Lawsuit threats may styme actions of future Common Councils

Good point Ralph. Our city officials should not allow New Berlin or themselves to be bullied by threats of bogus lawsuits.

First of all the city attorney does not 'rule' ... he advises. He has no regulatory authority.

Secondly, I agree and I've said it before. Poshepney resigned. Period. He needs to get over it and move on.

But if the 'law' allows him to come back via the litigation that is underway then follow the law - a judge "should" decide not the council. But if this is a council decision, then what we've seen is the council doing the Wysocki-foot-drag. That's do nothing and delay everything and spend money to retain or regain control. Smoke and mirrors. Think about it. This is not about fair representation. This is politics.

On another happy note - all seats on the common council that are up for re-election are being challenged. That's a message for the sitting council that the community is not happy. Discontent is apparent with the collection of mistakes and mishaps. There are good alternative choices for each district. Next year we can look forward to the others being removed from office too. The winds of change are upon us.

So many mistakes.... now is the time for the community to take notice. The failed city center is attributed to the Wysocki administration - it's a total joke and everyone laughs about it. The failed reconstruction of a major artery into the NB Industrial Park, (Calhoun Road) impacting the economic vitality of the park is in jeopardy because of the poorly conceived plan of the sitting council.

So with all this hard work by the sitting council to try so hard to curb development and restrict economic progress is our community in favor of preserving a poorly conceived plan of control is really working against them and costing them and us more money.

Ralph, You used the term council is calling for a vote to 're-instate'. The actual wording is "Discussion and possible action to make an appointment to fill the balance of the term for aldermanic district #5." (source: NB calendar page - 1/12/09 "Special Common Council" http://www.newberlin.org/calendar.aspx )

Please note the action is to discuss possible "appointment", not reinstatement. Voice wants to state the difference because it is not within the legal authority of council to re-instate an alderman who has resigned.

This whole lawsuit 'thing' is quite something, isn't it? Resign and then sue to get your job back. Huh?

a NB Voice
I interpreted it to be that he would be "returned to office", which would mean he might get his back pay to date of resignation. I don't know what legal language is in the actual agreement the city attorney worked out.

Doesn't the city clerk have to ask for applications for the post?
The mayor stopped her from doing that a couple of months ago.

I find your comments right on. It depends on whose "ox you are trying to gore".

Ralph, He can't be 'returned' to office because he resigned. Period.

Council agenda states "Discussion and possible action to suspend Common Council Rule #34 with respect to the current aldermanic vacancy in district #5." (source: same as previously noted)

Council Rule #34 defines the posting of the vacancy, application for the vacancy, interviewing process to fill a vacancy, etc. This process is what Council attempted to do last fall but then the alderman's suit halted the process.

At Tuesday's special meeting Council will be considering not going through this notice, interview application & process and simply appoint someone to the position.

As far as back pay: This issue could be real interesting. Guess we will have to wait and see although it is the opinion of this blogger there should be no back pay, after all, he resigned. Period.