Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Outside Counsel Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wausau council approves engagement of outside counsel after debate over secretive retention
Summary
The Wausau Common Council voted 9-2 on June 24 to retain outside attorney Mark Hall to represent the city and certain unelected staff in an ethics-board matter after debate about a prior closed-session review, insurance involvement and the absence of a written engagement letter.
The Wausau Common Council voted 9–2 on June 24 to authorize continued engagement of outside counsel to represent the city and unelected city staff in a matter pending before the city ethics board.
Council members considered a veto issued by the mayor and lengthy public and council remarks about the retention. The motion on file 250112 — "approve continued engagement of civic appointed legal counsel to represent the city and unelected city staff in the matter currently pending before the city's ethics board pertaining to the citizen complaint filed against the mayor and related actions" — was moved by Watson and seconded by Rasmussen and passed 9–2.
Mayor (name not specified) urged caution and criticized the process, saying council members were being asked "to approve the hire now and fill in the blanks later" and that no engagement letter or clear scope had been provided. The mayor also said the outside attorney had been providing services to some staff and council leaders "for over 9 months" without a formal agreement and argued that the secrecy undermined public trust and could violate the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law.
City legal staff told the council that a closed session on June 2 had been requested by the legal department and reviewed by counsel for statutory compliance. The city attorney said Attorney Hall had "outlined the complete scope of the work that he had performed" during the closed session and that the closed-session exception used related to legal action the city is involved in or likely to become involved in. The attorney said the work was framed as critical-incident guidance tied to the city's insurer and that those present in closed session had received that briefing.
Council debate focused on transparency, legal risk and procedure. Alderman Veil asked whether a "yes" vote would uphold the mayor's veto; council leadership clarified that the item was being re-presented in the same form as on June 10 and that a yes vote would authorize the engagement. Several members said they relied on the closed-session briefing and on the insurer's initial participation; others pressed for an engagement letter detailing scope and client(s).
CIVMEC, the city liability insurer referenced by council members, had provided an administrative benefit that covered an initial $5,000 of critical-incident support and later increased participation. Council members discussed that CIVMEC had ceased direct involvement with Attorney Hall for the matter and that any further city-funded engagement would be subject to council oversight and spending thresholds.
No council roll-call showing individual yes/no votes was read into the record; the mayor and city leadership instructed staff to provide a written engagement letter and to monitor expenses should the engagement approach contract thresholds.
Votes at a glance: motion to retain Attorney Hall — moved Watson, second Rasmussen; outcome: approved, vote tally 9 yes, 2 no.
Ending: Council members directed staff to provide a formal engagement letter and clearer procurement documentation moving forward. The council returned control of the meeting to the mayor after the vote.
