Resident objects to proposed long-term legal contract; council moves into closed session

Leah Dummel, a New Berlin resident, told the Common Council during public comment that she objects to an agenda item concerning a long-term appointment contract with attorney Mark Blue and said the arrangement presents a conflict of interest because Blue previously partnered with attorney Thomas Schwitzer.

Dummel, who gave her address as 3480 South Ware Road, said Schwitzer "does not represent or respect the citizens of New Berlin" and accused him of blocking attempts to obtain permanent open records related to the Milwaukee Rescue Mission project. She also criticized what she described as a "farm's extreme risk aversion policy regarding Roblox," saying the approach prioritized avoiding legal risk over zoning integrity, code enforcement, public safety and taxpayers' costs. "We cannot continue down the path of avoiding some legal risk at the expense of everything else," she said.

Dummel urged the council to consider hiring a different law firm and said she had previously emailed suggestions; she also said she supports Joe Striegel for the plan commission and opposed creating an additional human-resources position because she believes her property taxes rose by "about $1,500 or at least $1,000" over the past two years.

Later in the meeting the council read statutory grounds for a closed session on the record, citing Wisconsin statutes "19.851 e" and "19.851 g" and saying the topics for closed session included negotiating terms for legal services with attorney Mark Geblow and receiving advice on litigation titled "Clark versus the city of New Berlin." A motion to enter closed session was made, seconded and approved unanimously; the council entered closed session at 6:18 p.m.

After the motion to go into closed session, a council member moved to approve an exemption of the city's contract with attorney Martin Blum through Dec. 31, 2026, saying Blum "has been the city's attorney for 20 plus years" and has been reliable and dedicated. The transcript provided does not include a recorded vote or final outcome for that motion.

A separate motion "to approve the Hick Clark claim as outlined by the city attorney" was also made and seconded; the meeting record in the provided transcript shows the council calling for the vote ("All those in favor, say aye") but does not include the final vote tally or outcome.

The meeting record in the supplied transcript ends without public resolution of the contract-extension motion or the Hick Clark claim; the council did record and approve the motion to convene in closed session. Further action and any votes taken in closed session are not documented in the portions of the transcript provided.