Milwaukee County Board OKs outside attorney to fight reform bills

Listen to this article

Milwaukee County supervisors could spend as much as $25,000 on an outside attorney to either clarify two state reform bills or try to kill them.

Supervisors, who approved the expense with a 14-4 vote Thursday, offered various reasons for hiring the attorney instead of using staff lawyers from the county’s Office of Corporation Counsel. Some supervisors, such as Pat Jursik, said they do not trust corporation counsel to offer an unbiased opinion, while another, John Weishan Jr., said he wants an attorney with constitutional expertise that in-house lawyers do not have.

Another supervisor, Steve Taylor, said it’s a waste of money. Taylor voted against the resolution.

“We’re going to send taxpayer money to fight a bill that passed in Madison?” Taylor said after the vote. “I don’t think I can make it clearer or more simple than that.”

Those bills, Assembly Bill 85 and Senate Bill 95, among other things, would slash the County Board’s operating budget and schedule a binding referendum that would ask voters whether supervisors’ pay should be reduced by about half.

Weishan, who sponsored the resolution to hire outside counsel, said he believes the county could successfully challenge the legality of those bills, which he suspects violate the state constitution’s uniformity clause.

“Kimberly Walker is a fine lawyer,” Weishan said, referring to the lead corporation counsel attorney. “The problem is: She’s not a constitutional expert, and she’s not an expert on how state statutes may run afoul of the constitution.”

Walker refused to comment.

It is difficult to speculate on the county’s chances in a lawsuit, Supervisor Deanna Alexander said, but the County Board of Supervisors needs someone to clarify how it will operate under the new law if Gov. Scott Walker signs the bills that have passed the Assembly and Senate. That clarification, Alexander said, easily could come from Walker’s office.

“I guess I’m not one of the supervisors,” Alexander said, “that distrust corporation counsel to that degree.”

Jursik could not be immediately reached for comment after Thursday’s meeting but said earlier in May a conflict exists because corporation counsel also represents County Executive Chris Abele, who supports the state bills.

During a Judiciary, Safety and General Services Committee meeting May 9, Walker said she believes her office could offer impartial advice on the bills but was worried any answer that came from her staff members would be met with allegations of bias.

Walker’s concern, Supervisor Jim Schmitt said during Thursday’s meeting, prompted his vote to spend as much as $25,000 even though he does not think the board could win a legal fight over the bills that won the majority of votes in the Legislature.

“We’re not going to be able to challenge the constitutionality of this,” Schmitt said during the meeting, “because they’ve gone to great lengths.”

According to an email attributed to Brendan Conway, Abele’s communications director, Abele has not decided whether he will veto or sign off on the resolution.

It is Abele’s interactions with corporation counsel that led to the vote for outside counsel, Alexander said. She said she believes Abele has a closer working relationship with corporation counsel than do most board members but that should not cost Milwaukee County taxpayers $25,000.

“We could possibly spend less by using attorneys that we already have on staff,” Alexander said, “but the County Board is more interested in avoiding conflicts of interest, real or perceived.”

— Follow Beth on Twitter and read her new blog, Property Lines