Statutory Interpretation

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District I

Case Name: Theodore Lipscomb, Sr., et al. v. Christopher Abele

Case No.: 2017AP1023

Officials: Blanchard, Kloppenburg, and Fitzpatrick, JJ.

Focus: Statutory Interpretation

The Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors and the Milwaukee County Executive dispute their relative powers, as defined by closely related state statutes. Based on statutory interpretations, the circuit court granted and denied requests for declaratory relief by both sides. The Executive appeals and the Board cross appeals.

The disputes fall into two categories: (1) compensation-related issues, namely, whether the Executive or instead the Board has authority to take certain actions relating to the compensation of “unclassified” county employees; and (2) meeting-attendance issues, namely, whether the Board or Board committees may require county employees and officers, including the Executive himself or herself, to appear at Board meetings or Board committee meetings, to provide information and answer questions.

To resolve the compensation-related issues, we primarily interpret two statutes. This involves harmonizing the two statutes. One statute empowers the Board, by giving it authority to “[p]rovide, fix, or change the salary or compensation” of unclassified county employees. WIS. STAT. § 59.22(2)(c)1.a. (2015-16).  The other statute empowers the Executive, by giving him or her exclusive authority to “exercise day-to-day control” of county departments and their subunits. WIS. STAT. § 59.794(3)(a).

On the compensation-related issues, we reach conclusions that include the following. In favor of the Board, we conclude that the Executive’s “day-to-day control” power does not eliminate the Board’s compensation-fixing power, and that the Board’s compensation-fixing power applies to the salary or compensation of all unclassified county employees and officers. In favor of the Executive, we conclude that the Executive’s “day-to-day control” power prevents the Board from taking actions that effectively direct what duties may or must be accomplished by employees or officers or how they may or must perform those duties, even when a Board action may result in a compensation change.

On the meeting-attendance issues, we primarily interpret WIS. STAT. § 59.794(3)(b), which permits “[a] board” to “require, as necessary, the attendance of any county employee or officer at a board meeting to provide information and answer questions.” We reach conclusions that include the following. In favor of the Board, we conclude that the Executive is included in the definition of “any … officer” whose appearance the Board may require. In favor of the Executive, we conclude that the “board” that may require an appearance means the Board as a whole, not any committee or other subset of Board supervisors.

Recommended for Publication

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.