By Lynn Binnie
Whitewater Banner volunteer staff
whitewaterbanner@gmail.com
The Common Council’s decision to reject using a Request for Proposals for legal counsel to advise the council regarding personnel matters but rather to authorize the council president to solicit proposals has resulted in an “urgent call for transparent attorney selection process” from the city manager.
As was previously announced on The Banner, the Common Council at its October 3 meeting authorized, by a 4-3 vote, engaging an outside attorney at a cost of up to $10,000 to advise the council on employee discipline and personnel matters. This action would pertain specifically to the city manager, since that position is the only one that reports to the council.
At its subsequent meeting on October 17 the council was provided a draft Request for Proposals (RFP) that might be used in soliciting interested legal firms for such an engagement. That RFP received no discussion before a motion was made to allow Council President Allen to solicit two to three proposals. Several citizens spoke against the motion, including Ryan Oezer, who endorsed the transparency that would be provided through the RFP process, and Brian Schanen, who questioned why the city’s attorney who handles personnel matters, or someone in that firm, could not address the matter at hand. It was indicated by Allen that this attorney works with the city manager. Objections to forgoing the RFP process were also voiced by Councilmembers Brown and Dawsey Smith. Ultimately a motion by Hicks/Stone for Allen to present proposals from three legal firms passed with a 4-3 margin with Allen, Gerber, Hicks, and Stone in favor.
The city’s labor and employment attorney is Kyle Gulya from von Briesen & Roper SC. According to its website, the firm has 22 attorneys other than Gulya whose specialty is labor and employment. The Banner reached out to attorney Robert J. Simandl, the section leader for that area of practice, to inquire as to whether the firm might be able to suggest any of these attorneys who might be available and have appropriate expertise to work with the council. No response has been received.
John Weidl’s statement, dated October 19, is printed below in its entirety.
To the Members of the Common Council and Whitewater Community:
I wish to address the recent decision concerning the authority granted to a single elected official in sourcing an attorney to represent the interests of the council. With prior concerns regarding the conduct of the body, this decision adds to the prevailing unease.
Entrusting a solitary elected official with the responsibility to source and recommend an attorney, without adhering to our good governance manual and procurement policy, raises concerns of potential conflicts of interest. It’s paramount that our council operates with utmost transparency, ensuring our processes are free from any perceived biases. The essence of our decision-making should be rooted in integrity and impartiality. Granting extensive authority to a single individual might inadvertently convey a message to our community that our decisions might not be entirely unbiased.
Previous discussions and citizen comments at the last meeting have pointed towards an inconsistency in how our governing body views public participation and transparency. Decisions that bypass our governance standards might contribute to this inconsistency, potentially diminishing trust in our processes. Our stakeholders expect our actions to be transparent, consistent, and devoid of conflicts. They trust us to prioritize the broader community’s interests. The current decision might unintentionally foster an environment where the public, staff, or future stakeholders might hesitate to participate, apprehensive of potential bias or influence.
For the sake of our community’s trust and to ensure that our actions resonate with transparency and consistency – at the next meeting, I encourage the council to reconsider the decision of attorney selection based on any one individual’s discretion and instead propose we follow the established Request for Proposals (RFP) process, as delineated in our Good Governance Manual and Procurement Policy. Such an approach guarantees a selection process that upholds the broader interests of our council and community, aligning with clear, objective standards. A very real and actionable RFP was provided at the last common council meeting. Even following the process, the governing body should be able to have professionally, transparently sourced proposals for review in December. To date, no reason has been provided to the staff or public for circumventing established processes or requiring a tighter timeline.
Finally, I urge any attorney considering working for the City in this capacity to insist upon a public and transparent process. This will not only protect the reputation and integrity of the attorney but also ensure that the Common Council’s decision-making is held to the highest standards. A commitment to transparency is a shared responsibility.
In conclusion, my intent isn’t to oppose the hiring of an attorney, but to advocate for a clear and transparent process. Let’s ensure our decisions remain free from any doubts related to ethics, conflicts, or potential backlash.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Warm regards,
John S. Weidl
City Manager, City of Whitewater
