Wausau council approves limited continued legal counsel for staff in ethics board matter

The Wausau Common Council voted 10-1 on June 10 to continue paying outside counsel previously appointed by the city’s insurance carrier to advise city staff in an ongoing ethics-board matter related to a citizen complaint involving Mayor Doug Denny.

Council members said the decision is intended to provide legal guidance to additional city employees the ethics board expects to interview, not to provide a blanket legal defense for elected officials. The committee of the whole previously approved the same engagement unanimously and recommended a spending cap; council members said the council agreed to a $10,000 cap on further fees and that counsel must return for further authorization if that cap is reached.

City Attorney Jacobson told the council that the insurer, CIVMIC (Cities and Villages Mutual Insurance Company), had authorized payment up to an initial amount and then increased that limit because of continuing liability risk, but that CIVMIC had not formally declared the work unnecessary. Alders who opposed the council-funded continuation said CIVMIC’s prior payments indicated the carrier reached its contribution limit and the city should not duplicate coverage. Supporters said consistency and institutional knowledge from the same counsel was important for staff who may be called as witnesses.

Alder Watson moved the measure with a second from Alder Larson. After debate and procedural interruptions earlier in the evening, the council voted to approve the resolution 10-1.

The motion directs continued engagement of the previously appointed counsel to represent the city and unelected city staff for the pending ethics-board matter; the resolution does not specify further procedural outcomes of the ethics board hearing itself.

Council members said the retained counsel’s role includes advising employees who may be asked to provide statements or testimony so they understand the process and any organizational liability issues. The city attorney and council said the arrangement is intended to limit organizational exposure and to provide consistent, efficient representation for witnesses already involved in the matter.

The council did not vote on the ethics-board matter itself; the item before the council was only the retention of counsel and the limit on city-funded legal spending.

A formal start date for any additional counsel work was not specified in the resolution.