Waukesha committee debates moving city attorney to appointed post, asks for ordinance revisions and more input

A referral to consider changing the City of Waukesha's city attorney from an elected to an appointed position drew extended debate at the Ordinance and Licensing Committee meeting on July 28, with members split on trade-offs including the candidate pool, independence, reporting relationships and removal procedures.

Beth, a committee member who introduced the draft, said the proposed change is about how the city chooses its chief legal officer, not a critique of the incumbent. "I am only speaking about how to choose another attorney," she said, describing the draft ordinance circulated in committee materials and asking the group whether it preferred to retain an elected attorney or move to appointment.

Committee members generally acknowledged benefits of appointment — broader candidate pools and private recruitment — but raised multiple concerns after reviewing the draft ordinance. Members questioned language that would treat the city attorney's client as the corporate entity and worried the draft could give the attorney expansive de facto authority. One member noted the draft's removal provision would require a three-quarters vote of the council for removal, a higher threshold than the two-thirds standard used for the city administrator, and said that made the proposed office unusually difficult to remove. Members also debated whether the city attorney should report to the common council, to the mayor, or to the city administrator and whether the position should be subject to the same evaluation and HR policies used for other hired department heads.

Several members emphasized preserving the attorney's ability to provide independent legal advice and the officer's "anonymity" as a nonreporting legal advisor to the council. Dan, a committee member with institutional memory of past discussions, said the attorney's independence had been valuable in prior disciplinary and legal matters. Others, including members who favored moving to appointment, said the city ought to ensure a formal recruitment and evaluation process if the position becomes appointed.

No formal vote was taken. Instead the committee agreed to solicit written comments and text edits: members asked staff to revise the draft ordinance to address the concerns raised and asked committee members to email their suggested changes to city staff. Brian, who drafted and presented the ordinance, was asked to prepare a revised version; the group discussed returning the item for further consideration at a subsequent meeting (members referenced Aug. 11 as the next O&L meeting but agreed to coordinate dates). One committee member recommended pushing the discussion out two meetings if needed to allow wider input.

By sending the draft back for revision and asking members to submit edits, the committee left the matter open for future action rather than adopting or rejecting the ordinance.

The discussion highlighted several policy questions that will shape future drafts: whether appointed attorneys should be subject to ordinary HR evaluation and removal processes, whether the appointment should be mayoral with council confirmation or council-driven, which statutory officers must remain elected, and what authority the city attorney should have over hiring outside counsel and executing nonfinancial waivers or releases.

Committee members and staff agreed to reconvene the topic when a revised draft is available and after members exchange written suggestions with staff.