 Call the special meeting of the Common Council to order Madam City clerk, which please call the roll Bowman D. Berg I am here E. Berg I am here Serta I am here Davis I am here Graf I am here Kittleson I am here Manny I am here Manny I am here Excuse I am here Oh, there he is I am here Meyer I am here Montemayor I am here Ratki I am here Segali I am here Stefan I am here Susha I am here Van Akron I am here Van Akron I am here Van Derweel I am here 16 present Quarms present Alderman Kittleson, would you please lead us in the pledge? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Alderman Kittleson. Before we follow through with the agenda, I'd just like to make a quick notation for you. There's a letter on your desk that's being addressed to Mr. Emery from Great Wolfs asking for a meeting. There's an article coming out in the paper tomorrow about that and it refers to their 205 report of earnings or loss. Okay, first item on the agenda and the only item on the agenda, 2277 and RO by the city attorney submitting a communication, being an opinion from the League of Municipalities regarding the Library Director's Employment Contract as requested by the Common Council. As you will recall, several weeks ago the Alderman asked Attorney McLean to solicit and seek an opinion from the League of Municipalities and he did that and the opinion is in. I believe everyone of you has had a copy and a chance to read it. I've called a special meeting to have Attorney McLean talk to you about that opinion and give you an opportunity to ask questions and so forth. So Attorney McLean. Thank you, Your Honor. First of all, I made some extra copies if anybody didn't bring theirs along, I've got like eight extra copies. Is there anyone that needs a copy? I mean, it's always surprised me. I'll also hand it out kind of to complete your packets of information on this subject. The letter that I had drafted and sent to the League, which they responded to, as well as the copy of the opinion that the library had gotten from the Department of Public Instruction regarding their opinion on the library board's ability to contract for the term of employment with the library director. The opinion of the League is that in response to the first question I had asked whether or not the library board had the authority to enter an employment contract for a five year term, they answered that no. The basis for that is their opinion that the authority of library boards is strictly statutory, unlike the city itself, which is subject to, has home rule authority, meaning we've got very broad authority subject to limitations by the state. A lot of other entities, statutory entities, have statutory authority, which means that they've got the powers and only the powers that the legislature gives them. That's true of counties, for instance. Counties are instrumentalities of the state. You look in the statutes under counties, there are a list of, I don't know, sixty some odd enumerated authorities that counties have. They don't have home rule authority like cities that can legislate in any area unless the state says you can't. They're limited to what the state says they can do. The League is basically saying here to start out that the library board is constricted by their statutory authority and doesn't have broader authority than that. Basically, the authority that's in the statute 4358 is that the library board can appoint a librarian, and the librarian then appoints other employees, and sets the compensation and the duties. That's all it says. Now the Attorney General issued an opinion, and that's cited on the second page, back in 1988, that concluded that library boards had implied contract authority, and that the Attorney General got from another section of the library statute that talked about library board having exclusive control of the expenditure of all monies collected, donated, or appropriated for the library fund. It's interesting to note that that opinion that the Attorney General issued in 1988 was in response to a request for an opinion from Dr. Herbert Grover, who at the time was the superintendent of the Department of Public Instruction. I'll get to that in a minute as far as a request for a legal opinion by the council. The League is basically saying the library board's authority is limited to what's in the statute. The statute talks about hiring and compensation, and setting the duties does not speak of terms and conditions of employment. It cites this State X-Rail Wadawa v. Manitowoc Library Board case from 1949, and I had noted that case also in my letter to them. I thought potentially that case might be distinguishable from this situation, but the League is basically saying that that case pretty much is on point, standing for the proposition that a library board can't grant tenure to an employee of the library, because it's not statutorily set forth in the powers enumerated to library boards. That Manitowoc case didn't deal with an employment contract, it dealt with a 25-year term librarian in Manitowoc who was terminated by the library board there, and the individual argued, sued the library board, saying that because the library board had adopted some codes of ethics of the American Public Library Association that included in there was some reference to tenure, and therefore that she had tenure rights that in effect gave her more rights than just employment at will where she could be terminated for any cause or no cause. The court went to the State Supreme Court, the State Supreme Court concluded that the library board could not grant her tenure even if it was arguable that by adoption of these ethics code of the American Public Library Association that there had been any tenure included in that, and they couldn't do that on the basis that there wasn't statutory authority giving the library board that authority. How I thought potentially, and it's in my letter to the league, that that might be distinguishable from our case was in that the library contract that's in question was for a term, but also had provision for termination without cause, which is basically at will. But the problem is the at will language is modified by the fact that if the sprinkle was terminated without cause, there was a substantial financial penalty associated with that, that she was entitled under the contract to exercise a right to lump some buyout of the balance of the contract. The league is basically saying that limitation in effect overrides the employment at will and negates the fact that it's employment at will and the library board can't do that. The court cites another case, excuse me, the league's opinion cites another case, this Adamchuk case versus Caledonia. That was a more recent case from 1971, it didn't involve libraries, it involved the town employee, I think a police officer that was hired by a township, and once again in that case the court discussed that a township, again unlike a city, operates under statutory authority, designated statutory authority that's spelled out in the statute as to what authority a town has, and that the town could not exceed that authority by arguably entering into a contract with this police officer to give them a term contract. That dealt with a town board issue, but it's also in effect saying that the governing body there, in that case the town, which is subject to statutory authority, could not go beyond that authority, didn't have the power to do that. That's really the basis that the league is relying upon to conclude that the library board in this case doesn't have the authority to enter into a term contract. Also addresses the city's obligation to cover some commitment under the contract in the event that that were to happen and the library board didn't have sufficient funds to pay it, the league indicates that in their opinion only the city council is vested with the authority over city finances, and that authority is not shared with the library board, and the library board would have no authority to compel additional financial contributions to the library to satisfy any financial commitments that the library board might have made which exceeded its available funds, and further it cites another case to the effect that the library director would not be able either to make a claim against the city that it's entitled, or that she's entitled to payment from the city coffers because the library board couldn't bind the city on that contract because the city is not a party. It is noted in the opinion, in the case that there is a severability clause in the contract and that there are some provisions in the contract that could be severed, removed from the contract such as the five-year term, such as the lump sum buyout, such as the provisions, extraordinary provisions for termination with cause and without cause, and still have something left that would be within the library board's authority such as the statement in there of the compensation, amount of compensation, and the references to the benefits to which Sharon would be eligible. So, in their opinion, the entire contract wouldn't necessarily be invalidated, but a great bulk of it would be the primary factor behind it, the term of the agreement would be invalidated. As I said, the Department of Public Instruction had issued rather cursory one-page opinion citing that attorney general's opinion and kind of making the leap of faith there that if a library board has implied authority to contract, it can therefore enter into an employment contract for a term of years. But right now, I guess we're faced with, we've got opinions from what I would consider reputable sources, the Department of Public Instruction of the state, and the legal Wisconsin municipalities, which is not, you know, even carry any legal authority that's basically a lobbying organization for cities and villages, but pretty well respected throughout the state for their opinions. The issue is, I guess, what to do at this point. But before we get to that, I guess I'll see if anybody has any questions about the league's opinion. Alderman, Alderman, Stefan. Thank you, Your Honor. The letter you wrote, and then when they respond with the three questions, the first is that the municipal library board have the authority to enter into an employment contract. The next one deals with the lump sum payout and stuff. Am I correct that really after the meetings that took place and the renegotiation, two and three are kind of moot points as far as we're right now? You really were just on the hook for one? I mean, because didn't they get rid of the lump sum payouts? No, those weren't moved. The term of the contract was shortened. Right, and I thought they would just, it was agreed that she would get what any other department had got, you know, sick leave and stuff like that or whatever. She was still entitled to the lump sum if she was terminated without cause. Well, I guess I'm confused. Originally, I was under the assumption she was getting something if she got fired with or without cause, actually, that all the other department heads didn't get. And I thought after the negotiation took place, whatever she got when she left with or without cause would be similar to what any other department head would get with or without cause. Well, yeah, I think that's accurate. But the determination without cause as I think I explained once to the council with department heads currently there are under the ordinance terms for department heads, five year terms that provide for termination with cause. And if the department head was terminated without cause, it'd be my belief that they would have, could have potentially a claim against the city for compensation for the balance of the term if they were terminated without cause because the ordinance talks about termination with cause. And that would be consistent with what is in the contract for Ms. Winkle. Okay, my other question was in the DPI. It talks about the appointing of a librarian. Did we go through the process? Did they appoint her like the first time she got hired and that was it forever? Did they actually appoint one every year? Do you know? No, that's a one-time appointment. But the opinion is that that appointment is at the pleasure of the library board. The board has the authority to appoint, which implies the authority to terminate as well. And absent anything else has the right to terminate without cause at pleasure. Period. Okay, but didn't we, I think it was Tom Holt and we just, didn't we just appoint him? But is that because we appoint him and it says five years that it's different? That it's, we're talking about different authorities. Right, I understand that. The library board's authority, as I said, is set forth in the statute that just talks about appointment. Doesn't talk about appointment and compensation. Doesn't talk about terms and conditions. And the league is saying that the library board can't set the terms and conditions. Okay, thank you. Vice President Byrd. Yes, thank you, Your Honor. I guess following up on that line of logic. A contract is presumptive in agreement between Watermark parties. Is it, would it be within the library board's authority to appoint for a period of time? Similar to department heads. And to further more than as part of that appointment, essentially have the same language that they have in contract, which would then be unilateral. In other words, we appoint you with the following caveats and conditions. And not have that as a negotiated contract, but basically as part of their inherent powers. I believe the league is saying no, they could not do that. So, thank you. Their authority is to appoint, and they can't, by agreement or whatever, take away their right to terminate it will. Okay. President Gruff. Thank you, Your Honor. Following up on that, just a little bit. Could the city still, or if they so chose, could they do what Sharon has been saying, she's wanted all the time parity with all the other departments in the city. So, could the city or the mayor appoint her for a five-year term like he does any other department had approved by the council for that same period of time? It's a good question. Aller and Gruff and I called and talked to the league about that this morning. Their opinion is no, because the library board and not the council has the authority to hire and fire. And so, the council could not set a term of five years and abrogate the library board's authority to terminate it will. So, it places the library employees in a different status other city employees, which, you know, the league's response to that is well, that's what all the authority that the statute provides and that's all you can give. You should know also that the library board meets tomorrow and that this particular opinion is on their agenda for discussion. As it stands now, attorney McLean has explained, we have an opinion saying yes, it's okay and we have another opinion saying no, it's not okay. That's where we stand now. Now, as far as we go, where we go from here, I've looked at it and I see that there are three options. Let me just have Alderman Sousha first before we go. Thank you, Mr. McLean. Alderman Sousha. Thank you, Your Honor. I was going to ask the attorney McLean where we go from here. I knew you were going to ask. Very good. Where do we go? What are our options here? The first option and I don't know that it's a viable option is really to do nothing and maintain the status quo. However, in light of the league opinion that the council requested, I don't think that's really an option, but that's, you know, a possibility. I think the second option would be to request an opinion from the attorney general. I think Alderman Sousha had suggested that at the council meeting where we talked about getting the opinion from the league, I discouraged that at the time, but I think now may be the time that it's right to do that in that we've got basically conflicting opinions. Yes, attorney, let's just say something there that I was informed today by a member of the taxpayers' alliance that they have requested an attorney general's opinion on the validity of the contract and that request has been at the attorney general's office for the last, I believe, two weeks. So just so you know that somebody has already made an effort to secure an opinion by the attorney general to determine whether this contract is valid or not. I'll say the follow-up on that. I wasn't aware of that, Mayor, but typically the attorney general does not provide opinions to cities and villages. It does not provide opinions to citizens, typically, unless the major exception to that is in open records type cases. They're very active on writing opinions on open records and open meeting law issues. The attorney general generally provides opinions to state entities and state instrumentalities. It will provide opinions to state agencies such as the Department of Public Instruction. As I said, the opinion that's cited in the league's opinion from the attorney general was at the request of the Department of Public Instruction. So the city itself, we could make a request, but generally the attorney general won't honor a request from a municipality. The city, as I said before, is not an instrumentality of the state as opposed to counties and townships are. So anyway, that is an option. If chose that option, what I would suggest is that hopefully, I'll be meeting with the library board tomorrow, is that hopefully that could be a joint request by the council and the library board to the Department of Public Instruction for the Department of Public Instruction to request an opinion from the attorney general. I think if it was done in that manner, it'd be more likely that the attorney general would issue an opinion with a request coming in that way than it would otherwise. The last couple of attorney generals have been reluctant to issue formal opinions. They've written a lot of informal letter opinions and they might even do that in this case, but they haven't issued too many formal opinions. But as I was indicated, they did address the issue of library board contract authority back in 1988 and they may view this as an opportune time to sort of revisit that and flesh out that issue as it relates to employment contracts. I would say the advantages to doing that, to requesting an opinion from the AG's office would be that it wouldn't be costly. It wouldn't be hopefully real time consuming. While the attorney general's opinion would not be binding on the parties either, it would certainly be a pretty persuasive authoritative source. Courts do give persuasive authority or persuasive weight to attorney general's opinion. They're not bound by them either, but it would, I think, potentially all the parties could look at an opinion from the state attorney general and say basically this is the law. It wouldn't prevent anybody from going further and suing, but I think it may not be necessary to do that if we get an opinion from the attorney general. As I said, the disadvantage is it's not binding on the parties. It's discretionary on the attorney general's part as to whether they'll issue an opinion. Although I think their discretion gets reduced when it's the state agency, if it's the Department of Public Instruction requesting it, I'm not sure what their discretionary role is there if they have to give an opinion or if they still got some discretion but be a lot more likely that they would issue an opinion in that manner. The third option, the second viable option really would be, in my view, would be to initiate what's called a declaratory judgment action which is a lawsuit filed asking, basically raising the issue, that it's a legal issue, and asking a judge to make a decision as to what the law is, what the statute means. The advantage of that is it's binding upon the parties to the suit. The parties would need to be the city, the library board, and Ms. Winkle. The disadvantages there are it would be more costly, it's going to be more time-consuming. It would involve obtaining outside counsel for the library board so that they would have representation. And it would also potentially be more contentious because, like it or not, even though it sounds like everybody's kind of in agreement and we're asking a judge to make a decision on a point of law, any sort of lawsuit becomes adversarial and each party takes a different position. And even once a judge rules it's still subject to appeal so it will still not be the final say. So I guess I'm suggesting a kind of a measured approach to see if we can get Attorney General's opinion and to see if we do, if that would resolve the issue short of taking the next step, if you will, which would be a declaratory judgment action. Certainly getting the opinion, whether we got it or not, asking for it wouldn't preclude going to court eventually, but maybe we can avoid that. It's analogous, in my view, to seek mediation or arbitration as opposed to going to court. It's a way to hopefully get a third party to take a look at it and get the parties to agree that, yeah, that's the law without having to get more involved. We've got some questions here. Olemann Berg? Thank you, Your Honor. When Mrs. Winkle was hired 15 years ago, was there any time limit or term or anything instead at that time? No. So 15 years has gone by, floating along everything, hunky-dory. Why in the world, all of a sudden, there has to be a contract and money that's going to be paid out in case she gets fired for no cause or what cause. What in the world happened that brought this all about, that puts everybody in an uproar? This council, the city, you know, outside lawyers being brought in, it just doesn't make sense that for 15 years everything goes along supposedly fine and now all of a sudden contracts and everything else. Olemann Berg, I don't know if... I know what you're asking, but I don't know that it's relevant at this point. You really have to ask Mrs. Winkle. You know, I don't think we can go back and say, you know, why is she requesting it? You know, she did request it, the library board entered into it, and now we're in this situation. I may add that although it's not an option, it could be an occurrence. If Mrs. Winkle should decide to rescind the contract, then they would deal with the issue. But that's her choice to make, okay? Vice President Berg. Yes, thank you, Your Honor. You spoke with some uncertainty regarding the Attorney General's consideration of DPI requests. Would it increase the probability of consideration? Were we to ask the county to join with us in as much as there are county dollars that also go in to support the library? Would that balance, if you would, the request? Potentially, Olemann Berg, but I don't know. I think that would actually delay the delay at war. True. And I think they would have a tendency to beg off on the basis that really the county is not directly involved. Okay, thank you. To look at it as more of a city issue. Olemann Rettke. Thank you, Your Honor. If I'm reading this correctly, the library board, if they should choose to dismiss Ms. Winkle with no cause, it would have to pay on the slum sum, that would come out of their budget, would it not? It would have to come out of their budget, would it not? Yeah, that's what the league is saying, yes. And you're saying we can look at the Department of Public Instruction, but we could be sitting in a stalemate as well. I'm sorry? You're saying if we go to the Department of Public Instruction, we could end up with a stalemate as well if they come back with an opposing opinion, like we have here in this simple document that was passed on actually the library board meeting, which I read up front. Is that correct? I'm not following the Olemann Rettke. Well, if the Department of Public Instruction comes back and they do get a Attorney General's opinion for us, and it comes back the same way this one comes back, then we're at a stalemate once again, correct? Well, I would be very surprised if the Attorney General would write a half-page opinion. Well, I'm saying, but I'm saying if it comes back agreeing with this half-page opinion. Well, if they agree with that, then so be it. I guess the problem I have in my mind is we have a library director spending for 15 years and everything was running correctly, and all of a sudden something happened, and these people supposedly love this library, but it's a future library board for some reason decides to tie into getting rid of Ms. Winkle. This could affect the services of the Meet Public Library. If I follow it, is this correct? I mean, with the budgetary and everything else, they're going to have to come up with the money to do it, to pay her off, correct? The city's not on the hook for any of it, according to this from the League of Municipalities. Thank you. Holderman, Serta. Thank you, Your Honor. I'm thinking of a fourth option here. I guess first I need clarification because Sharon Winkle, she has the option of rescinding her contract, but I thought I was under the impression that the library board approves her contract. They're the ones that put it into effect, so could they not rescind that decision? It would be number one. I guess speaking of a fourth option is just courtesy to see if they would reconsider their decision. Now that we have this information, maybe they're willing to take out those provisions tomorrow and start there and then proceed further. I didn't catch everything you said at the end there, but I'm meeting with the library board tomorrow at their meeting and I'm going to discuss this also and I guess I don't know that they could unilaterally terminate the contract. They certainly could, but then you've got the issue that Ms. Winkle could call out a breach of contract and seek the lump sum payout that's in there and you still have the issue as to whether it's valid or not. Alderman Mani. Thank you, Rader. First of all, a question for Attorney McLean. What's the timeframe in which we'd have such a decision? From the Attorney General. I'm sorry Alderman Mani, I don't know. I don't know how long it would take. I do know, we requested an opinion a number of years ago on an issue of statewide concern dealing with the location of community-based residential facilities, spacing provisions. There's a statute that says you can't locate them within 1200 feet of one another, I believe. And there was a series of federal cases under the Federal Fair Housing and Amendments Act that said that those sorts of provisions were unlawful under federal law. And we asked for an Attorney General's opinion on whether the state provision was valid and they did give us an opinion on that. And my recollection is it did not take a real long time. You know, I'm thinking 30 days. Thank you. That goes back probably 12 years ago. Thank you. Then a comment or two. Just put in context, I think we need to move ahead and not at this point look at what's been or what we might have been able to do better. You know, I voted against the contract originally as I sit on the board and I say very clearly the board's intent was not to overload. The intent of the board was to find some sense of parity. Now, in fact, in the real world, as McLean has suggested to us, there is some semblance of parity. It's closer than it was originally with the first contract. Now, in fact, if we would let Tom Houlton go, for instance, without cause, he could and would sue the city and he would win if it was without cause in that five-year term. So we, as a city, would pay. If the board dismissed Ms. Winkle without cause, she would contractually have those dollars. The board would pay. Service would be cut, obviously, to come up with those dollars. So there is a semblance of parity, but it's not on a par legally. It's a different methodology to get to the same end. So I want to be clear about that. And just to reiterate as well, there's, in my mind, there's no chance she will be released without cause. It has to be a unanimous vote. So long as I'm in this seat, so long as any other alderman is sitting on that board, and there will be always one appointed by the mayor each year, I can't imagine such a vote ever occurring. It's inconceivable not to mention the members of the board itself. So it's an overprotection that's, in my mind, a legal fallacy because it has no possibility of ever happening in the real world. So we need to move ahead. The board is, in my mind, as I read the board at this time, not at all looking for conflict, wanting to move ahead with their work. I think they'll be happy to deal with whatever the attorney general says to honor that perspective and to move ahead. And that's where we all benefit. Thank you. I was one of the persons who wanted to move ahead. But this opinion changes things dramatically. It puts an additional responsibility on us that we need to be careful how we address. Alderman Serda's fourth option, proposed fourth option, in my mind is probably the first step we should be taking. And it's simply ask, would you be willing to rescind the stipulation of the contract by mutual consent? If the answer is no, then we know where to go. Although it's a fourth option, I think it's the first step that we, as reasonable people, should take and simply ask. And we'll be told yes or no. And that question can be put forth tonight and presented to them tomorrow and then we'll have a response. And then we know what we should do. We have President Graf. Thank you, Your Honor. City Attorney, you mentioned that you'd be attending the meeting tomorrow night. And you're attending that meeting as the city's representative or as the library board's attorney or how are you attending that meeting? That was a good question. Basically as the city representative, yes. In the past I had attended, in my role as city attorney, I represent not only the city council, but also the boards and commissions and so forth. And so I attended as representing the library board at prior meetings. But knowing that there's a potential conflict here, I'd be representing the city. Then as a representative of the city, you would be bringing forth any motion that we may be making this evening to present to the library board. I'd be happy to do that. Okay. With that being said then, I would move, Your Honor, that we would present the library board with Alderman Serta's suggestion of asking if she would remove those clauses from her contract or tear it up or whatever needs to be done. And then at the same time also direct the city attorney that if the answer is no, then to work on getting the attorney general's opinion if the answer to the first question is no. There's a motion to second to request the library board to consider not the library board to have Ms. Winkle consider resending either the entire contract or those portions of the contract that are being regarded as invalid now. And there's a second. Any discussion on that? We have Alderman Steffen. Thank you, Your Honor. I guess I can't support this. And part of it goes back to the couple of people mentioned everything was fine for 15 years. Why, what caused this? What caused this was she didn't feel there was parity with the other department heads. And over a period of time, they were trying to find a solution and this is a solution they came up with. Okay, maybe it wasn't the best idea. But if I was in her shoes tomorrow and you asked me, will you rescind it? I'd say, sure. What are you going to do to get me towards my parity? And I haven't heard a solution to that yet. You know, I don't know that there is one that we can do what we talked about earlier. We can only do so much library board can do so much. But I guess if we go with that question, we should have an answer to her of how we're going to achieve parity so she's treated fairly with the other department heads. And I haven't heard that answer yet or how we can accomplish that. Without that, I can't imagine she'd want to say, yeah, I'll rescind it until she knows there's a possibility so she could be an equal person. And I don't know how she feels. We're human beings. We can change our minds. One factor can cause us to go in one direction. This may be the factor I don't know. But I think that Alderman Serla's recommendation is a good one because it takes an initial step to simply ask. And if the answer is no, then we know where to go. But with respect to putting her in parity with everybody else, after it all is settled, it's still not our job. The library board has to do that. This is the employee of the library board, not us. So that's not an issue that we should be really concerning ourselves with other than we can convey our feelings to Alderman Manny who's the Aldermanic representative to the library board. We have next, Alderman Ratty. Thank you, Your Honor. I can't support this myself either. She's had her chance over the last almost two months to rip up that contract, make things right. This is just another stall tactic to give her, keep dragging this thing out and out and out. It's time we put this thing to rest and go out and get an opinion one way or the other and just put it to bed. Setting it back to the library board again, it's not our job once we find out, she's going to tear it up, what kind of parity. That's not our job. Our job is to see to it that that contract is either illegal or illegal, and that's it, we're out of it. That's what we're here to do tonight. I think we should just go get that opinion so I can support this motion. And the opinion will be asked for if her answer is no. And that's all we're saying is that as rational people, reasonable people, it doesn't hurt to simply ask, let her tell you yes or let her tell you no. And whatever the answer is, we know where to go. That rhymes. Sounds like a poem. Alderman Manny here next. Thank you, Your Honor. Just wanted to reinforce what Alderman Stephan really pointed out, and that is, if we go ahead and ask this, and if she said yes, she will rescind the contract and forego her legal rights. In essence, she's left in limbo because of the law. We can't draft an ordinance that would give her a five-year term to have parity with our department heads. That was my first thought as this conversation was going. Maybe that would be a way to go. Legally, if we drafted such an ordinance, that would have no legal standing in the state. So she has no rights, which means the issue is the state legislation. If that's too restricted, too constricted, that has to be addressed. If, in fact, an issue of security is an issue across the state for library board directors. So that's one area of recourse. It's not an immediate one, but it looks like that might be an issue to look at. Just a point of clarification. Alderman Manny, she would not be left in limbo. She would be put back to where she was before, where she worked 15 years already. So she'd be back to the position she was under the same terms and conditions for lack of, that she was already working for the last 15 years. So there's nothing going to be taken away from her. She'd be willing to do that. We've got lots of lights here. Alderman Meyer. Thank you, Your Honor. I believe in communication, and I think that's been the whole problem that we've had here with the library board, has been a lack of communication. And I guess my question is, why couldn't Ms. Winkle have had a term? Could not the bylaws of the library board have changed to have offered her a four or five year term? And we would avoid it all these problems. The legal opinion is saying no. The library board can't set a term. Whether it's in their bylaws, or whether the city adopts an ordinance, it's not in the cards. And that's why it may be helpful to get something from the attorney general. Maybe they've got a different take on that and see it different. And I personally, you know, I've dealt with the attorneys at the league for a long time and respect them. But their opinions don't carry the weight of an attorney general's opinion. Thank you, Your Honor. You've answered lots of questions tonight. I understand very clearly, as you explained, this information that we received. So I thank you for that. And Mayor Perez, thank you so much for reiterating that lots of things have to do with the library board. And I think slowly, step by step, we need to act, but not be reactionary. I think the idea of talking to the library board tomorrow, because it is their venue, it is their call, asking the question, and then perhaps asking the opinion if we need to. Alderman Susha. Thank you, Your Honor. I think that I'm going to have to agree with Alderman Radke on this. I think what he was saying is that by having a declaratory judgment, we would have something that would be enforceable. If we take the time and get an opinion from the attorney general, it's just another opinion. And there's no guarantee that Ms. Winkle will agree to tear up her contract after that ruling comes in. Perhaps the library board might agree that they might want to tear it up. But it's my understanding that both parties would have to agree to tear it up. Or perhaps Attorney McLean can answer if Ms. Winkle wants to eliminate her contract. She can do that without the board approval. Isn't that true? Well, it's really a two-party contract would require consent of the library board as well, but I don't see why they would not agree to that. Okay, so I guess that kind of brings me to the next question as well, is that if we initiated a declaratory judgment, it really boils down to Ms. Winkle agreeing to do it. Because like you said, if she agrees, the library board would support it as well. So I'm thinking that you don't want to go into a court situation where you have the taxpayer dollars paying for a city attorney, then you have taxpayer dollars paying for a library board to have an attorney present. I would rather see just the city go to court with Ms. Winkle, and she can pay for her own private attorney to fight the case for her, because she's the one that ultimately is benefiting financially here as well. And then my third point is that if there's some concern here about parity, as far as if we can't give her the five-year term like other department heads have, then maybe it's time that we consider going to all employment at will with all of our department heads and get rid of the five-year terms with the rest of them. Because if what I'm hearing here tonight is true, that our hands are tied, if we have a five-year term and we decide to adjust the table of organization and eliminate one of the department heads, if we merge two departments together, am I hearing correctly that we would have to pay out that department head for three or four years because they have a so-called term? Would that be the case? Well, you wouldn't have to automatically, but I believe that a department head who has a five-year term that's terminable with cause would have a right to file a claim against the city for compensation based on that five-year term if they were terminated without cause. And, you know, they'd make a claim and if we didn't agree to it, I think they could sue and I don't see why they wouldn't have a pretty good chance of prevailing. Thank you. I mean, I think that's another thing that we should look at then is that rather than give her the five-year term, then let's consider eliminating the five-year terms for the rest of the department heads and then everybody's at will and then if we need to restructure the table of organization, our hands aren't tied. So at this point in time, the way the motion is worded at the opinion from the Attorney General, I too will vote against it because I guess I'd rather see a declaratory judgment, something that's going to hold water and bring this issue to a close. Thank you, Alderman Susha. Thank you, Alderman Susha. As a point of clarification, Alderman Recky did not say he wanted a declaratory judgment. He wanted an opinion before even going to ask whether she would be willing. So that was the issue. The one thing you need to remind, remember is that if an Attorney General opinion is going to be basically pretty much cost neutral, it's not going to cost us anything and it may resolve the issue. If we go and file a lawsuit, a declaratory judgment, it's going to involve cost and it may involve a lot more time as the parties stretch it out. It's just something for you to weigh on those options. Alderman, Vice President Burke. Thank you, Your Honor. I just have a couple of questions that would be reasonable to believe that if an individual was, for example, asked for a declaratory judgment, that individual could also ask to have the library board named as co-defendants. Would that be reasonable? In which case we are in a situation where the taxpayers are buying the bullets for the library board and the council to shoot at each other. And I just think that for me is just untenable as if you would as the first move we make. I think Alderman Steffen and Alderman Radke had indicated displeasure with asking directly for the library board and the library director to reconsider the contract. But they were in agreement with the second part of the question which really asked that we pursue the opinion with the library board of the Attorney General. Therefore, I think I would ask that we split the question because it seems like we're arguing. We're speaking to a bifurcated question here. One, asking the library director and the library board to reconsider. And the second part of that being asking the library board to join with us in seeking an attorney general's opinion. So I'm asking to split the question, please. Is that a motion to divide the question? Right. Second to that motion? Second. Just one and I won't. Just a second. Who did the second? I'm sorry. Thank you. Just an eyeball. Just an eyeball. Okay. We're going to split the question if everybody understands. Instead of in one motion as President Groff stated and it was second by Alderman Serda that we asked the library director to consider either rescinding or not and if she would not then the city attorney would be directed to solicit an attorney general opinion. The way it's going to work now is we're going to vote to divide it so that one motion will be to ask the library director and a separate action will be to ask for an attorney general opinion. Anybody clear on that? Okay. The motion is to divide the question. Okay. Yes. On that question because I've got lights all over the place here we still haven't gotten done. Excuse me. Alderman Manning. I believe that the second part of that then would be that we and the library board together through the DPI approach attorney general. Correct. I think that's what I would like to see. I would like to approach the library board tomorrow and ask them to join in seeking the opinion. If they choose not to then we'd go ahead and request it on our own I guess but I think it would be a stronger request if it came in jointly. Thank you. I think it would be a better motion if we just did it in one but let's go. Regarding the motion. Yes. Regarding the motion President Graf. Thank you. I'd rather have it as one motion also but I will support splitting it if it means it's getting passed but one thing I want to say we started off this conversation by saying we thought there was a lack of communication and so forth and now we're going back to basically running the same thing with we have to rule or govern by conflict. Why can't we govern by communication? Absolutely. And that's why I think we should do this as one motion but I will support it so that we get over this. Okay. On the division Alderman Sousha. I still have lots of Alderman just be mindful I see your lights and I'll get to them there's a lot of lights popping up and they pop up in the order that you activate your button so this is just on the division. Alderman Sousha. Right. Thank you Your Honor. I just want to throw this on the table before we vote on this because I think that perhaps another option would be is to keep this together and rather than split it apart is to actually add to it. Okay first we ask them tomorrow being that they're meeting tomorrow this is just 24 hours later ask them what they're thinking then you could get the opinion from the Attorney General's office but if we could amend it if this motion fails what we could add is that then we would seek a declaratory judgment if they don't rescind the contract after the Attorney General's opinion comes in because otherwise if the Attorney General's opinion comes in and we're still faced with the same situation then we're going to be coming back here again well now what are we going to do and then obviously we're going to take them to court so I would say we should not split the question what we should do is if the motion fails we should amend it to add the third step I'm going to ask for a roll call because normally I would ask for an aye vote but I want a roll call on this Madam City Clerk please call the roll this is just to our division of the question the aye vote would be to divide it into two the nay vote would keep it in one okay Bauman Dieberg Eberg Serta Davis Graf excuse me thank you Kittleson Manny Meyer Montemayor Ratke I'm sorry Jeff Sigali Stefan Sushia Vanakren Vanderweel Seven Ayes, Nine Noes Motion fails we're back to the original motion and that motion was to ask make a request to Sharon Winkle to consider resending by mutual consent or those stipulations that are in conflict or in question or the entire contract the answer being no then we will pursue an opinion from the Attorney General everybody clear on that please call the roll sorry all of you Stefan I'm sorry on that okay we're back to that thank you Your Honor I'm thinking about offering an amendment I think I can see the logic of going and asking but like I said I'm just not comfortable with why would she give that up when we're not giving her anything I think the better thing would go to say how about if we go to her and the library board and say we'll agree that we'll abide by whatever the Attorney General says that way she has a chance you know I mean it's kind of ludicrous to me to think we're going to go ask the Attorney General and then we're going to already tell him now today if we don't like what the Attorney General says we're going to move towards the declaratory you know I mean we're going to live with it we're going to live with it if we're not going to why go to the Attorney General if we're going to only agree with their decision if we like it you know I think maybe by going and asking the library board and the director we're going to submit to the Attorney General and we'll all three agree to abide by that and we can do that without making that an emotion I mean that's when the Attorney if the Attorney General opinion would be solicited it comes in we could tear ourselves we're done with it but I guess I'm saying I'm sorry if we all agree ahead of time I mean still I suppose you're not held to that but you know we're all the library board people are respectful you know I respect for the life for the director also I don't think anybody would you know change their word on that thank you all Mr. Steffen on the same issue some of the lights were blinking I have all of them to golly thank you Mr. Mayor what I'd like to know if we have no control over the library board why then will we have to pay their attorney if we took this to a lawsuit if we have no control over them anyway then why should the city be paying for their attorney because they're a city entity and they should be entitled to representation that's why we don't have any control over them I mean the library board kind of does what they want to do I mean they did this contract etc. without the city knowing about it so on an understanding then why we would have as taxpayers the taxpayers would have to pay for their attorney because they're a city entity they're an instrumentality of the city and you do have some control and you have the purse strings primarily I think they'd be entitled to it to representation typically that representation is provided by my office but where there's a conflict I couldn't ethically represent both sides so they'd be entitled to representation thank you Mr. Galli and Hulman Susha's next thank you Your Honor I'd like to try to attempt to amend the motion and add to it if the contract is not rescinded after the attorney general decision we authorize and direct the city attorney to take the necessary steps to obtain a declaratory judgment on whether this contract is legal does that defeat the original motion? changes completely? I don't know I guess you're the chair you're going to make a ruling on that I don't know if it does or not the problem with that is if the attorney general gives the opinion that the library board has that authority I'd like to come back to you this is what the attorney general has to say what do you want to do from here I don't know that it would be warranted to go to court beyond that but that would be your decision you could make that call now but I'd be inclined to want to wait until you got the opinion from the attorney general I don't want to get into a practice of changing the character of the motion we've had instances before where we did and the original motion was to ask the library director and the client to know what to get an opinion your amendment changes from ass and the attorney general says no we go to completely cost-earning so it changes the motion I would rather us have that if that fails then you can make your motion so back on that on the original motion Mayor can I just ask Alderman Steffen because I have you as making a motion to amend so that's nothing that was just discussion thank you on the first question again we've got light popping up we're discussing the issue under discussion of asking Sharon Winkle to consider by mutual consent to be said and if that answer is no then we solicit an opinion that's where we're at now that's under discussion sorry I would prefer as opposed to formally as council asking her to rescind that can be communicated personally and I think a personal issue like that is better communicated in that way private conversation this is an alternative that you could consider the board's perception is an issue as well sitting on the board I think the board would prefer simply here's something the council wants us to do collegially we go together to the Attorney General through the DPI in that conversation Ms. Winkle would offer an alternative that would be seen as something they could consider and well discuss but but if it comes in a formal overture from this council it bears much more weight and can feel like further pressure and undo the softer approach the mutuality of dialogue which has been mentioned is essential and let them deal with that as they choose if she would make such an overture and if not we have something productive to do together to resolve this and that's what I'm concerned about thank you Alderman Serta thank you your honor the issue of parity has come up over and over again tonight and it is very important but I believe that we're putting the cart before the horse it's important yet according to the opinion that we received it's just not feasible at this time but it doesn't mean that even asking if Sharon Winkle is willing to consider to rescind her for provisions that we collectively as a council and a library board can pursue to see if that's something that we can do in the future together that doesn't stop us, it doesn't hinder us it's just not feasible at this time and it might be a good way to maybe start building some bridges together and working together thank you sir to Alderman Kittleton thank you your honor I was just going to agree with what Alderman Steffen had said that we ask her to rescind and then get the opinion from the attorney general and then we abide by that however with the conversation I think what attorney McLean said is the way I am thinking in the direction that I'd like to go is just ask her to rescind and then put it to the board with the common counsel to the attorney general and then maybe abide by what he says as the expert that we come back and take it from there thank you Alderman Kittleton Alderman Ratty thank you your honor I think this council should go forward and ask for an attorney general's opinion without involving the library board the library board has never once come up here when we've dealt with this Sharon Winkle made a statement ran out that back door never talked to anybody about any of this enough communication has never been there we talked about resignations on that board none of those people came here not one of them, not one to defend themselves so here we are once again tonight talking about this I think we as a council need to go forward ask the attorney general for an opinion I'm sick and tired of hearing the big bad counsels coming after us again from the library board people I've heard that out of library board members I don't appreciate that I have a job to do for the citizens and I don't want to see the Mead Public Library dragged through any more than it already has been if these people truly cared about this Mead Public Library we wouldn't be sitting here tonight debating this issue it would have been done a long time ago because it would have never happened if they really truly cared but they don't evidently do that because we're here tonight debating something that should have never happened to begin with thank you all the lights are out I guess I'm really offended by that statement I think these people do care I think they did have good intentions maybe they didn't see the big picture but I take great offense to the fact that they didn't care about the library and I just think it's a terrible statement and I don't think I've seen a lot of us at library board meetings it's one thing to say they should come and talk to us but we can go talk to them also thank you I will thank you all those in favor of calling the question say aye aye please call the roll do we need a reminder of what we're voting on yes okay what we are voting on is a motion proposed by Alderman Graus second by Alderman Serra to ask Sharon Winkle the library director to consider rescinding either of those portions that are of concern now or the entire contract by mutual agreement if the answer is no then we ask the city attorney to solicit an attorney general's opinion on the issue is everybody clear that's the question I would like to clarify that I'd like to request the library board to join in on that yes that was I missed that okay are we okay everybody alright ready to vote please call the roll D. Berg D. Berg Rada Davis Manny Meyer I'm sorry Montemayor Radke excuse me Segali Stefan Sushia Van Akron Van Der Wiel and Bauman who passes do we need to file this oral is a motion second to file oral 277 we just discussed all those in favor say aye any opposed motion carries second all those in favor say aye we stand adjourned