eastern district of wisconsin milwaukee county, employee

Indeed, the “crux of the report,” according to Heer, was “the weakness of the fiscal note attached
to the pension ordinance at the time it was presented to the County Board.” Heer described the
fiscal note as “incredibly weak” and the “worst he has ever seen,” including “numerous errors
and omissions… from ‘small math to big logic.’” Heer called it a “lousy fiscal note.” 59
A March 2003 County analysis also noted that “it is the responsibility of the elected
County Supervisor to formally object to the content of a fiscal note. This policy is predicated on
the notion that those who are empowered to vote on a policy issue should ultimately determine
whether they possess sufficient financial information to make an informed vote.” 60
Dobbert has admitted that he drafted the fiscal note for the ordinance enacting the
BackDROP himself. DeBruin testified that Dobbert should have included the cost information
on the BackDROP contained in Mercer’s January 16, 2001 letter in the fiscal note for the
Package “to alert the board of the new estimates.” Heer told the DOJ that, in his view, Dobbert
probably did not revise the fiscal note for the Package to include the cost of the BackDROP
because he didn’t want to call attention to the “shoddy” quality of the fiscal note he had
59 PFF, 119-121. In Dunn et al. v. Milwaukee County, the Court’s October 1, 2003 Order granting the County
summary judgment adopted as a finding of fact the conclusion of the Audit that “[t]here are no procedures for the
development of fiscal notes” at the County. PFF, 122.
60 PFF, 123.
QBACTIVE\6280487.1 27
Case 2:06-cv-00372-CNC Filed 06/09/2008 Page 27 of 52 Document 110