The beleaguered state attorney general’s office was dealt another blow last week when the Wisconsin Equal Rights Division agreed with a Department of Justice employee’s claim that the department acted improperly when demoting her earlier this year.
The allegations of impropriety surround a series of incidents that took place earlier in the year involving Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen’s use of state funds to provide security at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn.
In what she viewed as an improper use of state funds, Joell Schigur, a DOJ official, wrote a letter of grievance to her supervisor criticizing the move.
Specifically, her complaint cited a statute in state and federal law that prohibits party members from “serving as a delegate, alternative or proxy at a political convention,” unless they are “off-duty or not on state property.”
After writing the letter, Schigur was demoted from her former position to her current position of special agent in charge.
Schigur and her attorney, Peter Fox, believe this action violated state whistleblower laws, which prohibit “retaliatory action” on an employee that discloses information regarding the violation of a law or statute.
On Friday, a letter from Equal Rights Division official Raymond Meija to the DOJ agreed with Schigur’s claim, saying there was probable cause to believe the DOJ violated the state’s whistleblower laws and that a hearing should take place on the matter in an administrative law court. That hearing has not yet been scheduled.
Fox said Schigur had a “glowing” performance review before the whistle-blowing incident, which Fox believes strengthens the claim that she was demoted for political purposes. He said he wants to see Schigur returned to her original position.
“The primary motivation of this action was to keep her in the position prior to the demotions,” Fox said. “We also hope it will include the cost of bringing about the action and whatever monetary losses she suffered as a result of the demotion.”
He remained “intentionally vague” on what exactly the monetary compensation should entail.
State Justice Department officials maintain no impropriety took place, in either the convention incident or with the demotion of Schigur.
In a letter to Meija, Assistant Attorney General Mike Sweeney wrote that since Schigur’s position was probationary, she was not technically “demoted.” Sweeney also said the decision to not promote Schigur was made before the letter of grievance had been written and was based on performance issues.
“We believe the evidence is undisputed that Ms. Schigur did not pass her probation simply because of her performance,” Sweeney wrote. “The evidence strongly supports a finding of no probable cause.”
This controversy comes in the midst of a series of other scandals from the attorney general’s office, including his lawsuit against the Government Accountability Board over voter registration.
