Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve asked some questions about the health and practices of Sweet Water Organics (SWO) and the folks involved in that company.
Tom Daykin of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is reporting on Sweet Water Organics as well, and there’s one passage from Daykin’s report I find to be particularly telling. It’s now been revealed that a group of SWO employees left the company over the first half of 2011 after being owed thousands of dollars in unpaid wages, and when asked about his support for a $250,000 forgivable loan the City of Milwaukee made to SWO (with his support), Ald. Tony Zielinski said he didn’t know those employees had left SWO due to unpaid wages (due diligence, anyone?). Ald. Zielinski went on to say he would have still supported the City-backed $250,000 loan to SWO , saying, “I have the highest regard for Sweet Water. They are a pioneering company,” adding, “Obviously, with pioneers, there are going to be bumps on the road.”
“Bumps on the road” are one thing, but what’s going on at Sweet Water Organics seems to me to be more than simply some “bumps on the road” and part of a larger pattern of mismanagement/ineptitude when it comes to “getting things right” at Sweet Water Organics.
Tom Daykin’s article was decent. In addition to describing a reckless lack of due diligence on the part of the aldermen on that committee, – Zielinski, Davis, Witkowiak, Wade, Witkowski (in a unanimous vote to honor Zielinski’s aldermanic privilege), it also explained that they did not attach any conditions to the $250,000 forgivable loan, as far as minimum wages and hours, for these 40 good jobs Sweetwater is supposed to create. As the Journal reported it, Sweetwater could hire people for only a few hours per month or per year, at five dollars an hour, or indeed hire themselves, and claim those as jobs created towards forgiving the loan.
For Zielinski, representing his 30,000 constituents, to insist on a quarter million dollar city grant by saying “I think we should help them. I just don’t understand anybody who could disagree with that.” is the height of arrogance for a public servant.
Kudos to Zach W of Blogging Blue for reporting the story first.
jen, the fact that no conditions were attached to the city’s money is particularly disturbing, because that strikes me as an invitation for misuse.
As for your kudos to me, I simply reported a story I thought was important – credit should really go to the folks who put their reputations on the line to share the information they had.
Something stinks and I’m not referring to the dead fish. No conditions!?!
No conditions. See Tom Daykin’s article:
http://www.jsonline.com/business/some-souring-on-sweet-waters-city-financing-deal-f64rugb-146527625.html
“For 2011, Sweet Water had to have at least 10 employees to skip that year’s payment. But the loan agreement doesn’t say whether the jobs must be full-time. Nor does it set minimum wage floors.”
I think I’ve said enough already, but I’m consistently floored by the irresponsibility regarding every aspect of this.
A quarter of a million dollars with those pathetic conditions? Unbelievable, but true…
Whereas I appreciate your acknowledgement, I (for ONE) am very appreciative for you Zach in getting this out there while others sat on it until after the election.
Anyone here been on a tour of Sweetwater? I have. Still, I thought it an idea large on vision and short on execution. Alas.