MONROE - The parties in a case alleging a City of Monroe open meeting law violation are awaiting judgment from a Dane County judge after she heard their arguments this week in Green County Circuit Court.
The members of the City of Monroe Salary and Personnel Committee face a charge, brought by a former employee and the State of Wisconsin, that they failed to give public notice of a government meeting.
The case is set for trial in November, but Judge Rhonda Lanford's written summary judgment - which District Attorney Gary Luhman expects to receive by mid-October - could close it.
The case was filed in February 2014. Since then, the accumulated briefs between parties have stacked up. The file is now about four inches thick.
The charge alleges the Salary and Personnel Committee took formal action in a closed session Sept. 10, 2013, without giving proper public notice of the subject matter and failing to reconvene in open session, as indicated by the agenda, to take its formal action.
During the closed session, the committee had directed its city administrator and city attorney to take actions to fire the city's water utilities director, Alan Eckstein.
Eckstein contends the closed session was for him to meet with the committee to discuss his dissatisfaction with how the city was handling his complaint of harassment. Eckstein said he was instead asked to wait outside the room while the committee continued its deliberations.
Four elected alders for the City of Monroe are named in the complaint: Brooke Bau-man, Louis Armstrong, Reid Stangel and Charles Schuringa.
The penalty for knowingly violating a state open meeting law is a forfeiture of between $25 and $300 for each violation. A governmental body may not reimburse a member for a forfeiture incurred as a result of a violation of the law. In addition to fines, the court may void any action taken at a meeting held in violation of the open meeting law.
The closed session at the meeting in question was listed on the noticed agenda as "preliminary consideration of employee issues addressed by Utility Director."
Luhman maintains that an open meeting violation occurred.
"It is undisputed that the Salary and Personnel Committee never reconvened in open session to take action," he wrote in a recent brief.
But a team of attorneys from Wauwatosa, representing the city committee, argue that Eckstein's claims are "disingenuous."
Eckstein "essentially asks" that city administrator Phil Rath "should have been able to see into the future and know the contents of the written materials Eckstein provided to the Salary and Personnel Committee after the meeting notice was drafted (italics original to brief), and then be able to foresee what would happen at the meeting after the committee reviewed the materials.
"There is simply no way Mr. Rath could have known, at the time he drafted the meeting's notice, that Eckstein and his attorney would provide the committee with a draft agreement proposing changes to the terms of his employment, containing provision regarding severence, and containing threats of litigation in the event there was not a satisfactory resolution to the issues addressed."
The members of the City of Monroe Salary and Personnel Committee face a charge, brought by a former employee and the State of Wisconsin, that they failed to give public notice of a government meeting.
The case is set for trial in November, but Judge Rhonda Lanford's written summary judgment - which District Attorney Gary Luhman expects to receive by mid-October - could close it.
The case was filed in February 2014. Since then, the accumulated briefs between parties have stacked up. The file is now about four inches thick.
The charge alleges the Salary and Personnel Committee took formal action in a closed session Sept. 10, 2013, without giving proper public notice of the subject matter and failing to reconvene in open session, as indicated by the agenda, to take its formal action.
During the closed session, the committee had directed its city administrator and city attorney to take actions to fire the city's water utilities director, Alan Eckstein.
Eckstein contends the closed session was for him to meet with the committee to discuss his dissatisfaction with how the city was handling his complaint of harassment. Eckstein said he was instead asked to wait outside the room while the committee continued its deliberations.
Four elected alders for the City of Monroe are named in the complaint: Brooke Bau-man, Louis Armstrong, Reid Stangel and Charles Schuringa.
The penalty for knowingly violating a state open meeting law is a forfeiture of between $25 and $300 for each violation. A governmental body may not reimburse a member for a forfeiture incurred as a result of a violation of the law. In addition to fines, the court may void any action taken at a meeting held in violation of the open meeting law.
The closed session at the meeting in question was listed on the noticed agenda as "preliminary consideration of employee issues addressed by Utility Director."
Luhman maintains that an open meeting violation occurred.
"It is undisputed that the Salary and Personnel Committee never reconvened in open session to take action," he wrote in a recent brief.
But a team of attorneys from Wauwatosa, representing the city committee, argue that Eckstein's claims are "disingenuous."
Eckstein "essentially asks" that city administrator Phil Rath "should have been able to see into the future and know the contents of the written materials Eckstein provided to the Salary and Personnel Committee after the meeting notice was drafted (italics original to brief), and then be able to foresee what would happen at the meeting after the committee reviewed the materials.
"There is simply no way Mr. Rath could have known, at the time he drafted the meeting's notice, that Eckstein and his attorney would provide the committee with a draft agreement proposing changes to the terms of his employment, containing provision regarding severence, and containing threats of litigation in the event there was not a satisfactory resolution to the issues addressed."