Former mayor Castle accused, but Esslinger cleared of criminal wrongdoing
The Oshkosh Northwestern reported last night and today that this past spring former mayor Bill Castle filed a complaint with the district attorney’s office, basically alleging criminal wrongdoing on the part of councilman Paul Esslinger. That complaint was then referred to the state Attorney General’s office by the DA’s office.
Castle’s complaint came after Esslinger made remarks during a closed session meeting with then city manager Richard Wollangk that essentially said if he didn’t fire community development director Jackson Kinney, Esslinger would vote to fire Wollangk.
You can read the entire report and results of the Justice Department’s investigation by going here , but this entire situation raises a few of questions.
First, did Castle go too far in filing a complaint with the DA’s office when he could have first consulted with the city attorney as to whether Esslinger broke the law? (Esslinger told the council that he’d already talked with then city attorney Warren Kraft about whether he could make such comments to Wollangk and was told they would not be illegal, though Kraft apparently did question their appropriateness). And shouldn’t Wollangk have been the one to file a complaint if he felt he’d been “blackmailed,” “extorted,” or in some other way aggrieved?
Finally, should either Castle or the taxpayers pay for Esslinger’s $1,715 in attorney fees as a result of the investigation?
If Castle never bothered asking Kraft his opinion on Esslinger’s remarks or didn’t cared enough to learn if Esslinger had consulted with the city attorney or district attorney before making his comments, then I believe Castle went too far. Do I believe Castle or the taxpayers should foot the bill for Esslinger’s attorney’s fees? No, not as it stands.
If, for example, the Justice Department had said Castle’s complaint was completely frivolous, then perhaps Castle should pay Esslinger’s attorney’s fees. But they didn’t say that. Moreover, in a general sense, if a prevailing party in any action has the right to be recompensed for their legal defense by someone who sues or files a complaint against them and subsequently loses, I think we’ll see a lot of people who are afraid to file complaints. That may just encourage more inappropriate or illegal behavior on the part of some people. I can certainly see putting an end to frivolous lawsuits by enacting such a measure, but again, this particular situation was not called frivolous. And I certainly don’t believe the taxpayers should be responsible for footing this bill. That would be setting a bad precedent.
One also has to wonder why Esslinger hired an attorney so quickly. Just as Castle may have over-reacted, so may have Esslinger. After all, all the Justice Department was doing was asking questions. And if Esslinger was so convinced he had the law on his side and had done nothing wrong, why rush to hire an attorney? Elected officials frequently have complaints filed against them for a variety of reasons. Do they all rush to hire an attorney to represent them as soon as they learn an investigation is taking place? I suppose it depends on the seriousness or nature of the complaint. But in this case, since Esslinger was so convinced he had done nothing wrong or illegal, a more appropriate time for him to hire an attorney may have been if, and when, charges had been filed.
At any rate, he hired one during the investigative process and now wants someone else to pay those legal fees. Castle has ignored Esslinger’s written request for payment, so Esslinger has turned them over to the city for payment. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Castle’s complaint came after Esslinger made remarks during a closed session meeting with then city manager Richard Wollangk that essentially said if he didn’t fire community development director Jackson Kinney, Esslinger would vote to fire Wollangk.
You can read the entire report and results of the Justice Department’s investigation by going here , but this entire situation raises a few of questions.
First, did Castle go too far in filing a complaint with the DA’s office when he could have first consulted with the city attorney as to whether Esslinger broke the law? (Esslinger told the council that he’d already talked with then city attorney Warren Kraft about whether he could make such comments to Wollangk and was told they would not be illegal, though Kraft apparently did question their appropriateness). And shouldn’t Wollangk have been the one to file a complaint if he felt he’d been “blackmailed,” “extorted,” or in some other way aggrieved?
Finally, should either Castle or the taxpayers pay for Esslinger’s $1,715 in attorney fees as a result of the investigation?
If Castle never bothered asking Kraft his opinion on Esslinger’s remarks or didn’t cared enough to learn if Esslinger had consulted with the city attorney or district attorney before making his comments, then I believe Castle went too far. Do I believe Castle or the taxpayers should foot the bill for Esslinger’s attorney’s fees? No, not as it stands.
If, for example, the Justice Department had said Castle’s complaint was completely frivolous, then perhaps Castle should pay Esslinger’s attorney’s fees. But they didn’t say that. Moreover, in a general sense, if a prevailing party in any action has the right to be recompensed for their legal defense by someone who sues or files a complaint against them and subsequently loses, I think we’ll see a lot of people who are afraid to file complaints. That may just encourage more inappropriate or illegal behavior on the part of some people. I can certainly see putting an end to frivolous lawsuits by enacting such a measure, but again, this particular situation was not called frivolous. And I certainly don’t believe the taxpayers should be responsible for footing this bill. That would be setting a bad precedent.
One also has to wonder why Esslinger hired an attorney so quickly. Just as Castle may have over-reacted, so may have Esslinger. After all, all the Justice Department was doing was asking questions. And if Esslinger was so convinced he had the law on his side and had done nothing wrong, why rush to hire an attorney? Elected officials frequently have complaints filed against them for a variety of reasons. Do they all rush to hire an attorney to represent them as soon as they learn an investigation is taking place? I suppose it depends on the seriousness or nature of the complaint. But in this case, since Esslinger was so convinced he had done nothing wrong or illegal, a more appropriate time for him to hire an attorney may have been if, and when, charges had been filed.
At any rate, he hired one during the investigative process and now wants someone else to pay those legal fees. Castle has ignored Esslinger’s written request for payment, so Esslinger has turned them over to the city for payment. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
posted by Cheryl Hentz at 9:54 PM
4 Comments:
Perhaps PE retained an attorney as a precautionary measure (not having full faith in the opinions of Warren Kraft) or because the complaint was forwarded to the State.
Jumping the gun or prudent?
What would YOU have done?
Not having seen the complaint filed, and not having been the one making the comment or talking to the city attorney, I can't say what I would have done. That is why I said he MAY have jumped the gun. But again, every elected official who has a complaint filed against them does not get an attorney right from the start. In fact, I would venture to say there are many more who don't than do. But when one does, they also need to understand that they are making that decision on their own and may not necessarily be able to recoup their expenses.
You stated on the Oshkosh Northwestern's discussion board that you thought Esslinger's comment "It may have been an over reach of authority." Since you believe that, do you believe he bears any responsibility for the situation as it unfolded? More to the point, who do YOU think should pay his legal fees?
(Don't know if this post went through, so I'm sending it a second time. Please omit if the first is received.)
"You stated on the Oshkosh Northwestern's discussion board that you thought Esslinger's comment "It may have been an over reach of authority."
I took the time to read the justice report and it confirmed my original suspicion. It was an over reach of authority (IMO). It is uninforcible without a majority council vote. Blunt statement, yes. Against the law, no.
That being said, you ask what I would do. I will have to consult with my attorney before I answer that question. ;)
Seriously though- I would have consulted an attorney before making a decison whether to or not retain their services. My decision would be based on that consultation.
I would not have been so blunt thus putting myself in such a precarious position (as PE or BB in a seperate instance). Still, our councilors all have a responsibility to assess the performance of the city manager and make decisions based upon results or lack thereof. My feeling is that he did the right thing, but went about it the wrong way. That doesn't make it illegal.
PE obviously felt the need to have an attorney since Warren Kraft could not represent him in this suit.
Mr. Castle could have handled his end of this situation more suitably as well.
Devisive, good old boy power politics are still costing our beloved city dearly.
I say the two of them should split the cost and let a serious lesson be learned.
CJ, I too, read the DOJ report and agree that Esslinger's comments were, as you put it, an overreach of authority. I never said they were illegal, though, I can understand how someone might believe they could be. That may be why Bill Castle filed his complaint, which as the DOJ report notes, was filed with the county DA and referred to the state by them. In reading the report, it does not sound like Castle went directly to the state with his complaint, as some are saying.
You said "Mr. Castle could have handled his end of this situation more suitably as well." What would you have him do? Yes, he could have gone to the city attorney, but he saw in recent years various instances in which Kraft's legal counsel was challenged, some successfully so. He also saw several mistakes that had been made by the city attorney's office. Maybe he felt more comfortable not going to the city attorney. Or, maybe it was political in nature. We'll never know for sure. But the fact of the matter is he had a right to file a complaint if he felt wrongdoing occurred; he exercised that right.
Likewise, Esslinger did not have to hire an attorney to represent him in this matter, but he had the right to do so and exercised that right. Therefore, it seems he should bear the cost of that legal representation.
You said the two should split the cost and "let a serious lesson be learned." What is the lesson they should learn? Esslinger made statements he believed to be legal and within his right to make. Castle believed Esslinger committed a wrongdoing and took what he believed to be necessary action. Esslinger chose to hire an attorney to represent him in answering questions from the state investigator. I wonder what, if anything, would be different if they had to do it all over again today.
Finally, as I said before, complaints are filed all the time with local DA's offices and the state attorney general's office. Based on previous conversations with some of those agencies, some of the people who've been complained about and the state attorney general's office, I do not believe the better majority of those elected or public officials being complained about rush out to hire an attorney just because someone is asking them questions about something they did or didn't do.
Post a Comment
<< Home