Lawsuit Settlement Information-Court Ordered To Be Released
Settlement information regarding the slander lawsuit against John Dickert by William Bielefeldt was ordered today to be made public by Judge Gerald Ptacek and is public record. They appeared today in court to get a ruling, according to records online. It’s ordered that
Court notes that fact whether mayor was acting in official capacity never determined in underlying case. Opening statement by Atty Letteney. All attorney fees and costs of underlying case were paid for by the city. Final agreement does not reflect Dickert as mayor or reflect him signing it in that capacity. By the court finding that Dickert was speaking in capacity of mayor and in signing settlement agreement. (Source of knowledge) Settlement is public record and subject to disclosure. Atty Letteney to prepare Order under 5-day rule. Re release of documents, not to be released until process has run its course.
4 Responses to Lawsuit Settlement Information-Court Ordered To Be Released
You must be logged in to post a comment Login
Will the ruling be appealed?
“Municipal Liability Generally
a. Municipal and Personal Liability under Wisconsin Law
Persons or organizations that feel they have suffered an injury as a result of the actions of a municipal official or employee may file a lawsuit against the individual and the municipality to recover damages. In general, municipal liability in the State of Wisconsin is controlled by Wis. Stat. secs. 893.80 and 895.46. These sections, along with published court decisions interpreting these statutes, define the liability of municipalities in state tort actions. As a general rule, municipal officials and employees need fear no personal loss or liability for the honest performance of their duties and exercise of powers granted by law.
Municipal employees and officials are often shielded by statute and judicially imposed immunities from liability for injuries to others arising out of acts performed within the scope of their public employment. The public policy behind this practice is to encourage service to municipal government and reduce fear of personal liability stemming from acts taken in good faith while in an official government position.
b. Indemnification.
State law requires a municipality to pay any civil judgment for damages and costs entered against a municipal official or employee for acts performed within the scope of their employment, in excess of any insurance applicable to the official or employee. Under sec. 895.46, municipal officials and employees will be indemnified by the municipality for negligent acts taken within the “scope of their employment.” This requirement has been construed to mean that the official or employee’s action must have been taken, in some measure, to serve the municipal employer. Olson v. Connerly, 156 Wis.2d 488, 457 N.W. 2d 479 (1990). Once the determination is made that the official or employee was acting in the scope of employment, the indemnification requirement may apply even if the act taken is outside what the employer may have desired so long as it furthers the objectives of the employer. Graham v. Sauk Prairie Police Comm., 915 F.2d 1085 (7th Cir. 1990). Indemnification may extend to cases where punitive damages are assessed and to cases involving alleged open meetings violations. Kolar v. County of Sangamo, 756 F.2d 564 (7th Cir. 1985); 77 Op. Att’y Gen. 177.
The indemnification statute applies to most foreseeable actions taken by municipal officials and employees in the scope of their employment, including operating motor vehicles or machinery, employment and civil rights claims, environmental lawsuits and property damage claims. However, failure of an employee or officer to give notice to the municipality of an action commenced against them as soon as reasonably possible can be a bar to recovery of the costs of defending the action by the employee or officer.”
http://www.lwm-info.org/index.asp?SEC=D746E3BD-06EB-4823-A22A-0B4AE68E7CC7&DE=EE09AE4F-1F41-4548-8B36-4A104EB2FCCC&Type=B_BASIC
Campaigning ISN’T an “Official duty of a Mayor” for which indemnification would be granted.
IF it is said “The Mayor acted in good faith”, then:
1. Who’s the Embezzler? Now is the time for John Dickert to name the Embezzler.
2. What is the amount that was embezzled?
3. Where is the Police Report?
4. When did all of this occur?
5. How has this remain hidden for so long?
http://racine.craigslist.org/pol/3571387963.html
Tricky Dicky
01/25/2013 at 4:37 pm
More laws of interest:
Misconduct in Office and other Criminal Prohibitions — Secs. 946.10 – 946.12
d. Acting Outside Authority. The mayor may not do an act which he or she knows is in excess of the mayor’s power or which the mayor is forbidden by law to do in his or her capacity as mayor. Sec. 946.12(2), Stats. Example – Executive Order
e. Dishonest Advantage. The mayor may not, by commission or omission and with intent to obtain a dishonest advantage, exercise a discretionary power in a manner inconsistent with the duties of the office of mayor or the rights of others. Sec. 946.12(3), Stats.
f. Records Falsification. The mayor may not falsify records. Sec. 946.12(4), Stats.
Tricky Dicky
01/25/2013 at 7:10 pm
He would only do this if he truly has something to hide, We need to get into his bank statements and find out what really is going on in this city since he has been mayor. How can contractors with checkered pasts continually get work with the city progrms and remodels. Most of them do not even resemble the model requirements they set forth. The only reason these contractors get the work is because they have a personal relationship with the mayor himself. He even said it when he claimed he was “related to most everyone in Racine”.
papabear
01/26/2013 at 7:51 am
While Mayor John Dickert proclaims the City of Racine is broke, that more funds are needed, and that taxes must be raised beyond reasonable limits – One must stop and ask – IS the City of Racine overpaying for employees? Are salaries and compensation in line with the 21st. C Global economic reality? How can a resident make a decision if City Hall hides the compensation of employees?
In the spirit that an informed electorate can make a better decision – the entire list of City Employee salaries for 2012 is being published. Remember that the salaries shown don’t include the non-taxed Benefits package that often adds $20,000 – $30,000+ to their compensation.
All 716 employees of The City of Racine who make $25,000 or more are detailed. Source: Open records requests filed by Gannett Wisconsin Media with each entity.
Racine Exposed
Tricky Dicky
01/27/2013 at 12:55 pm