(Still From Campaign Ad)
Candidate for DA, Carli McNeill, recently featured a political commercial that was filmed in the Kenosha County Courthouse with State employees during business hours. KCE received many tips asking about the ethics of this. The Kenosha County Courthouse is the only courthouse in the State in which photography of any kind is prohibited in the common areas. You need the permission of the Clerk of Courts, Rebecca Matoska (D) to film in theses areas. Carli asked Matoska for permission and Matoska, her friend and fellow democrat gave the permission. Cali’s opponent, local attorney Xavier Solis asked for the same permission and gave Matoska two different days and was denied for both of those days requested.
(Facebook.com)
We asked Matoska why she allowed a political ad to be filmed in the courthouse and she didn’t respond directly, but gave the following response:
“Permission to film and photograph in the building was made following review of the request. The request was allowed with certain parameter, including a time when there would be little to no disruption in court activities, nominal intrusion on public having dealings in the courthouse, and a minimal chance that contact would be made with confidential informants, jurors, victims and juveniles.”
KCE looked at the Kenosha and State of Wisconsin Court Rules for guidance:
KENOSHA – CR 1-6 PHOTOGRAPHING, BROADCASTING, AND RECORDING
No one may take any photographs of, make any recordings in, or make any broadcasts from
any of the courtrooms, jury rooms adjacent to the courtrooms and adjacent areas, or the
corridors, without first obtaining permission from the person in charge of those areas. These
prohibitions do not apply to ceremonial proceedings.
Supreme Court – SCR CHAPTER 61
SCR 61.12 Inapplicability to individuals; use of material for advertising prohibited.
The privileges granted by this chapter to photograph, televise and record court proceedings may be exercised only by persons or organizations which are part of the news media. Film, videotape, photography and audio reproductions shall not be used for unrelated advertising purposes.
As for the three State employees? We asked Kenosha DA Mike Graveley why he allowed them to participate in the commercial. He didn’t respond. A spokesman for the DA’s office told us that ADA O’Donnell took one hour of “comp time” and DDA McNeill took two hours of “comp time.” Seemingly, ADA Tombasco (D) got paid for shooting the commercial. He is a vocal supporter of McNeill and has been vocal on social media, trashing her opponent. ADA Bauer later reduced her hours by one. They also used their taxpayer-funded emails to coordinate the commercial, which is apparent in the subject line:
KCE asked McNeill about the appropriateness and ethics behind the commercial. She replied “I did ask for and receive permission to film in the courthouse.”
(File Photo by Kevin Mathewson, Kenosha County Eye)
KCE asked then-Chief Judge Jason Rossell (D) to eliminate the rule that prohibits photography in the common areas of the courthouse. He declined to change the rule, citing federal court guidelines that he knew or should have known have no bearing in Wisconsin. It is unknown if he conferred with the other judges before he unilaterally decided against, in opposition of other leaders in the community. Rossell didn’t have an issue with McNeill’s commercial, despite him prohibiting others from photographing. It seems Rossell wants only his friends to have that ability.
10 Responses
A bunch of corrupt POS prosecutors. They all should get fired. McNeill showed poor leadership and showed us that she is not fit to run that office. The corruption will continue with her. Now I know why they call her Crooked Carli.
Corrupt as all heck , until we get these people out this is what we will have ,
No use whining about it the slimy crap the presumed new DA is involved in….
Only solution….VOTE While you at it talk to two or three other people and go vote and get coffee and lunch afterwards.
VOTE!
SCR 61 is limited to court proceedings. That said, Mr. Solis should have equivalent accommodation. If he can’t do that, then it’s on him.
What do you mean when you say “it’s on him?” If you read the story, he was denied access from the very person who granted access to his opponent
According to your story, he was apparently denied because the request might interfere with courthouse business. If true, that’s on him. But if he asked for the same time frame and circumstances as his opponent received and was denied, then that’s on the clerk of courts. The devil is in the detail.
No I certainly did not say anything about him being denied because it interfered with courthouse business. You must have learned that on your own. Is this Becky? Is this somebody from the DA’s office? Somebody from the McNeill campaign?
Well if it turns out the four employees on the stairs have a new boss it might not prove the have been a good career move participating in a campaign ad……
Solis can hire me. I know the law, I’m non-partisan, and I’d never appear in an advertisement for a political candidate while employed by the courts.
Call me Xavier!
Your report does not come as a surprise. Mr. Solis should be granted authorization to film a video for an equivalent duration. Should Mrs. Matoska deny this request, we, the people, will undertake the necessary administrative and legal measures to ensure equitable treatment for all candidates. In the end, she and her liberal associates should not act as if they own our courthouse.