Wisconsin State Senator and former Attorney General
candidate Brian Burke was charged today with withholding and
altering evidence in an attempt to hide Burke's use of State
employees and State resources to conduct private campaign
activity, including soliciting campaign contributions at the
Capitol during meetings with lobbyists about issues that Burke
could affect in the Legislature.
Burke, 44, of Milwaukee, is a former Assistant District
Attorney in Milwaukee County.
Burke was charged with felonies that include misconduct
in office by using State resources and State employees for
campaign activity and also for soliciting campaign contributions
from lobbyists in the Capitol while discussing State business.
Burke is also charged with lying on 10 different vouchers that
he submitted to the Senate Chief Clerk for per diem expenses,
claiming he was in Madison on legislative business when he
was not. In addition, he is charged with altering public records,
starting no later than November 2001, and then again in March
2002, in response to John Doe subpoenas. Burke is also
charged with withholding from the District Attorney's Office a
document listing Senate office "issue areas" of Raghu
Devaguptapu, a former Senate office employee and campaign
fundraiser who is charged with Burke today.
"Criminal laws apply equally to everyone," said Dane
County District Attorney Brian Blanchard in announcing the
charges. "We routinely charge people who forge other people's
names on checks, embezzle from employers, or lie to police
officers on the street. It is no less criminal when similar conduct
occurs in our State Capitol."
The attached complaint, publicly filed today in Dane
County Circuit Court, contains 25 counts naming three
defendants.
Charged in the complaint are:
* Burke: Misconduct in Public Office (in three
different ways) (Class E felony) (14 counts); Concealing Public
Records With Intent To Defraud (Class D felony) (2 counts);
and Intentionally Altering And Withholding Documents Subject
To Subpoena (Class E felony) (2 counts).
* Bjork, 31, of Middleton, Chief of Staff of Burke's
Senate Office and also the head of Burke's Attorney General
campaign until Burke recently dropped out of that race. Bjork is
charged with Manipulating Data With Intent To Defraud (Class
A misdemeanor) (1 count); and Intentionally Soliciting
Campaign Contributions On State Property (unclassified
misdemeanor) (1 count).
* Devaguptapu, 29, of Washington, D.C., now works
for the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee.
Devaguptapu is not charged with any crime or with any
involvement in evidence tampering. Instead, he is charged with
five civil forfeitures for allegedly soliciting campaign
contributions on state property with Burke.
The complaint contains allegations that include the
following:
Burke was co-chair of the Legislature's powerful Joint
Finance Committee (JFC) and running for Attorney General in
early 2001 when he hired Bjork to work in his Capitol office.
Burke hired her as part of a restructuring of the Burke Capitol
office to create an even more aggressive team of State
employees than Burke already had to run the Burke Attorney
General race. As part of that effort, Burke also hired
Devaguptapu, a former colleague of Bjork's at the publicly
funded Assembly Democratic Caucus. While at the ADC,
Devaguptapu had been a fundraiser for the Assembly
Democratic Campaign Committee. Burke hired Devaguptapu
as a full-time staffer in Burke's Senate office for the primary
purpose of having Devaguptapu raise campaign contributions
for Burke's Attorney General race, which is mostly what
Devaguptapu did upon arriving in the Burke Senate office. In
that role, Devaguptapu set up meetings on State property with
lobbyists so that Burke and Devaguptapu could ask for
campaign contributions at the same time they discussed
legislative actions that the lobbyists wanted Burke to take as
JFC co-chair.
Burke told his Senate staffers that he had a "window" of
only six months during 2001 to use his legislative position to
raise big money for the A.G. campaign, and he hired Bjork and
Devaguptapu as State employees in order to help him exploit
that opportunity. Burke also made it clear that he would make
life difficult for any employee of his Senate office who did not
work on his A.G. campaign.
After Burke was served with a John Doe SLibpoena in
October 2001, Burke told Bjork that he would withhold from the
District Attorney a document related to the activities of
Devaguptapu, a description of "issue areas" that Burke said he
thought made Devaguptapu look like "a bag man." Separately,
after another Senate staffer received a subpoena, Burke
suggested to that employee that an incriminating document
bearing his handwriting, a memo about how to get money from
lobbyists, should not be given to investigators. That document
was a memorandum written by Devaguptapu as he was leaving
Burke's staff in 2001.
After Burke was served with a second subpoena in March
2002, Burke and Bjork agreed to alter evidence, specifically
entries in the Burke Senate office calendar, that they believed
would confirm the degree to which Burke, Bjork, Devaguptapu,
and others improperly relied on State resources to further
Burke's campaign to be Attorney General. Burke and Bjork
agreed to alter entries in the computerized calendar that
referred to campaign activities by Bjork and other employees of
Burke's Senate Office. Bjork followed Burke's direction,
producing in response to the subpoena a hard copy of a
computer calendar that Bjork and Burke knew did not reflect the
contents of the Burke office calendar at the time the
investigative subpoena was personally served on Burke.
"Investigators cannot seek justice without the facts,"
Blanchard said. "The complaint charges that Brian Burke
intentionally hid facts related to forms of theft from the State of
Wisconsin."
This case is being investigated by agents and
investigators of the Dane County District Attorney's Office and
the Wisconsin Department of Justice - Division of Criminal
Investigation.
Burke is expected to appear later in court for initial
appearance on Monday, July 1, 2002, at 10 a.m. Appearance
times for Bjork and Devaguptapu have not yet been set. At that
time, a trial judge will be assigned to the case, and a
preliminary hearing date will be set for a determination of
whether Burke should be bound over for trial on the only
felonies charged in the complaint.
Under Wisconsin law, a John Doe proceeding can
continue even after one or more persons have been charged
based on evidence obtained through that investigative
proceeding, though prosecutors are barred from using John
Doe proceedings to continue to investigate someone for a
crime that has already been charged.
As in the past, Blanchard, and Milwaukee County District
Attorney E. Michael McCann-who is authorized to investigate
and, if merited, prosecute certain alleged violations of law in
Dane County under a special prosecutor appointment-declined
to comment regarding the scope, status, or timing of the
ongoing investigation which resulted in the issuance of the
subpoenas to Burke's Senate office that are one focus of the
case charged today.
"The public deserves prompt resolution of allegations
most recently raised by the Wisconsin State Journal beginning
approximately one year ago," Blanchard said. "We have and
will continue to work hard to follow the evidence where it leads,
then make prosecution decisions as quickly as possible
following careful consideration of all relevant facts and
applicable laws. Some of the conduct charged today,
intentional alteration of evidence in response to a subpoena,
demonstrates the need for very diligent investigation."
The public is reminded that a criminal charge is
only that, a charge. It is not evidence of guilt. Each
defendant is presumed innocent; each is entitled to
a fair trial before a Circuit Court judge. In a trial, the
State has the burden of proving guilt of each
element of each alleged crime beyond a reasonable
doubt. This release is intended to provide the
public with a summary of a publicly filed court
document of public interest that contains
allegations that have not yet been tested in a court
of law, and to provide some context for the filing of
that document.
