May 21, 2026
By TIM HUNDT
VIROQUA, Wis. – Vernon County supervisors again confronted a growing rift over how and when the county uses its own lawyers Thursday, as residents and board members questioned a recent decision to keep corporation counsel out of key committee meetings and rely instead on written memos.
The dispute, which began in the General Government Committee and has now spilled onto the full board floor, centers on whether supervisors are exposing county taxpayers to legal and financial risk by shutting out in person legal advice during complicated discussions on issues such as data centers, transmission lines and countywide zoning.
Several speakers urged the board to slow down and rethink its approach, arguing that the choice to bar corporation counsel from attending the General Government Committee was made too quickly and without enough public input.
Lara Roberts of Viroqua told supervisors she was alarmed watching last week’s General Government Committee video and seeing detailed legal debates unfold with no attorney at the table.
She summarized her concern as a plea for more deliberation and public involvement in any change to how the county uses its lawyers.
“I watched the general government meeting on the video, and I was concerned to see all the legal questions that came up, and there was no attorney presence,” said Roberts. “I would like to see us revisit the decision of counsel for the county, you know, take a little more time to look at it, possibly create a temporary advisory group”.
Roberts said she understood there are financial pressures but argued that the decision appeared rushed and light on community input.
“It seemed to me like that decision was made quickly without much input,” said Roberts. “So I am asking for that”.
Another Viroqua resident, Ken Carlson, echoed her worry and framed the choice to meet without corporation counsel as both unusual and risky for a committee that often handles complicated legal questions.
Carlson told the board he has followed county government off and on for years and could not understand why a committee dealing with contracts and legal obligations would decide to exclude its own lawyer.
“It would seem to me, and based on what I read, that the committee is often dealing with complicated legal matters, and to meet without the counsel did not seem like a responsible choice to me,” said Carlson. “Since I am not aware that the supervisors on that committee are legal experts themselves, going forward I would encourage that committee to make a different choice, and to have legal counsel to help work through that stuff”.
Carlson tied his concern to the recent removal of Supervisor Alycann Taylor from the General Government Committee, saying he believes the board lost valuable experience at the same time it was narrowing access to professional advice.
“I am disappointed by that decision, because I think she has a skill set that lends itself well to that committee,” said Carlson. “I would just encourage you all to look at where the expertise is and apply it appropriately”.
Supervisor Lawler presses for full board debate
Supervisor Wayde Lawler, who has been one of the most vocal critics of the new approach, used public comment to formally ask that the full county board take up the issue next month. Lawler was also removed from the General Government Committee following the spring election and reorganization of committees.
Lawler told colleagues the memo that corporation counsel prepared for the last General Government Committee meeting at the request of the committee chair underscored the limits of written legal guidance when the attorney is kept out of the room.
He summarized his main argument as a concern that the county is increasing its liability and could end up paying more later to fix mistakes made without live legal advice.
“Not having our legal counsel present when we are discussing things that get real thorny real fast is a risk for us as a county,” said Lawler. “It is a risk that could lead to a lot of liability. It could lead to a lot of penny wise, pound foolish decisions, where we end up spending more later to fix things that we mistakenly decided absent appropriate counsel”.
Lawler pointed supervisors to a passage in corporation counsel’s memo that he said makes clear she does not view written opinions as a full substitute for being present during debate.
“In this memo, in the second paragraph, you will see that our own corp counsel suggests that this method of advice is insufficient, that any legal advice is contextual, and without the ability to clarify in the moment, she cannot vouch for the advice given,” said Lawler. “Written advice provided in isolation carries inherent limitations”.
He also questioned the underlying decision to ask a department head not to attend her home committee, calling it highly unusual and warning that any claimed cost savings are likely to be minimal or illusory.
“For a committee to request that a department head not attend their home committee’s meeting strikes me as highly unusual,” said Lawler. “The only explanation I have been given for that decision was a financial one. Those meetings are about three hours long, and there are 12 of them a year, and at a rate of 150 dollars an hour, that is less than 5,000 dollars in a year”.
Lawler said even that amount would quickly be absorbed by the hours required to draft detailed memos and by the risk that questions will still have to be sent back to corporation counsel after the fact.
“I do not think we are going to save any money doing this,” said Lawler. “Already there were questions that were not able to be answered in real time that required other department heads to then go and consult with corp counsel”.
With no other justification offered to him, Lawler said the move risks looking personal or punitive and argued that such a structural change in how the county uses its lawyers should be debated in open session by the full board.
“If we are going to make a decision like this, and I do not think we should, at the very least it ought to be made in an open session of the board,” said Lawler. “Because it has ramifications for our entire board, for our entire county”.
Board Chair Lorn Goede briefly responded to part of Lawler’s framing, noting that corporation counsel does not formally sit as a member of the General Government Committee but reports administratively elsewhere.
“Just as a point of clarification, I do not entirely disagree with you, Wade, but corporate counsel reports to administrators,” said Goede. “She is not a member of General Government”.
Former General Government Committee chair Alycann Taylor echoed Lawler’s concern and referred supervisors directly to the corporation counsel memo and warned that recent decision making has not always been grounded in full research and accurate information.
“From a risk management perspective, I am concerned at some recent decision making practices,” said Taylor.”It seems lately some decisions are rooted in I know better knee jerk reactionary decision versus those rooted with accurate information and proper research, and this is alarming, and supervisors should be aware”.
Quoting directly from the corporation counsel memo, Taylor underscored counsel’s warning that written advice prior to a meeting cannot fully substitute for being in the room as questions and new facts arise.
“When counsel is not present, requested also does not fully satisfy the body’s statutory obligation to have the benefit of legal counsel at its meetings,” the memo stated, as read into the record. “Legal issues arise in a body’s deliberations that cannot be anticipated in advance, and without counsel present, the opportunity to prevent a problem gives way to the more costly task of remedying one”.
The memo also warned that the time required to produce a thorough written opinion is not a cheaper alternative to having counsel attend the meeting.
“It bears noting as well that preparing a comprehensive written legal memorandum of this kind is time intensive,” the staff member read. “It is neither a more efficient nor a more economical substitute for counsel’s attendance”
RFP for legal services and looming vacancy
Interim Administrative Coordinator and Human Resources Director Trisha Lepke updated the board on efforts to secure outside legal help following the resignation of corporation counsel effective in July.
Lepke told supervisors that a request for proposals for corporation counsel services went out last week, with responses due May 29 and a review planned at the June 3 General Government Committee meeting.
“We have an RFP out for the Corporation Counsel that was sent out last week,” said Lepke. “That is due May 29. We will be reviewing proposals at the Gen Gov meeting on June 3”.
Supervisor Dave Eggen added more context, noting that the current corporation counsel has already submitted her resignation and that the county could soon be in what he called a whole different world if they do not receive sufficient proposals for ongoing legal services.
Eggen said he had asked corporation counsel not to attend the last General Government meeting and instead respond in writing to the few legal questions he believed were on the agenda, in part because the county may have to rethink how it covers legal work if the RFP process falls short.
“At the last General Government meeting I got an email from our corporate counsel, who has resigned, and she asked me if I wanted her at the meeting,” said Eggen. “And I said, why do we not try answering the only two legal questions that I currently see on the docket, because if we do not get RFPs for legal help, we are going to be in a whole different world. We are going to have to do some thinking out of the box”.
That explanation highlights the tension driving the current dispute. Supervisors are weighing short-term cost concerns and uncertainty over future legal arrangements against the warnings of counsel, staff and residents who say cutting back on in person legal guidance is a false economy.
Lawler closed his comments by again urging that the legal counsel question be placed squarely before the full board.
“I just want to reiterate a request to, as a full board, discuss whether or not we are going to have corp counsel present at Gen Gov meetings,” said Lawler.
Board leadership did not set a specific agenda line during the meeting, but Lawler said he intends his request to stand for next month’s session, which was rescheduled to June 25 to avoid a conflict with the Wisconsin Counties Association meeting.
As the county moves toward that date, residents and supervisors on both sides of the question appear to agree on one thing. The stakes for how Vernon County structures its legal advice are only growing as it confronts transmission lines, data centers, dam decommissioning and countywide zoning in the months ahead.
Add comment