WAUSAU, Wis. — The Wausau Ethics Board on Nov. 11 introduced a newly appointed member and spent most of its meeting debating whether to finalize proposed revisions to the city’s ethics code now or wait until new members join the panel.

Chair (speaker 1) opened the meeting by reviewing the board’s work on recommended changes to Chapter 2.03 of the Wausau Municipal Code, saying the drafting process was prompted by enforcement difficulties under what he called “standard j.” He said that wording in a 2022 complaint against Alder Deb Ryan had made the standard “essentially unenforceable,” and that experience — and recent proceedings involving Mayor Dennion — informed the board’s push to clarify the ordinance.

New member Thomas Garver, an army‑trained orthopedic surgeon who retired three years ago after working in the Marshfield system, briefly introduced himself and said he felt “the calling of civic duty.” Members used the introduction to outline why clearer rules are needed and to summarize past steps: the board adopted a recusal rule at its February 2025 meeting and, Chair said, he had been told the Common Council approved that recusal rule.

The main question the board debated was procedural: finalize and send the existing draft (prepared in part by attorney Jacobson) to the Common Council now, or postpone final action until several new appointees are seated so those members can review and vote on the recommendations. Some members argued that waiting would allow incoming members to weigh in; others warned that creating a clear, vetted ordinance before the turnover would help the new board avoid repeating past delays.

The discussion also turned to the mechanics of board membership. Members noted the municipal ordinance describes five‑year terms but that practice had produced partial or shorter terms, which left many members’ expirations clustered at the same time. Tommy (Thomas Garver) noted that his own appointment carried a three‑year term, and members said the mayor intends to reestablish staggered terms by assigning different lengths to new appointees.

Before adjourning, the board agreed to try to circulate proposed edits to paragraph j and any other changes to staff (Cody) so members, including new appointees, can review them in advance. Chair moved — and Doug seconded — to meet on Dec. 16 at 4:30 p.m. (in a different room); the board voted by raised hands, and Chair declared the motion unanimous. The board then voted unanimously to adjourn.

Next steps: Board members said they will send proposed language edits to staff before the December meeting so the packet can be prepared for review by current and incoming members.