 For Immediate Release
Madison, WI – Despite a judge's order Thursday that Outagamie County District Attorney Vince Biskupic turn over documents related to the secret fund he operates out of his county office, the Republican candidate for Attorney General has not complied with the ruling, according to the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. The Democratic Party, which won its emergency lawsuit before Waupaca County Judge Phillip M. Kirk yesterday to have the documents released, contends there are numerous documents which continue to be withheld despite the judge's ruling. Biskupic, who refused the Party's open records request in violation of the law, was ordered to release the documents to the Democratic Party, a full 37 days after the original request was made. "We clearly have not received all of the records required by Judge Kirk's ruling," said Lesley Sillaman, spokesperson for the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. "It's a shame it took over a month and a court order for Biskupic to comply with the open records law. Biskupic even had the state enter a $25,000 contract with politically connected lawyers who tried to delay a final decision by Judge Kirk, an effort he flatly rejected. The voters of Wisconsin should know that just a week before the election, the Republican candidate for Attorney General tried to avoid complying with the law." Having ruled in favor of the Democratic Party, Kirk required immediate release of, among other items, "any correspondence or requests from individuals or organizations that received or asked for money from the fund" and "any requests notifications to Outagamie County of the creation of such a fund." Despite Judge Kirk's order, Biskupic has only released the following information: copies of checks paid into the fund and deposit slips; copies of checks paid by the fund; sponsor lists of the yearly "Vince Biskupic Crime Prevention Poster Contest Calendar" and 14 final agreements for deferred prosecutions for those accused of crimes. "It simply is not believable that there was never any correspondence between Biskupic and the attorneys for people receiving deferred prosecution for contributing to his personal fund," said Sillaman. "Furthermore, there are no invoices for the more than $60,000 paid out by the fund." An initial analysis of the documents raises several questions: 1. Were favored criminal defense lawyers able to buy their clients out of criminal charges in exchange for contributions? There are a select number of law firms that have given to the fund repeatedly for a total of more than $8,000. These firms have had clients receive deferred prosecution rather than criminal charges. Biskupic has not released records, such as correspondence or phone logs, that might reveal why certain firms were repeatedly allowed to purchase freedom for their clients. Clients who were poor or who were not connected with the "right" defense lawyers evidently did not have the chance to purchase lenient treatment. 2. What did Biskupic use the money for? The records that Biskupic provided show plainly that he was in charge of all aspects of the fund -- taking checks, endorsing them, depositing them into his fund and then signing disbursement checks from the fund. The records he released, however, don't show what he bought with all his money. For example, records show that nearly $50,000 from the fund went to Castle-Pierce Printing Company. Yet there is not one single piece of correspondence or one single invoice documenting what this money was spent on. In addition, two top Castle employees have given several times to Biskupic's Attorney General campaign. This raises questions both as to Biskupic's compliance with Judge Kirk's order to release all records regarding disbursements from the fund and as to the appropriateness of Biskupic's relationship with Castle-Pierce. Clearly, it would not have been appropriate for Biskupic to use the fund to purchase brochures or other materials that would enhance his reputation for political purposes. 3. Why did Biskupic stall for over a month and deny the DPW's request? Judge Kirk rejected Biskupic's argument that the DPW's request was "too broad" and specifically found that the request was proper under the Open Records law. The court also noted that much of the material requested by the DPW should have been reported by Biskupic under a separate Wisconsin statute (757.17) designed to eliminate abuses of funds like the one run by Biskupic. His lawyers didn't even try to convince the court that release of the records requested by DPW might threaten the safety of informants, as Biskupic had originally, and repeatedly, claimed in public. Moreover, Biskupic's state-paid lawyers claimed at the hearing they were willing to comply with an Open Records request filed by the Wisconsin State Journal the day before the hearing that was nearly identical to the DPW's request. This obvious attempt to avoid an adverse ruling failed, but it confirmed that there was never any legal merit in Biskupic's denial of the DPW's request. Biskupic's actions raise serious questions about his commitment to the Open Records law, a law that is fundamental to Wisconsin democracy and that the Attorney General administers for all components of state government. Democratic Party of Wisconsin officials will continue to review the
records and will expect the completion of them expeditiously.
|