Editor’s note: Following comments made by a resident during Tuesday’s Whitewater Common Council meeting, Whitewater Chief of Staff Taylor Zeinert on Wednesday released a statement to council members, portions of which have been added to this story. 

By Kim McDarison

The Whitewater Common Council Tuesday reconsidered a decision made last month to authorize its president to independently solicit quotes from up to three attorneys to represent it in discipline and personnel matters, opting instead to extend the terms of its contract with von Briesen and Roper, a firm with which the city already does business regarding labor-related matters.

A motion to hire von Briesen was approved by a vote of 5-2, with council members Lisa Dawsey Smith and Brienne Brown opposing the measure. 

Plans to hire an attorney to represent council in discipline and employee matters have remained controversial since the concept was brought before the body in August, at which time, council member David Stone said he was bringing the matter forward for consideration, noting that the attorney was required to advise council on such matters as they related to employees over whom the council had direct responsibility.

During the August discussion, City Manager John Weidl noted that he was the only city employee who would fall within that definition.

During the August meeting, the measure failed by a vote of 4-2, with Stone and Councilwoman Jill Gerber casting affirmative votes. Councilman Lukas Schreiber was not in attendance.

Prior to the August vote, several council members said they were confused about why the body would need another attorney. They noted that the city already was receiving services from two firms: Harrison, Williams and McDonell, LLP, which provides legal expertise to the city through its lead attorney Jonathan McDonell, and von Briesen and Roper SC, which serves the city as “special legal counsel on matters the city attorney does not wish to address,” the city’s Director of Human Resources Sara Marquardt said.

Brown expressed concern that some members of the council might have been engaging in discussions about “certain topics” outside of public meetings, which, she said, would not be in keeping with the council’s desire to engage in transparency.

The item reappeared before council during its meeting held Oct. 3, at which time members voted in favor of hiring an attorney at a cost of up to $10,000 to represent it, as noted in an email to Weidl from council president Jim Allen, regarding “discipline and termination matters.” In advance of the vote, the language was changed to “discipline and personnel matters.” 

The measure was approved by a vote of 4-3, with Allen, Stone, Gerber and Councilman Neil Hicks voting in favor.

During a council meeting held in September, five members of the city’s staff, including Whitewater Police Chief Dan Meyer, Whitewater Fire and EMS Chief Kelly Freeman, Whitewater Human Resources Director Sara Marquardt, Whitewater City Clerk Karri Anderberg, and Whitewater Administrative Assistant for Economic Development Bonnie Miller, came to the podium to offer praise of and support for Weidl.

During a meeting held on Oct. 19, council opted against the issuance of a request for proposals (RFP), which would allow area attorneys to bid for the work, voting instead to authorize the council president to solicit quotes and return them to council for discussion at an upcoming meeting.

During public comments, four members of the public spoke in support of Weidl and expressed concern with the council’s decision to spend up to $10,000 for a third attorney while circumventing the RFP process.

Another member of the public suggested the council hold off from making a decision to allow time for the public to “weigh in” on the matter.

Yet another member of the public spoke in favor of proceeding without an RFP, citing circumstances surrounding the hiring of a consultant for the Community Development Authority, whom, he said, was retained without any competition. An earlier story, including the public comments made in October, is here: https://whitewaterwise.com/council-green-lights-president-to-solicit-quotes-for-attorney-budget-resolution-bidding-process-left-unapproved/.

During Tuesday’s meeting, Hicks made the following motion: “to retain von Briesen and Roper SC, the city’s current labor employment and other specialized legal matters firm, for the purpose of advising the common council on employee discipline and personnel matters and authorizing the payment of up to $10,000 for said services. Any additional payment for said purpose shall require additional council approval.”

Additionally, his motion requested that the firm of von Briesen and Roper SC provide resumes to the council of three attorneys “in the labor and employment specialty.”

The motion was approved.

Public comments

Prior to Tuesday’s vote, several members of the public came forward to address the council.

Speaking in support of Weidl, Whitewater resident Al Stanek said that he had recently attended a Walworth County Economic Development Alliance meeting, during which time a panel of developers were asked about steps they take when researching an area in which they might invest.

“The answer was they view the tape recording of the meetings like this, and like the Community Development Authority, and some Planning Commission. They are looking for no surprises. It costs them money to put together a proposal, and they don’t want to find out that you’ve got a bickering common council or that you’ve got a divided, significantly divided issues, on issues.”

During the county-level meeting, he said, Whitewater was discussed.

“Under the current administration, it was highly praised, which is different than my experience. I’m a former chair of the Community Development Authority,” he said, adding: “and I am not imagining things, I have heard developers say that Whitewater had a bad reputation — Ok? — had a bad reputation. I think, because of the current administration, that has changed.”

Citing actions taken by the council early in October, he said that he believed those actions “are setting us back.”

He noted the council’s proposal to spend $10,000, which initially was voted down. He next recalled that council returned during a subsequent meeting, having faced some “ethically challenged” opposition within the body, and brought the item back.

He alleged that council members who argued for the concept, but voted against it, brought the item back, saying: “They voted against it, knowing that there’s a rule that allows you, if you are on the losing side, to vote to bring it back up. It went back, huddled with a couple more council members, which might be an issue of compliance with open meetings, but that’s another issue.

“It’s hard for me to put in words how concerned that I am personally about the proposal to spend the initial $10,000 on an internal personality conflict that can only end up costing us more in legal costs. This is like a divorce. No-one wins. The lawyers win.”

Stanek said he has lived in his Whitewater home for more than 26 years, and said his portion of property taxes paid to the city last year was “roughly $1,800.

“Your plans to spend $10,000 on this initial effort is essentially robbing me and at least five members of my neighborhood from our taxes being used for what I think are appropriate purposes. We live in a time when a proven presidential election is still being used as a political tool to divide us even after a dozen or more court cases. In the state of Wisconsin, one party authorized over a million dollars to find evidence that didn’t exist. Recently, extremist advocates spent over $100,000 in an advertising campaign that threatened the recall of a very conservative Assembly speaker because he wasn’t conservative enough, regarding the firing of an election official and that could end up costing another six or seven figures of wasted money.

“Governing didn’t used to be a blood sport,” he said. 

He added: “Please, this isn’t Washington D.C., this isn’t Madison, Wis., this is Whitewater. We’ve got to get along, people. Why waste this money? I beg you, come to your senses.” 

Whitewater resident Bill Chandler said he has been a resident of Whitewater for 13 years. He said both he and his wife, Sue, had forged several affiliations within the city, with those involvements sought out to make Whitewater “a better place for everyone.

“We, however, are concerned about the intent to hire an outside lawyer to fire our city manager, John Weidl,” he said, adding that he had attending several events, each of which was sponsored by the community’s chapter of the League of Women Voters, and found that Weidl spoke “honestly about problems Whitewater faces and how to solve them.”

He cited Weidl’s involvement in the ongoing Whitewater Aquatic and Fitness Center operational agreement negotiations, and the training he underwent to serve the facility during a shortage of lifeguards, as examples of the city manager’s dedication to problem solving. 

He also pointed to ongoing discussions about the community’s lake restoration project, saying that Weidl “formed a panel to do an assessment of the lakes, a problem which he did not create, but inherited.”

He further cited advancements within the community, including the development of a full-time EMT service, which, he said, “was sorely needed.” 

Said Chandler: “Sometimes when there is a change, the old guard becomes intrenched. Change is positive. John is a change agent. The city manager is the decision-maker with advice and approval from the city council, not the other way around.”

He continued: “At this point, we need stable leadership. We cannot afford to start over again. If Whitewater is saddled with a turnover reputation, we will not attract people who want to live here. Thankfully, John has stated publicly a commitment to stay … Don’t pay for an outside lawyer using money designated for another purpose. That is not following the rule of the people. Whitewater deserves to know if there is a problem, who is pursuing that, why, and at what cost.”

Resident Paul Jhona came to the podium with concerns about what he described as “unrelated people in a domicile and renting” in the city’s Historic Starin Neighborhood. He cited several owners of properties within the four-block area that are renting their homes. He noted that the zoning in the area prohibits that activity, reserving the buildings for single-family occupancy. He noted that some owners who had been renting properties before the Historic Starin Neighborhood Association was formed were grandfathered in, but, he alleged, owners purchasing properties from those earlier owners have cited the clauses as reason for which they can continue to operate the buildings as investment properties. He noted that the city manager, in recent statements publicized through various media outlets, noted his “resolve” to maintaining single-family housing in Whitewater. He asked the city’s leaders to make good on claims of resolve to protect single-family housing within his Historic Starin Neighborhood. Citing several homes which he alleged were occupied by renters, he said: “ This shouldn’t be happening.”

Resident Jon Sharkus, addressing council, spoke about his health issues, describing them as “coughing up blood.” He alleged that his declining health was a product of mold growth within his building and improper property management. 

He said that he had tried to contact city officials and found that he was unable to reach anyone to help him.

“I’m not saying the city manager should be removed, but the lines of communication should be left open,” he said, adding that he had been unable for months to reach the city manager and the city’s building inspector.

“Why? The lines of communication should be open for all people,” he said. 

Additionally, he noted that the city does not have facilities available for emergent care.

“So you have to call 911 when you are coughing up blood. You don’t have the right services in town, you don’t have the open lines of communication. I find that problematic, start to finish.”

Further, he noted that he was unable to learn where within the city he should vote.

“I find that atrocious,” he said.

In a memo to council released Wednesday, Whitewater Chief of Staff Taylor Zeinert wrote that she hoped to “clarify” the record by noting that “multiple” members of city staff from “various departments” had engaged in interactions with Sharkus. Additionally, she wrote, she “personally addressed” the resident’s concerns when “he visited the municipal building as recently as Monday afternoon.” She further stated that a meeting with the resident had been scheduled for Thursday afternoon. 

According to followup information provided by Weidl, Sharkus canceled his Thursday appointment with city officials. 

“Nevertheless, the city will follow up on the allegations and concerns addressed in public comments,” Weidl wrote in his followup email. 

In her memo to council, Zeinert stated that the city’s staff members “highly value and take every complaint seriously. It is our duty to serve all members of our community equally,” she wrote.