As I mentioned in my previous post, someone sent me a MIRS article a while back with two interesting items in it. Here's the second one.

In the article, one might read:

One interesting line item was campaign staff payroll. Peters led the pack by shelling out $55,506 in employee compensation and taxes. Knollenberg spent $35,640 for campaign staff payroll.

In the 7th, Schauer paid out $7,651 for employee salary and a housing stipend. But Walberg spent nothing on staff, although Chief of Staff Joe WICKS has answered press questions on behalf of the campaign and staff has sent out at least one e-mail on campaign issues.

Walberg congressional press secretary Matt LAHR responded, "All volunteering by staff members is done on their own time, and frankly I am disappointed you are asking me about this, instead of Congressman Walberg's legislative initiative to stop a $680 billion tax increase that was voted on this week on the House floor."

Typically, congressional staff go on formal leave from the federal payroll to work for the campaign by now, especially in one of the top races in the country where there's already a lot of activity. Otherwise, a campaign can be open to FEC complaints.

Schauer campaign spokesman B.J. NEIDHARDT declined to comment if Schauer was looking into the matter.

(Emphasis added.)

As I noted in the FEC disclosure posts, Walberg spent more last quarter than Schauer-- about $33,000 more. Thus far, Schauer hasn't spent a whole lot on his campaign in general, and while his staff salary amount seems a little low, there is some logic to it. Walberg spent $100,000 in a single quarter, but absolutely none of it was on staff? And yet, as the article notes, someone has been working on the campaign, mostly Walberg congressional staffers.

From what I can tell, there are two ways this works. Either A.) Walberg is making his staff work extra for the campaign and he's not paying them, or B.) Walberg is making his staff work for the campaign during business hours and is paying them with government funds.

Neither of those sound good to me.

The excuse made by Walberg's spokesperson, "All volunteering by staff members is done on their own time," seems a little unrealistic to me. An entire office being willing to do extra work for absolutely no pay, especially when congressional staff salaries aren't that great to begin with, would require an incredible amount of loyalty and devotion to Congressman Walberg. I'm just a little skeptical. Generally, when a campaign asks its staff to work without pay, it's a bad sign.

Some of you might remember a story that I wrote about in January, in which I was told that Walberg's congressional staff was asked to go the entire campaign season without taking any vacation time. From that post:

When asked whether that meant Walberg's staff would be required to help on the campaign, apparently they were told that they couldn't be required, but, if anyone wanted a job next year, they had to "do their part."

Some staffers, from what I hear, already had vacation plans. They are not pleased about this. Apparently, they were told that as employees of a "targeted" congressman, they should have expected these kinds of sacrifices.

(Emphasis added.)

Note that the entire story was brought to me by just one source, and in the comments, it was challenged by an anonymous commenter (and I updated the post to reflect that). I can't comment on whether or not that story was actually true, because I don't usually hear much from Walberg's staffers, disgruntled or not.

At the same time, this thing about all volunteering by staff members being done on their own time sounds eerily reminiscent of everyone having to "do their part" and make these kinds of sacrifices.

Then again, I could be wrong. Walberg's staff could be just that devoted. Maybe I'm just cynical.

Labels: Fundraising, Tim Walberg, Walberg Staff

I heard something interesting not too long ago, which I think you'll find interesting.

Congressman Walberg's staff has apparently been told that no vacation requests will be granted from January 1, 2008 to November 4, 2008. What's November 4? Why, it's Election Day!

When asked whether that meant Walberg's staff would be required to help on the campaign, apparently they were told that they couldn't be required, but, if anyone wanted a job next year, they had to "do their part."

Some staffers, from what I hear, already had vacation plans. They are not pleased about this. Apparently, they were told that as employees of a "targeted" congressman, they should have expected these kinds of sacrifices.

Now, I probably used the word "apparently" more often than you'd like, but since I wasn't there myself, that's all I can say. Considering what I heard from someone a couple of months ago about Walberg and his staff, none of this really surprises me.

So let's suppose all of this is true. What does this mean?

First, I think it's obvious that it's a low and very unfair move on Walberg's part. These staffers are working long hours for this man, and how does he repay them? He takes away their vacation! Personally, that doesn't sound like the kind of boss I'd want to have.

Is it legal? Honestly, I have no idea. I know that for executive branch employees, the Hatch Act applies (basically, government resources can't be used on political campaigns), but Walberg's staffers aren't part of the executive branch. Anyone out there know more about this than me?

But at the very least, I think we can agree that it must not be fun working for Tim Walberg.

UPDATE: An anonymous comment:

I recently spoke to one of his staffers about this and they said there is no such policy nor statement made. So, I'm not sure where you're getting your information. Especially when it appears this is completely false. I thought this was a serious website talking about the issues, not some rag spreading fallacious rumors...

I hope the fact that I bumped this comment to the front page as soon as I saw it restores a little bit of my credibility. If there is no such policy, then I apologize to Congressman Walberg and his staff.

As far as spreading rumors, I can promise I'll never intentionally or knowingly slander Tim Walberg or anyone else. I've done my best to maintain a high standard here, and I hope that I've been fairly good about admitting when I'm wrong.

But when someone comes to me with a piece of information and seems credible to my best judgment, I'll share that information on Walberg Watch. Might I make mistakes? Sure. And when I do, I appreciate being corrected, and I welcome any input from Walberg's office when I post misstatements. I oppose Tim Walberg and his ideas, but I do not wish to lie about my opponents or spread fallacious rumors. That's what his side does.

So, if this story proved to be unfounded, I apologize. At the same time, you are an anonymous commenter... so I don't necessarily have a reason to believe you either. Not that the comment isn't credible, just that I wouldn't entirely trust it, nor would I entirely trust any other anonymous information without anything else to support it.

All of this is a long-winded way of saying... here's a claim, here's a counter-claim. I'd appreciate any other information anyone could give to set me right.

Labels: 2008 Election, Tim Walberg, Walberg Staff

I first wrote about Rick Baxter nearly a year ago as then-Congressman-elect Walberg was setting up his office. Baxter, who had represented a state House district in Jackson County until losing re-election to former Jackson mayor and current Representative Martin Griffin, had just been named as Walberg's district director. (Around the same time, he also became the head of the Jackson County Republican Party.)

Baxter, Walberg, and Joe Wicks (Walberg's chief of staff) have a long history together. Baxter volunteered for Walberg's state House campaigns while a student at Lenawee Christian High School, and Joe Wicks helped run Baxter's first state House campaign and was Baxter's own chief of staff until leaving to help Walberg.

So it really was kind of strange this fall when Baxter decided to quit.

Rick Baxter, formerly district director for U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, said Friday he resigned his position with the congressman's Jackson office on Oct. 16 to work in the family business.

Baxter now is the business development director for Jackson-based Baxter Machine & Tool Inc.

Back to the family business? The article goes on to explain that it had absolutely nothing to do with Mark Schauer entering the race, and that it was just an "interesting coincidence."

Right. Because a young, motivated, rising Republican would never jump off a sinking ship to save his own political career. Obviously that's not why he left.

Now, I don't know whether the family business was the real reason that he quit or not. But here's the strange thing-- apparently, the rest of Walberg's staff doesn't know either.

I usually don't post much on rumors, but this was very interesting. From an e-mail I received not too long ago:

As far as Baxter's leaving, that is a lot more complicated. His leaving is very hush, hush and most of the general staff have no idea why he left. The little bit I know is that there were some bad feelings between Baxter and Wicks and Walberg himself. The best I have put together is that Baxter was "too honest" about his analysis of Walberg's public speeches and told Walberg exactly how he felt. Baxter would tell both Wicks and Walberg what he disagreed with as far as messages coming out of DC, press releases, their bad press relationships, and things Walberg would say in public. I know Walberg didn't like to be corrected and Wicks said it was Baxter not respecting Wick's or Walberg's positions. Now how that came to Baxter leaving and if that was the main reason I don't know. Both District and DC staff really don't know why he left. They just got an email from Baxter one day that said he had resigned and they haven't seen him since. I'm sure it does Walberg no good to down talk Baxter, due to his strong ties to Jackson and his connect to Jackson money, and it does Baxter no good (especially if he has future political plans) to down talk Walberg who is loved by the conservative voters in and around Jackson. But something pushed him to leave.

At the request of the source, I can't give you the name of the person who sent me that. Unfortunately, there's not an easy way for me to verify any of that... for some reason, I don't have a lot of friends in the Michigan GOP who would tell me about this sort of thing. So, take that as you will.

So, Baxter, Walberg, and Wicks may have had a personal clash, and now Baxter's out. How does that change the way Walberg's office is run?

First, it's worth noting that Rick Baxter was an important figure in Walberg's office. As district director, he was present at many of Walberg's events and was the only highly-publicized hire while Walberg was organizing his office. Serving as the chairman of the Jackson GOP at the same time probably helped to strengthen Walberg's ties with the party establishment, who had overwhelmingly supported Joe Schwarz in the 2006 primary. And, of course, as I've written before, Jackson County is very important to winning the district.

Losing that presence will probably hurt Walberg some. But there's perhaps a greater impact. As Walberg Watch readers noted last January, some of Walberg's staff in the district was hired by Rick Baxter and had worked with him before. Jill Larder (field representative, then casework/awards) and Mary Ann Duffy (constituent relations) each worked for Baxter in the past. What kind of impact did Baxter's sudden departure have on them? It's certainly worth asking about.

It's especially worth asking about in light of Baxter's replacement, Ryan Boeskool. He had been the field representative for Eaton and Jackson Counties. From the same source above, he has a decidedly different managing style than that of Rick Baxter, and is apparently not all that popular with the district staff. As the source claims, Boeskool will "openly berate employees in front of their co-workers," including Keith Brown, the Lenawee and Hillsdale field representative. Brown is the oldest and most experienced person on staff, having worked as Nick Smith's district director. Boeskool sounds like a nice fellow, eh? Apparently the incident with Brown led to some real bad feelings with the staff.

Now, some of you are probably thinking to yourself, "Fitzy, this is all very interesting, but a lot of it is coming from one source! How do we know this isn't all made up?" I asked the same thing, and I can't give you a good answer, except to say that if the person who sent me this e-mail made it all up, s/he made a lot of details and did a good job of it. It's consistent with what I know of Walberg, Wicks, and Baxter, and sounds plausible enough for me to write about it. Plus, I'm the trusting sort.

If you want, the source also makes a prediction:

This isn't public yet, but another staffer for Walberg is leaving next month [this month; I got the e-mail in November]. Tony Reinhard who is their DC scheduler and who also worked on the 2006 campaign is leaving before the end of the year.

and

Tony is not leaving on good terms and is being forced out. They are giving him this time only so he can find another job and so they can say he is just leaving for a "better opportunity."

So, let's see what happens. I'm kind of curious.

Labels: Constituent Services, Tim Walberg, Walberg Staff

Over the next few days, I'd like to take a look at Congressman Walberg's staff. Thanks to an anonymous tip, I think there are some things worth looking at.

Before I begin, I just want to say I have nothing but respect and admiration for the people who work in a congressional office. Obviously, given their employer, Tim Walberg, I don't agree with their ideology, but these are hard-working people. They're being asked by us to help educate the congressman, solve all of our constituent problems, navigate the mess that is the federal bureaucracy, walk the fine line between politics and good government, and maintain high ethical standards. And, on top of all that, they've got to deal with phone calls from people who may seem a little bit crazy.

In other words, the staffers who work in Congressman Walberg's office really do a lot of hard work.

But what's it like to work in his office? Is it worth it? Are his staffers happy? You'd have to ask them. Are they fairly compensated? Well, that's actually something we can look at. As has been noted by others, staffers are probably underpaid, but in Walberg's office, some people are paid better than others.

As one more way that we can ensure openness in government, members of Congress report what they pay their staffers. I'm not interested in publicizing the financial data of ordinary folks trying to do their jobs, so I've removed names from the data I'm going to share. Instead, I'll give you only their pay level, job title, and gender.

Here's how Congressman Walberg's staff was paid during the first quarter of 2007, from January 01, 2007 to March 31, 2007.

Gender	Job Title	Amount
Male	District Director	$17,111.10
Male	Field Representative	$11,336.67
Female	Caseworker	$7,944.44
Male	Field Representative	$7,088.90
Male	Grants and Special Projects Coordinator	$11,611.10
Female	Caseworker	$7,822.23
Female	Staff Assistant	$6,250.00
Male	Press Secretary	$9,777.77
Female	Field Representative	$7,822.23
Male	Legislative Assistant	$7,516.67
Male	Legislative Assistant	$8,933.33
Male	Legislative Director	$17,111.10
Male	Special Assistant	$7,577.77
Male	Field Representative	$9,044.44
Female	Legislative Correspondent	$7,944.44
Male	Chief of Staff	$25,666.67
Female	District Office Coordinator	$6,722.23

(Female staffers, for further emphasis, are in bold, and the three leadership positions-- chief of staff, legislative director, and district director-- are in italics. "Shared Employees," who work for more than one member of Congress, have been removed.)

So, what does all of this mean? Here are the averages:

Gender	Avg. Amount
Male (11)	$12,070.50
Female (6)	$7,417.60

But that includes the three leadership positions I named above, all of whom make significantly more than the rest of the staff. With them removed, it looks more like this:

Gender	Avg. Amount (No Leadership Included)
Male (8)	$9,110.83
Female (6)	$7,417.60

In other words, the ordinary male Walberg staffer made $1,693.23 more than the average female Walberg staffer.

In the second quarter, from April 01, 2007 to June 30, 2007, there were no personnel changes, but pay did change. Here's what it looked like:

Gender	Job Title	Amount
Male	District Director	$17,499.99
Male	Field Representative	$11,625.00
Female	Caseworker	$8,124.99
Male	Field Representative	$13,201.05
Male	Grants and Special Projects Coordinator	$11,874.99
Female	Caseworker	$8,000.01
Female	Staff Assistant	$7,500.00
Male	Press Secretary	$9,999.99
Female	Field Representative	$8,000.01
Male	Legislative Assistant	$10,250.01
Male	Legislative Assistant	$12,000.00
Male	Legislative Director	$17,499.99
Male	Special Assistant	$7,749.99
Male	Field Representative	$9,249.99
Female	Legislative Correspondent	$8,124.99
Male	Chief of Staff	$26,250.00
Female	District Office Coordinator	$6,875.01

And, the averages:

Gender	Avg. Amount
Male (11)	$13,381.91
Female (6)	$7,770.84

and

Gender	Avg. Amount (No Leadership Included)
Male (8)	$10,743.88
Female (6)	$7,770.84

That's right, the gender gap got bigger. A male Walberg staffer (not including the chief of staff, legislative director, and district director) would have made $2,973.04 more than a female staffer in the second quarter, up from the $1,700 gap in the first quarter.

So does this mean Tim Walberg just likes to hire male staffers for the important and higher-paying positions? If so, that seems bad enough, but let's look at his Field Representatives.

Field Representative	Amount (1Q)	Amount (2Q)
Male	$11,336.67	$11,625.00
Male	$7,088.90	$13,201.05
Male	$9,044.44	$9,249.99
Female	$7,822.23	$8,000.01

So, the one male Field Representative who was making less than a female counterpart got a big bump in his pay during the second quarter, leaving the one female staffer making the least of all four.

____
UPDATE: In the comments, Jay pointed out something that I missed. On the website that I got this information from, the male Field Representative who got the big increase from the first quarter to the second quarter is listed as receiving that amount between March 01 and June 30, unlike everyone else, who's listed as April 01 to June 30. Obviously, this affects the averages and it's tough to say exactly how much he was paid for the second quarter only (not including March).

Still, I feel like the broader point remains: women in Walberg's office are generally doing the lower-paid jobs.
____

What does all of this mean? There really isn't enough data to do a serious statistical analysis (though, if someone wants to do a comparison to the House as a whole, that might be interesting), so I'm not going to claim there's a clear gender discrimination case here.

Here's what I can say:

• On average, male staffers made more than female staffers in those quarters.
  
• In those two quarters, there were no female staffers who made more than about $8,000/quarter, while all but one male staffer made less than $9,000 in at least one quarter.
• The three positions I labeled "leadership positions," which receive the most pay, were all held by men.

Is there a reason Congressman Walberg pays women less? Does he oppose equal pay for equal work? Does he prefer hiring men for the "important stuff"? Or is it just an "interesting coincidence" (like District Director Rick Baxter's recent resignation and Mark Schauer's entry into the race)?

I can't answer any of those questions. But you could ask Congressman Walberg.

Labels: Constituent Services, Gender Equality, Tim Walberg, Walberg Staff

I haven't given this nearly as much time as I should have, but some of you might remember Chris Simmons. He's a radio host on Battle Creek's conservative talk radio station WBCK, and he gets Congressman Tim Walberg to appear from time to time (most recently, on August 9th-- you can find the audio here).

Walberg must enjoy their little chats, because it's a friendly audience. It gives him a chance to complain about the "Democrat majority" without being challenged on any factual points, implying that those mean, nasty Democrats want to take away your cars and force you to ride bicycles everywhere. (Really, I'm not joking, that's what he implies in the first segment of the August 9th interview. In fact, the first caller spoke of the "socialists in our government." Yeah.)

Although he runs a biased program, Simmons is a good interviewer. He presents himself professionally as an objective reporter. But there's a problem: he's not.

Chris Simmons is also Tim Walberg's field representative in Calhoun and Branch Counties. That's right-- Chris Simmons is a member of Walberg's staff. Can anyone say "conflict of interest"?

But that's not going to be a problem anymore, at least not for a little while. Simmons has decided he wants to run for a Battle Creek City Commission seat, and his unfair advantage was immediately recognized by his opponents:

Following his filing as a Battle Creek City Commission candidate on Aug. 14, Chris Simmons announced this week he is taking a leave of absence as the host of WBCK’s radio shows “Hotline” and “The Saturday Morning Show.”

Simmons was last on the air on Aug. 18, according to WBCK General Manager and Program Director Tim Collins.

and

Simmons, 34, also is a field representative for U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton. Simmons is running for the nonpartisan Ward 1 seat against Robert Sutherby, owner of the Nationwide Insurance agency in downtown Battle Creek, and Jarrite Wine-Jackson, client service specialist with Employment Group.

The Federal Communications Commission requires radio stations to afford equal opportunity to all candidates in an election.

After Simmons filed as a candidate, officials with Jackson’s campaign said they filed a formal request with the station to remove Simmons from the air during the campaign.

A follow-up request for compensatory air time has not yet been filed, campaign officials said.

Labels: Chris Simmons, Tim Walberg, Walberg Staff

I know that a lot of people have conflicting opinions on Wikipedia. It's a phenomenal resource on a wide range of subjects and is easily accessible and regularly updated. That said, it's also vulnerable to abuse. Heated political campaigns, especially, tend to reveal that issue.

Tim Walberg's Wikipedia entry, it seems, has had its own small-scale problem, and today has been a busy day for editing the page. For instance, a user named Kurlansky briefly changed the link to Walberg's campaign site to that of the Club for Growth-- a change which was reverted fairly quickly. But the most significant changes came from an interesting source.

At 14:39 and 14:41 GMT, a user made changes that can be seen here. (The previous version of the article appears on the left, this user's changes are on the right.) What were the changes?

The following passages were removed from the article:

Walberg is known as both a social and economic conservative and was a congressional candidate in [[Michigan's 7th congressional district]] in 2004 in which he placed third. http://www.cqpolitics.com/2006/03/mi_7_schwarz_pressured_from_th.html

and

In October 2006, the Walberg campaign faced scandal when one of the campaign's employees pleaded guilty to child abuse charges. The allegations first appeared in the ''Jackson Citizen Patriot''. http://www.mlive.com/news/jacitpat/index.ssf?/base/news-19/1161878713322500.xml&coll=3 The allegations included severe injuries to a young childs face and body. The staffer was sentenced to probation. Walberg later said he would not discuss hiring decisions with the media.

In other words, the user wanted to remove the mention of Walberg's third-place finish in 2004 and of a major scandal that changed the nature of the 2006 race.

The user that made these changes signed them as "Rickibaxter." For those that have forgotten, Rick Baxter is Tim Walberg's district director and is a former member of the Michigan House of Representatives.

Now, I'm not going to jump to any conclusions, because I know it's easy to fake things on the internet and on Wikipedia. But it's a little suspicious, isn't it?

Anyway, that's what caught my eye tonight.

Labels: Tim Walberg, Walberg Staff, Wikipedia

Adrian's Daily Telegram reports today on Walberg's congressional staff choices in detail, and the Hillsdale Daily News gives us a brief summary of the names and positions. They print the following:

Marla Braun, constituent relations, and will be representing Walberg in Hillsdale, Calhoun, Eaton and Branch counties.

Keith Brown, field representative and agricultural liaison, in Hillsdale and Lenawee counties.

Ryan Boeskool, field representative, covering Eaton and Jackson counties.

Steve Dennison, grants and special projects coordinator and will specialize in grants and special projects, helping communities in the process of applying for federal grants and loans.

Mary Ann Duffy, constituent relations, will serve Jackson, Washtenaw and Lenawee counties with their interactions with the federal government.

Jill Larder, field representative in Washtenaw and Jackson counties.

Chris Simmons, field representative in Calhoun and Branch counties.

Joe Wicks, chief of staff, overseeing all operations both in the district and in Washington D.C.

Leeann Yamakawa, office coordinator, will assist with district scheduling and all office functions and duties.

Rick Baxter will be the district director and will oversee all district operations.

I wrote about Rick Baxter previously. Anyone know anything about the others on the list?

Labels: Tim Walberg, Walberg Staff

This is perhaps old news, but still worth looking at.

As former State Rep. Tim Walberg (R) began to make the transition to Congressman Tim Walberg, he named outgoing State Rep. Rick Baxter as his district director.

Baxter, R-Concord, will oversee constituent services and projects for the 7th District's seven counties, which stretch from the Ann Arbor suburbs to Battle Creek.

Jackson will be his main base of operations; Walberg expects to sign a lease here and hire additional staff within the next two weeks.

Pollster Ed Sarpolus said he wasn't surprised Baxter got the nod from Walberg, who won a narrow victory.

Across the state, legislators lost elections when congressional candidates in their districts didn't get out and campaign for them, notes Sarpolus, vice president of Lansing-based EPIC-MRA.

"Tim Walberg cost Baxter the election," Sarpolus said. "It's fitting he gave him a job."

He'll also be the new chairman of the Jackson County Republican Party.

So who is Rick Baxter? As might be expected, he's very close to Congressman-elect Walberg.

He volunteered in Walberg's last legislative race in 1996 for extra credit in his Lenawee Christian High School government class.

When Baxter, 27, ran for his own state House seat in 2004, he hired Wicks as his campaign manager.

Wicks, 27, served as Baxter's chief of staff until this spring when he left to run Walberg's campaign.

He was mentioned at one point as a potential primary challenger to Joe Schwarz, only to step aside in favor of Walberg's challenge. Narrowly elected in 2004 to a state House seat in Jackson County, Baxter filled the vacancy left by Clark Bisbee-- Bisbee was one of the other Republican candidates in the 2004 primary, coming in fourth place (2,600 votes behind Walberg). Baxter was defeated in November by Jackson Mayor Martin Griffin.

So what did Rick Baxter do during is term in the state House?

For one thing, he fought against fiscal responsibility. Following the demise of the Single Business Tax, Republican and Democratic leaders in the state-- including both Governor Granholm and Dick DeVos-- struggled to find a fair way to replace the $1.9 billion in lost revenue (or, in DeVos' case, pretend that he had a plan). What did Baxter say?

This November, I hope the Cit-Pat remembers that Jackson-area state Rep. Rick Baxter (R-Hanover) has proclaimed that NONE(!) of the $1.9 billion should be replaced - and says any possible replacement revenues would be a "tax increase."

Let's just be clear: when a $1.9 billion hole was left in our budget, nearly all responsible leaders recognized that the revenue would have to be replaced in some fairer, more business-friendly way, or else we'd face a fiscal catastrophe. But not Rick Baxter.

Of course, we all have our good days and our bad days. During this legislative session, Baxter had one particularly bad day. What day was it?

LANSING-Michigan Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer criticized State Representative Rick Baxter (R-Concord) today after Baxter told a Lansing newsletter that the “worst day” of his first term was when the State Legislature approved raising the minimum wage.

“Rick Baxter’s comments are despicable and an insult to our hard working families in Jackson County and throughout the state,” said Brewer. “The minimum wage increase will help thousands of working families. Even Republican House Speaker Craig DeRoche realized the benefits and voted to increase the minimum wage. Baxter’s comments show Jackson County and the entire state just how out-of-touch he is with our working families. Jackson deserves someone in office who understands the people and Baxter is not that person.”

In the July 6th issue of the Lansing-based newsletter MIRS, Baxter was asked about his worst day in the Legislature. He said, “Quite honestly — I'm sure my party will hit me for this — the worst day was when we passed the minimum wage. That was one of those days when I sat back and thought, this day will never come while we're in power. That's pretty easy as far as the worst.”

(Emphasis added. Thanks again to Michigan Liberal.)

Rick Baxter, District Director for Tim Walberg. Fighting for the families of the 7th District?

Labels: Walberg Staff

Matt at Michigan Liberal beat me to this story and, as always, he writes about it so much better than I could. Head on over and read his take. But first, a couple items. Quoted in the Jackson Citizen-Patriot article, Dick DeVos says:

"The individuals working with you are a reflection of who you are," DeVos said en route to Jackson, where he appeared at a political event. "Therefore, as a leader, you have a responsibility to make sure individuals on staff reflect our values, our views."

I agree, Mr. DeVos. (Wow!) The fact that Tim Walberg kept Daniel Coons on his staff after learning he had been charged on September 12, and then keeping him on his staff even longer after Coons pleaded guilty (September 18) says quite a lot.

Mind you, this is probably the only area where I agree with Dick DeVos. After all, he just said, "We have the lowest unemployment rate in the nation... That is unacceptable." I know, I know, it was a simple mistake. But still...

Anyway, enough of that. Go read what Matt has to say.

When you're done with that, here's tonight's sample of Tim Walberg's voting record.

SB 904 (Senate Bill)
Passage of the Clean Michigan Initiative

Outcome: Passed 94-4

Tim Walberg: NO
7/2/98
Roll Call 840

HB 5622 (House Bill)
Passage of the Clean Michigan Initiative

Outcome: Passed 94-5

Tim Walberg: NO
7/2/98
Roll Call 841

HB 5642
Require standardized certification for school administrators

Outcome: Passed 97-9

Tim Walberg: NO
3/19/96
Roll Call 203

That's it for tonight. Go Tigers!

Labels: 2006 Election, Walberg Staff, Walberg Voting Record

Susan Demas at the Jackson Citizen-Patriot reports today:

Congressional candidate Tim Walberg on Wednesday accepted the resignation of his volunteer coordinator, who faces sentencing for domestic violence.

Earlier Wednesday, the Jackson Citizen Patriot reported that Daniel A. Coons, 30, of Eaton Rapids pleaded guilty last month to the misdemeanor and will be sentenced Nov. 13 in Eaton County District Court. He could receive up to 93 days in jail or a $500 fine.

By now, most people have heard about this. If you haven't, check out the initial story from yesterday here. While Tim Walberg himself was not involved, it does make one wonder about his choices for staffers. Coons stayed on the Walberg campaign payroll long after he was charged, and it was only after the guilty plea and the media exposure that he resigned.

The article continues:

Walberg, R-Tipton, refused to comment for the Wednesday story about Coons' court case. He said he hoped Coons' two foster children would be returned to him.

A minister and former Moody Bible Institute fundraiser, Walberg campaigns on family values, which he terms "the backbone of civilization."

By not firing Coons, "It raises questions about how seriously Walberg takes a conviction of what most people consider to be a serious crime," said John Chamberlain, a professor at the University of Michigan's Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy who specializes in political ethics.

As the "values" candidate, what kind of healthy family does Tim Walberg support, exactly? This kind?

The boy had the beginning of a black eye, finger marks on his face and trouble opening his jaw, according to the police report. After the incident, Coons' two foster children were removed from his home.

The children were removed, and Walberg says they should be returned to Coons. Now, this is a matter for the court to decide, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say it was probably a good move for the children to get out of that home.

Now, I'm not suggesting that Walberg condones child abuse. I have no doubt that he was good to his own children and sincerely hope he is as sickened as the rest of us at this sort of behavior by his staffer. But what about his "family values"? For some reason, I'm thinking that perhaps all the values talk is just political posturing to earn votes. I don't know why I'd think that, though.

It's funny, though, that the only "family values" he ever talks about are his anti-abortion crusades and his anti-gay marriage/anti-homosexuality crusades.

Mr. Walberg-- Could this incident have been prevented if same-sex couples weren't allowed to be married in Massachusetts?

Matt at Michigan Liberal says a lot of this and more all much more eloquently.

Oh, one last thing: Sharon Renier's statement, in full:

I was saddened to hear that a young boy was severely beaten by one of Tim
Walberg’s campaign staff members. As a mother, I would place the welfare
of a child over loyalty to the adult abuser. I am shocked to hear that
Walberg continued to employ him after he was charged with beating the boy.
But what outrages me is that Walberg attempted to convince authorities to
return the boy to this convicted child abuser. We cannot afford to send
him to represent us in Washington.

Walberg has seriously betrayed those who have relied on him for moral
guidance. Walberg, a former preacher, has also lost any moral authority
he may once have had by employing this known convicted child abuser. The
Republican leadership in Congress covered up their national sex scandal to
protect a child sexual predator. Walberg’s lapse of judgment is no better
behavior, and should disqualify him from running for any office, let alone
Congress.

Walberg’s actions were morally wrong for this child, and Walberg is
definitely wrong for the voters of the 7th District of Michigan.

This election will certainly be about sending a message to Washington. Do
we send to Congress the small businesswomen farmer or a morally bankrupt
politician who places his loyalty to a child abuser over the child?

Labels: 2006 Election, Walberg Staff