| By Neil Johnson, reporter/anchor, Big Radio |
Can a Janesville City Council member discuss and vote on an issue that could directly affect their personal business interests?
The city’s attorney says it’s OK, but at least one other city official wonders otherwise.
Janesville city council member Rich Neeno and his family operate Lark, a downtown Janesville restaurant. It’s one of several restaurants that were granted outdoor patio expansions under a streamlined COVID-19 ordinance from 2020 that removed oversight from the city council and the city’s liquor commission.
Over the last two months, Neeno has written public Facebook posts urging the city to back off a proposal to repeal the COVID-era rule and return authority over patio approvals to the council and the liquor commission.
At a council meeting Monday night, Neeno asked what would happen to Lark’s sidewalk dining permit if the city repealed its COVID rule. He also voted to put the issue on a back burner two months, until the end of the outdoor dining season.
Council member Paul Williams brought the suggested ordinance change.
On Monday, Williams asked if Neeno should recuse himself from the council’s discussion and decisions on outdoor dining.
Klimczyk said he sees no conflict of interest for Neeno to discuss and vote on outdoor seating. He tells Big Radio in an email that an exception in law allows public officials to act on proposals to modify any local ordinance regardless of a vested interest.
On its website, the Wisconsin League of Municipalities says state law prohibits elected officials from taking action on matters they or family members would have a significant financial stake in.
No further word from Neeno or the Janesville City Attorney’s Office on the city’s legal read on the situation.
The outdoor dining issue returns to the council floor Oct. 23.
