Janesville City Council member Josh Erdman defied city legal advice and voted on a firefighter’s union contract in a re-vote Monday night despite ethics concerns about his wife being in the union.
Erdman said last week he planned to vote on the contract after it got sent back to the floor following concerns filed by two members.
Monday night, Erdman did just that.
The vote passed 7-0 as it did earlier this month, when Erdman also voted on the measure. At the time of the first vote, Erdman says the city attorney had told him and city council President Aaron Burdick that it was OK for him to vote on the contract.
Erdman read a statement including his own attorney’s opinion. He says there’s no conflict because state case law shows his vote would not benefit his wife any more than any of the other 90 union members on the contract.
City Attorney Wald Klimczyk said three attorneys, including a state municipal league lawyer and a state ethics code expert, told him that Erdman’s vote earlier likely creates a conflict — and that Erdman should abstain if the council re-voted.
He cited a 1970s Wisconsin case over a school board member who sat out of a vote on a teachers union contract because their spouse was in the union.
Klimczyk says state ethics experts generally define a financial advantage that could result in a conflict as an elected official accepting anything of value over $25.
Earlier this month, the city grappled with ethical conflicts of interest after council members received an invite to a gala dinner at the Woodman’s Center.
The city manager’s office issued a notice to the council that they’d be required to pay for the full, $92 cost of the dinner in order to avoid a possible conflict of interest.
It was after a council member complained the invites, which included free food and alcohol, went against ethics rules.
Erdman voted on the contract Monday night after every council member but him voted to move the contract back to the floor for a re-vote.
That was when Erdman read a statement and told the council he would not yield his right as council member to represent his constituents.
Council President Aaron Burdick hinted that the council could now opt to bring a formal ethics complaint against Erdman.
Such an action against Erdman would involve one or more council members bringing a more formal complaint to the city attorney.
That would require the city attorney to make a finding in the complaint, and depending on the outcome, it’s possible that Erdman could face sanctions — including censure by the council.
Censure would require a two-thirds majority vote by the council.
Under city rules, censure can take the form of a formal statement by the council chastising another member for their behavior, but it can include other sanctions depending on the seriousness of the findings.
Under city rules, Erdman would likely have the ability to have the action take place in public, with the opportunity to defend himself.
Erdman says he thinks the initial complaint and the council’s maneuvers to bring the union contract back for a vote is an attempt by some city officials to publicly pillory him for being an outspoken voice in his first term on the council.
Erdman tells Big Radio he thinks he is being politically targeted because he ruffled feathers at City Hall earlier this year when he demanded the city form an independent city review board on south-side redevelopment that could cross-check city proposals.
Erdman is among a minority of council members who have pushed for a more robust public discussion over one city prospect — luring a data center to the former General Motors site.
That prospect has gone all but silent at City Hall since the city collected two proposals from data center developers as a request for proposals closed out last month.
Erdman also pressed publicly for most of the city’s new General Motors site redevelopment panel members to be south side residents who live near the former GM site.
His wife, Cathy Erdman, is an outspoken member of a south side citizens group that has taken a stand against the process the city used to set up the GM site redevelopment panel, and has asked probing questions about the city’s pursuit of a possible data center development.
Erdman himself voted against seating the nine public members of the GM panel because he disagreed with the city manager seating the panel himself — a move that circumvented the city’s independent citizen committee on appointments, which Erdman said would have vetted the panel’s applicants with more transparency.
Erdman says he’s prepared to stand up to an ethics complaint over his decision to vote Monday night — and he’s said he is considering legal remedies to the situation, but has not elaborated further.
Paul Williams, one council member who brought initial concerns over Erdman’s vote on the union contract, says he brought the concern because he does not want the city to get flagged for an ethics violation that it might have otherwise avoided.
He says he flagged Erdman’s initial vote earlier this month a day after the council meeting. He said he sought to give Erdman an “out,” hoping Erdman would voluntarily step away from a possible conflict.
On Monday, Klimczyk said another council member flagged Erdman’s vote, but the city has not immediately divulged which council members complained.
