Bruce Murphy
Murphy’s Law

The Sheer Ambition of Marina Dimitrijevic

She’s running for assembly but wanted to continue as county supervisor and collect two full-time salaries.

By - Jul 22nd, 2014 11:40 am
Marina Dimitrijevic.

Marina Dimitrijevic.

Last month I moderated a candidates forum for the 19th Assembly District. The district runs along the lake, from the East Side all the way to Bay View, and there are four impressive candidates running for the seat, including two attorneys, Dan Adams and Sara Geenen, and Jonathan Brostoff, who has served as an aide to state Sen. Chris Larson and before that as an aide to county supervisor Jason Haas.

But if I were judging the debate I’d say the fourth candidate, Milwaukee County board chair Marina Dimitrijevic, had the best of it. She’s an excellent speaker, she was on top of the issues and she projects a lot of power and confidence.

Dimitrijevic has been seen as the favorite in the race: she has endorsements from many elected officials, led by Mayor Tom Barrett and Democratic congresswoman Gwen Moore — both of whom sponsored fundraisers for her. And the list of the unions supporting her is lo-o-ong: at least 12, including the state teachers union, state firefighters, county deputy sheriffs and the state Service Employees International Union council.

Remarkably, Dimitrijevic garnered all this support despite the fact she planned to continue drawing a salary as county supervisor while serving as a state representative. When she announced her decision to run last November, Dimitrijevic said she would step down as county board chair but would also finish her term as a supervisor.

The position of state legislator is generally seen as a full-time one and pays $49,943, plus about $6,000 on average in annual “per diem” living expenses. The position of county supervisor pays $50,679. Yes, it will be reduced to a part-time salary of $24,051, but not until after the April 2016 election. So Dimitrijevic would therefore have collected two full time salaries, for a total annual compensation of about $106,000, from January 2015 through April 2016.

Keep in mind that Dimitrijevic did everything possible to fight the legislation changing the county supervisor position to a part-time one, arguing vociferously that the job had to be done full time. So how could she possibly do this while also serving as a full-time legislator where most of the work is done in Madison?

Democrats style themselves as the party that’s closest to average working folks, yet Dimitrijevic clearly felt it was acceptable for her to earn two salaries or about three times more than the average household income in the city of Milwaukee. And apparently her supporters had no problem with that.

Last night at a candidates forum, Dimitrijevic suddenly announced she had decided not to hold both jobs. As she puts it on her campaign website, in a post written this morning, “When I announced I was running for State Assembly last year, people asked me to consider filling out my term on the County Board. I did consider it and decided months ago that I would not hold both offices.”

Months ago? Then why didn’t she put this up on her campaign website? Why didn’t she let folks know at the candidate forum held last month?

I think there’s a more recent explanation for her change of heart. On Thursday, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel columnist Dan Bice reported that from mid-April to mid-June Dimitrijevic showed up at the courthouse on just 16 of 48 work days and on average, spent about 2 hours and 25 minutes at the courthouse on the days she was there.

Said Dimitrijevic: “County business is not just done at a desk or in the courthouse.” Yes, supervisors do spend some time in the district attending occasional neighborhood meetings, but most of their work typically occurs at the courthouse. Supervisors who show up as seldom as she has in the last two months would be considered part timers by their colleagues. As Supervisor Mark Borkowski told the JS, he puts in ten times more hours than Dimitrijevic.

It was not good publicity for Dimitrijevic, but what made it all the worse was this was the person who said she can perform two full-time jobs and should therefore collect two full-time salaries.Yet she was averaging, all told, less than one hour a day working at the courthouse.

Dimitrijevic made history in 2004 by becoming the youngest woman elected to the Milwaukee County Board, at age 22, but it soon became clear she had bigger ambitions. She was clearly working to become county board chair, and soon after board members chose her for that post in April 2012, she announced she would do listening sessions in all 19 municipalities in the county, which seemed like preparation to run for county executive. She did a very good job of uniting board members against County Executive Chris Abele, and even made common cause with conservative Sheriff David Clarke in opposition to Abele.  And yet Dimitrijevic’s many endorsements include just four county board members. That’s surprising.

Also surprising is the number of endorsements from elected officials Brostoff has gotten, including one county supervisor (John Weishan, Jr.), six state legislators and 14 other current and former elected officials. It may be that the race is not the shoo-in for Dimtrijevic that many politicos had assumed. Which could be an additional reason Dimitrjevic decided against holding two full-time jobs; she’s worried she could lose this race.

Yet for eight months she had let the community believe she intended to collect two salaries. So why weren’t Dimitrijevic’s supporters concerned about this?

This is not the first time that Democrats have tolerated double dipping elected officials. In the spring of 2012, newly elected City Treasurer Spencer Coggs said he intended to continue serving out his term as state senator through December 2012, thereby collecting monthly payments on annual salaries of about $50,000 as legislator and $114,000 as treasurer. And David Cullen, who won a county supervisor seat in that same election, said he intended to continue serving in the state assembly through December 2012, thus collecting monthly payments on two full-time salaries of about $50,000 each. Both said they would donate the extra salary to charity. Coggs made an announcement that he was donating $19,680 to charity, which is close to the extra amount he collected. But what about Cullen? Moreover, why are taxpayers paying this money so these politicians can build political support by donating the money to charity?

The message to voters in the case of Cullen, Coggs and Dimitrijevic is exactly what Republicans charge of Democrats: that liberal politicians are cavalier with the taxpayers’ dollars. Democrats — and Dimitrijevic — might ponder whether that has anything to do with them becoming a minority party in Wisconsin.

Short Takes

-There is not much that separates the candidates on the issues other than Adams’ support for school choice. Steven Walters did an informative column on the four candidates for Urban Milwaukee.

-There is no shortage of upcoming candidate forums in this race, including two on one day, July 29: at Chai Point Townhall, 1400 N Prospect Ave, from 3-4:30 pm, followed by the Shepherd Express Candidate Forum, from 7:00-8:30pm, at Kasana, 241 N. Broadway. Others include the Bay View Neighborhood Association Candidate Forum, on August 4, 7:00-8:30pm, at Parkside School of the Arts, 2969 S. Howell; and the Riverwest Neighborhood Association Candidate Forum on August 6 from 6:00-7:30pm, at Milwaukee Friends, 3224 N Gordon Pl.

Correction: An early version of this story incorrectly stated that Spencer Coggs had offered no details on the money he was donating to charity. The story also suggested Dimitrijevic made her announcement toward the beginning of last night’s forum; it was toward the end.

Categories: Murphy's Law, Politics

64 thoughts on “Murphy’s Law: The Sheer Ambition of Marina Dimitrijevic”

  1. Peter says:

    I was at the debate last night and there are some things you seem to be missing. Probably because you weren’t there. I have attended all of the debates in the 19th and heard Marina proclaim months ago that she would not hold both jobs at the same time. She has also said this to me while knocking on my door. I should also note that Marina announced at the end of last night’s debate that she would like to clarify the record that Adams and Brostoff have attempted to muddy. You incorrectly report that she did this at the beginning in an effort to take the subject of the table. Again, probably because you weren’t there. Both Dan and Brostoff had ample opportunity to bring it up and probably didn’t because they both know it’s not an issue. A lesson you would do well to learn and report on correctly.

  2. Bruce Murphy says:

    Thanks, Zak, correction made

  3. Bruce Murphy says:

    To Peter: Dimitrijevic had the opportunity to set the record straight at the June forum but didn’t. In Thursday’s story Bice noted that Dimitrijevic had talked of holding both jobs. You’d think she would have taken the Bice article as a chance to correct this but didn’t. Nor did she alert her supporters about her change of heart on her campaign website until this morning.
    Also, I think voters might like to know the specific of how her two opponents muddied this issue –if you can provide that.

  4. Nicholas says:

    Does calling for the same accountability standards as public schools to weed out the bad schools really classify one as for “school choice”? or is it accepting reality as it is?

  5. I swear we had five candidates at the forum and the new one who brought up new subjects. … What was that guys name?

  6. bcm says:

    We ALL know Marina would make a great representative….for herself! She’s had higher office in her sights since she was 22. If she wins, when does she run for State Senate? Or Moore’s seat?

  7. Peter says:

    Jonathon Brostoff has been doing doors in Bay View and the east side alerting voters that Marina plans to hold both positions. He has even used his cell phone at the doors to make this point while showing the Sheherd Express article where Marina said that she would consult with her constituents and reach a decision. Brostoff also took the time to point out in official campaign communication that he is the ONLY candidate committed to serving as a full time legislator.

    All of this following Marina’s announcement months ago that she had no plans to do that. I find it curious that you would take her to task for not repeating herself at your debate when it was an issue that didn’t exist until Brostoff started to lie about it. While I respect Bice a great deal his story dealt with the Shepherd Express article from this Winter/Spring with evidently no effort to ask the candidate if she had come to a decision. She had and made that abundantly clear. It’s unfortunate that she has to do it multiple times for Mr. Brostoff who evidently is too busy spreading lies to actually listen.

  8. Bruce Murphy says:

    Peter, I’m confused. If you’re right, then Bice, Brostoff and me were all unaware of this announcement by Marina “months ago” that she did not intend to hold two positions. So when did Marina make this announcement and why didn’t she post it on her campaign website so people would know the truth?
    And by the way, Peter, who are you? And are you connected to the Dimitrijevic campaign?

  9. Brady Street Liberal says:

    I won’t argue who the best candidate is, but I think nitpicking a stupid issue like this isn’t the best way to decide. I think Marina, Jonathan, and Dan are all great candidates (no disrespect to Sara G., but she’s been invisible in this campaign).

    At the end of the day, you should look at which candidate represents your interests best. If you’re a far left progressive, then Marina and Jonathan are your choice. If you’re a moderate yet progressive Democrat, then Dan is your man. Meet them and decide for yourself.

    However, throwing mud like this shows no integrity. Other electeds have held two offices and done just fine. If it’s that much of an issue, then it should be illegal to hold two offices simultaneously. It’s clear to me that this mud slinging is just an attempt to pull down Marina and bring Jonathan up.

    I really won’t say which of those three is the best though, because honestly they’re all three great candidates and going to represent the 19th well. It’ll likely come down to who has knocked the most doors.

  10. Steve says:

    Peter, there was no “announcement months ago” with Marina saying she would quit her County Board decision. I’ve talked to several neighbors in the district who told me she told them personally, as recently as a month ago, that she would at least serve out the rest of her term. This is on top of the many media outlets, including last week’s Bice column, that have quoted that she was considering keeping both government jobs. Your claim that Jonathan “lied” about it is completely false and only distracts from the fact that Marina has never clarified this “multiple times” as you suggest.

    I support Jonathan because I know I can trust him and take him at his word. We’ve got a lot of problems to address right now and I think we need someone, without any uncertainty, who will be committed to our district.

  11. Joel Kriofske says:

    I’ve heard that Mr. Adams accepted a large donation from Eble. I would argue that Jonathan Brostoff is the most committed candidate, that is, committed to represent all of his constituency in the 19th, unlike others who appear too willing to take donations and thus side with the obscenely wealthy on every issue affecting the 19th. Jonathan is not tainted by big money interests, and is therefore the best candidate in my estimation. A naive position, perhaps, but Mr. Brostoff has the passion and the intellect to do the best possible job.

  12. bruf says:

    But didn’t Sister Dimitrjevic support Sheriff Clark
    in his battle with County Exec Abele?
    Thought she could find a higher class of friends.

  13. Nicholas says:

    Has Jonathan NOT taken $500 donations?

  14. Daniel Boudewyns says:

    Why can I not but sense that the idea of a woman having Sheer ambition is a problem for Murphy? Maybe he thinks sheer should be confined to panty hose. By the way Murphy, do you have a favorite in this race? If so, why not disclose who it is.

  15. Dennis says:

    The concerns in this article seem incredibly petty, and bringing up Marina’s dual role “problem” would have been much more appropriate if you had written an article about the debate you saw firsthand rather than after she put the concerns to rest.

    I’d add another correction, that Adams supports voucher schools not simply the broad category of “school choice.” That’s the major difference in this race, but I think it’s been made abundantly clear that Adams’ economic views are much further right on all issues, not just education. There are three impressive Democratic candidates in the race and one classic blue dog with an impressive resume.

  16. Mike Bark says:

    “Democrats style themselves as the party that’s closest to average working folks, yet Dimitrijevic clearly felt it was acceptable for her to earn two salaries or about three times more than the average household income in the city of Milwaukee. And apparently her supporters had no problem with that.”

    Bruce, you should know that it only matters what you say, and not what you actually do. We see this all the time in politics. Mary Burke will campaign on things like raising the minimum wage, but the reality is if wages get too high her Company has the means to offshore the jobs. Al Gore will tell us about the evils of global warming whilst using way more energy than you could dream of. Scott Walker will talk about the private sector being the engine of the economy despite the fact that he’s avoided the private sector like the plague in his adult life.

    So it shouldn’t be surprising about Marina talking about being a friend of the working man while she works on enriching herself.

  17. 2fs says:

    Bice based his column on a Republican source…this at least would seem something worth mentioning. An unavoidable impression is that the Republicans are most worried about facing Dimitrijevic and would rather have any of the other candidates as the Democratic nominee.

    And, as others have noted elsewhere, that source equated the records of Dimitrijevic’s entries and exits re the parking garage with her total time at work. Dimitrijevic has stated she often buses to work – which would, presumably, obviate the need to use the parking garage.

    That said, I do wonder about people who somehow manage to hold two, even three “full-time” jobs. Or at least, get paid salaries that would seem to require full-time work. Plenty of that in the corporate and charitable sectors…

  18. Daniel Boudewyns says:

    Marina made a point of riding buses to every municipality in Milwaukee county, as she wanted to understand what transit users had to deal with. I believe she has also conducted a good number of listening sessions with constituents. I’d much rather my supervisor be doing things like that than sitting at a desk. And being as it’s the 21st century, pretty much anywhere can be your desk.

  19. Kk says:

    So after a “short” time of EIGHT years she was made chair. I’m sorry but this piece is dripping with resentment that a woman set a goal, worked for it and made it. She must be leading hence all the attacks.

    And Adams is not a Democrat if he is for vouchers. That’s a deal breaker. ID rather have a rep working two jobs for a few months than a voucher school vulture.

  20. Bruce Thompson says:

    2fs: The Republicans don’t have to worry about facing any Democratic nominee, since they don’t have a candidate in this race.

  21. Nicholas says:

    There is a big difference between supporting the unfettered expansion of the voucher system, which Dan Adams does not, and supporting holding any school that takes public money to the same standards as public schools.

    Lets be real, vouchers are not going away anytime soon, they have been in Milwaukee for the last 25 years, and now serve 25,000 students, and are quite popular in the African American community, holding them to the same standards will force the bad operators out.

    Most can agree the expansions by Governor Doyle and Walker (particularly statewide and significantly raising the income caps) were bad policy, but to say that someone is not a Democrat because they accept vouchers exist is ridiculous.

  22. tim haering says:

    Ms. Dimitrijevic is no BOb Ziegelbauer.

  23. Allison says:

    “The message to voters in the case of Cullen, Coggs and Dimitrijevic is exactly what Republicans charge of Democrats: that liberal politicians are cavalier with the taxpayers’ dollars.”

    Like spending millions of dollars on a silly recall?

    Marina and Brostoff are just puppets of the public employee unions, they will do whatever they are told to do. The public employee unions do not care about taxpayer dollars one bit.

  24. Bruce Thompson says:

    The obsession with vouchers has long puzzled me. It is hard to get a serious discussion on what MPS needs to succeed going because it gets hi-jacked by the voucher issue. If three times as many students are in MPS as in choice schools, doesn’t MPS deserve three times the discussion?

  25. Dennis says:

    Bruce, you are easily puzzled! Vouchers take away funding from public education. Public education advocates discuss vouchers because they are the greatest threat to the success of MPS. Not that hard.

    Do you agree with Dan Adams that vouchers are just like student loans for private schools? That might have been an interesting (read: ludicrous) quote to report in an evenhanded way.

  26. Bruce Thompson says:

    I have just been doing a bit of analysis on last year’s NAEP scores. Now matter how you cut it (4th grade, 8th grade, math, reading, white kids, black kids, free lunch, no free lunch) MPS falls near the bottom of the urban districts. And districts like Boston, our neighbor Chicago, and even Atlanta with its cheating scandal. Sure we usually do better than Fresno and Detroit and sometimes a few others but is this what Milwaukee wants to aspire to?

    You say that vouchers “are the greatest threat to the success of MPS.” Why? How are the disappointing NAEP scores caused by vouchers?

    If your answer is that vouchers, or rather the obsession about them, allows those opposed to change in MPS to change the subject whenever changes that make adults uncomfortable are suggested, then I would agree with you.


  27. 2fs says:

    Re MPS scores compared to those of other schools: One possible answer may be that the students who would have raised the average are not included…because they used vouchers to attend non-MPS schools.

    Necessarily, if that were the case, the resulting average score would be lower, compared to scores in cities w/o as many voucher students.

    (Also: I should have been more clear: by “faced” above I didn’t mean in an election, I meant “across the aisle”)

  28. Bruce Thompson says:

    2fs: I think you inadvertently made my point: rather than look for ways to help MPS become more successful the discussion shifts to vouchers. For what it is worth, MPS does have middle class students, by definition the MPCP does not so the demographic shift would seem to favor MPS.

  29. 2fs says:

    First, “middle class” does not necessarily equal higher achieving (although on average that’s true). Second, three times the poverty level for a family of three is $59,370…which is arguably in the lower end of middle class.

    The discussion is about vouchers because reforming MPS is likely to require at least some financial resources – which resources are diverted by the voucher program.

    And this article shows that religious voucher schools are still not equaling MPS scores.

  30. PMD says:

    Many of those religious voucher schools are teaching creationism along with other nonsense. And isn’t it also true that most vouchers are going to middle class kids whose parents are already paying for private schools? That doesn’t seem like the best way to improve education outcomes in Milwaukee.

  31. Kyle says:

    “And isn’t it also true that most vouchers are going to middle class kids whose parents are already paying for private schools?”

    So what exactly are you doing here? Are you legitimately asking the question because you don’t know? Are you hoping we’ll all assume that you’re right and follow your conclusion? You harp on others to provide sources and evidence, so let’s see some.

  32. PMD says:

    See the question mark? It’s there for a reason.

  33. Andy says:

    2fs, the cut off for being eligible for the voucher program is 185% not 300% (or “three times poverty level” as you put it). So even for a family of four, that is only $43,752. A more accurate comparison between the voucher program and MPS is comparing it to MPS’s low income students… for which the voucher schools, on average, slightly out perform MPS.

    Mind you they do that with half the level of funding and manage to do it without labeling many students as “special education” students that would otherwise have been labeled that way in MPS.

  34. PMD says:

    According to an AP story:

    More than 3,400 students applied for a voucher, and 75% are already paying to attend a private school.

    Also, the same story says the cutoff for a family of 4 is $51,177.

  35. Kyle says:

    Then don’t draw a conclusion based on the assumed answer to your question.

  36. PMD says:

    Golly gee I am so sorry Kyle.

  37. Andy says:

    If the family of 4 has a married couple, then the cut off goes up about $7,000. If the story didn’t mention the 43k cutoff then I’d question it’s neutrality on the topic.

    Regarding current private school students who apply for vouchers… since when has it ever stopped a Democrat from providing a program to low income people based on their ability to pay for it?

  38. PMD says:

    If the program was designed specially to help poor kids attending a failing public school get into a better school, isn’t it failing badly if 75% of applicants are already paying to attend private school?

  39. Nicholas says:

    PMD that is true of the expansion statewide, but I’m not sure that data is backed up in the MPCP, which is a Seperate voucher program from the state wide one as I understand it

  40. Andy says:

    Well you tell me. If 2500 low income familiars are so desperate to leave a failing school system that they’d sacrifice their quality of life to make that happen and now we provide a way for them to provide a quality education AND let them have a decent standard of living… isn’t that a win?

  41. Andy says:

    Families… not familiars… oh boy… now *I* wish we had an edit button!

  42. PMD says:

    If it was created to provide poor kids attending a bad public school with the opportunity to get into a better school, and the vast majority of applicants are not even attending a public school, then yes, I’d say it’s failing badly.

  43. Andy says:

    PMD that is so hypocritical… you have said we should raise the minimum wage to a level that a family of 4 would be out of poverty, yet the vast majority of people making minimum wage do not support families. So if that is your purpose, your law on minimum wage would be failing badly as well.

  44. PMD says:

    Did I say that? Does the subject change mean you agree that vouchers are failing in terms of achieving their original objective?

  45. Andy says:

    Yes, you said that.

    And no, this was pointing out a flaw in your argument. (Are you going to acknowledge what Nicholas pointed out, by the way?)

    I believe vouchers are one of the best things to happen to Milwaukee families who are looking for options to avoid the failing schools in the Milwaukee Public School system. Unfortunately I do not live in this district, so I will not have the opportunity to vote for Dan Adams. If I did though, he would get my vote hands down.

  46. PMD says:

    But Andy, what good is the voucher program for families with a child in MPS if the majority of voucher applicants and recipients are not attending a public school to begin with? You seem to like the theory of vouchers. The reality of the program doesn’t seem to align with that.

  47. Nicholas says:

    PMD, why do you keep conflating the Wisconsin Parental Choice Program with the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program?

    Statewide vouchers, your datapoint is indeed correct, it is a terrible failure, but for Milwaukee voucher students, the opposite is true.

  48. PMD says:

    How many former MPS students received and used a voucher? And did they use it to attend a better school, or just a religious school? Because so far MPS students are performing the same as or better than students in voucher schools. So I wonder if the program is truly allowing poor MPS students to get into a better school, or if it’s just getting them into a religious school where the education they receive is worse than what they were receiving in MPS.

  49. Andy says:

    PMD, your statement about MPS students outperforming MPCP students is false. When you compare low income children, Milwaukee choice students performed better on the WKCE than their MPS counterparts (even if only slightly in reading and math). Not only that, but many of the schools have better graduation rates, better college placement, and show stronger improvement through each school year.

    Solely looking at the WKCE is not an accurate way to judge school performance. It provides one piece to a larger puzzle, but you can not just latch on to that. Even if you do, it shows better performance at half the cost. Best of all, it gives options and hope to parents who are otherwise stuck with failing MPS schools.

  50. PMD says:

    An April 2014 story reports that 15.5% of MPCP students are proficient or advanced in math compared to 19% in MPS. In reading, it’s 11.9% for MPCP and 14.7% for MPS. Is there more recent data available?

  51. Andy says:

    We don’t need more recent data PMD.

    First, the DPI data for MPCP schools included children who opted out of testing as zero’s on the scoring. They did not do so for MPS. (Right off the bat that shows how they manipulated the data). So the real numbers are 12.2 and 15.9 for reading and math.

    Second, when you compare low income MPS students (which is what is directly comparable to the MPCP) the MPS numbers are 11.0 and 15.3% for reading and math.

    So when you compare apples to apples, MPS falls short. Oh, falls short while spending twice as much in tax dollars per student.

  52. PMD says:

    I just wondered if there was something more recent that showed MPCP outperforming MPS, and I didn’t find it. Do MPCP schools enroll the same number of special ed students as MPS? Is that factored in?

  53. Andy says:

    You know.. another thing that is rarely discussed here is the fact that MPS schools tend to label kids as “special needs” students who are not considered so in choice schools. This is partly for funding reasons… but the fact is the MPCP schools are teaching these children right along all the other kids.

    Besides not getting extra funding for these children, many of who are not special needs they are just behind in their education, these students do not get an automatic wavier from standardized testing like they are in MPS. This further throws off test results.

    I’m more concerned with what we’re doing to the future of these kids by placing this label on them. Instead of working to bring them back up to the level of their peers they are stuck in a system that moves slower. If education was a race, how would you expect to catch the leaders by going slower than them?

  54. PMD says:

    I just read that Milwaukee choice schools reported 1.5% of their students have disabilities, compared with 20% for MPS. That is a pretty huge disparity.

  55. Andy says:

    Oh, good timing! ^5!

  56. Andy says:

    Yes, the DPI claimed that MPCP schools only had 1.5% of their student body made up of stduents with disability. But that is because they used a system for labeling students as having disabilities that MPCP does not. In fact, there are entire MPCP schools that cater to ONLY children with disabilities and they did not count a single one of them.

    Choice schools Wisconsin reported that 14.6% of choice students who left MPS were classified as special education students in MPS, but not in MPCP.

    The University of Arkansas did a study on this topic and found that the real number of special needs in MPCP is somewhere between 7.5 and 14.6%. I’m also suspicious that MPS over states the number of special needs children in their system…

    MPS *DOES* have the advantage though of receiving twice the tax dollars than any choice school does, so they would indeed be better equipped in general to handle severely disabled students.

  57. PMD says:

    Andy are you actually Jim Bender?

  58. Andy says:

    I know… clever, right? Use a random first name… no one will ever figure it out! 😉

  59. PMD says:

    Clever indeed. Except you stumbled across a top-notch sleuth/amateur detective. Now I better get back to the guy I’m tailing before I lose him.

  60. Dave K says:

    Is it just me, or is Dimitrijevic kinda hot?

  61. Andy says:

    That’s not the emoticon I was going for…

Leave a Reply

You must be an Urban Milwaukee member to leave a comment. Membership, which includes a host of perks, including an ad-free website, tickets to marquee events like Summerfest, the Wisconsin State Fair and the Florentine Opera, a better photo browser and access to members-only, behind-the-scenes tours, starts at $9/month. Learn more.

Join now and cancel anytime.

If you are an existing member, sign-in to leave a comment.

Have questions? Need to report an error? Contact Us