 Call to order. This is the 10th regular meeting of the 2011-2012 Common Council, and as is customary, our city clerk Sue Richards will give us the quote of the evening. Thank you, Mayor. All of life is a journey. Which paths we take, what we look back on, and what we look forward to is up to us. We determine our destination, what kind of road we will take to get there, and how happy we are when we get there. Thank you, Sue. Real call, please. Belt. Here. Warren. Here. Carlson. Here. Decker. Hammond. Here. Hammond. Here. Heidemann. Here. Excused. Hoth. Here. Kittleson. Here. Manicheck. Here. Rinflesch. Here. Racler. Here. Sampson. Here. Van Akron. Here. Vanderweel. Here. And Versey. Here. 15 present. We have a quorum. Now if we can all please join Alderman Hammond in the Pledge of Allegiance. 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, Joel. Looking for approval of the minutes of the prior Common Council meeting, President Rinflesch. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move that we approve the previous minutes. Second. We have a motion and a second. Under discussion. There is no discussion. All in favor of approving the minutes. State aye. Aye. Opposed? Minutes are approved. Public forum. Sue. Thank you, Mayor. I just would like to take a few minutes of everybody's time. All your Alderman have a document in front of you that I did this afternoon. If you want to follow along. Basically it's talking about the public forum and the procedures behind it. There have been a few issues raised over the weekend regarding how the public forum is handled by the city clerk's office. This process is directed by council resolutions that have been passed over the years. October of 1999 there was a resolution passed to increase forum from 15 minutes to 25 so as to give five persons five minutes each to speak. September of 2004, again 25 minutes established so that anyone wishing to speak on a subject relevant to city government would be given five minutes to speak. December of 2006, a resolution passed giving priority to city residents and city taxpayers to speak at the public forum during a council meeting. The process is very simple. We operate totally on a first come first serve basis. The public may request a spot on the public forum at any time for any council meeting. The public forum for tonight's meeting was full by about a week ago today. We already have somebody signed up for public forum for the September 6 council meeting. This afternoon at approximately 3.45 p.m., the first person on our list for public forum called INSEC. We then called the next person that requested a spot a week ago to speak and she was told the public forum was full at that time. I found myself in front of a camera with TMJ4 news on Saturday evening at my home defending the process that the council has directed me to follow due to past Alderman Gillette's questioning that he was denied his right to speak this evening at the public forum. The Sheboygan Press has also questioned me today regarding excluding Mr. Gillette from the public forum. The clerk's office operates on the highest level of integrity. We always have, we always will. This is disturbing that the integrity of my staff and of myself are in question over something that the council has set policy over several years. On May 16th of this year, the council passed a resolution adopting general rules of order procedure and conduct for committees, councils, and the public. In that document, it clearly states the procedure for public forum up to five persons for up to five minutes. I have put all the resolutions and the procedure books on your desks and I have many extra copies that could be had by the public. I hope this puts to rest the doubt and the questions regarding my office and how we administer it, administer the council's direction. And on that note, I'd like to call the first person. The name would be Susan Hunley. Would Susan Hunley be here? Susan Hunley? Is there anyone in the hallway? And the next person would be Joanne Scrivner. Joanne, if you could come up to the mic please. And can I have your full name and your home address? Joanne Marie Scrivner, 3 Seneca Trail. Ma'am, you will have five minutes. I have seen Mayor Bob Ryan doing some very good things in public like I had mentioned last two weeks ago. Like frying brats, hot dogs, hamburgers at the Little Red Schoolhouse for the neighborhood cleanup day there for the Gateway neighborhood. I saw him at the Blue Harbor Spaceport for the Rockets for Students Day. He was proclaiming Sheboygan Spaceport Rockets for Students Day. He was joking around with astronaut Michael J. Foreman. I saw him taking a ride with Chad Peleshik. I was out there in the front of City Hall one day and they were taking a ride somewhere to some development, some future development. Again, he explained to me one day in his office how a TIF works. He answered some of my questions about how city government works. I've seen him walking or riding in Memorial Day 4th of July and broad day parades. I saw him this past Memorial Day at the Muang dedication honoring one of the Muang leaders that had died recently. I saw him at the Sheboygan County Memorial Airport along with his wife Mary for a victory celebration in November 2010 for people like Ron Johnson, Scott Walker, Joe Leibhem, Steve Costell, Mike Ensley, Dan Lemihue, and Todd Preby. Last but not least, Mayor Bob Ryan had the intestinal fortitude to be in the public eye to face possible ridicule from his enemies and foes and to sumo wrestle against the likes of Chief Herman, Chief Domegel's killer that didn't happen. It got too hot and human, those things are hot when there's inflatable suits on a 95 degree and what about 95 percent, I think, keyed index. So he's done some fabulous things. I mean, that'd be tough. I don't know if I could be out there in the community after all of the accusations leveled against me. That takes guts to do that. Malfeasance in government. So I went and checked my Webster's deluxe color edition, New World Dictionary of the American Language, second college edition, copyrighted from 1970, 72, 84, et cetera, published by Schuster and Simon of New York, New York. Malfeasance is wrongdoing or misconduct, especially by a public official, commission of an act that is positively unlawful. Distinguished from misfeasance or non-feasance. Of course, then I had to check out what misfeasance means. That means, well, first let's go with non-feasance, failure to do what duty requires to be done. Distinguished from malfeasance and misfeasance. I'm not sure that when he was out and about, he was failing to do what requires to be done. As mayor, he's always done, as far as I'm concerned, what's required to be done. He certainly is promoting business here in Sheboygan. Development, apartments, things like that. Oh, here's misfeasance, wrongdoing, specifically the doing of a lawful act in an unlawful or improper manner. So that there is an infringement on the rights of another or others. Distinguished from malfeasance and non-feasance. Do you have it all straight now? Camera phones, are they not invasion of people's privacy, like I said again, last two weeks ago? As far as misconduct in government, remember the 14 Democrat senators that were hit out in Illinois in February and March for three weeks, I believe it was, not doing their jobs. They didn't want to vote. We paid them to be in Madison. They were not there. That's misconduct in government, clearly. Remember Charlie Rangel, all the ethics violations that he had? Clearly misconduct in government. Remember Anthony Wiener, sexting, clearly misconduct in government. How about Ram Emanuel, somehow becoming the mayor of Chicago without even fulfilling the one-year residency requirement to live in Chicago before being able to be allowed on the ballot, but yet he's the mayor. How does that work? Oh, and don't forget Governor Raleigh Blagojevich of Illinois. What, he tried to, what, sell Senator Obama's Senate seat for the highest bidder? Of course, he's in, I think, behind bars now. Excuse me, Joanne, do you need your extra minute? I do. And who can forget of the United States, Bill Clinton, and Monica? Who can forget that? And what happened? Clearly misconduct in government. Did he get voted back for four more years? Yes. Not sure how that happened, but... Mayor Bob Ryan is accused of behaving badly in public. He certainly does need to act more appropriately in public. In other words, he needs to stay out of bars and taverns. So let's say that Mayor Ryan would take a one month or three month leave of absence to go to a facility for alcohol to totally abstain. I would expect then that all of you, all the people, all the persons and all the citizens clamoring, loudly complaining, would also abstain, totally abstain from alcohol for the one month, the three months, whatever it is. Thank you. Thank you, Joanne. Next? Next is Dimple Adams. Dimple, can I have your full name and your address, please? My name is Dimple Adams. And my address is 1424 Virginia Avenue, Sheboygan, Wisconsin. And you will have five minutes, ma'am. Thank you, Sue. And thank you, Mayor Ryan and Steve McQueen and all the persons for allowing me to speak tonight. I haven't spoke here in quite some time. However, I am very disturbed about what's going on in our city. And I have nothing but the greatest respect for all of you who are waiting to serve. It's not easy to put yourself out there and say, you know, I'm going to be in the public eye. Now, I have spoken here many, many times in the past. I have been accused of a lot of things in the past. But one thing that I have always done is put my name out there. If I had something to say, nobody had to decide where it was coming from. It came from me. Now, everybody is talking about Bob Ryan as an embarrassment to the city. It is true that I am not happy about Bob Ryan having a lapse in his alcohol sobriety. If any of you have ever known an alcoholic or had an alcoholic beloved one in your life, you will know what it means. But I'm not embarrassed by that. My brother, who recently passed away in September of 2010, was an alcoholic. He had years of sobriety and then he had lapses. I was never once, once ever embarrassed because he had a relapse to this horrible disease. And I think that we could make this a learning tool rather than the show that it has become. I cannot believe that every Monday, every other Monday, here we are with all these cameras, I cannot believe that headline after headline, after headline has hit the shaboy compress because our mayor got drunk at a bar on a weekend at Elkhart Lake. It just amazes me. Now, in my opinion, I received a letter last year in April of 2010 that called me nasty names and told me that they couldn't wait for me to die and that they were praying that it would happen soon. Do you believe that that person signed their name to that letter? Of course not. Now, where are the people that have anonymously reported to the press about the misdeeds of our mayor? Where are the people that sent the pictures to the press? Where are they? Where is the person that two years ago sent the YouTube on the web? Those are the people that are embarrassing the city, not Mayor Morian, and not you. You've got a big decision to make and I think you need to make it very, very carefully. It's going to cost a lot of money to do what you were talking about last Wednesday night. And you know, but for the grace of God, there we all go. We don't know who's going to be an alcoholic and who's not. We've all had things that we said we were going to do. We've all said we were going to lose weight. We've all said we were going to stay on a diet. We all said we weren't going to get hooked on prescription drugs, you know. But they don't keep us from doing our job. If every alcoholic in the city quit their job or had to leave their job because they had a lapse, I guarantee you there would be more job openings than you would know how to feel. Now we have this newspaper that puts this out. This is just last week's news. There's four of them here where the front page is consumed with this story. It amazes me. But on Friday night, they go out to the bars to take pictures of people drinking. Where did that get to be a problem in Sheboygan? When did that ever become a problem in Sheboygan? One of the first jobs I had here after I moved here in 1976 was at the Kohler Company. And one of my supervisors was a man named Steve Heimke. Now some of you may remember who he was. But at one time he was the chief of police of Sheboygan. And he told me that during prohibition that the train came from Milwaukee and people got off of it. Would you like your extra minute? Just one extra. So that they could go out in Sheboygan. Sheboygan never shut down. This is Sheboygan. We have a tavern in every neighborhood. We all go to the taverns to watch the pepper games. Not all of us, but some of us do. I remember raising home from church many times. And then going to the local bar to watch the packers. And I'm crazy. I'm not embarrassed by the mayor. I'm embarrassed by what we're allowing the story to do to our city. And we need to get on to all of the things that you guys have accomplished and is a long list of what you and the mayor have done. And you need to get back to business so that we can get rid of all these cameras. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak tonight. Thank you, Diffle. Thank you, Diffle. Next? Michael Thomas. Is Michael here? Michael Thomas. Michael, can I have your full name and your home address? Michael Edward Thomas, 1105 North 6th Street. 1105. Correct. And you will have five minutes, sir. Thank you. I'm not here to defend the behavior of the mayor. I mean, I like Mayor Ryan, he's a nice guy and all, but that's not my purpose of being here tonight. My concern really is the road that you're taking in terms of trying to get him out of office is going to be an expensive venture for the city. This is no time for us to be throwing money away. These are really tough economic times. I talk to people all the time where we're struggling to keep their homes because they can't afford them. And some people are right on the edge. And to see money thrown away is really frustrating in this kind of time. So I would ask you to really consider the cost of what you want to do. But more importantly, I think is really the process. In this country, we have an election process. You were elected. In this process, people have died to defend. Personally, I think it's the people's choice if they want Mayor Ryan out. A recall election would be appropriate. We would know the cost of that. This could have an unlimited cost. So I'm concerned about the cost and defending the right of an election. You can't just leave that to a handful of people. It's not that I don't trust you folks. It's really my decision, the taxpayer's decision, not yours. So I would hope you'd really consider that by taking this route as opposed to a recall, you're circumventing the election process. That concerns me a great deal as a citizen. Excuse me. The other issue is that mess. We've got more cameras in here. There's no room for the tax-paying citizens in this room because of all the cameras. It's a media frenzy and you're feeding it every day. So rule number one in media management is make it brief and get it over with. Not drag it on. So I would suggest that if I were in your shoes, I would certainly go for a recall option as opposed to the option that you want to take. Expensive, circumvents our right to elect, and it feeds the media frenzy, which I think is ridiculous and embarrassing. So I would ask that you really seriously consider what you're doing and not just kind of take this lightly or feed into what's happening, but really consider the process, the election process, what people have died to defend. You really shouldn't take that away. Thank you. Thank you, Michael. Thank you, Michael. Next? Last on our list is Milk Storm. Is Milk here? Can I have your full name and home address, please? Yeah, it's Milton Roland Storm, and I live at 1736 Marvin Court. All right, and you will have five minutes, sir. Well, the previous speaker sold part of my speech. Thank you, Mayor Ryan and council representatives of this great city of Sheboygan. Where to begin? Approximately 20 years ago, I had the privilege of meeting one of the sweetest ladies at US Bank, and now is employed at Community Bank. She is Mary Ryan, wife of Mayor Bob Ryan. Mary Ryan is a dear friend of mine, so I have also accepted Bob also as my friend. Mary's love is not puffed up. Mary's love does not want itself. Her love... Can't even read my writing. Her love cures all ills, and her love heals and conquers all wounds. Now, I'd like to read a letter to the editor about a mayor by Mark Leiter who called me on Sunday. Mayor continues to embarrass Sheboygan. Sheboygan Mayor Juan Perez continues to be an utter embarrassment to the community, and unfortunately, his notoriety is now beyond statewide. The supposed joint city county law enforcement and data dispatch system, which the Sheboygan press did a great job of detailing in recent news story, is simply the most recent of so many double-speak and self-denial debacles. Of course, to the mayor, everyone else is to blame for his fiascoes. By any measure, he's nearly always pitiful wrong on key issue, and the mass media loves it at the community's expense. Please, with someone with intelligence, leadership, and class, step up to the Sheboygan... step up to be Sheboygan's mayor and rekindle our once-proud reputation. That's Mark Leiter. He was a county planner for the county, if I'm...no, correctly. No, I'm not running for mayor. Now, let's go to the cost of things that are happening here. I have a thing. It says, costly cases. Cities' political wranglings are consuming a lot of law enforcement time and taxpayers' money. An unprecedented number of investigations spawned by police department disagree... or political disagreements in the city of Sheboygan over the last two years have used no criminal charges, but has cost the taxpayers thousands of dollars and wasted the time of the law enforcement officials. Sheboygan County District Attorney Joe DeCecco will soon issue his fourth city politics political-related ruling on less than a year, and the Sheboygan Police Department has conducted five such investigations, two of which were referred to the... Joe DeCecco. Every time I meet Joe DeCecco, the Democrat and the Pigley-Wheely, he says, oh, here comes trouble. Police and District Attorney investigations of city politics-related complaints. I'm only giving you the titles. Bonnet accused of stealing parade files. Faults. He was not a good. Hart alleges angry rude officer. Faults again. Berg alleges threats by Perez. True and half true. Schuster implies bribery investigated for defamation. Faults. In fact, even Joe DeCecco called her loose lips. Bonnet accused of improperly taking job. Again, faults. The mayor, Perez, accused him. Groups alleges hiring misconduct by Graf Perez. I'm sorry, I'm spittin' in their mics. Half true. Ratke alleges rude dispatchers. Again, faults. Recordings of two phone calls showed dispatchers have been polite, but unable to help Ratke, and police ruled the complaint unfounded. The next day, Ratke wrote a letter of apology in which he stated he had incorrectly perceived what he was getting around about. The report recommended he charged with filing a false police report, but no charge was filed. He was my older person. Well, let's move real fast forward here. Oh, yes. This is a dandy. Another waste of taxpayers' money. How many of you remember getting one of these? This is a citizen's budget survey, and it was by Perez and my good friend, Dr. Jack Westfall. And it says there, Mayor Perez thanks the volunteers of... Excuse me, Mel. Would you like your extra minute? Yes. Okay, go ahead. Well, okay, I just stated here that Dr. Westfall was a DWI because Tim Irish didn't see the investigation, and they let him off Scott Field. That's only because he's a Democrat. I'm sorry. Now, for the conclusion of what this council is asking, I may read my statements with the help of my identical twin brother, if I can find it. After reading the numerous press articles demeaning and requesting the mayor to resign, along with the council wanting to ask, I feel that say no response is warranted. Relying upon my intelligence in common sense, I can draw only one conclusion. With this council is asking just that amount to asking for a mammogram checkup of the glands of a ferocious bull. Anyone familiar with caring for bulls might understand the analogy. I lived on a farm with bulls. Pardon me, but what I'm hearing in public square sounds more like a lot of bull to me. Save the taxpayers' money for more useful and drop your case against mayor. Mayor Ryan has been the best mayor that we've ever had in the city of Sheboygan. Excuse me, Milton. I'm sorry to cut you off. That's okay. Thank you, Milton. I've been too nervous anyway. You did fine. Thank you, Milton. I don't know about your experience with bulls, but I do know you have a twin brother. How much I know. Okay. That is all for public forum. Onto the mayor's announcements. Tonight we will have none. Go straight to the consent agenda. President Rindflash. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move that on the consent agenda documents 10-1 to 10-22. Correct. That all report of officers be accepted and placed on file and that all reports committees be accepted and adopted. Second. Okay. Consent agenda 10-1 through 10-22. Under discussion. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We're just asking that 10-20 be pulled. 10-20 be pulled for a separate vote. Thank you, Alderman Raceler. Alderman Hammond. Did you have anything on the consent agenda? Yes. It was the division of the question that comes to item 10-20. Sorry. The division of the question when it comes to item 10-20 on licenses 2805 and 4644. Okay. Presenting me a conflict of interest. We will go ahead and pull those, pull 10-20. And you also were talking 10-20. Yes. Okay. We'll pull 10-20 for a separate vote and separate discussion. So we will be doing 10-1 through 10-19. And 10-21 and 22 on the consent agenda. Is there any discussion on those items? There is no discussion. Roll call please. Excuse me. Belt. Hi. Warren. Hi. Carlson. Hi. Decker. Hi. Coss. Hi. Kittleson. Hi. Manichek. Hi. Rindflash. Hi. Raceler. Hi. Samson. Hi. Vanakren. Hi. Vanderweel. Hi. And Bersie. Hi. 15 ayes. Motion carries. Okay. On 10-20 under discussion my suggestion if there is conflicts of interest that those individuals abstain in order to expedite the process unless somebody would like to participate in the process. Under discussion under number 10-20. There is no discussion. Roll call please. Warren. Hi. Carlson. Hi. Decker. Hi. Common. I'm staying. Hammond. Hi. Coss. Hi. Kittleson. Hi. Manichek. Hi. Rindflash. Hi. Raceler. Hi. Samson. Hi. Motion carries. Okay. Moving on reports of officers to 10-23 by the city clerk submitting a communication from firefighters local 483 notifying the finance committee of their intent to pay the patient's responsibility portion of battalion chief Wildman's ambulance bill when he was transferred by the fire department ambulance from a Milwaukee hospital to a hospice care facility in Sheboygan county city clerk president Rindflash. Would you like to take this? I move that we file the document. I have a motion to accept and file. Correct. Under discussion. Under discussion. This was discussed in the finance committee when the original request to waive the payment, the billing to former battalion chief Bill Wildman's family came up. It was his last wish to be transported in his ambulance facility back to hospice care is my understanding. But He Sheboygan professional firefighters local 483 stepped up and I will pay that remainder of the bill on behalf of Bill Wildman's family and I thank them for that. It's a fantastic gesture and I think it's one city can appreciate it. Thank you president Rindflash. So we have a motion to accept and file any further discussion. There is no further discussion. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries 1024 by the development manager related to the Sheboygan county chamber of commerce's decision to decline leasing strip of land adjacent to the chamber offices between the right of way line of south a street in the west property line of the chamber property development about Alderman Hammond. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Mayor. I move the report of officer be accepted and placed on file. Second. We have a motion and a second to accept and place on file any discussion. There is no discussion. All in favor state aye. Opposed? Motion carries 1025 and 1026. Lie over till September 6th. 1027 through 1044 to be referred. Alderman Boren. Thank you Mayor Ryan. I would like at this time I'd like to pull forward several documents. I would like to pull forward document number 1031, 32 and 33 and I would like to make a motion to file those documents. Second. Okay we have a motion to pull forward 1031, 32 and 33. Is anybody opposed to those documents being pulled forward? All in favor of pulling forward state aye. Aye. Opposed? Documents are pulled forward. Alderman Boren has made a motion to file these documents. Alderman Hammond seconded under discussion on filing of documents. Alderman Boren. Thank you Mayor Ryan. For the people watching at home these documents 1031, 32 and 33 were the complaints that were submitted by the citizens. Jackie Dupont, Asher Heimermann and Marlene Reindel and after the city attorney looked at these complaints found that they were not properly notarized and were then were not complaints that we could consider. So that's the reason rather than sending them to the committee of the whole again. I think we can just file these tonight. Thank you. Thank you Alderman Boren. Any further discussion? No. There is no further discussion. All in favor of filing state aye. Aye. Opposed? Documents are filed. Alderman Boren once again. Thank you Mayor Ryan. I also would like to pull forward documents number 1034 and 1035 and I would like to hold those two documents for document number 1059. Okay Alderman Boren if I may suggest with the media here is it possible that we if you're pulling documents forward and holding that we pull forward document number 1047 along with 1059 in those documents and hear those now. That's fine Mayor. I was an oversight on my part. We can pull it forward. Would you like to pull those forward? Can you make that motion please? And 1059. You want to pull forward 1059 also? Yes. 1047, 1059 and the two documents that you stated which were 1034 and 1035. Okay. Do we have a second on that? Yes. We have a motion and a second on pulling those documents forward under discussion on pulling the documents forward. There is no discussion. All those in favor of pulling those documents forward state aye. Aye. Opposed? Documents are pulled forward. The RC first. Okay. We will begin with the RC which is document number 1047 correct sir? 1059. 1059 is a document by the committee of the whole who met and discussed preliminary consideration of complaints for removal of the mayor filed to date with the city clerk procedure in the event of formal removal process and funding and hiring of special counsel and to the common counsel to proceed with the formal removal process to have the appropriate leadership interview and hire up to two attorneys and to draft a resolution for a transfer from the unreserved fund balance to counsel slash legal services with no cap on the amount with the caveat that outside counsel notifies the common counsel when legal fees are at $40,000. Under discussion or actually we need a motion first of all Alderman borne would you like to make that motion? Thank you Mayor Ryan. I move that the report of committee be accepted and adopted. Second. Okay we have a motion and a second to accept and adopt this document under discussion. Alderman homin. This current report of the committee as we're looking at it is this ongoing process is unfolding in front of us here in our city and I've started I personally have looked into some of this. I've made a lot of phone calls. I've received a lot of phone calls and what we are finding right now in our city is we've got a situation of what buyers are more if you will. We elected a mayor and a lot of people right now are unhappy. What we're looking at doing with this report from the committee by moving forward with this is taking 16 people to make a decision that has consequences. I don't think any of us are prepared to do with. There are 30,000 registered voters in the city roughly and there's a dollar amount that's attached to what we're discussing here that the phone calls that I'm receiving are overwhelming. The statements haven't changed. We're talking about spending a large dollar amount that we don't have on this and I'm being told no overwhelmingly. No, don't do it. Do not spend that money. We're walking down a road that is dangerous. The slope is slippery. I don't want to beat on a dead horse on things that we've talked about. With the conversations that I've had over the last couple of days I can't with a clear conscience vote to recommend that we go any further with this. This puts us in a situation that we're going to have to deal with repercussions for a lot longer than just a one and done hit. This has got the potential to be as frightening as it gets and I personally, I personally on this one cannot see going forward without a cap on this dollar amount, carte blanche to go forward and allow this to occur. The democratic process on this one if the people decide they would like the mayor removed is a recall. It puts the onus then back on the voting public on 30,000 people as opposed to 16 people getting a handful of phone calls from a handful of people with inside of our city. Myself taking a lot of phone calls some from the same people several times over and have tried to pretend to be different people while calling me from the same phone number in the world of caller ID. I thought that was kind of foolish. This is not something I think we can go forward with. If we want if the mayor needs to go I think this is something that we got to let 30,000 people decide not a handful of people that are calling us and emailing us. Overwhelmingly the response that I'm getting over and over again is saying do not spend this money. And at this point in time that's the way I'm going to vote on this. Thank you Alderman Hammond under further discussion. President Wrenfleisch you are the first in. Thank you. We've had some sad days on this council. We've had some stressful days. Days that none of us have asked for. First sad day was the day that based upon the actions of the mayor beginning to drag the city through this media circus and embarrassing many of the constituents that have called me the council asked the mayor 14 to 2 to resign. The council was forced to deal with the situation and did not ask to deal with the situation. Another sad day was when the mayor refused and continued to drag the city through this media circus. Another sad day was last week when the Committee of the Whole received verified complaints with claims of lying and claims of embarrassing situations in Elkhart Lake. We received this from members of the public and ADD requested us to investigate and asked us to investigate according to the state's statutes which do exist. They have not been used but do exist. Another sad day when the Committee of the Whole recommended to this council today to pursue the investigation to do what was being asked of us. To do what we were elected to do represents our constituents. To do our duty. It's historic. No one takes it lightly here. It's the beginning of what I hope is a short process but could be a long one and I understand that. But our duty is to begin that process of removal hearing as according to the state's statutes and as reporting to a citizens complaint. These days are all sad because the council had to react to the actions taken by the mayor Bob Ryan. The saddest day of all was last Thursday when I heard that the mayor threatens. Not threaten the council but threaten the citizens of Sheboyga with charging them up to or beyond a ridiculous sum of $100,000. The threat that was made on city letterhead was the taxpayers own nonetheless. In my mind it was a threat to the very citizens that he claims to love and represent. In reality we are now being asked as a council and as citizens because of these threats. To condone the mayor's actions. To accept his behavior. To somehow stop being embarrassed because it would now be too expensive to do the right thing. In reality the threat tells me that we are being asked to put a price on our standards, our morals, our ethics and most importantly of all put a price on our pride as a community. Are we to be cowed by these outrageous threats of costs? Are we to be cowed into allowing further embarrassing actions for the next one and a half or so years? Because if we don't take action now, if something else happens how can we do so later? Now I'm sure others here have told me and I'm sure they will say themselves that the costs facing us are not as high as the mayor stated on Thursday. Even more reason to move forward. We've talked about repercussions. I fear repercussions if we do not act. I fear that we'll be facing a situation again and I fear that at that point in time because we're close to reelection that we will not act at that point in time. Now is the time. For those that voted to recommend moving forward to last Wednesday with the hearing I ask what if anything has changed since Wednesday? Personally I say nothing. Do not cave into the empty threats. Despite the high dollar amount. I request that this body do what our constituents are saying to us, are asking us to do, vote to move this process forward. And then furthermore to hold up your head high. Proud to be doing the right thing for your constituents and for your city. Thank you. Thank you President Rindflash. If I didn't know any better I'd say you took your comments. Comments. Of threats straight out of the Sheboygan press. Who had a headline mayor threatens. Council or threatened city. What I did. Was sent out a press release. Stating. That the actions that this council. May take this evening. Are unproven. There is no. Precedent. In the history. Of the state. Of taking an action such as this. It's not a threat. That's a fact. And there's a big difference between the two. Facts. Are what they should be about. Facts. What are the facts. Who. Are the accusers. I don't know. Because you know what. They're all. Unidentified people. People who wish not to be identified. Anonymous people. What are the facts. So we're going to have an investigation to figure out what are the facts. But we have to look at. If this situation is a greed is as egregious as is reported. By some of the media. If every one of those things were true. Every one of them. Which they're not. But if they were. And if people came forward. Real people live people. With that. In itself. Be a reason. To determine. That there is malfeasance in office. Malfeasance in office. That's the key. There has never been a public action that was removed from office. For actions in their private life. Never. That is the facts. That is the truth. That is what. My press release stated there were no threats involved. Threats are perceived in people's minds. What I stated was fact. Facts. So if you get the facts. Start your process. Hire your legal counsel. Gather the facts. Gather the facts of all the accusations out there in the media. If every one of those things were true. Which they're not. You'll find that out. Does that constitute malfeasance in office. If the citizenry of this city. If the private life grossly overwhelms. The job that I do in this office. By all means. Anybody on this council. That wants to take me out of office. Start your recall. Get your signatures. Run against me. That's called the democratic process I have a job to do in this city. I've been doing it. I've done it. I've done it in 10. Tests. Going to the chambers that will say that the job that I have done as mayor of this city I've done poorly at. Nobody well. My private life is not perfect. I've stated that from the start. My private life. My children for the sake of your children. If I hear that one more time. The well-being of my children is my responsibility, not yours. I bet there's not a person in this council chamber can even tell me the name of my children. This whole thing stinks. If you want to take me out of office by all means, start your recall. If you want to go down this path, it's not a threat, it's a fact. It's never been done. There has never been a public official removed from office in this state. For anything but malfeasance in office, I'm here to do a job, I will continue to do that job. You should know by now I never quit, ever. It's the way I was raised, it's the way I am. I have a job to do, I intend to do it. If you decide to move forward on this, we'll deal with facts. But ask yourself, if everything out there is true, does it constitute reason to remove me from office, or is it simply dirt that we all have in our own private lives? Alderman Boren, Alderman Versi. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In regards to a couple of Alderman Homman's comments, we must live in really different districts because I didn't get a complete opposite of those phone calls. And also to the grossly overstated dollar amount on where we're going. Everything happens once, something has to happen first. Somewhere in the United States, everything has to happen one time to set precedence. Yep, this is going to be the first. It's grossly overstated, that can go well over $100,000. Numerous reasons. It was brought to my attention that on top of, and Steve can help add into this, that once our hearing is done, our initial cost to that is going to be, we don't know what that's going to be yet, could potentially be less than even a recall election. After that process, if we go forward with this, and it's found that we removed the mayor and he appeals it, now he's going in the court of law, which all of those attorney's fees, we could potentially all get reimbursed if the appeal process is denied and everything else. So we're not on the hook 100% for the big dollar amount that's out there all through the press. It could potentially be less than a recall election. And the speedy process, the speedy hearing that state statutes say we're supposed to have, like I said, could potentially be less than those recall elections would cost us is having a special election period. And then as far as also your constituents, we're doing what we were elected to do. Everything doesn't go back as referendum. Now everything doesn't all go back to the constituents. We are doing the democratic process. We're doing our jobs as elected officials. So that's where us doing this as an elected body, listening to our constituents, like I said, you live in a different district than I do, obviously, that I didn't get those same phone calls, but I got the complete opposite. And as far as no one wants to spend money, no one wants to. We didn't create this. We didn't create dollar amount, fictitious dollar amount that we could potentially go and get. Well, if anyone knows the exact dollar amount besides a recall election and that was brought up by Sue, the dollar amount, sure, that's great. It could be less. It's not going to be more because it's going to be a speedy process and all you need is due cause. And on top of malfeasance, you also have misrepresentation of office and every other order that goes along with what we're doing. And as far as facts go, that's what the process is that when you hire a attorney, you subpoena people, you get the facts. That's when the facts will come. And that's when, unfortunately, it may be another sad day is when more facts come out that weren't already published. That's the only scary part on what we're going through. So, I mean, as far as money goes, don't let big dollars flash you in the face and say, this is what we're doing. This is what's going to hit you. You guys are going to be using all this money out of your reserve fund. We could potentially use less. And you have to remember that process. Once you go into a court of law, it comes back. And we could potentially get all of our attorney's fees and court fees in return. So, thank you. Next, we have Alderman Madicek. Thank you. I hear a lot of... Alderman Madicek? Sorry. I hear a lot of, could maybe 100% know a lot of questionable statements, but never 100% sure positive thing. This is unprecedented. We don't know where it could go. We don't know how far where. And then we hear about representing the constituents. Who here has actually gone out to the doors and knocked on random doors? Who here has actually gone out and tried to bother seeing where the people actually feel on this? I have gone door to door. I don't have time to hit every door, but I have hit very different areas of the city. And I feel very lucky to represent the district that I do have. We have some of the most diverse people in the city. The opinions do range quite a bit, but overall I'm hearing do not spend one cent on pursuing this, let the voters do their job, have faith in the way we have done the business for how long. It's not up to the 16 some people to decide the fate of the city based on a few emails that they've received, a few calls that they have received, and not actually gone out and done their own duty as Alderman to go out and search for the answers of the public's feelings rather than going off of a few vocal opinions. Thank you. I do have one question as well. The other thing that we keep hearing about is malfeasance. If we could get a legal definition of malfeasance. Fortunately Alderman Maddachek asked me this question earlier today, so I was able to... I made a copy of the page out of Black's Law Dictionary of the definition of malfeasance if that's what you want to hear. This is not statutory, this is just sort of a legal dictionary definition. First I pulled out my Black's Law Dictionary that goes back quite a while ago, so I pulled out my assistance, it's a little newer, but it's the same definition, so these things don't change that much over time. Malfeasance, according to Black's Law Dictionary, 5th edition, evil doing, ill conduct, the commission of some act which is positively unlawful, the doing of an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful, the doing of an act which a person ought not to do at all, or the unjust performance of some act which the party had no right or which he had contracted not to do. Comprehensive term including any wrongful conduct that affects, interrupts, or interferes with the performance of official duties, and it cites a case from Washington State. Malfeasance is a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do or any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts, or interferes with the performance of official duty, or an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law or which a person ought not to do at all, or the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no right or has contracted not to do. And that's the site from a West Virginia court case. Then it concludes it differs from misfeasance and non-feasance similar to what Ms. Scribner was talking about. That's the Black's Law Dictionary definition of Malfeasance. Don't ask me to summarize that. Okay. Alderman Maddachek, did you want to continue? Sure. So basically it's a very vague description of Malfeasance and the charges against the mayor is very vague. So here we're dealing with two very vague topics and going into unprecedented action. So the likelihood of this going on further and further and being a drain on the city finances is very possible with such a vague topic that we're looking at. And again, when I went door to door, I didn't go with the agenda. I simply stated who I was and asked if they had opinion on the mayor and I told them that I did not want to state any more of that because I did not want to persuade anyone's opinions or thoughts and most of them very freely opened up and said that they had some personal beliefs about the mayor but then they said that the city should not be taking any of the taxpayer money to pursue removal. If the voters want them out, the voters would vote them out and that is the way it should be. Thank you, Alderman Maddachek. Alderman Hammond, you're next. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It just is a light little something here. I draw to myself some notes and the word fear was used over and over again and fear is a very powerful emotion and emotions do lead to reactions, not actions in that they are not the same. When you react, you're not thinking about what you're doing. It's ingrained in you. It's a flight or flight response. You're moving forward. If you let your emotions override you and right now fear leads, God, I'm going to quote Star Wars, fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering. We've gone from fear to anger. Where do we go from there? The law does give us the opportunity to do this. It's stated in the statutes. Just because you can do something does not mean you should. I can put my hand on a glowing hot oven door. It doesn't mean I should do it. The last thing I want to see is us to put our hand on that door and wind up with a really bad burn. If we remove the emotions and quite potentially some preset political agendas from this and look at this again, we're using potential. I'm hearing the word potential over and over again. Potential to go one way, potential to go the other way. The potential that does exist regardless of which way you look at it is frightening. You're right. Nothing's ever been done until it's been done for the very first time. Are we willing to take the chance to do that for the very first time and have this blow up in our face? I do have to question it over and over again. Scott, I'm not going to argue with what the people that you're talking to. What I'm hearing doesn't change except the fact that they don't want us to spend the money on it. I'm still talking to people who are upset. They don't want to have me spend the money on it. And I want to be clear on that one as well. Thank you, Alderman Hammond. Alderman Boren. Thank you, Mayor. First of all, I want to just say a couple of things about the process. The quasi-judicial hearing is really kind of a simple process in that you hire an attorney, we hire an attorney, we hire another attorney to be the representative of the council. We call witnesses. We can subpoena witnesses. You can question them. We can question them. It's a day thing. It's nothing that's being invented. Quasi-judicial hearings are held every week throughout the state of Wisconsin. The other thing, Mayor, I want to bring your attention to is I believe you stated numerous times that you are the mayor 24-7365. And, yes, you do have a personal life, but on the other hand, you don't have a personal life according to what you said if you're Mayor 24-7365. And we are aware of several situations when you are out of town on city business on the city's dime, a trip up to Minnesota with a couple of department heads, a trip up to Mole Lake last summer with an alderman, and as recently as a governor's conference out in Niagara Falls with a city department head, those are on the city's dime. And I don't want to air any more dirty laundry than we have to, and I certainly don't want to embarrass current department heads or past department heads if we have to subpoena them. So just remember what you said before, you're Mayor 24-7365. And if you have a personal life, I guess you'll have to lock yourself up in your house and you can drink your brains out. But when you're out, as you said, you're Mayor 365-24-7. Thank you. Thank you Alderman Bourne. I never recall using the phrase 365-24-7. I don't think I've ever used that phrase in my life, but I appreciate that. We all have pasts. We all can dig up dirt on each other. We can turn this into a mud-slinging fest. If that's the route the council wants to go, I don't want to go that route. 99% of my stuff is already out there. Several aldermen have seen to that. Several of them have already seen to that. One thing I am is brutally honest with myself and with you. I didn't have to admit two years ago I had issues with alcohol. I didn't have to admit last year I was a full-blown alcoholic. I did it, you know why? Because it's true, because it's true. I work every day of my life on it every day. And I've said this in the past. For me, to slip up on my program is not a proud thing. It's not a proud thing. To say I can sit in my house and suck my brains out or whatever, that's not the plan Alderman Bourne. I've not touched a drop of alcohol in 22 days. I don't plan on touching a drop of alcohol for 22 years. I have offered to this council, in closed session, which I can talk about because I offered it, that if I ever touch a drop of alcohol again I put it in writing that I will resign on the spot, no questions asked. And truthfully I've got a wife right now that will probably tell you if I do, because she deserves that. I've also offered that a certain Alderman can monitor what I've done, that I stick with what I say I'm going to do. I'm not making any excuses. I am who I am. I'm proud of myself most of the time. Sometimes I'm not. Not unlike anybody else. Since the so-called incident in Elkhart Lake, which by the way several Alderman knew got were getting play-by-play accounts of my actions out there, in real time. Alderman that are so concerned about the city in the embarrassment to the city that they knew exactly where I was and when I was there the entire time. They all had my phone number they could have called me and said, Mayor, you're making a fool out of yourself in the city, why don't you get your butt home? But instead they just decided to get their information fed to them all weekend long. That's concern for the city. But it's not their fault, it's mine. Because I was the guy out there. I was the guy out there. Concern for the city, embarrassment to the city. That's all my fault. And that's true. Since 22 days ago, I have taken every step to be sober for the rest of my life. I joined an intensive outpatient program, which is three days a week, off hours, even though I guess I don't have off hours because I'm 24-7, 365. I think that's it. Three days a week, I have a group I meet with another day of the week, which I've been meeting with for probably a year and a half now. A group of professionals in the same boat that I am. I also have a sponsor in the AA program, which I've never had before in my life. Somebody to hold me accountable personally for what I do. That is what I'm doing. I have no intentions of sitting at home and drinking myself silly or whatever. I have a job to do in this city. I've had Alderman say, well, if you just go away for a month, we'll do a deal and we won't go forward. I've been sober 22 days while on the job. I've never been not sober on the job. That's the whole thing. Anybody else here not had a drink in 22 days? Two people. I do not intend to ever drink again. And here's why. The first time I quit drinking, I did it to appease my wife, who I love so much, but I didn't do it for me. The second time I did it to appease this council or that council and keep my job, but I didn't do it for me. This time I'm doing it because I want it. And there's a big difference. I want it. I don't need it. Heck, I could resign this position. Tomorrow I'll go back into the private sector and function fully and probably not get YouTubeed every time I'm out having a drink. But I want it. And my family wants it. I'm telling this council that the offer is still on the table. If I have a drink, well, I'm in office, which most of you think I can't do that. Well, if you want my job or you want somebody else in this position, go ahead and accept my offer. I have work to do. I will put it in writing. Some people say it can't be legal binding because of statute, state statute in public office. No, it won't be legal binding. However, if it's in writing, obviously we'll be posted all over the state to say the least. And if I was to have a setback, I would fully expect the citizens to be on the front steps of City Hall with torches and pitchforks. Question we have to ask ourselves, are we going to keep the media circus live? Are we going to move forward? I've apologized for what I've done. I'm not going to grovel any longer. It's my responsibility. It's my fault and nobody else's. Nobody else's. But you have to ask yourself, so a quasi-judicial hearing is nothing. It's nothing when we're going to have multiple witnesses and not only does the council get to call witnesses, I get to call my own witnesses. There's going to be an attorney, a prosecutor. And my attorney, which in my opinion, if the council's going to go forward with these actions, I would request that my attorney be funded also. I think it's only fair. It's not the route to go because the end result, I believe will be the same. We'll go through the motions. If we want to start digging up more dirt, we can do it. That's not what we're here for. That's not what we're here for. I will put in writing. If I am ever to have a drink again, I will resign this office immediately. I will put in writing that I will allow one person on the council of my choice, because frankly there's some people I wouldn't trust with the information to monitor that I am doing what I need to do. But like I said, I'm not doing it for you. I'm doing it for me, because I want it. And my family deserves it. I will continue to do the job that I have done in the past without the embarrassing interruptions that I've also caused. And if somebody wants this position, if somebody wants to sit at this podium, go ahead and run against me. I have a job to do. Alderman Carlson. Thank you Mayor. Throughout this whole process I've been pretty quiet mainly because I've been on the fence. And I can say the same thing about the residents that have contacted me. It's about 50-50. And I can say I've probably only received about 20 or 30 emails or phone calls or just face-to-face contact. There is no doubt that the mayor has embarrassed the city multiple times. I mean, there's no questioning that. But it's already been alluded to tonight that it is my belief that this process is just going to drag the city through the mud even more because there's going to be mud sung on both sides of the table here. It's also my belief that, unlike the recall elections that are going on at the state level, this is one incident that actually calls for it. Alderman Hammond has spoken about it. Alderman Madiček. And part of me believes that the recall is probably the best option, mainly because it will give the entire city the choice and whether or not they want Mayor Bob Ryan to still be in that office. And with that being said, I mean, no one has a real number and I hate spending money. I'm probably the biggest cheapskate that anyone could ever meet. You could ask my wife. With that being said, it's hard to justify spending any dollar amount on a process that we don't even know is going to go through for a fact. At least we know with the recall election that the people will get to speak. Someone else, hopefully qualified, could run against Mayor Bob Ryan and then we can let the facts speak for themselves. Like I said, I've been on the fence this entire time and I'll be quite honest, I still am. So we'll find out a few minutes when we get to vote. Thank you, Alderman Carlson. Alderman Raceler. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I as well am on the fence. I'm probably not quite as cheap as Alderman Carlson, but I have a hard time rationalizing spending an unknown amount of money. I believe in the democratic process as far as having the recall. I have some questions as to the validity of all the charges and investigation. And like I said, I have difficulty spending that money when we have the ability. I guess I'm disappointed in one thing, however, though, is I've gotten some phone calls for and some phone calls saying, remove the mayor but don't spend any money and then some saying don't do anything at all. I guess the one thing I am disappointed in is that, excuse me, if the general public is this gung-ho, shall we say to recall the mayor that there isn't any process in the last 22 days started for any recall? I guess that troubles me as to what the actual consensus out there is and the fact that we've had 22 days. No one has done any petition for anything, knowing that if this does not go through tonight that that is the only other option. Like I said, I feel a lot more comfortable if that actually had been started by someone and we were getting the general consensus from the public that there was some problems. So again, I'm on the fence and I guess we'll see when it comes to the vote. Thank you, Alderman Rasler. Alderman Hammond. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I haven't spoke too much on this body because like many others I've kind of struggled with this. Three weeks ago, basically the work of the city came somewhat to a halt. I don't think anybody in this body in City Hall would argue that this has not been just a tremendous distraction to the work of the city. And with all due respect, Mr. Mayor, I don't particularly appreciate being lectured to from there when we weren't the one that created this mess. If you dig up dirt, then we'll dig up dirt. That's not what this is about. What this is about is the citizens are angry and they want some answers, they want some results. The question before this is do we spend the money to go forward with that? And that's where I'm torn. My struggle is do we spend the money and does it appear that we're condoning this? When we look at my kids and say, yes, there's a price tag to acceptable and unacceptable behavior. That's my struggle. So this isn't as much of a do we need the mayor, do we not need the mayor? Are those types of actions acceptable conduct by a public official in the city of Sheboygan? And that's what we're deciding, whether we're going to go forward and determine that or whether we're going to stop now and say, we think he's learned his lesson. We think we've taken this to the brink of nuclear. Unfortunately, the statutes have gotten some emails from individuals asking, well, how can we just don't suspend them with pay? Statutes don't allow for that. We have two options. We have the city in 2010, which is essentially a public slap on the wrist, or we can take the nuclear option and remove them. Either way, none of us win. Mayor certainly doesn't win. The city certainly doesn't win, and either there's this body or the taxpayers of the city of Sheboygan. So again, this isn't about Bob versus the council. This is whether the actions that he took on that weekend should be acceptable from a public official if you believe that they shouldn't be, then vote the higher the attorney. If you don't, say no. Thank you, Alderman Hammond, and I apologize if I offended you in talking about slinging mud. I was simply responding to another Alderman who was stating about different incidents that can come up. Thank you. Alderperson Kittleson. Thank you. I guess I too have had a lot of calls on this, and people are saying, yes, don't spend the money. There are others that are saying, do what you need to do. So those things we need to weigh very carefully. The other thing being said is people have not come forward to do a recall, and for whatever reason, I just feel that there's a silent majority of people out there who elect us as Alderpersons to do a job. And they have not the time or the inclination to run for public office. We are elected to do a job here. And so that's my feeling with that. We need to go forward, or whatever we need to do to do the right thing here. Thank you. Thank you, Alderperson Kittleson. Alderman Van Akron. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We've heard a lot tonight from a lot of our council people here. A lot on this topic, a lot about calls, a lot about the process, how it may or may not play itself out. One thing that I've considered over the last couple weeks is my obligation and our duty here as elected officials. We've received six complaints, two of which have been verified by the city's attorney office to meet the legal standard. Are we to turn those complaints away? Are other complaints don't matter? I think we have an obligation and a duty to look into this process. This is the beginning of the process. This is not the end result. As I've told many people that have asked me about this, again, this is the beginning of the process. There will be a hearing. The mayor has brought up about wanting to see his accusers and wanting to learn the facts. That's what this hearing will be about. People will have to come here and give their accounts of what occurred. And whether or not that meets the criteria of removal from the city. Again, we've received these complaints and I think we have a duty to look into those complaints. Thank you, Alderman Van Eckert. If I can just comment on complaints. The two complaints that were certified to be valid by the city attorney's office was not that they were. It means they were done in proper form to meet the statute of a complaint, correct? Attorney McLean? Yes mayor, that's all I look at is basically I was looking at form and not substance as far as the validity of the complaints or the substance of the complaints. So they were done in the proper format. It doesn't mean the substance meets a complaint. Anybody can file a complaint at any time against any public official. If that complaint is formatted properly, the form is filled out properly to meet the law, does that mean that every complaint will be going to a quasi-judicial hearing by this body? Or does this body look at what is in those complaints and decide that a complaint does or does not which every Alderman is capable of reading and comprehending it meet the criteria for what the end intentions are of the complaint which is removal from office. Anybody else could file a complaint because the charges can be true, false, doesn't matter is this body going to hear every one of those complaints in a quasi-judicial hearing? And those complaints don't necessarily need to be against myself as a public official. They can be against anybody that is an elected official in the city. So what attorney McLean did is verify that the complaints were filled out in proper form. It has nothing to do with the substance of the complaint. Alderman Maddichek? I just wanted to touch base on that too. I think we are doing the process right now and deciding whether or not they have substance to them to move forward. Had the Mayor been drinking and driving ahead or breathalyzing tests, there would be an open shut. We would have the facts, we would have someone's name, we would have the ability to make judgment based on that to move forward. But here, these are again very vague accusations made to the Mayor. And the complaints to me do not hold substance and again not only to me but to quite a few people out in the public. It just doesn't seem physically prudent right now to move ahead with these until some actual substance comes forward. Thank you Alderman Maddichek. The board is open. Alderman Hammond. Thank you Mr. Mayor. I call the question. Motion to call the question in a second. Under discussion just on calling the question. All in favor of calling the question State Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. The question is called. We will go for a vote. We are taking 10 59 corrects it? 10 59. Okay 10 59 which is to hire two attorneys no cap notify the council at $40,000 and proceed with a quasi-judicial hearing. In aye vote would be to approve to hire the attorneys no vote would be not to. We'll call please. Carlson. No. Decker. Aye. Hammond. No. Hammond. No. Koth. Aye. Kittleson. Aye. Maddichek. No. Rinfleisch. Aye. Racler. No. Samson. Aye. Vanakren. Aye. Belch. Aye. And Boran. Aye. Nine eyes six nose. Not on a nursing. Not on a nursing. Okay. Motion carries. We will now go on to document number 1047. 1047 being by Alderman Rinfleisch authorizing a transfer of appropriations in the 2011 budget to appropriate the there is no cap on it but the council will be informed after $40,000 in legal fees. I don't believe there's a cap on this because I don't believe you can 1047 okay it's capped at $50,000. The amount is $50,000 so it would be to transfer $50,000 to okay attorney's fees I don't know what happens after the $50,000 but it's for $50,000 under discussion. We need a motion. We have a motion. We need to suspend. Alderman Rinfleisch. Thank you your honor. I move to suspend the rules. Second. Motion to second to suspend the rules. Is there anybody opposed to the rules being suspended? Is there anybody opposed? Rules are suspended. Second. Motion to second to put the resolution upon its passage under discussion. Okay. It's come up in a previous conversation that there is no cap. I think the resolution is pretty solid. It does say there's a cap at $50,000. Likewise, I think there's much more things that we can be spending $50,000 on out of our general reserve. But with the motion to proceed in the previous documents I ask that we pass the resolution. And if this one I need two-thirds votes on this one we need 11 votes. If we do not get 11 votes I will ask to reconsider the previous motion on the previous documents and file that one. It seems to be no point if we proceed with the hearing if we can't fund it. So for the chair's purposes that will be after this vote if we do not get 11 votes I will make that motion down the road. Okay. As Alderman or President Rinfleisch stated this requires a two-third vote to do the funding up to $50,000 Alderman Boran. Thank you, Mayor. I believe in 1059 that we just passed it says there's no cap on the funds. However, we have to put a number in 1047. You can't leave it blank. So my understanding maybe you can clear this up attorney McLean is that if we're putting the $50,000 in there because we have to put in an amount of money. But the 1059 says there's no cap but we are to be advised if the legal fees are if or when they reach $40,000. So can you clarify that? Yes, I believe so. Alderman Boran. I was asked either Thursday afternoon or Friday afternoon by the finance department as to what to do with transfer document that they were directed to hold. My opinion that in order to put a transfer document in you need a definite number to transfer. You can't just transfer an undesignated amount from one account to another. So that we talked and the $50,000 was the upper number that was discussed at the committee the whole. So it was my suggestion to the finance department transfer $50,000 at this time if the council wanted to change that number could do that tonight. But I thought that that was a number that you could put in place if you chose to do that that would get you well on in the process. I think it's with the understanding from the committee the whole committee report that there would be and I would assume that the attorneys would be advised also that there would be some mechanism that once you got up to $40,000 there would be an attempt to notify the council and the council would have to decide what to do from there as to whether to not appropriate any further dollars or to appropriate more or whatever. So I don't know if that answer you look puzzled the 1059 says it's uncapped so I guess my question is if we get up to 50 do we have to take another vote or do we just proceed? You would need to take another vote but in order to spend any money you need to put it into you're taking the proposals to take funds out of unreserved fund balance that you just cannot take monies out of that account without transferring into some other appropriate account to spend the money on. Thank you, Alderman Byrne. Thank you, Steve. Alderman Hammond. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I guess the thing to keep in mind since his body is just to prove the previous document is that just because we authorized the spending of the money does not mean we have to and as many of you know obviously as the chair of the finance committee I'm probably cheaper than Alderman Carlson when it comes to those types of things so if we're going to move forward I do think we need to do so do so slowly not the speed of but if we're going to hire a council at least consult with them determine what the right course of action if there is a course of action and take action but I just want to point out that just because we authorized it doesn't mean we have to spend it so I guess just to point that out. Thank you. Thank you, Alderman Hammond. Alderman Fursi. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Actually to follow up with that if this passes, if this is directed to Steve, if we don't even use 50,000 if we only use half of that do we have to vote to put that back into a reserve fund and remain to that money? What happens to the remainder of the money that we're taking out? If at the end of the year there's a surplus in that account, my understanding is it goes back into the general fund. Thank you, Mayor. And I also want to remind the council that if you approve this 50,000 dollars and we hire an attorney one of the first steps with the attorney that we hire the special prosecutor is going to look over these complaints and see if the complaints have merit that we should go forward but we're not even going to be able to talk to an attorney to represent the prosecutor, a special prosecutor to get some advice whether we should even go forward with the complaints based on the reading of the complaints. So in order to even do that we're going to have to authorize some money to go into this legal services fund. And I can speak for myself. I certainly don't relish this process and I'm going to be very certain in my own mind after a special prosecutor looks at these complaints and the judge charges that we've got a case I'm not in my mind I'm not going to go forward with a case just for the sake of doing it. Thank you. Thank you all. I've been boring. A couple statements here. Number one, there's not an attorney who is in business that will probably look at this and not take the case. That's why you have attorneys. Number two, if we go over $20,000 what happens? So if we fund this I think we just we need to look at what's right and what's wrong here what's the law and what's not. If in your own mind you believe that the incidents in question come to malfeasance in office please vote to fund it. If you don't this is not going to be a pretty process and we all know it. The reason there's not a recall is probably because it's been out there in the papers that this process is going to keep moving forward and that's what's been out there. As I stated before I'm dedicated to this city I'm dedicated to my family I'm dedicated to sobriety I'm doing everything in my power and I will keep doing it to do this job we'll do everything in my power to be 100% sober for the rest of my life because I want to because my family deserves it and the city deserves it. I don't want to drag this out because it's not going to be a quick process and we all know it and it's not going to be good for the city. Alderman Raceler. Thank you Mr. Mayor. I don't know if the attorney can answer this Is there any money in any fund right now for I'll say legal counsel that we would be transferring this in addition to money that's in there already budgeted or not? In council legal services that account I don't believe so I don't know if the finance directors here are not. Thank you Mr. Mayor. I agree with Alderman Hammond and Alderman Bourne that we do need to proceed slowly with this process that this process calls for hiring an attorney to look over the allegations to look over the complaints and decide whether there is merit in those and I believe that's we voted to proceed with that I believe that's what we need to do to now fund that process if at that time we receive legal advice saying there is not merit in these complaints to meet the legal standard that you yourself say there's not then at that time that would probably end the process I know it would for me I have no intentions of going any further in the process if legal counsel says there isn't merit in the process so I don't believe this is a personal matter this is what's right and what's wrong and if there is criteria that is met for removal then that's the process as it plays out I also have a question for city attorney McLean if this plays out and again a complete hypothetical that this process plays out and there's a call for removal and that vote is taken and the mayor is removed from office at that time with the mayor not being any longer an employee would the city be able to or your office be able to represent any further appeals or would we still have to continue with outside counsel and funding outside counsel as you would then be representing our decision in future appeals down the line I don't have an answer for you at the top of my head I'd have to think about that so I don't want to at this point okay okay I have no further lights we will take a vote 1047 appropriating a transfer of $50,000 for outside legal counsel an aye vote would appropriate the money a no vote will not Sue Decker Haman Hammond Kot I'm sorry thank you Kittleson No I'm sorry Racler Samson that was an aye the fan is going really loud up here Van Akron Vanderweel Versey Belt Warren Carlson Ten Ayes Five Noes not two thirds Motion fails Mr. Rinflesch as promised I move to reconsider the votes on the document 1059 and ask that the community file the documents could we have that again we have a motion and a second to reconsider 1059 and a motion to file President Rinflesch I think we need to vote on the reconsider first the recommendation under discussion would be reconsider it we have a vote on reconsidering reconsidering only under discussion Alderman Boren did you want to I had a question on the last vote there's 15 of us here ten not enough with 15 here two thirds of the poll okay thank you thank you Alderman Boren okay under discussion on reconsideration we have a motion and a second 1059 under discussion there's no discussion on reconsideration Alderman Hammond premature on reconsideration 1059 all in favor say aye opposed no have two no's let's do a roll call three no's maybe roll call on reconsidering 1059 an aye vote will reconsider a no vote will keep it as is can you go over the rules one more time and you've got a motion to reconsider 1059 which you've already taken a vote on so you're reconsidering that document an aye vote would be to reconsider a no vote would be to not reconsider and by not reconsidering we're filing it or we're doing by not reconsidering it would be a no vote correct attorney mclean by not reconsidering it it remains adopted you don't have funding to carry that out a motion to reconsider would be to bring the issue back before the body and then you vote again as to what you want to do with it thank you thank you Alderman Raceler on reconsideration Alderman Sampson we vote to not reconsider it just sits there and then nothing so we have an unfunded it's just there but not funded for any future action on this or how does that work probably get filed with housekeeping at the end of the year I imagine on reconsideration we have a roll call on reconsideration and an aye vote would be to reconsider the document a no vote would be to leave it out there please aye aye no no aye aye no no no no no no no no no no motion to reconsider fails Alderman Boren make a motion to reconsider number 1047 please second we have a motion to reconsider 1047 I'm sorry Alderman Boren who seconded that under discussion but I don't see any lights Alderman Boren thank you Mayor Ryan if we just voted not to reconsider 1059 and it's still out there I just want to mention to the council again by going ahead with this funding gives us authority to hire the attorneys to get their opinion whether we have a case based on those two complaints and as I said before I do not relish going forward with this process we've got more important things to do but I agree with Alderman van Akron when he said we've got two complaints that have been approved by the city attorney and I think we owe it to those constituents to at least bring this before our special prosecutor for his or her opinion on whether there are substantial charges in here and so if if we kept this document alive without the funding it doesn't make any sense I think we should approve the funding take the initial steps to hire the attorney have him look at our complaints and tell us whether we have a case and if we don't I'll be the first one not to go ahead with it because as I said I don't relish this process but I think we owe it to the constituents that filed the complaints to at least have our special counsel take a look at it thank you Alderman Hammett I guess I would like to make a friendly or make an amendment Steve correct me if I'm screwing this up but I'd like to amend this document to lower the amount that we are authorizing to $10,000 within $10,000 I think we can hire counsel to give us input on whether or not this makes sense to go forward with if it does after that and this body feels it should then we can come back and ask for additional dollars so I would make an amendment to I can't we're still on the reconsider motion from Robert's Rules of Order standpoint a motion to reconsider needs to be made by a member who voted with the prevailing side on the motion and Alderman Warren I believe you voted on the losing side of that motion so it needs to be made by so it has to be made by an Alderman that voted against voted not to fund the legal counsel it would have to be made by either Carlson, Hammond Matachuk, Racler or Vanderweel in order to reconsider we do the one before that right then pardon me we do the one before that right oh we didn't do that properly either what's that I made the motion to reconsider on 1059 you were on that was on the winning side you were on the prevailing side so that was appropriate that would be right okay that was fine we were fine on 1059 on 1047 I do not see anybody wishing to reconsider the motion would have to be made by an Alderman that voted not to fund I do not see any of those Alderman Alderman Van Akron did you push the button okay Alderman Van Akron thank you Your Honor I know I'm not one of the ones that was listed but I guess I would implore one of those to offer the reconsider we're kind of in a stalemate at this point we've approved this motion we are looking for the funding of it and I agree with Alderman Boren that we certainly owe it to the two people that have received these complaints to look into this and I would certainly second Alderman Hammond's motion to lower this amount to at least look into this and if at that time we receive legal counsel that says there is merit to this we can then ask for more funding if needed at that time I too don't want to spend money on this but we were put in this position and we have an obligation to act on those complaints that we've received so I would certainly urge one of the five to open the voting for this reconsideration Alderman Carlson thank you Mayor could we go any lower than $10,000 not until we reconsider you get to make a motion to reconsider second who seconded it Steve doesn't have to be a second by the who seconded it we need a second from one of the persons that Steve I don't believe the second makes any difference I'll second it then he said it doesn't make a difference we already had a second okay we have a motion to reconsider under discussion Lauren thank you Mayor Madam City Clerk is this the time where we could take that friendly amendment to lower the amount until after the vote on the reconsideration we have to first decide if we're going to reconsider okay thank you Alderman Maticek how many times are we going to reconsider how much money we're going to put into this this is just a foot in the door as we keep reviewing and going further Alderman can you move your mic up a little bit thank you there we go how about that this is just a foot in the door how many times are we going to reconsider how much money we're going to put into this thing and at what point do we stop and then tell the taxpayers oh I'm sorry we just spent your $50,000 but now we're going to stop or whatever the amount of money that we put into it and why would you even want to go down that when we already have looked at the claims made against the Mayor and they just do not hold substance okay on the reconsideration itself I think the council should be aware you are reconsidering funding $50,000 not $10,000 just so the council is aware of this on your reconsideration it's for $50,000 not $10,000 Alderman Van Akron once again thank you Mr. Mayor just to clarify we are reconsidering taking a vote on 1047 and at that time it could be amended correct yes okay so this is just a reopen document 1047 and it could be amended to whatever amount is sought okay thank you yes is to reopen no is to not reopen a yes vote would be to reconsider the vote yes Alderman Boren once again no Alderman Van Akron had my question Alderman Rindfleisch president Rindfleisch no any other discussion okay we are voting on reconsidering document number 1047 to authorize $50,000 in legal fees in aye vote will be to reconsider a no vote will be to keep the vote as it was roll call please Hammond Coss Kielsen Rindfleisch Sampson Van Akron Vanderweel Bersey Boren Carlson Decker Hammond 12 ayes 3 noes motion carries under discussion on 1047 Alderman Hammond thank you Mr. Mayor I would move we approve the resolution with an amendment of lowering the amount of $10,000 second excuse me of doing one lowering the amount to 10 grand to 10 grand not by 10 grand no to 10 grand yes thank you attorney McLean thank you Alderman Hammond I believe the correct approach would be to make the motion to put the resolution upon its passage get a second and then make the motion to amend fair enough I move that we put the resolution upon its just trying to speed things up a little bit second sound like a quick process we have a second under discussion I'm putting the resolution upon its passage under discussion Alderman Hammond now I'd like to make my amendment that we reduce the amount to $10,000 second under discussion we are going to now we also have another document that says that there is no ceiling we're going to authorize $10,000 and see what it buys Alderman Hammond thank you Mr. Mayor I think attorney McLean addressed that earlier when he indicated that this document would be overriding that cap and that the $10,000 would be the max that could be spent without coming back to this body for approval I think this gives us the ability to meet with an attorney as Alderman Van Ackren said give those verified written charges their due course and determine whether or not makes sense to come back I think it's a great compromise at least at this point to determine the next step any further discussion I need to vote on the amendment first okay we're voting on the amendment discussion only on the amendment authorizing $10,000 for legal fees on the amendment only Alderman Raceler required vote is what? $30 majority majority majority majority on amendment Alderman Versey thank you Mr. Mayor and once again if this costs us $10,000 for that attorney to come in and say we have no merit $90,000 goes back in this doesn't mean it's gone just everyone's clear on that whatever we don't spend goes in thank you thank you Alderman Versey any further discussion on the amendment only the amendment to authorize $10,000 for legal fees discussion no further discussion we'll call please and I vote would be to reduce the amount to $10,000 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I