MONROE - A former city employee's motion to intervene in a Wisconsin State case against the City of Monroe for an alleged open meeting violation was granted Wednesday in Green County Circuit Court.
Alan Eckstein, the city's former utilities director, is now allowed to file his own complaint in the case, originally filed by Green County District Attorney Gary Luhman, which claims inadequate public notice of a Salary and Personnel Committee meeting. Eckstein was terminated from his position during a closed session of that meeting.
Eckstein filed the motion to intervene in part to be allowed to represent and protect his own interests in the case, which would not otherwise be adequately represented by the existing parties, according to his attorney, Aaron Halstead.
Eckstein claims that by firing him without notice, the committee went beyond the scope of its publicized agenda that included a closed session for a discussion about a harassment complaint he filed with the city.
"I'm happy with the decision of the court and judge. I look forward to my rights being vindicated," Eckstein said, as he left the courtroom Wednesday.
Luhman verified in court Wednesday that the arguments in his case do not hinge on nor is he pursuing any of Eckstein's interests in the case, and he said the state did not oppose any intervention.
Judge Rhonda Lanford, after hearing arguments from Halstead and Gregg Gunta, attorney for the Salary and Personnel Committee and its members, granted the motion, declaring Eckstein had met more than one of the state law requirements for intervention.
The state law on intervention outlines the right of anyone to intervene in any court action, and Eckstein's motion, as both attorneys agreed, is timely, Lanford noted. Lanford also found Eckstein's interest is related to the case and that its outcome might impair or impede his ability to protect his interest, which will not be adequately represented by the district attorney's action. Furthermore, Lanford noted, intervention should be a practical matter to dispose of as many lawsuits as possible, but balanced so as not to cause undue complications in the handling of the case.
Gunta had argued that Eckstein has many other legal remedies available to him for rectifying a wrongful termination complaint. He called the intervention a "monkey wrench" that would cause confusion and undue complications in the case and require a vast amount more discovery.
Eckstein filed his motion to intervene soon after Luhman filed his complaint Feb. 6 for the State of Wisconsin in Green County Circuit Court. Luhman alleges members of the committee took formal action in the closed session Sept. 10, 2013, without giving proper public notice of the subject matter of the closed session and without giving actual notice to the public or to the affected employee that formal action concerning his dismissal might be taken.
The closed session was listed on the noticed agenda as "preliminary consideration of employee issues addressed by Utility Director." That issue was given a closed session, permitted under Wisconsin law, for considering employment, promotion, compensation or performance evaluation data of any public employee over which the city has jurisdiction.
The original intent of the closed session, according to Eckstein, was for him to address his complaint about harassment and the city's investigation into the issue.
The state's complaint also alleges the committee failed to reconvene in open session as indicated by the agenda, to take its formal action to terminate Eckstein, and without proper public notice of the subject matter of the closed session.
Alan Eckstein, the city's former utilities director, is now allowed to file his own complaint in the case, originally filed by Green County District Attorney Gary Luhman, which claims inadequate public notice of a Salary and Personnel Committee meeting. Eckstein was terminated from his position during a closed session of that meeting.
Eckstein filed the motion to intervene in part to be allowed to represent and protect his own interests in the case, which would not otherwise be adequately represented by the existing parties, according to his attorney, Aaron Halstead.
Eckstein claims that by firing him without notice, the committee went beyond the scope of its publicized agenda that included a closed session for a discussion about a harassment complaint he filed with the city.
"I'm happy with the decision of the court and judge. I look forward to my rights being vindicated," Eckstein said, as he left the courtroom Wednesday.
Luhman verified in court Wednesday that the arguments in his case do not hinge on nor is he pursuing any of Eckstein's interests in the case, and he said the state did not oppose any intervention.
Judge Rhonda Lanford, after hearing arguments from Halstead and Gregg Gunta, attorney for the Salary and Personnel Committee and its members, granted the motion, declaring Eckstein had met more than one of the state law requirements for intervention.
The state law on intervention outlines the right of anyone to intervene in any court action, and Eckstein's motion, as both attorneys agreed, is timely, Lanford noted. Lanford also found Eckstein's interest is related to the case and that its outcome might impair or impede his ability to protect his interest, which will not be adequately represented by the district attorney's action. Furthermore, Lanford noted, intervention should be a practical matter to dispose of as many lawsuits as possible, but balanced so as not to cause undue complications in the handling of the case.
Gunta had argued that Eckstein has many other legal remedies available to him for rectifying a wrongful termination complaint. He called the intervention a "monkey wrench" that would cause confusion and undue complications in the case and require a vast amount more discovery.
Eckstein filed his motion to intervene soon after Luhman filed his complaint Feb. 6 for the State of Wisconsin in Green County Circuit Court. Luhman alleges members of the committee took formal action in the closed session Sept. 10, 2013, without giving proper public notice of the subject matter of the closed session and without giving actual notice to the public or to the affected employee that formal action concerning his dismissal might be taken.
The closed session was listed on the noticed agenda as "preliminary consideration of employee issues addressed by Utility Director." That issue was given a closed session, permitted under Wisconsin law, for considering employment, promotion, compensation or performance evaluation data of any public employee over which the city has jurisdiction.
The original intent of the closed session, according to Eckstein, was for him to address his complaint about harassment and the city's investigation into the issue.
The state's complaint also alleges the committee failed to reconvene in open session as indicated by the agenda, to take its formal action to terminate Eckstein, and without proper public notice of the subject matter of the closed session.