Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Outside Counsel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wausau council authorizes outside counsel to represent city and staff in ethics matter after mayor veto
Summary
The Wausau Common Council voted 9-2 on June 24 to authorize continued engagement of outside counsel to represent the city and unelected staff in an administrative ethics matter, reversing a prior veto by the mayor and prompting debate over transparency and closed-session procedure.
The Wausau Common Council voted 9 to 2 on June 24 to authorize continued engagement of outside counsel to represent the city and unelected staff in an administrative ethics matter concerning a citizen complaint against the mayor.
The vote revived an item the council had previously approved 10 to 1 and that the mayor vetoed on June 16. The motion on the floor on June 24 was made by Alder Watson and seconded by Alder Rasmussen.
The issue drew extended debate about whether the city had properly disclosed the attorney's earlier work and whether closed-session discussions complied with Wisconsin's open-meetings requirements. Mayor (name not specified) told the council that members were being asked "to approve the hire now and fill in the blanks later," saying the prior, secret retention of the attorney undermined public trust and could violate Wisconsin Open Meetings Law. "When taxpayer funded legal work is hidden from the full council and the public, it undermines transparency and public trust," the mayor said.
Council officers and the city attorney countered that the outside counsel had been retained under the city's insurance critical-incident provision and that the closed session had been requested by the legal department. The council president said attorney Hall "outlined the complete scope of the work that he had performed" during the closed session and that attorneys who advised the session had concurred that the closed session was appropriate.
Council members debated the level of urgency for the retention and whether an engagement letter and defined scope should be provided before additional funding was authorized. Council members noted CIVMEC, the city's liability carrier, initially covered work up to a $5,000 critical-incident benefit and later participated beyond that threshold. According to council discussion, CIVMEC ultimately declined further involvement for this administrative-ethics matter.
The council set limits on spending: the engagement would be monitored up to a $10,000 threshold, at which point council action would be required to increase funding. Council members also discussed reducing travel costs and directing that some work proceed virtually where feasible.
The council's formal action authorizes the retention of attorney Hall to provide guidance to city employees and others identified by staff; the motion passed 9 to 2. The mayor had previously vetoed the measure on June 16; the council's vote on June 24 reinstated the authorization.
The meeting record shows continuing disagreement about whether the closed-session process complied with open-meetings law; some council members said they had received differing legal opinions and requested further clarification. No evidence in the meeting record shows that the council approved an engagement letter or a full scope of work at the time of the June 24 vote.
Next steps noted by council members include producing a formal engagement letter, monitoring costs relative to the $10,000 threshold, and returning to the council if additional funding or scope changes are needed.
