So, like John Fischer, I am not going to claim to know everything. But, I think that this Van De Yacht matter, and the subsequent reading I have done, has led me to a place rich with questions, and these questions seemingly aren’t being approached by anyone else in town.
First off, I am 100-percent not commenting on the matter of guilt, innocence, a City Hall Conspiracy, or any of the rest. My joy at pounding on Mayor Jim Tipple for lack of leadership or vision is well-documented, and that is not what I am doing here. Instead I want to focus a little bit on the process, and the shocking way the City Council is tilting at windmills.
I am including the Ethics Board Finding of Fact in the original complaint. This is the ruling of the quasi-judicial Board of Ethics which was empowered to decide, and was agreed upon by the parties involved. Christine Van De Yacht agreed to the process, gave testimony, and had legal counsel. So, the process was afforded to her.
First off let us establish some things.
- There is a City of Wausau Board of Ethics Finding of Fact. It recommended that the City Council censure then-Alderwoman Van De Yacht (see page 6).
- The City Council did not, for their own reasons, censure Christine Van De Yacht.
- Christine Van De Yacht brought a civil case in federal court against the City. This case was summarily dismissed before going to court.
- City Council President Bill Forrest moved that a decision on whether the council would refer this to the Ethics Board will be taken up at the next council meeting.
Van De Yacht says that she wants new evidence, evidence which she claims was withheld by staff the first time around, to be heard by the Ethics Board. Clearly this is an allegation of misconduct, or unethical behavior.
The discussion to this point has been that city staff conspired to put Van De Yacht in harm’s way, and as such, she was harmed. This is a new allegation.
Van De Yacht has yet to follow the appropriate process and swear out a complaint. Instead, she has come to the council and effectively asked for a special dispensation to introduce material to a closed case.
Let me repeat that. This case is closed. The Board of Ethics ruled. Wrote a finding of fact. This is done. There is no policy for the City Council to take new evidence and present it to the Ethics Board.
In fact, this might be legally questionable. Does the Council looking at the item, and passing it along, equal a form agreement with the evidence? Is the Council empowered legally to do this — to be a judicial or investigative body? Is this exposing the city, and its constituents to more risk and fiscal liability?
Van De Yacht was not censured. Van De Yacht brought a federal court case that was summarily dismissed by the judge before going to court.
Since this potential evidence is directly related to her civil claim in federal court, why is it not being introduced there? If it would in fact prove illegal or damaging actions by the city, why is it not sent there? This would be the common sense route, since it would be outside of the political sway of this allegedly corrupt administration. Ms. Van De Yacht has legal counsel, so why are they not advising her to return to the civil courtroom and seek satisfaction there?
Prior to this last city council meeting, the suggestion was that the Council send this to the Government Accountability Board (GAB) for review. Considered a fair and impartial outside observer, that was apparently agreed upon by the parties. The State sent a memo back stating that the State does not have jurisdiction, and would not make a ruling.
I think that the City Council drafted a resolution to send this item back to the GAB, after it knew that the GAB would not take the case. In light of the belated realization that GAB is not an option, Forrest tried to change the overly-specific resolution, which is when Anne Jacobsen told them they could not substantially change the resolution and vote on it, because sending it to the Ethics Board was not on the agenda.
Alderman Rosenberg urged the Council to not send this back to the Ethics Board. This would be placing the city, its staff, and the constituents to financial liability.
Council Member Deb Hadley said that the council started this, and it should return it back to the Board of Ethics.
Well, that is all fine and good. But, it already went to the Ethics Board, and the Board presided over the matter and made a ruling. The Council received a suggestion of action.
At what point is this going to be called a nuisance matter by the Council? This matter went to the Ethics Board, and Van De Yacht was given every chance to respond to charges at that time. Depositions were taken. Statements and evidence were brought forth. Ms. Van De Yacht was given every opportunity to respond to the claims at that time.
She then went to a federal court, which dismissed the matter.
Now, four years later, armed with “new evidence”, Ms. Van De Yacht returns to the Council demanding the abolition of the Ethics Board, the payment of her legal expense, and a public apology.
So, if the city council sends a matter that has already appeared in front of the Ethics Board (and a decision rendered), as well as a federal judge (where the City was declared off the hook), there will be a fiscal impact! This is not free. Why are they doing this? Why are they exposing the city to new potential liability and actual cost? This matter has gone through the proper channels, been decided upon, and the channel that the public would have to go through to swear in an ethics complaint has not been followed.
I can speculate that Ms. Van De Yacht feels slighted both personally and professionally, but this matter was never acted on by the City Council. She was not censured. In fact, if you read the finding of fact, there is the matter of the Skip Ellenbecker Dairy Building. Well, she ended up owning the building.
At what point is this a nuisance? Are there not laws to protect municipalities against nuisance lawsuits? The City has a legal process, and it should be followed by both the council and the people in the city.
