Wausau council votes 10-0 to authorize continued legal representation for employees in ethics matter

The Wausau Common Council voted 10-0 to authorize continued legal representation by Attorney Hall for city employees and employee witnesses facing subpoenas in an ongoing ethics matter.

Councilmember Rasmussen moved the authorization, saying, "I'll make a motion that we authorize representation continued representation with attorney Hall, for, employees and receipt of subpoenas, employee witnesses, through the conclusion of the matter." Councilmember Martins seconded the motion and the council approved it on a roll-call vote.

The motion directs the city to provide representation to employees who were called as witnesses and who the council said were drawn into the process involuntarily. Councilmembers emphasized that the action is intended to protect employees' due-process rights while the underlying ethics matter proceeds.

"This is not something that we are happy to do. It's not something we see as bridal. We know some are gonna see it as totally not ideal," Councilmember Martins said during discussion, adding that the council recognized the need to ensure employees have support through the process. Martins later said he hoped the matter would be resolved quickly, stating, "I hope this process is done in a week... I hope it's done in 10 days. I'll make a public, you know, request to the ethics board to get it done."

Councilmember Killian, who referred to the council's closed-session briefing, said he would vote for the measure despite reservations: "Based on our closed session, which I can't go into all the details, of course, I'm I feel as though we are in a position where we need to support additional funds for the employees. However, I'm uncomfortable with some of the things that were presented to me... and I am going to vote for it because I feel like we've been put in that position." Killian said the specifics and criteria that prompted his discomfort were not appropriate to disclose outside closed session.

Mayor (chair) noted that a recording of the prior ethics-board meeting was available and referenced statements by an individual named Dexter in that recording. "For the record, I had the video of the last ethics board teed up. You could hear Dexter in his own words... describing their frustration," the mayor said.

The council's vote was recorded as 10 in favor, 0 opposed. Members recorded on the roll call as voting yes included Lukens, Martins, Killian, Neal, McIlaney, Rasmussen, Watson, Larson and Pankey; one additional yes vote was recorded in the roll call but not explicitly named in the transcript excerpts provided.

The motion covers representation through "the conclusion of the matter," according to Rasmussen's motion language. Council members repeatedly urged the ethics board to act promptly; the council did not specify a funding amount for the legal representation or provide further details on the staff or department responsible for administering the representation.

No ordinance, statute, or specific city code was cited in the transcript excerpts as the legal basis for authorizing representation; councilmembers referenced the ethics-board process and subpoenas as the immediate context. The council did not direct additional formal actions beyond approving representation and recording the request for a prompt ethics-board decision.

The council adjourned shortly after the vote.