directed to the CC. Many of these facts were discussed in detail in my Complaint, so these are only summarized here, and presented as questions to the respondent.

3.9. If this was legitimate public information and the same as available to anyone, as the respondent claims, why were there extensive negotiations between the ADC, SDC, and CC to determine what would be the standards for the information received by the CC? (See my Complaint, ‘Third statement of knowledge and belief.’)

3.10. If this was legitimate public information, as the respondent claims, why was there an agreement to pay the ADCC and SDCC for the information received? (See my Complaint, ‘Fifth statement of knowledge and belief.’)

3.11. If this was legitimate public information, as the respondent claims, why was there a need to predicate this agreement on a “free flow of information” and require the ADCC and SDCC to “turn over all voter file data”? (See my Complaint, ‘Fifth statement of knowledge and belief.’)

3.12. If this was legitimate public information, originating for constituent services, and the same as available to anyone, as the respondent claims, why did much of the information received by the CC contain a special code directly linking the information received to the political information in the master CC voter database? (See my Complaint, ‘Seventh statement of knowledge and belief.’)

3.13. If this was legitimate public information, originating for constituent services, and the same as available to anyone, as the respondent claims, why did much of the information received contain proprietary political information, including candidate support identifications, campaign donor information, campaign volunteer information, lawn sign location information, nomination paper signing information, and other information? (See my Complaint, ‘Seventh statement of knowledge and belief.’)

3.14. If this was legitimate public information, originating for constituent services, and the same as available to anyone, as the respondent claims, why did much of the information received contain detailed voting history, including specific information about who voted in which primaries, spring elections, general elections, and by absentee ballot? (See my Complaint, ‘Seventh statement of knowledge and belief.’)

3.15. If this was legitimate public information, originating for constituent services, as the respondent claims, why did some of the information received contain voters and prospective voters in legislative districts without a Democrat incumbent, but were there was an ADCC and/or SDCC election target? (See my Complaint, ‘Seventh statement of knowledge and belief.’)

3.16. If this was legitimate public information, as the respondent claims, why was some of the information received identified as from the ADCC and SDCC? (See my Complaint, ‘Seventh statement of knowledge and belief.’)

3.17. If this was legitimate public information, as the respondent claims, why was some of the information received transferred using private electronic mail accounts? (See my Complaint, ‘Seventh statement of knowledge and belief.’)

3.18. Finally, but not last, my Complaint should not be considered in isolation. As I previously stated in 2.4 above, apparently the Election Board already agrees there is little or no genuine distinction between the legislative caucuses and committees, considering an agreement recently secured by them resulting in stiff fines for this conduct and the complete dismantling of the caucuses. In the light of this decision, the evidence that led to it, and the personal knowledge and documents I have present, I believe my claims hold more credibility than those of the respondent.

3.19. Also see 2.1-2.6 and 3.1-3.19 above. Also see 4.2-4.4, 9.2, 13.1, 14.1, 15.1, 16.1, 17.2, 20.2-20.3, 21.1-21.2, 23.2, 24.2, 25.1-25.4, 26.1-26.3, 27.1-27.2, 28.1, and 30.1-30.3, all below.

3.20. The respondent uses the ‘public information claim’ time and again in their Answer to my Complaint. For shorthand, I will refer back to this paragraph in my Reply, rather than repeat the counter arguments presented in 3.1-3.19 above.

4. Paragraph 1.5; respondent’s General Statement. The respondent states, “The allegations of Fish’s complaint are discursive and repetitive. In many cases they do not meet the requirements of ElBd 10.03(3) in that they do not identify the persons involved, nor do they state the date and place when the purported illegal activities are alleged to have occurred. Nor, in many instances, do the allegations of the complaint identify the witnesses to the alleged activities. Therefore, as will be detailed in the specific responses below, the Party is without knowledge or information sufficient to enable it to respond specifically to many of the allegations of the complaint. The Party therefore denies those allegations and asserts that they should be given no weight. In addition the Party denies all the allegations of the complaint that specifically allege illegal activity.”

Reply

4.1. My statements may be discursive and repetitive, I am not an attorney or an English teacher, but they are true.

4.2. I believe my arguments fully meet the pleading requirements of ElBd 10.03(3). That provision states, “Information which MAY establish probable cause includes allegations that set forth which persons are involved; what those persons are alleged to have done; where the activity is alleged to have occurred; when the activity is alleged to have occurred and who are the witnesses to the event.” There is no absolute requirement for the complainant to include the information the respondent suggests. The true requirement of the complainant is to establish probable cause.

4.3. I believe my Complaint is more than adequate in detail concerning ‘which, what, where, when, and who’ elements to establish probable cause, which, as noted in 4.2 above, is the bar my Complaint is required to meet. Contrary to the request of the respondent, I believe my statements should be given full weight.

4.4. I clearly stated in my Complaint that it does “not encompass the full extent of my personal knowledge or documents in my possession concerning the alleged violations of the Wisconsin Statutes sited in” my Complaint. My Complain encompasses information about, perhaps hundreds of individuals, activities, and events over several years of time. This is a complicated story, and it is not reasonable that every detail be given in a single written Complaint. At any time the Election Board needs additional information, all it needs do is ask….

4.5. The respondent uses the ElBd 10.03(3) argument time and again in their Answer to my Complaint. Since this argument clearly does not accurately reflect the requirements of the administrative code it sites, I believe their failure to answer these allegations should be taken as an inability to answer them, and reduce the credibility of their entire Answer to my Complaint. For shorthand, I will refer back to this paragraph in my Reply, rather than repeat the counter arguments presented in 4.2-4.4 above.

5. Paragraph 1.6; respondent’s General Statement. The respondent states, “Because the allegations of the Complaint lack specificity they lack overall credibility. The Complaint should be disregarded for lack of credibility because Fish first presented his allegations under circumstances in which he sought personal gain. In October 2000, just prior to the November elections that year and long before he filed his complaint with the Elections Board, Fish threatened to file a legal action against the Party for wrongful termination of his employment and at the same time go public with essentially the same allegations he has made in his Elections Board complaint. Alternatively, Fish offered not to go public if the Party would settle his employment claims. Only after failing to secure any satisfaction of his employment claims did Fish recast his allegations as a complaint to the Elections Board.”

Reply

5.1. I believe my Complaint is highly detailed and specific, and that it fully meets the probable cause bar set for a complainant’s initial pleading.

5.2. The respondent’s insinuations of pressure tactics is a disgraceful falsehood; and, under oath, I certify that the respondent’s claims are untrue. For the record, the respondent’s claims are vehemently, categorically, and completely denied. The facts are: (i) I first brought my complaints to the respondent during the first half of 1999 and not in the form of legal action. (ii) I have contemplated legal action for wrongful termination, and I did have an attorney discuss this matter with the respondent, but absolutely no threats were made by me, or by my attorney in my presence or following my instructions. (iii) Never at any time did I, or my attorney in my presence or following my instructions, threaten to go public with my complaints or offer not to go public if the Party would settle my employment claims. (iv) Potential legal actions and my Complaint were always considered as separate actions; one, the potential legal actions, developed by my attorney; and the other, my Complaint, developed by me. And (v) I filed my Complaint regardless of any satisfaction or dissatisfaction from my employment claims.

5.3. I believe the respondent has taken this tack because they are having difficulty with the evidence I present, and what has been presented in the media. Demonizing the messenger is a common defense of politicians, particularly when they have been caught ‘red handed.’

5.4. While no threats were made by me, serious threats were made by individuals associated with the respondent. These matters have been brought up with appropriate legal authority.

5.5. Significantly, no details are given in the respondent’s allegations, and Mr. Kean, who swore to the truthfulness of the respondent’s Answer to my Complaint, was not employed by the DPW at any time in question, and it is therefore difficult to understand how Mr. Kean can have personal knowledge of what he claims to be true.

5.6. In the light of 5.3-5.5 above, I believe this specific claim, as well as the respondent’s complete Answer to my Complaint, should be disregarded for lack of credibility.

5.7. As for my motives in bringing my Complaint, I will quote from my public statement, August 20, 2001, “I believe a bond between the stewards of our state and the taxpayers has been dishonored. But this issue is not only about the $4 million the caucuses cost. It is primarily about undermining the election process by interjecting an unfair influence—one that protects incumbents and candidates favored by those with power.”

5.8. And, “One of the most troubling comments I read in the Wisconsin State Journal’s investigative series on caucus employees was a former caucus staffer saying our ‘legislative leaders feel they have little choice but to continue campaigning on the state’s dime—or loose seats in the legislature.’ But determining who wins and looses is the responsibility and right of the voters—and that requires fair elections not soiled in this way.”

5.9. And, “There was a time when our leaders ran for office because they wanted to serve the people. Now everything in politics is about winning, and those caught up in it seem to have an infinite capacity for rationalization. It seems like everything is done with the next election in mind and that is a disservice.”

5.10. The respondent uses ‘pressure tactics claims’ again in their Answer to my Complaint. For shorthand, I will refer back to this paragraph in my Reply, rather than repeat the counter arguments I present in 5.2-5.9 above.

6. Paragraph 2.1; First statement of knowledge and belief. The respondent states, “The allegations with respect to Fish’s employment are correct except to the extent that they imply that Fish was employed by the Coordinated Campaign. At all times material to this complaint, Fish was an employee of the Party. As alleged in the General Statement above the Coordinated Campaign is a consortium which was organized by the Party under the auspices of which its activities were conducted.” And, “The Party is unable to respond to Fish’s allegations concerning when allegedly he first became aware of possible legal violations because he does not identify the Assembly Democratic Caucus official who purportedly informed him of the alleged unlawful activity. Nor is the Party able to respond to the allegations regarding the alleged failure to report campaign contributions as the Party official who is allegedly the source of Fish’s information is not identified. These allegations do not meet the pleading requirements of ElBd 10.03(3) which require the identification of persons allegedly involved in illegal activity, as well as the time and place where the activity has alleged to have occurred. Therefore, the Party is unable to respond to these allegations and accordingly they should be given no weight. And, “Fish’s allegations that he made ‘several unsuccessful efforts’ to remedy the situation likewise should be given no weight because those allegations fail to meet the pleading requirements of ElBd 10.03(3) and therefore make it impossible for the Party to respond. Moreover, these allegations are not credible because they are inconsistent with the many allegations of the complaint that if true are admissions by Fish that he was knowingly and actively engaging in the conduct he now claims was illegal from the beginning of, and throughout, his employment by the Party.”

Reply

6.1. I believe my description of my relationship with the CC and DPW is accurate.

6.2. With respect to ElBd 10.03(3), see 4.5 above.

6.3. To set the record straight, I was not aware the activity was unlawful until early 1999. Once I learned this, I made several unsuccessful attempts to change the system internally. Failing that, I refused to go along with the respondent’s conduct and, I believe, was terminated for that reason. I believe my statements should be give full weight.

7. Paragraph 2.1; Footnote 1, First statement of knowledge and belief. The respondent states, “It is important to note however that this allegation is inconsistent with other allegations of the complaint that allege Fish knew of wrongful conduct before January or February of 1999, the time at which Fish says in this allegation that he ‘first became aware of possible violations of the law’… (See paragraph 18 and Document 11, paragraph 19 and Document 12, paragraph 20 and from Documents 13-27, the document dated 10/16/98).

Reply

7.1. The respondent’s claim is untrue. To set the record straight, I first became aware the ADC and SDC were working illegally on the behalf of the CC when I was told so by an ADC official in January or February 1999. Before that I did not know the ADC and SDC were state funded, or that any of the work being done on behalf of the CC was not legal. Furthermore, I do not think this is difficult to appreciate under the circumstances. I recently remember reading in the media that others have said they too have worked with the legislative caucuses and were later surprised to find out they were state funded. This is very easy to understand because the legislative caucuses, at least the Democratic caucuses which I had experience with, are so political, so much of the time, that upon dealing with them it can only be assumed they are campaign committees.

8. Paragraph 2.3; Document 2, First statement of knowledge and belief. The respondent states, “Fish alleges that Document 2 ‘is a printout’ of a letter dated June 28, 1999 which suggests that it is not a file copy, an inference supported further by the fact that the document is not signed. The implication of Fish’s allegation is that this letter was sent to Senator Kohl on or about the purported date of June 28, 1999. However, the Party has been informed by Joanne Anton of Senator Kohl’s office that this letter was not received in the Senator’s office until the last week of October 2000. This would have been during the period Fish was attempting to pressure the Party with his threatened wrongful termination claim.” And, “Paul Tewes of Senator Kohl’s staff, who is mentioned in the letter, has no recollection of any discussion with Senator Kohl in 1999, or at any time, relative to any concern raiser by Fish with respect to the preparation of the voter file. Likewise, Ms. Anton has no recollection of any such conversation.”

Reply

8.1. This is a printout as I stated in my Complaint. Furthermore, I certify again that this letter was sent to Sen. Kohl, at two postal addresses, on or about June 28, 1999.

8.2. The respondent’s ‘pressure tactics claims’ are untrue; see 5.10 above.

8.3. I will not reply to the comments of Ms. Anton and Mr. Tewes because they were not under oath and should be given no weight. I will note, however, that Mr. Tewes, to my knowledge, was not on Sen. Kohl’s staff at any time in question. I will also note that I would appreciate a sworn statement from Ms. Anton’s on her claim of first receiving the letter the last week of October 2000. No details are given, and it is very curious how this letter would be delivered over a year late.

8.4. Ms. Anton’s answer is very interesting, however, because it is an admission by Sen. Kohl’s office they had information state resources were illegitimately being used for their 2000 campaign, and Sen. Kohl and his campaign apparently did nothing about it. The letter to Sen. Kohl stated, “I want to eliminate the use of state employees and money in the production of our voter file. Most importantly, this will allow us to ‘legitimize’ our voter file efforts.”

9. Paragraph 2.4; Second statement of knowledge and belief. The respondent does not provide an answer to this statement claiming it “fails to meet the pleading standard of ElBd 10.03(3).” The respondent also states, “Significantly, Fish does acknowledge that the Coordinated Campaign was to receive various data bases from the Assembly Democratic Campaign Committee and the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee.” And, “The plan indicates that the Legislative Democratic Campaign Committees would be involved in updating voter history; and at page 15 the Plan indicates that the Voter File Manager (i.e., Fish) would work with the legislative campaign committees.” And, “It was never contemplated, and the Party denies all allegations or inferences to the contrary, that any information obtained for the voter file would be anything but public information available to anyone through a public records process. The allegations that the public records the Party sought from legislative offices and agencies constituted “Caucus Voter Files” mischaracterizes that information. To the extent the Party sought compiled information identified as a “voter file” that information was sought from the Legislative Democratic Campaign Committee.”

Reply

9.1. With respect to ElBd 10.03(3), see 4.5 above.

9.2. I do agree the CC Plan, as well as many other documents, referred to an ADCC and SDCC. But it is easy to type eight letters. I can type, “I am from Mars.” But that does not make me a Martian. I fully admit the CC, ADC, and SDC used various methods to cover up their activity, including referring on paper to this relationship as with the ADCC and SDCC; but this only masks this conduct and does not change it. The respondent makes a very weak argument. See 2.7 above. Also see 2.1-2.6 and 3.1-3.19 above.

9.3. With respect to the respondent’s ‘public information claim,’ see 3.20 above.

9.4. I believe, considering the evidence, the term “Caucus Voter Files” is a very accurate description.

10. Paragraph 2.5; Document 3, Second statement of knowledge and belief. The respondent states, “The material quoted from the Coordinated Campaign Plan appears at pages 13 and 27 of Document 3. Significantly, the quoted material references interaction between the Coordinated Campaign and the Legislative Democratic Campaign Committees. This is consistent with the entire Plan which contemplates the sharing of information and resources among the various constituents of the Coordinated Campaign.”

Reply

10.1. With respect to the respondent’s ‘legislative committee claim,’ see 2.7 above.

11. Paragraph 2.6; Document 3 (continued), Second statement of knowledge and belief. The respondent states, “The quotation from the Coordinated Campaign Plan identifies some of the constituents of the Coordinated Campaign. The relevance of this allegation is not apparent.”

Reply

11.1. I believe this is relevant because the CC is mentioned often in my Complaint, and these are the key players in the CC.

12. Paragraph 2.7; Third statement of knowledge and belief. The respondent states, “As set forth in the Coordinated Campaign Plan (Document 3), one of the functions of the Coordinated Campaign was to maintain and enhance the party’s voter file (Document 3, pp. 5, 13). To accomplish this data and other information was to be obtained from local and state agencies and offices, as well as from Democratic office holders, Democratic candidates and non-governmental sources. The complaint characterizes information sought from legislative offices and agencies as ‘Caucus Voter Files,’ a characteristic which the Party rejects and asserts is inaccurate. The voter files provided to the Party were compiled from the information originally obtained from legislative offices and agencies and elsewhere by the Legislative Democratic Campaign Committee and then shared by them with Coordinated Campaign as part of their participation in the Coordinated Campaign effort.” And, “The allegations by Fish that he ‘worked extensively’ with employees of the Assembly Democratic Caucus and the Senate Democratic Caucus does not comply with the pleading requirements of ElBd 10.03(3) in that those allegations do not identify the persons involved, the times and places when the work allegedly took place or identify any witnesses to the alleged activity. Because these allegations are vague and do not meet the pleading standards, the Party is unable to respond to them and therefore they should be given no weight.”

Reply

12.1. I believe, considering the evidence, the term “Caucus Voter Files” is a very accurate description.

12.2. With respect to the respondent’s ‘legislative committee claim,’ see 2.7 above.

12.3. With respect to ElBd 10.03(3), see 4.5 above.

13. Paragraph 2.8; Document 4, Third statement of knowledge and belief. The respondent states, “Document 4 is not self explanatory and the failure of Fish to identify the individual who allegedly explained it to him violates the pleading requirements of ElBd 10.03(3) and makes it impossible for the Party to respond. Accordingly, these allegations should be given no weight.”

Reply

13.1. Document 4 was provided to me by a SDC employee and includes information on state resources being used to order and process November 1998 election data. It indicates how the ADC and SDC were dividing up the work for developing the information received by the CC. An example of a significant feature of this document is that the ADC was assigned responsibility for Assembly District 67, which had a Republican incumbent. Also see 2.1-2.6 and 3.1-3.19 above.

13.2. With respect to ElBd 10.03(3), see 4.5 above.

14. Paragraph 2.9; Third statement of knowledge and belief. The respondent states, “Fish presents Document 5 to show that at some point Document 6 was saved on a computer in a state legislative office. Significantly, however, Document 6 is a memorandum to Fish from the Legislative Democratic Campaign Committee.”

Reply

14.1. I too find it significant that this memorandum to me, identified from the LDCC, was saved on a computer in a state legislative office. Furthermore, this document does not indicate saving at a legislative office “at some point,” as the respondent claims, but being ‘last saved’ there, as the document states. Also see 2.1-2.6 and 3.1-3.19 above.

14.2. With respect to the respondent’s ‘legislative committee claim,’ see 2.7 above.

15. Paragraph 2.10; Document 6, Third statement of knowledge and belief. “The contents of Document 6 are not self explanatory and it is not apparent that the document relates to any activity of a state employee while engaged in official duties. A significant indication to the contrary is the fact that the document is a memorandum from the Legislative Democratic Campaign Committee.”

Reply

15.1. Significantly, Document 6 is a byproduct of extensive negotiations between the CC and the ADC and SDC to determine what would be included in the information the CC would receive. See 14-14.2 above. Also see 2.1-2.6 and 3.1-3.19 above.

15.2. With respect to the respondent’s ‘legislative committee claim,’ see 2.7 above.

16. Answer 2.11; Document 7, Third statement of knowledge and belief. The respondent states, “Fish presents Document 7 to show that at some point Document 8 was saved on a computer in a state legislative office. Significantly, however, Document 8 is a memorandum to Fish from the Legislative Democratic Campaign Committee.”

Reply

16.1. I too find it significant that this memorandum to me, identified from the LDCC, was saved on a computer in a state legislative office. Furthermore, this document does not indicate saving at a legislative office “at some point,” as the respondent states, but being ‘last saved’ there, as the document states. Also see 2.1-2.6 and 3.1-3.19 above.

16.2. With respect to the respondent’s ‘legislative committee claim,’ see 2.7 above.

17. Answer 2.12; Document 8, Third statement of knowledge and belief. The respondent states, “Document 8 is not self explanatory and the allegations with respect to that document do not meet the pleading requirements of ElBd 10.03(3). Therefore the Party cannot respond to those allegations and accordingly they should be given no weight. Significantly, however, Fish alleges that Document 8 is from the Legislative Democratic Campaign Committee which is consistent with the Coordinated Campaign Plan.

Reply

17.1. With respect to ElBd 10.03(3), see 4.5 above.

17.2. Significantly, Document 8 is a schedule for the ADC and SDC to transfer information to the CC. See 16.1-16.2. Also see 2.1-2.6 and 3.1-3.19 above.

17.3. With respect to the respondent’s ‘legislative committee claim,’ see 2.7 above.

18. Paragraph 2.13; Fourth statement of knowledge and belief. The respondent does not provide an answer to this statement saying I have “not complied with the pleading requirement of ElBd 10.03(3).”

Reply

18.1. See 4.5 above.

19. Paragraph 2.14; Document 3, Fifth statement of knowledge and belief. The respondent states, “The allegations by Fish with respect to discussions he witnessed relative to the terms on which information would be obtained from the Legislative Democratic Campaign Committees is vague and does not meet the pleading standards of ElBd 10.03(3). Therefore the Party cannot respond and accordingly those allegations should be given no weight. Fish’s allegations with respect to the contents of the Coordinated Campaign Plan (Document 3) quote from various parts of the Plan, but do not constitute a comprehensive summary of the Plan either with respect to all of its facets generally, or specifically with respect to the compilation of a voter file. As such, the relevance of these allegations is not apparent.” And, “The Plan proposes a total budget of $190,000 to fund the core activities of the Coordinated Campaign. The money was raised from the constituents of the Coordinated Campaign and product sales. (Document 3, p. 7). The budget for compiling the voter file was $47,500. (Document 3, p. 10). With respect to the compilation of the voter file, the Legislative Democratic Campaign Committees were to assist the party in updating voter history. (Document 3, pp. 13-14). This activity by the campaign committee was contemplated to include the contribution of data compiled by the committee from multiple sources. The Party denies the value of the information provided by the Campaign Committees had a market value greater than the credit given to the committees.”

Reply

19.1. With respect to the respondent’s ‘legislative committee claim,’ see 2.7 above.

19.2. I believe records will show that the DPW have sold copies of its master CC voter database for approximately $100,000.00 and have claimed an even higher value to the Elections Board. Considering this, I believe the claim of the respondent about market value is not credible and should be given no weight.

20. Paragraph 2.15; Sixth statement of knowledge and belief. The respondent states, “The Party is unable to respond to these allegations because they do not comply with the pleading requirements of ElBd 10.03(3) and therefore they should be given no weight. Further, the implication of Fish’s allegations is that the establishment of private electronic mail accounts and private cell telephone numbers by the unidentified state and federal officials or employees was done for some devious purpose. The party contends just to the contrary. To the extent that such individuals began to become involved in campaign activities on their own time, it was appropriate for them to establish private means of communications so that they could properly separate their private activities from their official duties.”

Reply

20.1. With respect to ElBd 10.03(3), see 4.5 above.

20.2. It was made clear that the use of the private electronic mail accounts and cell telephone numbers was to cover up political work performed by government employees while they were at their government facilities or on government time. Also see 2.1-2.6 and 3.1-3.19 above.

20.3. I believe the respondent’s answer is disingenuous because these statements were most often witnessed at CC meetings, which were attended mostly by government employees, during business hours, for much or all of the business day, often long distances from the government employees’ working and residential addresses. It is of special interest that Mr. Kean was often present at these meetings. Also see 2.1-2.6 and 3.1-3.19 above.

20.4. My Complaint should not be considered in isolation. As I previously stated in 2.4 above, apparently the Election Board agrees there is little or no genuine distinction between the legislative caucuses and committees, considering an agreement recently secured by them resulting in stiff fines for such conduct and the complete dismantling of the caucuses. In the light of this decision, the evidence that led to it, and the evidence I have presented, I believe my claims hold more credibility than those of the respondent.

21. Answer 2.16; Document 9, Sixth statement of knowledge and belief. The respondent states, “Despite Fish’s insinuation, Document 9 should read for what it is: an appropriate suggestion that state and federal officials or employees establish private means of communications to use in any campaign activities in which they may choose to participate when not engaged in official duties.”

Reply

21.1. If that was the intent of the Party, why did they not say that? Document 9 specifically suggested that those still using government accounts setup Yahoo or Hotmail accounts. This is significant because these types of accounts are a known method used by government officials to hide political work being performed on taxpayer time. These accounts are considered particularly useful because they can be easily accessed from any computer with an Internet connection. Also see 2.1-2.6 and 3.1-3.19 above.

21.2. I believe the respondent’s answer is disingenuous because copies of this electronic mail were transmitted to these same government accounts. If the Party was concerned, as they claim, why did they do this? Also see 2.1-2.6 and 3.1-3.19 above.

21.3. My Complaint should not be considered in isolation. As I previously stated in 2.4 above, apparently the Election Board agrees there is little or no genuine distinction between the legislative caucuses and committees, considering an agreement recently secured by them resulting in stiff fines for such conduct and the complete dismantling of the caucuses. In the light of this decision, the evidence that led to it, and the evidence I have presented, I believe my claims hold more credibility than those of the respondent.

22. Paragraph 2.17; Seventh statement of knowledge and belief. The respondent states, “Fish’s allegations that he received certain information from Assembly Democratic Caucus of Senate Democratic Caucus employees is purportedly supported by Documents 10-27. Fish’s general allegations are not supported by those documents. That information which did come to the Party directly from state offices was public information available to anyone under public records law. Again, Fish’s use of the term “Caucus Voter File” is misleading and does not accurately characterize the nature of any information provided to the Party from any state office or agency.”

Reply

22.1. With respect to the respondent’s ‘legislative committee claim,’ see 2.7 above.

22.2. With respect to the respondent’s ‘public information claim,’ see 3.20 above.

22.3. I believe, considering the evidence, the term “Caucus Voter Files” is a very accurate description.

23. Answer 2.18; Documents 10 and 11, Seventh statement of knowledge and belief. The respondent states, “Fish does not identify from whom he received Documents 10 and 11 and in this regards his allegations concerning those documents do not meet the pleading requirements of ElBd 10.03(3) and thus it is impossible for the Party to respond. Generally, however, from the review of the documents it is not clear where the table which is Document 11 was created or by whom it was created. It appears, however, that it was created on July 14, 1998, long before Fish alleges he was aware of any allegedly illegal conduct. Therefore, no inferences supporting the theory of Fish’s complaint should be drawn from the allegations with respect to these documents.”

Reply

23.1. With respect to ElBd 10.03(3), see 4.5 above.

23.2. Document 10 indicates the table in question was authored using state resources. It is a voter database for an Assembly District, significantly with political information, including detailed election history, yard sign locations, party preference identifications, and candidate preference identifications. Also see 2.1-2.6 and 3.1-3.19 above.

23.3. I received this table from an ADC employee before I knew the ADC was taxpayer funded. See 7.1 above.

24. Answer 2.19, Seventh statement of knowledge and belief. The respondent states, “Fish does not identify from whom he received Document 12 and in this regards his allegations concerning those documents do not meet the pleading requirements of ElBd 10.03(3) and thus it is impossible for the Party to respond. Generally, however, from the review of the documents it is not clear where the table which is Document 11 was created or by whom it was created. It appears, however, that it was created on July 14, 1998, long before Fish alleges he was aware of any allegedly illegal conduct. Therefore, no inferences supporting the theory of Fish’s complaint should be drawn from the allegations with respect to these documents.”

Reply

24.1. With respect to ElBd 10.03(3), see 4.5 above.

24.2. The table in question is a voter database for a Senate District, significantly with political information, including detailed election history, contributions, and candidate preference identifications. Also see 2.1-2.6 and 3.1-3.19 above.

24.3. The date on Document 12 in June 2, 1998, not July 14, 1998. I received this table from an SDC employee before I knew the SDC was taxpayer funded. See 7.1 above.

25. Paragraph 2.20; Documents 13-27, Seventh statement of knowledge and belief. The respondent states, “Of the 15 documents Fish has designated as Documents 13-27 (without numbering them sequentially), 13 are copies of electronic mail messages. Six of those (11/17/99, 2/8/00, 6/9/00, 2/10/99, 4/14/00 and 6/9/00) were sent to Fish from private electronic mail accounts. One (2/8/00) was a message concerning the status of a pending bill before the legislature and as such is not evidence supporting the theory of Fish’s complaint. The others all relate to data which is publicly available information. Given the private account sources of these messages and the public nature of the data referenced, this evidence does not support the inferences Fish seeks to draw.”

Reply

25.1. The electronic mail regarding impending legislation referred to an Assembly bill to prohibit the Department of Transportation from selling its information to the public. The reason the ADC official transmitted this to me was because Department of Transportation information, particularly dates-of-birth, were wanted for enhancing the master CC voter database. The electronic mail states, “We need to get the DOT file ASAP before we aren’t able to get it anymore.” Significantly, this electronic mail was transmitted from a private electronic mail account; if this was simply “a message concerning the status of pending legislation,” as the respondent claim, why not send it using a state account?

25.2. Significantly, all six electronic mail were transmitted during business hours.

25.3. Significantly, one electronic mail from an ADC official gives a “list of all the data bought or ordered by ADC and SSDC”; mixing state-funded and political organizations in the same sentence.

25.4. Significantly, the respondent points out a vivid contradiction in their story. They say five electronic mail “relate to data which is publicly available information,” but were transmitted using private electronic mail accounts. If the state employees who transmitted the electronic mail were just doing state work, why did they not use their state accounts? I believe this supports my claim that the idea of public information only originated after I complained about using government resources for politics See 3.3 above.

25.5. Also see 2.1-2.6 and 3.1-3.19 above.

26. Paragraph 2.20; Documents 13-27 (continued), Seventh statement of knowledge and belief. The respondent states, “Two of the messages (9/1/99 and 10/5/99) were originated by Fish and sent to state accounts. One (10/5/99) is simply a request for information concerning the vendor of a software program and as such has little if any relevance to Fish’s complaint. The other (9/1/99) appears to involve nothing more than the exchange of data which because it occurred relatively quickly and over the noon hour does not necessarily support the inference of illegal conduct that Fish seeks to draw.”

Reply

26.1. Regarding 9/1/99 and 10/5/99; the messages were transmitted to the account requested by the ADC employee who replied. Significantly, one of the electronic mail involved “DNC statistics.”

26.2. Regarding the software program discussed in 10/5/99; this was the ‘Centrus’ program licensed by the state. This program adds jurisdictional information to a database, including ward, municipality, and county of residence. Significantly, the CC used this state licensed program to add jurisdictional information to its master voter database. Also significantly, software programs are exempt from the state open records law.

26.3. Regarding the data transmitted on 9/1/99; my understanding is it is not legal to use state resources for political purposes at any time, noon or otherwise.

26.4. Also see 2.1-2.6 and 3.1-3.19 above.

27. Paragraph 2.20; Documents 13-27 (continued), Seventh statement of knowledge and belief. The respondent states, “Of the five electronic mail messages that were sent to Fish from state electronic mail accounts, three (9/15/99, 9/21/99 and 9/22/99) appear to possibly involve Fish’s work as a consultant for an entity other than the Party. One (10/16/98) was sent near the end of the business day and the other (3/24/00) was sent after the regular business hours.”

Reply

27.1. Regarding 9/15/99, 9/21/99, and 9/22/99; these messages involve my work for the CC. Significantly, as admitted by the respondent, they were transmitted using state electronic mail accounts.

27.2. Regarding 10/16/98 and 3/24/00; my understanding is it is not legal to use state resources for political purposes at any time—near the end of the business day, after the regular business hours, or otherwise.

27.3. Also see 2.1-2.6 and 3.1-3.19 above.

28. Paragraph 2.20; Documents 13-27 (continued), Seventh statement of knowledge and belief. The respondent states, “The two communications that are not electronic mail (5/15/00 and 6/1/00) do not necessarily support the inferences Fish seeks to draw. While both are from state employees, there is nothing in either communication that indicates that they were acting in anything other than a private capacity on their own time with respect to the subject matter of the communications.”

Reply

28.1. Significantly, these communications were given to me by the SDC with the information received by the CC. Also see 2.1-2.6 and 3.1-3.19 above.

29. Paragraph 2.21; Eighth statement of knowledge and belief. The respondent does not provide an answer to this statement saying I do “not meet the pleading standards of ElBd 10.03(3).”

Reply

29.1. See 4.5 above.

30. Paragraph 2.21; Documents 28 and 29, Eighth statement of knowledge and belief. The respondent states “Document 28 is nothing more than a meeting announcement. If any state employees attended the meeting, they could have been doing so on their own time and Document 28 does not support any inference to the contrary. Similarly Document 29, which is a telephone directory, is not evidence that supports the allegations of Fish’s complaint. Fish’s allegations with respect to purported conversations between him and others during 1999 and 2000, do not meet the pleading standards required by ElBd 10.03(3).”

Reply

30.1. Document 28 is an example of an announcement for a CC meeting, this one held at 1 p.m. on Wednesday, November 17, 1999. Significantly, the CC solicited participation at this meeting by both state and federal employees using their respective state or federal electronic mail account.

30.2. I believe the respondent is being disingenuous in their answer regarding Document 28. Most of those attending CC meetings were government employees. Since CC meeting were always, to the best of my memory, scheduled during business hours, took up much or all of the business day, and were often long distances from the work and residence of participants, I suggest it is preposterous for the respondent to claim they did not know government resources were being used. After all, no concern was shown for using government facilities to receive the meeting notices. Additionally, I understand volunteer organizations who meet with regularly employed people normally schedule evening and weekend meetings. Significantly, this was not the case with CC meetings, and furthermore, I believe this fact supports 2.1 above, part of which states, “The DPW was fully vested in this culture and considered using legislative caucus employees, as well as other government employees, for political purposes, as a standard operating procedure.”

30.3. I believe Document 29 is significant because it is the “CC Member” telephone list I inherited from a CC official when the official left the CC in the spring of 1999. Almost all of the contact telephone numbers on this list are government numbers, except for the numbers to union labor members. Numbers on the list included the government offices of Atty. Gen. Doyle, Sen. Kohl, Rep. Baldwin, Rep. Barrett, Rep. Kind, Rep. Kleczka, Rep. Obey, the ADC, and SDC. Of special interest is the number of State Rep. Jon Richards’s office, which was used by Mr. Kean, who apparently was using that number while representing Sen. Feingold in the CC.

30.4. With respect to ElBd 10.03(3), see 4.5 above.

30.5. Also see 2.1-2.6 and 3.1-3.19 above.

31. Paragraph 2.22; Final statement of knowledge and belief. The respondent does not provide an answer to this statement saying I do “not meet the pleading standards of ElBd 10.03(3).”

Reply

31.1. See 4.5 above.

32. Paragraph 2.23; Document 30, Final statement of knowledge and belief. The respondent states “Apparently Fish regards (and properly so) the contents of Document 30 as irrelevant except to the extent that it indicates the time and date of a scheduled meeting. However, that is not evidence supporting any allegation of Fish’s complaint. The entire document should be given no weight.”

Reply

32.1. Document 30 is evidence in support of the information I give about a June 7, 2000 voter file meeting in that it does indicate the meeting was schedules and who was scheduled to attend. I believe Document 30 should be given full weight.

33. Paragraph 3.1; Final Statement. The respondent states “Fish uses the term “Caucus Voter Files” without definition throughout his complaint. This is misleading for reasons previously indicated above. The Legislative Democratic Campaign Committee had voter files which according to the Coordinated Campaign Plan were to be shared with the Coordinated Campaign. Those files included public information obtained from state executive and legislative agencies as well as public information obtained from local governments and information from non-government sources. Accordingly, the information obtained from the caucuses was public information, not state property. Further, fulfilling requests by the campaign committees for public information available to anyone under public records law is not an improper activity by state employees or an improper use of state resources or facilities.”

Reply

33.1. The term “Caucus Voter Files” is defined in the ‘Second statement of knowledge and belief’ of my Complaint, where it is defined as, “Legislative district voter databases, related databases, or other documents, some or all of which, it was made clear, would in part or in full be acquired, processed, or transferred using Democrat legislative office, ADC, SDC, or other state resources or facilities (hereinafter ‘Caucus Voter Files’).” Furthermore, as stated before, considering the evidence, I believe, the term “Caucus Voter Files” is a very accurate description.

33.2. With respect to the respondent’s ‘legislative committee claim,’ see 2.7 above.

33.3. With respect to the respondent’s ‘public information claim,’ see 3.20 above.

34. Paragraph 3.2; Final Statement (continued). The respondent states, “Again, Fish uses the term ‘Caucus Voter Files’ imprecisely. The Legislative Democratic Campaign Committees compiled voter files which included public information obtained from legislative offices. That information was augmented by the campaign committees from other sources, both governmental and non-governmental. These campaign committee voter files were then shared with the Coordinated Campaign pursuant to the terms of the Coordinated Campaign Plan. This does not constitute a violation of any provision of Ch. 11 Wis. Stats.

Reply

34.1. I believe, considering the evidence, the term “Caucus Voter Files” is a very accurate description.

34.2. With respect to the respondent’s ‘legislative committee claim,’ see 2.7 above.

34.3. With respect to the respondent’s ‘public information claim,’ see 3.20 above.

34.4. I believe the DPW have violated Ch. 11 Wis. Stats.

35. Paragraph 3.3; Final Statement (continued). The respondent states, “Fish again confuses the issue by using the term “Caucus Voter Files.” None of the information referenced in Fish’s complaint is “state owned data”; it is all information publicly available to anyone requesting it. It is not illegal for the Legislative Democratic Campaign Committees to accumulate public information and organize it as they saw fit. Nor is it illegal for the campaign committees to share their information with the Party.”

35.1. I believe, considering the evidence, the term “Caucus Voter Files” is a very accurate description.

35.2. With respect to the respondent’s ‘legislative committee claim,’ see 2.7 above.

35.3. With respect to the respondent’s ‘public information claim,’ see 3.20 above.

36. Paragraph 3.4; Final Statement (continued). The respondent states, “See response to (respondent’s) paragraphs 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 above.”

Reply

36.1. The term “Caucus Voter Files” is defined in the Second statement of knowledge and belief of my Complaint, where it is defined as, “Legislative district voter databases, related databases, or other documents, some or all of which, it was made clear, would in part or in full be acquired, processed, or transferred using Democrat legislative office, ADC, SDC, or other state resources or facilities (hereinafter ‘Caucus Voter Files’).” Furthermore, I believe, considering the evidence, the term “Caucus Voter File” is a very accurate description.

36.2. With respect to the respondent’s ‘legislative committee claim,’ see 2.7 above.

36.3. With respect to the respondent’s ‘public information claim,’ see 3.20 above.

36.4. I believe the DPW have violated Ch. 11 Wis. Stats.

37. Paragraph 3.5; Final Statement (continued). The respondent states, “Fish’s contention that the Party violated Wis. Stats. § 11.12 for reasons other than as alleged in his complaint does not meet the pleading requirements of ElBd 10.03(3) and therefore should be disregarded.”

Reply

37.1. See 4.5 above.

38. Paragraph 3.6; Final Statement (continued). The respondent states, “Fish’s contention that the Party violated Wis. Stats. § 11.24 for reasons other than as alleged in his complaint does not meet the pleading requirements of ElBd 10.03(3) and therefore should be disregarded.”

Reply

38.1. See 4.5 above.

39. Paragraph 3.7; Final Statement (continued). The respondent states, “Fish’s contention that the Party violated Wis. Stats. § 11.36 for reasons other than as alleged in his complaint does not meet the pleading requirements of ElBd 10.03(3) and therefore should be disregarded.”

Reply

39.1. See 4.5 above.

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.

I certify that a copy of this Reply has been sent by first class (certified) mail to the respondent.

VERIFICATION

I, Donald Fish, being first duly sworn, on oath, state that the allegations in this Reply are true based on my personal knowledge except those allegations stated on information and belief, which I believe to be true.

Signed: December 6, 2001

DONALD FISH
(Complainant’s signature)

STATE OF WISCONSIN )

) ss

DANE COUNTY )

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of December, 2001.

(NOTARY SEAL)

NAME OF NOTARY
(Signature of person authorized to administer oaths)

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