Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Ethics Complaint topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Wausau ethics board closes investigation into complaint against Mayor Doug Denny, sets hearing for Sept. 5

5499856 · July 29, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Wausau Ethics Board voted unanimously to close an additional investigation into a complaint against Mayor Doug Denny, adopted a revised scheduling order that moves the hearing to Sept. 5 and authorized board counsel to pursue stipulated facts with parties subject to board approval.

The Wausau Ethics Board voted unanimously to close its additional investigation into an ethics complaint filed against Mayor Doug Denny and adopted a revised scheduling order that sets a hearing for Sept. 5, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., the board said at its meeting.

Board Chair (name not specified) said the board received responses from seven of 12 people ordered to provide information as part of the additional investigation; five people did not respond. The board voted to close the investigative stage and to rely on testimony at the upcoming hearing, with subpoenas to be issued if necessary.

The scheduling order adopted by the board sets a series of interim dates tied to the hearing. The board scheduled a meeting for Aug. 7 at 4:30 p.m. to rule on the respondent’s motion to compel depositions of the city attorney and the city clerk; it set Aug. 25 at 4:00 p.m. to rule on any prehearing motions. The discovery cutoff was moved to Aug. 29, 2025. The board continued the previously scheduled August hearing and set the full hearing for Sept. 5, 2025, beginning at 10:00 a.m., and reserved the council chambers for the day.

“The responses were included in the board packet for this meeting,” the chair said when summarizing the supplemental materials. The chair noted five subjects provided no response and that the board may subpoena any subjects who failed or refused to respond to appear at the hearing and answer questions under oath.

Respondent counsel Andrew Erlinson objected to unilateral subpoenaing of witnesses by the board where no party has requested it, saying, “I don’t believe that this board should be unilaterally deciding to issue subpoenas to witnesses when no one has asked for it.” Board members debated that point; some members pressed that subpoenas could be issued if the board needs testimony the parties do not provide in writing.

The board recorded specific nonresponses in the investigative packet. Persons who provided no response by the July 22 deadline included Deputy Police Chief Todd Baton; Finance Director Mary Anne Groot; Facilities Manager Leo Gao; Consulting IT Director Gerard Klein; and a contractor, Kyle Ozmitz. The fire chief and deputy fire chief submitted responses indicating they had no contacts that matched the board’s orders.

Board legal counsel Eric Larson had drafted a proposed scheduling order intended to preserve an Aug. 25 hearing date; the board amended that timeline to accommodate summer schedules and the city clerk’s conference. Larson said he would provide a final draft of the order to the chair for signature and asked the chair to have it distributed to staff for calendar invites.

The board also voted unanimously to authorize board counsel to draft, propose and negotiate a statement of uncontested (stipulated) facts with complainants, respondents and counsel for unelected city officials, subject to board approval. Larson cautioned that a stipulation might not succeed if all parties decline to participate, and he said any stipulation negotiated would be returned to the board for approval before being entered into the record.

Members discussed whether complainants should be subpoenaed to attend and testify. The chair said nothing in the ordinance expressly requires complainants to prosecute a case at hearing and warned of a potential chilling effect if complainants faced an expectation of hiring counsel. Others argued subpoenaing the complainants could be limited in scope — for example, asking whether they had additional information — and then allowing them to be excused from further attendance.

Before adjourning the meeting, the board confirmed the schedule and that the final scheduling order would be circulated by email by counsel and distributed via Outlook calendar invites. The chair said the board will use the Aug. 7 meeting to address the deposition-compel motion and to consider witness subpoenas, and will reconvene for any necessary prehearing rulings on Aug. 25 before the Sept. 5 hearing.