Rusk County community, we need your help!

Corp. Counsel Steve Sorenson is double dipping AND poisoning our elected representatives, elected officials, and employees to violate State law and our rights.

Steve Sorenson is a shareholder of vonBriesen & Roper, the same firm that provides us employment legal services, and while he is also our Corp. Counsel, also through vonBriesen. There is more than just a slight conflict of interest. This creates an easy way to create disputes that keep benefiting him and his firm. It's a win-win.

Under Wis. Stat. § 59.42, the Corporation Counsel serves at the pleasure of the County Board (or the County Administrator/Executive).

Termination Power: In most counties, the Corporation Counsel can be terminated "at any time by a majority vote of all the members of the board."

The Petition’s Goal: We must use our voices to collectively prove to the supervisors that the public has lost confidence in the Corp. Counsel’s ability to provide neutral, transparent, and ethical legal advice.

We have been hearing and seeing very troubling signs that Corp. Counsel Sorenson is thwarting transparency at meetings and limiting and in some cases denying open records. It's our understanding the open records software will not come back due to his decisions to limit transparency.

We believe Steve Sorenson is giving bad, and often legally incorrect information to the board, clerk, and administration. This is unacceptable, and we need to demand his time here in Rusk County is over.

Watching the new member training after the election, you can see that he has no interest in the public or our right to transparency. He wants the board to stop all communications with us. And some board members actually have. He's also told them not to talk outside of a meeting to anyone about anything at all. He's not protecting Rusk County; he's actually limiting information, even between board members, and that's dangerous.

Civics lesson. That is not how a representative government works, especially at the local level. Walking quorums, making decisions with other board members before coming to meetings, is illegal. However, board members talking to the public and their constituents outside of a meeting, is actually a requirement of the job.

It recently came to our attention that he has done this very thing at other places, like the City of Rhinelander and the Green Lake School District.

https://www.facebook.com/WisconsinTransparencyProj...

https://www.starjournalnow.com/stories/city-counci...

A conflict of interest (or the appearance of one) occurs if the Counsel’s advice to the board seems designed to generate more business for their own firm.

For example:

Discouraging Transparency: If the Counsel gives "orders" that prevent supervisors from talking to one another or shuts down public records software, it can lead to disputes. If those disputes turn into lawsuits, their firm is the one that gets paid to defend the county.

Labor Negotiations: If the Counsel advises the Board to take a "hard line" stance that leads to a grievance or a lawsuit, their firm benefits from the increased billable hours required to handle that case.

Filtering Information: If the Counsel prevents a committee from discussing something, they're effectively controlling the flow of information that could impact a situation that the firm might later have to litigate.

How does the Interim Corp. Counsel's affiliation with our litigation firm influence the advice to shut down our transparency software or to limit committee discussions or limit or deny records? Is this advice being given to protect the county, or is it creating a situation that necessitates more legal intervention from that firm?

Under the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys (SCR 20), an attorney must not represent a client if there is a "substantial risk that the representation... will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to... a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer."

Recent events regarding how our Administration and IT Department head handled a recent data breach at the courthouse, the IT Department itself, our IT employees, and policy and procedures should warrant immediate terminations of administration and the department head. And yet, Corp. Counsel Sorenson is making sure we can't get records and assess what actually took place.

Hiring an IT firm means Rusk County administration and Corp. Counsel can thwart our transparency and withhold records even more.

Currently, the board is saying no to an administrator, but we have one by proxy because Corp. Counsel Sorenson's actions are muzzling the board and that's giving all the power to Administrative Coordinator Heath and himself.

Check out the links to see how Sorenson performed his duties at two specific places. You will read how an open records attorney feels about these actions by Sorenson.

It's time Rusk County starts listening to the community.

SPEAK OUT! SEND EMAILS! WRITE LETTERS TO THE PAPER!

SIGN this petition so we can show the board THEY NEED DO RIGHT BY US!

FOLLOW me @ https://www.facebook.com/share/18kqnqn9c1/

I will be sharing a lot more info about very serious events from the past month. The employees and our community needs more support.

SHARE this petition with the Rusk County community.

Let's get a new Corp. Counsel that can follow the law, board policy, and ultimately respect the taxpayers and community members.

We deserve to be treated like this government exists FOR us, rather than for those in power.

Sign today, and let's show them OUR VOICES matter MORE THAN any CORP. COUNSEL!