Wausau council approves limited continued use of outside counsel for ethics-board matter

The Wausau Common Council on June 10 approved a resolution to continue retaining outside civic-appointed legal counsel to represent the city and unelected city staff in an ethics-board matter arising from a citizen complaint involving Mayor Doug Denny.

The council approved the resolution following discussion about the scope, cost and who had authority to provide or pay for the representation. The action was passed by roll call, motion moved by Alder Watson and seconded by Alder Larson; the formal resolution vote later in the meeting passed 10–1.

The item came to the council after the Committee of the Whole recommended continued engagement. Supporters said the remaining work includes preparing at least four or five additional staff witnesses for possible ethics-board interviews or depositions and that the employees should have the same legal guidance previously provided.

City Attorney Jacobson addressed council questions about the city’s insurer and prior funding. Jacobson said the insurer had not declared that further representation was unnecessary but had limited funds for payment: “they authorized payment of fees in the amount of $5,000 and because the risk of liability continued, they doubled that amount,” Jacobson said, adding that the insurer’s contribution reflected funding limits rather than a substantive determination that representation was no longer warranted.

Some council members objected to continuing payment from city funds after the insurer’s contribution, arguing the insurer had effectively ended its funding and that council should be cautious about additional city expense. Alder Larson said he opposed the item and warned he would veto it if the council asked the city to pick up the insurer’s prior role, calling further payment “a waste of city money.” Alder Rasmussen and others said the council had set a cap for city-funded fees at $10,000 and that counsel had been retained originally to guide staff and to minimize organizational liability. Rasmussen said the cap means the council would re-evaluate if the spending limit were reached.

Council members also debated procedure and whether commentary earlier in the meeting affected the matter; a separate procedural appeal and votes on how the mayor conducted voluntary commentary were held (see related article). After debate, the council voted to continue the engagement with the limits described; the resolution language and the committee record reflect that any additional spending beyond the cap would come back to council for further approval.

Ending: The council’s action authorizes continued city-funded legal support for specified staff related to the current ethics-board proceeding and requires further council review if the previously discussed spending cap is reached.