Jim van Lieshout
Commerce and Industry Association

Dear Jim,

At 10 a.m Tuesday August 31, while out gathering signatures for the proposed amendment to the Chamber by-laws, by chance I encountered David Olsen at Havill-Spoerl. He appeared to be negotiating the purchase of a vehicle. Before I secured Marv Havill's signature, I told to Olsen that you'd called me Monday about the plans for the upcoming CIA and Chamber executive meetings. He said he'd tell me when they were scheduled.

At 3:15 p.m. yesterday, I called Olsen and asked "Has there been any progress scheduling the meetings we talked about yesterday?" Again I got the fifteen-seconds-of-silence followed by
complete-amnesia treatment, in which he pretends to have no idea of which meetings I'm asking about, gives misleading answers, or answers "no" to everything but my most specific questions.

Eventually he admitted the CIA meeting has been scheduled and that an agenda has been posted.
I asked him to read the agenda and he did. I was surprised to hear about the closed session segment.
I asked "What ligitation is the CIA involved with?" and he said he wasn't at liberty to discuss this.
Later, he generously dropped off a copy of the agenda at my office.

I do not understand how this exemption can be claimed in the CIA's present position. The open meeting exemption described in Wis. Stat. sec. 19.85(1)(g) reads: "Conferring with legal counsel for the governmental body who is rendering oral or written advice concerning strategy to be adopted by the body with respect to litigation in which it is or is likely to become involved." (Italics mine.)

As presiding officer of this body, I stress that it is your duty to judge the validity of the reason for entering closed session, and if you determine to do so, to keep the closed-session discussion focused on matters allowed under the exemption. Discussion of other topics is a violation of the letter and the spirit of the law. If the conversation wanders, closed session must be concluded.

As far as I know, the CIA has not yet secured the services of legal counsel. What litigation is the CIA involved with, or is likely to be involved with? If the CIA is not involved with legal counsel, is not discussing written advice, or is not meeting with the CIA's counsel, then I don't see how 19.85(1)(g) can be applied. The JDC has a lawyer, of course, but this is not a meeting of the JDC, and they are not the CIA's counsel. If the CIA is recognized as a quasi-governmental entity of the City of Jefferson, then you may need to consult with the City's attorney, Attorney Scott Scheibel at 563-7576.

In our Monday phone call, you said these questions of open records and open meetings will be resolved quickly so we can get them behind us. I jumped to the conclusion that I'd have an opportunity to hear the discussion, or even be asked to speak.

As I understand it, you have the power to invite any parties to participate in a closed session. Also, the meeting does not have a public participation section, so I would not have the opportunity to speak unless given that courtesy by the presiding officer. At future meetings, I encourage you to add a public participation section to the agenda.

If you would like to discuss any of this with me, please feel free to call me at 674-5200.

Sincerely,

John Foust