 it's six o'clock and I'm going to call the ethics board meeting to order I'm Alderman Jim borne of the fourth district temporary chair of the ethics board madam city clerk would you please call the roll boron here bulk yeshah Hannah Heidemann kittleson clayunas excuse mani meyer montemayor rinflash ryan smith vanderwheel verhasult excuse and wongerman 14 present Alderman wongerman would you lead us in the pledge please I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and through the republic for which it stands one nation under God invisible with liberty and justice for all thank you Alderman wongerman we do need to mic up tonight as we do for a regular council meeting because this is on this is on TV eight tonight before we proceed with the agenda I just wanted to make a couple comments the last night at last Monday nights council meeting Alderman Gish's resolution council document number 1643 was referred and I have to use that word referred because it's important to the to the S to the ethics board last Tuesday I met with the city attorney the city clerk Alderman Hannah as council president was invited I met with them last Tuesday and it was my intention to go forward with the ethics board investigation tonight in fact I had a agenda prepared when I got to the meeting I found out because of a technicality with Alderman Gish's resolution that it would have been proper to have that resolution passed by the council and then sent on to the sent on to the ethics board because of that because of that oversight we are somewhat limited as to what we can do tonight but in my agenda that I had that I had prepared I was prepared to take testimony under oath from Alderman Ryan Alderperson Meyer and also Mayor Perez for any knowledge that he had with the incident that happened on November 9th with that being said as I said we can only go ahead with what we're able to do tonight because of that oversight with the resolution so we will now move forward with the agenda and the first thing on the agenda is our own number 306 396 0708 council document number 1622 by the city clerk submitting a communication from Alderperson bulk stating that as his that as he is unable to attend tonight's council meeting he wishes to lend his strongest personal support to the resolution that would convene the Common Council Council's ethics board in order to investigate a threat to to reveal details of an elected official's personal life as a means to manipulate political behaviors or outcomes and Alderman bulk thank you Mr. Chairman I'd move that the ROB accepted in place on file thank you Alderman Montemayor thank you Chairman I think I buzzed in first and I would like to move to file all documents one two three agenda items 1622 1623 and 1643 point of order here we have a motion on the floor that has not been seconded by Alderman bulk and that is to handle number one okay we have a motion and a second to file agenda item number one any discussion I don't think we need a roll call on this do we all in favor aye chair votes aye agenda item number one is filed Alderman Montemayor did you want to continue yeah yes thank you chairman I would then like to file agenda item number two agenda item number three for RO number 3970708 and resolution number 1520708 turning the clean point of order should Alderman Meyer Alderperson Meyer be seconding this thank you you know this is an issue that deals with whether or not an Alderperson feels they've got a conflict of interest or not it's a personal decision it's a personal choice whether an Alderperson abstains or not I would point out though that the criteria basically are under the ethics code the conflict of interest whether you you've got personal or a financial interest in the matter it would appear to me that Alderperson Meyer has a personal interest in the matter but that's you know I can give an advisory opinion the Alderman have to do what they what they feel is appropriate for them I guess I would advise Alderperson Meyer from abstaining and not take part in the motion but it's my advice I'll have been replaced by order we the motion that has made out we have second yet that's a reverse to her second but is to file a document that we don't have on the agenda she mentioned number two number three and then the fourth one she mentioned in her motion you repeat the motion thank you our own number 3970708 agenda item number on our number two on tonight and resolution number 1520708 agenda item number three on our agenda tonight just those yes it appears that the motion dies for a lack of second moving on to agenda item number two our own number 3970708 council document number 1623 by the city clerk submitting a communication from Asher Heimermann stating his support for the resolution requesting the ethics board to convene for the purpose of conducting an investigation and possible action regarding all our person Vicki Meyer all our person Montemay air thank you again Alderman Boye agenda item number two here we all do know that this was a communication from child I it's nice with civics with with middle school kids but I just wanted to object to us having something on our agenda that was from 14 year old thank you for now all our person kittleson thank you mr. chair can't we just move to file document number 1623 as well we have a motion and a second to file document number 1623 any discussion all in favor chair votes I thank you next thing on the agenda item number three resolution number 1520708 council document number 1643 by Alderperson Gisha requesting that the common council direct the ethics board to convene for the purpose of investigating potential wrongdoing or improper behavior in office by all our person Vicki Meyer Alderman Gisha thank you chairman boring is it appropriate at this time to as we're meeting as a committee if anyone additional we had great discussion about this last Monday evening a great deal of a discussion be appropriate of any additional information that any of the parties involved wish to speak to at this time thank you Alderman Gisha yes it is appropriate all our person Meyer thank you mr. chairman at this point I would request that my attorney be allowed to speak for me that would be fine do I think we need a motion to open up the floor to all person Myers attorney all in favor chair votes I attorney if you'd like to step forward to the podium please if you could state your name in your firm and your business address for the record please sure my name is John Raftery and I'm an attorney with the Rittger Law Office Random Lake 675 Wolf Road in Random Lake mr. chairman members of the council ethics board thank you for allowing me to speak excuse me attorney would you pull the microphone up just a little bit please so they can hear at home normally I'm a little louder than this thank you thank you Alderperson Meyer has asked me to help her with this because if you haven't noticed this has been a matter of great concern for her and there's a lot of anxiety about how this may turn out I have worked with local government officials for 30 years and I think I have observed what approaches seem to work and I'm sure seeing a lot of approaches that don't seem to work but like to tell you that I think that the process that's being used here is not the correct one to address the issue ethics code section 267 on responsibilities of public officials and employees has a specific list of things that officials must do and a list of things they should do there's a big difference between must do and should do must do as a mandate should do is a recommendation if you must do something it's an obligation if you should do it it's an admirable goal I should lose weight I don't hear any argument to that the must do is in 267 include you must uphold the Constitution of the US you must uphold the Constitution of the state you must carry out the laws impartially to foster respect of all government you must observe the highest standards of morality and you must discharge the duties of your office faithfully regardless of personal considerations keeping the public interest as your primary concern now what are the should do is conduct your public and private affairs so as to be above a reproach in order to foster respect for all government and I think that's a subsection that you'll be asked to consider in connection with this resolution conduct public and private affairs so as to be above reproach what does that mean well it's not defined in the code is it above reproach as measured by the mayor's standards above reproach as measured by a citizen standards I think each of you may have different definitions of what that means how much tolerance do you have for differing viewpoints in different ways of saying things the next should is you should not exceed your authority next you should not breach the law next you should not ask others to exceed their authority or breach the law and next you should work with full cooperation with other public officials and employees and less prohibited by law or by confidentiality rules now that's 267 there are a lot of other sections in your ethics code that I think are much clearer 268 use of public property 269 obligations to citizens 270 conflicts of interest and so on and so on other than 267 which we're discussing here there's only one other reference in the ethics code to the phrase should that's the last part of 273 in which gifts or favors received under unusual circumstances should be referred to a supervisor or to this ethics board for recommended disposition and I didn't see a definition of what unusual circumstances are apparently that's in the eye of the beholder also now what does it mean to conduct your affairs to be above approach or to work work in full cooperation with other public officials as you know in your dealings with other public bodies it's literally impossible to work in full cooperation at all times with other public officials but these are shoulds rather than shells let's assume for the sake of argument they mean the same let's assume just for the sake of this discussion that everything that was charged against Alderperson Meyer would be true right down to the last dramatic detail this still is not the basis for an ethics code violation political disputes mud slinging is nothing to political disagreements lead to short tempers they lead to insults sometimes the insults are very hurtful sometimes they're humorous in one of Lincoln's debates with judge Stephen Douglas in 1858 when Lincoln was running for Congress judge Douglas wanted the crowd to see him as educated and cultured and wanted to paint Lincoln as a poor commoner the Douglas said he wasn't sure how Lincoln's employment at a general store would qualify him to go to Congress considering the one of Lincoln's principal duties had been to sell glasses of whiskey to customers at the bar Lincoln's response was that he'd learned a lot about what the people thought from the hours he spent behind the bar including the many hours listening to judge Douglas who was leaning on the other side of it one of the most renowned slingers of political insults of course was Winston Churchill there was a aristocratic woman who felt that Churchill was a traitor to his class by supporting the Labor Party lady Aster Nancy Aster and a one-function she said to Churchill sir if you were my husband I'd poison your tea Churchill replied madam if I were your husband I'd drink it and recently the use of humor by Ronald Reagan in 1984 when he ran for re-election at the age of 73 and questions about his age came up his opponent water Mondale was a very young 56 Reagan said during a campaign speech others have mentioned the age issue well I disagree that it's a problem I'm not going to let my opponents youth and inexperience become a campaign issue now when you compare the charges against all-person wire to those incidents and ask how were those disputes solved they were all solved at the ballot box the voters decided which candidate they wanted and that's the way I think most people in the city of Sheboygan want it done if you want to be a representative of the people let the people decide if you're worthy what is the purpose in perpetuating insults arising from political rivalries I recall when I was a Cub Scout the Cub Scout packs had a summer baseball league I played on a team that happened to beat another team with a couple acquaintances of mine and one of the kids on the losing team came up and said well you may have won the game but you're fat that happened about 55 years ago I'm so fat but I still remember that comment insults hurt insults stay with you insults divert you from the public's business how many hours collectively have you spent as public officials thinking about this problem talking to others about this issue trying to decide how you're going to handle it later tonight when you convene as a council I understand you're going to be addressing the city's budget how difficult is it when you address that budget to look at which areas could be trimmed which programs that you've rejected should really be added if you had the money for it the budget is the greatest policy document this council deals with each year how you spend the taxpayers money tells the taxpayers what your political policies are have you been diverted from a thorough study of the budget and other important items of city business because of this so how do we get people away from personal tax how to get people to focus on debating ideas rather than attacking people can you respect the person you disagree with even if you don't like his ideas sure you can't it's not easy you might be able to persuade him to change his view if you use diplomacy and approach him privately and I'd remind you that this incident started with a private conversation that was not intended to publicly embarrass anybody when you challenge somebody's position in public you just run the battle lines the only effective way is to present your reasons for an action calmly truthfully without emotional overtones and without attacks against individuals or groups perhaps one way to do that would be a code of courtesy I don't think the code of ethics applies to this particular problem but if you adopted a code of courtesy you would have some guidance on what is and what is not acceptable behavior if you want to give that some thought I've prepared a very short draft for your consideration like to pass out at this time I can tell you in trying to develop this as a starting point for your consideration there are very few local governmental bodies that have a code of courtesy I think you will have the same problems in interpreting and enforcing a code of courtesy that you do with section 267 does it apply to specific situations has a person conducted themselves in their public and private affairs above approach what is courtesy what is politeness what is respect if you want to pursue this you can polices up with the way that you'd like it and introduce it to the council through the usual channels whatever out you take a respectfully submit to you that the charges against all the person Meyer simply do not fit within the code of ethics which is what she's being charged with if you're not pleased with what she said all the person Ryan please keep in mind that it was set in private and it was not all the person Meyer who decided to go public with it I have six young grandchildren and some aspects of this remind me one of them running to her mommy complaining that her brother said a bad word now what's the purpose of saying that to get the brother in trouble well how does that help my granddaughter what's accomplished by that nothing nothing positive is accomplished by personal attacks I think that's a classic example of childish behavior that's where emotions have overtaken reason because of political rivalries or past slights if you consider this as a violation of the ethics code be prepared for a flood of complaints from people who feel that some city official treated them disrespectfully and should come before this ethics board that's not what the ethics code was designed to do thank you thank you attorney referee and thank you all the person Meyer I have a number of lights flashing here I believe first as president Hannah thank you thank you all the person boy a couple things I just need clarification under that code 267 high standards of morality that fall into the shallow the mandated behavior and secondly we as a council already have a general rule of conduct provided by Mayor Perez and reference page 6 it says all the person's committee commissioners board members shall conduct themselves in highly professional and respectful matters when representing the city an answer to your first question attorney McLean would you want to comment on that please thank you mr. chairman I don't have a copy of the code right handy I think I've got one with me but they found it yet the language in 2-267 yes that says there's mandated language and there's recommended language according to a council rat I guess my opinion is the same as it was at the council meeting and I think I expressed it maybe it wasn't clear as possible but I guess I would agree with attorney Raptory from the standpoint that the the prohibitions are really the subsequent sections the this is sort of an aspirational provision in my view 2-267 I was asking he had made reference to high standards of morality did they fall under the mandate of the recommendation they're bound to observe in their official acts the highest standards of morality it falls under the same as really a mandate bound to uphold the Constitution the United States as well I guess the highest standards of morality is it's it's rather subjective as to what some of these morals is but instead the the main thrust of the ethics code is not you know ethical conduct in general it's personal and financial interests in your affairs as as an alderman as a department head as any city official and the dues and don'ts are really set forth in the other specific sections they can't use city property for personal gain and that sort of thing did you want to follow up president thank you yes I just and I think all of us have thought long and hard about the situation tonight and I would just I would like to really pose a question to my my fellow all their people and I asked this question is the conduct complained of such that we would want to condone or condemn it regardless of political alignments ethical lapses should be judged objectively as possible as opposed to subjectively ethical lapses should be judged without consideration of public sentiment ethics have more timeless of an element whether a specific act is ethical or not needs to be judged by a timeless standard thank you all of them Hannah the next later have flashing here is Alderman bulk thank you mr. chairman a lot of this depends on a lot of what we do tonight will depend on whether we believe the story that is out there about what happened out on that hallway and we have only the public record to go and so if you believe what happened if you believe the public reports there have been several opportunities for both parties to explain their side of the story there were newspaper reports at the beginning of this I had personal conversations with both of them before it grew to this level and that led me to to write my letter to our to the council and then there were more newspaper articles there were proceedings last Monday night for this story to get out there and in all of that I have heard nothing from the older person from the 7th district to indicate that there's been some sort of misunderstanding I'm not convinced that the older person from the 7th district has even acknowledged that if you believe what happened and we have no reason not to believe it because there's been no refuting of it if you are to believe that then the only conclusion you can draw is that there was a threat made to reveal private family information in order to manipulate future political outcomes and I can't imagine anything more against the highest standards of morality to quote the councilor's reference of section 2267 they are bound to observe in their official acts the highest standards of morality and discharge faithfully the duties of their office regardless of personal considerations you can talk about the word should you can talk about the word shall it says they are bound to observe in their official acts the highest highest standards so again the good presentation made by the councilor you can't invoke immunity by just saying it was a private conversation that doesn't get you anything that doesn't get you points that doesn't get you immunity just because you say it was private there's nothing private about that conversation and it wasn't an attack or an insult I love the Ronald Reagan quote I love all the councilors quotes I but that wasn't what happened in the hall if you believe if we are to believe that that's what happened and we have no reason not to believe it because there have been several opportunities for it to be refuted and it wasn't so if you believe that that's what happened in the hall then it wasn't an attack or an insult it was a threat there's a threat to manipulate future political outcomes by revealing private family information and and and why that's important and the councilor invoked that too I wish we hadn't spent the last two weeks counselor spending all this time on the silly matter not that it's a silly matter it's a very grave matter I wish we hadn't spent all this time that for the past two weeks dealing with this because we have had the budget on our mind and I know everybody in this room has put all their effort into the budget and has been an additional burden of this matter I wish it had but when something of this grave magnitude comes before us we can't dismiss it because it puts in jeopardy what everybody believes we are using the rationale that we're using to decide the other official business if we tolerate this kind of behavior if we believe what happened in the hallway and we have no reason not to believe it because there's been no refuting of it if we tolerate that behavior amongst this body then then that puts every judgment we make ambulance and fire service budgets early retirements it puts all that into question because why are you doing it are you doing it because you're afraid personal information is going to come out are you doing it because the numbers say what you believe the numbers say so I guess I'll close by asking one more time for the older person from the 7th district to take the opportunity to stand before her peers and acknowledge either what happened happened and explain to us why that's wrong I would just like to hear her articulate why that is potentially unethical why are we here and if she can't do that or won't do that then that makes it hard for me not to think that we need to deal with this with with strong measures because I'm not convinced if that doesn't happen I won't be convinced that she believes she did anything wrong and that for me would be a hard thing to swallow thank you thank you all of them in bulk my next late flashing is Alderman Gisha thank you Chairman Boran very much this is a sad evening for everybody I feel a lot of sadness for older person Meyer and for the rest of the council in the city we do have pressing business to move on to and I hope we can after this evening lawyers are interesting animals they they're an awful lot like magician they try to say look over here while they're doing something over here and and I understand that and that's the way the system works splitting hairs under the definition of must and should is like splitting hairs over the definition of the word is and what that means by diverting the issue please don't be diverted by the issue wonderful quotes and interesting little quips political mumbo jumbo from over the years that are wonderfully entertaining however it trivializes the issue we're dealing with here if Lincoln it stood up in that in that debate and said I got dirt on the other guy and if Lincoln doesn't shut his mouth I'm gonna bring up that we wouldn't be he wouldn't be quoting that that and he was exchange political insults are one thing this was not a political insult this was a personal attack and in my view a a threatening attack a diversion yes it's exactly what this is but this body didn't start the diversion so please do not put the burden of the process we're going through at the fault of this body we didn't do it we didn't start it we didn't say it we are dealing with it I do not fault Alderman Ryan for going to the media that seemed to be another attempt by the statement to to try to stop Alderman Ryan from that was bad that he went to the media I don't blame for doing that I don't blame for doing that if it was just a political quick argument as attorney Rafter he was talking about then I would fault him for going to the media for that because it was just normal political discourse this rises above normal political discourse keep the public's interest as your primary concern that was the quote for the spokesperson for all the person Meyer if this isn't that which is also contained in 267 I don't know what is yes it's a diversion I appreciate the the code of courtesy I think it's a very interesting document but I don't need a code of courtesy to tell me not to threaten another all about bringing up their personal and family lives I appreciate it would be a wonderful thing to look at but but some things are common sense and and maybe if I can go back now to city attorney McLean our question for you by everything that's said in your statements is this board fully within its authority to take action this evening and make recommendations this evening under the code of ethics we have yes or no not to take any action but to make recommendations to the council we're fully within our authority are the statute I believe so okay with that I would move to file resolution number 150 207 08 and move to pass the following and ask the council to pass the following I move to pass a censure of Alderman my well the person Meyer and ask for the removal of all the person Meyer as chairman of the committee of the whole second for the interest of the city so we can move on we have a motion to and a second to censor all her person Meyer and take away her committee chairmanship of the committee of the whole is there any discussion on that is there any discussion on the motion I have some lights flashing that are not on the motion first I'll take discussion on the motion if I could follow up go ahead Alderman I'm sorry that was a little improper to explain that action if you believe a a censure is an order which is no punitive action on a censor on a censure all the person Meyer would be replaced back as chairman of the committee the whole which then would make all the person Meyer the chairman of the ethics board and I think that would be incompatible with each other if you feel a if you're of a mind that a censure is appropriate so the two do tie together and and do make sense from public interest standpoint and and from a common sense standpoint they make sense to me together and that's why they are tied thank you thank you Alderman Gisha our discussion on the motion only Alderman Rindflash were you on the motion only go ahead please thank you Mr. Chairman it seems to be the motion is something similar that we asked for already on last week Monday a censure it seems like we could already been beyond this so I have no opposition to the motion itself except for the fact that the technicalities we were not able to actually hear both sides of story under oath of what did happen we're making some big judgments on saying this is a personal attack I wasn't there I didn't hear I've only heard one side of story it wasn't under oath I believe it happened and I believe the behavior was inappropriate we're gonna be taking a stand here to remove someone from it from a chairmanship without being able to hear the stories both under oath so if the motion continues I will vote with the motion but urge you to perhaps wait again if we all want to be beyond this that we can do this properly if we're going to take that that kind of stand all the eyes are dotted tees across and both parties are able to be heard in front of the whole committee under oath thank you thank you thank you all of them in place any discussion on the motion only Alderman Manning thank you Mr. Chair to vote the censure is to open a Pandora's box extremely vague area category we are called to uphold the highest standards it's highly subjective if we open this door and go this avenue we potentially tie up hundreds of our hours in the future with business that's an aside to the city's real business it was a sad moment in personal relationship but that's I think where it ends I think the attorney was correct any censure that should come comes at the ballot box and I believe the older person has already had a greater censure by virtue of the public exposure and discussion than any censure that we could thus give if that was our pleasure I think it's a waste of time and energy I think we need to move ahead with the business of the city there have been two basic responses in the city as I have spoken with people the first is outcry and outrage and the other is dismissive it sounds to folks as if we're adolescents and being caught up in personal innuendo I don't know where each of us falls on that spectrum but I think it's interesting to note those two responses in the life of our city it's a no-win the censor the censor has effectively already been been made publicly let's move ahead please vote down this motion thank you Alderman Manny point of order attorney McLean should I be taking the vote on the motion or can I continue with the lights that are flashing before I take the vote on the motion that's up to the chair but I would say if somebody wants to speak to the motion should probably honor that request I have I have three lights flashing first of all is Alderman Ryan did you want to speak on the motion Alderman Ryan or did you have some other comment I don't believe I'm obligated to abstain attorney McLean your opinion on whether Alderman Ryan should abstain it's a tough call and it's a personal call I prepared a letter to the to the mayor in response to his questions about about this and I said on the fly I used my judgment at the last meeting and when there was a motion to censure Alderperson Meyer I didn't feel that Alderman Ryan had a personal or financial interest in whether or not the council as a body censured Alderman Meyer any different than any other Alderman as a as an alderman if you look at again the ethics code as far as personal and financial interest if Alderperson Ryan was to gain something and I think this comes down to a personal judgment on Alderman Ryan's part he is accountable for voting or not voting or abstaining or not abstaining but the the ethics code speaks in terms of if there's a personal conflict personal interest or financial interest certainly I can see a certain amount of personal interest from a retribution type of standpoint but that would be more related to if Alderperson Meyer excuse me Alderperson Ryan was getting something out of the vote personally or financially which I don't believe he would be any more than any other Alder persons and I did give the opinion previously that Alderperson Meyer I think should abstain in that she does have a personal interest in this in that the the allegations being made against her and the the action is being proposed against her but I do think it's it's a close case as to whether Alderperson Ryan should abstain or not I think he's gonna have to use his conscience on that as I say the opinion I provided at the council meeting Monday night I think I have the same opinion I'm somewhat torn by whether or not indeed Alderperson Ryan has a personal or financial interest in the outcome of the action anymore or less than any other Alderperson thank you attorney McLean Alderman Ryan I'll I'll recognize you I do not want to rehash of what you said the other night I want you to keep your comments germane to tonight's discussion so go ahead very good sir I appreciate it first of all I I can in with a clear conscience vote on this for a reason that's because I've already lost I have nothing to gain I don't want to be here tonight doing this I'd rather be at home I have nothing to gain here I had nothing to gain from the start I had nothing to gain from being out in the hallway and I'll leave that at that as far as tonight's vote goes basically I think this is an issue of ethics ethics is morality dictionary definition of morality is the rightness or wrongness something is what was done right or wrong and that's basically the question that faces the council was it ethical was it not ethical it is subjective it's a matter of captions for people was it right was it wrong that's that's basically what it's all about one thing I can't say I want to put this behind us as a council you know what the citizens I didn't watch this to happen in the first place I can't believe it did one thing I can promise is that when this is over I have scheduled some meetings with different mayors of different municipalities to go over their code of ethics and how can they run a clean local government without constantly being in the newspapers looking like a bunch of bozos and I will take care looking like looking less than professional one thing I do promise is that when this is over regardless of the outcome and I do want it to be over tonight I will do my best hopefully with the help of all their persons on this council that have an idea in their mind of what ethics means that we will have a true code of ethics in this city thank you all of them Ryan Alderman Vanderbilt your next thank you Mr. Chairman I just want to say that assuming she said what has been said she said I I believe it was wrong assuming that's what happened but I feel uncomfortable censuring somebody without more of a formal hearing without a testimony without it being under oath so I will vote accordingly thank you Alderman Vanderbilt Alderman Montemayor thank you chairman the code book specifically warns us to stay out of this sort of hallway harangue I think attorney Beesing made it clear I think attorney McLean made it clear I think attorney Raftery made it clear this does not fall in the ethics code book that we're talking about and the public humiliation that Alderman Meyer went through last week certainly is plenty of punishment to last for a long time that's not what I would have hoped from us as a council as an ethics board thank you thank you all of them Montemayor are there any other Alderman that want to be heard before I call for the vote Alderman Wongerman thank you Mr. Chairman not to get off the point here the point has been made that an attempt was made through a veiled threat or a direct threat to influence a vote or to influence future outcome of voting this is the issue not whether bad or good things were said about someone not even did somebody lie I thank Alderman Montemayor for continually giving us legal updates but I too have a big book at home just like you have and I've read it okay so but thank you anyway and keep in mind this is what we're talking about was a threat made I have seen nothing to refute that what was the purpose of that threat this is what we have to look at and put aside all the other stuff all the smoke and mirrors that have been put before us but a threat was made and this is a serious thing and as Alderman Gisha said this is a sad night yeah it's a very sad night I'm pretty familiar with Sheboygan history and I can't find anything like it that I've ever seen in the past even in my lifetime and before so this council should hang their heads and sadness tonight because this is a sad night thank you thank you all of them and all of them involved did you press your button again yes sir go ahead thank you mr. chairman I have a procedural question and then I'd like to follow up with a comment for attorney McLean can you re-explain what is it that prevents us from if either party wanted to go under oath tonight what prevents us from that if anything number one it's not on the agenda number two the and I guess with my apologies to Alderman Gisha if this construed our conversation the the document that was referred to this board was not acted on by the council and the document called for the resolution called for the council directing the ethics board to convene and investigate that wasn't adopted by the council it was merely referred so to to start conducting an investigation under oath at this point I think is a due process issue where the parties haven't really been properly notified that they're even being investigated and all that this document was doing was being referred to this body for a recommendation back to the council as to whether to direct the ethics board to conduct the hearing so you know had the council passed resolution 150 207 208 last Monday night then I'd say you'd be in a hearing mode tonight assuming there would have been ample time to provide due process opportunity to be heard and so forth but okay well then given that there's no question about notification everybody in town knew that this piece was going to be talked about tonight and given the fact that Alderman Meyer has an attorney present is there any way that we could choose if she wants to is there any way that we can choose to give her the opportunity to speak is there anything we can do tonight to give her the chance to be heard you can ask her you know if you want to compel her to testify I would say no okay then I still have some comments I want to make after but I would just postulate the question or pose the question to us as a body do we want to grant ourselves grant our peer the opportunity to to speak her piece thank you all about I did extend that I did extend that opportunity earlier for either all of them all the person may or to be heard or her counsel and she chose her counsel at this time and that was my understanding and when she when she rules she said I want my counsel to do my talking tonight so that's what happened did you have a couple further comments yes sir thank you just for a second then then I don't see how we can we've given all the person Meyer every reasonable opportunity to disabuse us of the notion we have that of what happened out in that hall and her and her counselor are not going to do that and so given that it's a shame we shouldn't allow her counselor to trivialize by invoking his grandchildren to trivialize what we do here and we shouldn't I know that if you read the blogs or if you read whatever you're reading out there there are people as Alderman Manny referred to there are people that think this is trivial and I just couldn't disagree more you have 16 people who have spent a lot of time thinking about this we aren't acting on this quickly we aren't acting on this of hot temper there and we're not acting on this emotionally we're acting on this out of a sad sad notion that the way we want to behave was violated something we believe in was violated and so when children tattletail on each other that may or may not have consequences and unfortunately the alderman alder person from the 7th district has undergone and so has the alder person from the 4th district an unfortunate public hearing but that's that's not what we as a body do we as a body put things in law and and we have to react it's a little disappointing I know that Alderman Manny's a man of God and also a man of counsel you know he counsels people secularly I suppose and and he I would think that he knows that actions have consequences so I would I would ask just a couple more questions one is if a business peer said this to us at work we work for the same boss boy you wouldn't want our boss finding out about what I know about you and your wife would you would we think that was an ethical way to act at work if someone in our volunteer or our church life came up to us and said you don't want the priest to know what I know about you do you or you don't want the church trustees to know do you would we think that was ethical behavior for an applicant of a liquor license if an applicant for a liquor license came up to an alderman and said I better get my liquor license because guess what I know some stuff about you would we think that was ethical behavior I just it's a it's a sad sad night and what I think may be most sad about it is that some people think it's trivial and that's that's the most unfortunate part for me thank you for your your time thank you all the bulk I have time for one more and that is Alderman Rindflige chairman I guess follow-up on what we're we're hearing today the initial intent was to call us ethics board to investigate I watch a lot of CSI crime shows and investigation to me is go get the information look under every rock every aspect we can are we taking this role seriously to investigate right now I don't see that we are we've heard stories we have not heard both sides of the story yes she had the opportunity she did not do so but we have not actually put anybody under oath we are here you know what we hear is based on what my constituents tell me on the telephone what happened what the press said happened I don't know what happened and we haven't done anything to investigate that yet so I'd urge you that we can I would have loved to know this last week I spoke pretty loudly about that that we can move forward but trivialization to me seems as if what we're doing right now that we're going to jump and move quickly just to get past it now we started the process we might as well finish it and go be thorough all the way through otherwise to me seems like we're gonna be sweeping something under the carpet and moving on quickly just for the sake of moving on quickly I would have loved been done we're not so let's go all the way go back into counsel have counsel direct ourselves to investigate pass that resolution so that this body is enacted to put people under oath to investigate it and we'll get the answers then we know it happened we all know the attack happened on the hallway but I wasn't to see it with my own eyes I don't know what was said exactly on both parties we can find out then we can truly see what kind of punishment if any is required so I urge you I want to move this forward but I'm also going to now vote against this motion instead I would urge you to support a motion that we do go back we go into council and we do authorize this committee to do a thorough full investigation now thank you all of the renflights the council will have that opportunity on Monday night this this resolution that either is passed or not passed will go back to the council it'll be up to the council on Monday night whether they want to move forward with the with the ethics board further to do what you're you're asking Alderman Manny I can give you just a minute or two and then all I need thank you to note how slippery the slope is if we pass this censure this evening then and if all the person Ryan votes and votes to censure there may be 60% of us who find that unethical and a breach of clear conscience in pursuing the public good we could then bring all the person Ryan and the question we don't want to do that it's a slippery slope therefore I would recommend all the person Ryan that you abstain all of them both very quickly very quickly and the the power of a deliberative body is that if 60% of the people think that the members think that that rises to that level and are compelled by their moral their morality to do that then it would be absolutely incumbent upon this body to entertain that and it is a slippery slope but it is the the the thinking that it would take 60% of the people to actually think that thought and if they do then they're compelled to do it and I think tonight a majority is going to feel compelled to act on the fact that we just have no reason to not believe that that didn't occur because the the member unfortunately has had every and just to address what Alderman Ryan flesh mentioned it for me it's not speculation it's not newspaper reports I spoke to Alderman Meyer after it happened we had a long 20 minute or so conversation and I asked her to help me realize why what was going on in public was wrong and and she was not able to do that so for me it's not about speculation it's about a one-on-one I don't know what who in this body has spent time actually talking to Alderman Ryan and talking to Alderman Meyer but I have so I can cast my vote with a very clear conscience tonight thank you sir yeah I'm gonna I'm gonna call the question because we're running up against the deadline here I wish we had another 20 minutes but we don't we have another meeting scheduled at 7 o'clock so I'm gonna call the question and ask turn off these lights and ask madam city clerk to call the roll on the motion and would you please restate the motion before the council members will please sure there's a motion on the floor by Alderman Gisha second by Alderman Balk to recommend to the council to file res 152 0708 which is on your agenda and to submit a document to council to censure Alderman Meyer and to remove her as chairperson of the committee of the whole and I vote would be to do that so everybody understand the motion all the person can also need clarification yes and that means that goes to council for voting on at that time yes this is a recommendation to council to draft a document to censure that would state to censure Alderman Meyer and to remove her as chairperson of the committee the whole that would come in the council on the 3rd of December and this would be a recommendation to also file the current existing resolution check me to go ahead go ahead call the roll thank you and I vote would be what we said about Gisha Hannah Heidemann Kittleson Clayunas Manny Meyer Montemay or no Rindflash excuse me thank you Ryan Smith Vanderweel Wangaman and Boren I the vote is eight eyes five nose and two abstentions motion carries motion to adjourn second we are adjourned thank you very much