Mayor Responds to Recall Charges

The following is a letter Muskego Patch received from Mayor Kathy Chiaverotti, who is the target of a recall effort along with Aldermen Keith Harenda and Neome Schaumberg.

The citizens and voters of Muskego are smart. They understand we have representative government and that recalls are not the democratic process but merely obstruct city work.

The City's legal counsel presented to the Common Council that the was not the proper subject matter. Therefore the Council was not bound to referendum. The petition also asked for a park development plan and costs associated. The Council recognized this and delayed the decision to before a final vote contingent on the property owner’s agreement. We are waiting response from the property owners.

All communications with regard to Parkland Mall litigation are done through legal counsel in closed session as to protect the interests of the City/public. The alderpersons have been fully informed of the allegations and the issues in the case through closed session updates.  The petitions are vague and unfounded in alleging there has been any kind of suppression.

The City’s positions have been represented through the City’s defense counsel in defending the case and the City awaits further opportunities set by the court to further respond to the allegations.  We are still in active litigation strongly defending against claims made by the Parkland Mall plaintiffs.

The City is working within the confines of court orders governing the litigation including orders for mediation and any current or future orders which would address opportunities for dismissal.

Efforts by this recall group and efforts of the Parkland Mall Plaintiffs are all meant to manipulate the litigation in favor of their private interests and as against the City’s/public’s interest.  It appears based on the information expressed by the recall group that confidential information discussed only in closed session has somehow become available.  It’s unreasonable to assert that information has been withheld from alderpersons when all the court proceedings, both federal and state, have been public and multiple; extensive, closed sessions have been held at which in depth of the litigation process and results have been presented.

The Parkland Mall Plaintiffs presented claims that sought as much as $120M at one point and the current demands continue to be extreme.  When the aldermen are speaking outside their authority of the Council with respect to the litigation then such action or statements can lead to additional allegations of liability against the City and publics best interest.

The Parkland Mall Plaintiffs are suing the city for matters involving alleged prior statements by former City officials.  Efforts to engender further unauthorized statements or actions are simply meant to manipulate the litigation to draw liability against the City in favor of their private interests.