City Council Debates Legal Counsel Fees Amid Public Opposition and Calls for Closed Session

Concerns over legal spending dominated the Wausau City Council meeting on August 26, 2025, as council members grappled with the implications of ongoing legal fees related to a citizen complaint against Mayor Denny. The discussion highlighted a strong push for transparency and accountability, with several alderpersons expressing their reluctance to approve additional funding without more detailed information.

Alder Lukacs opened the debate, emphasizing the need for a closed session to discuss the specifics of the legal costs before committing to further expenditures. "I cannot support this at this time. I do not feel we have adequate information," he stated, reflecting the sentiments of constituents who have voiced concerns about the city's spending.

The council considered an amendment to limit legal counsel fees to $15,000, with $10,000 allocated for preparation and $5,000 reserved for the hearing. However, the amendment faced significant opposition, leading to a tied vote of 5-5, ultimately resulting in its failure after the mayor cast the deciding vote against it.

Alder Rasmussen pointed out procedural challenges, noting that the council was not officially agendized for a closed session that evening. "If we feel that we're not ready to act on it, then we are gonna need to table it," he advised, suggesting the possibility of a special meeting to address the matter more thoroughly.

The main motion to continue engaging legal counsel for the ethics board case was met with similar skepticism. Alder McElaney echoed the need for clarity, stating, "I have some very specific questions... and I feel responsible to answer questions."

As the council moved back to the original motion, Alder Lukacs reiterated the importance of addressing misinformation surrounding the complaint, ensuring that the public understands the origins of the case.

The meeting underscored a critical moment for Wausau's leadership, as council members navigate the balance between legal obligations and fiscal responsibility, with the community's trust hanging in the balance. The next steps remain uncertain, but the call for a special meeting indicates that this issue will continue to be a focal point in upcoming discussions.