On this quiet off week, I thought I would take some time to post a follow-up on the aldermanic salary issue that came to light earlier this year. Four times since 2017, the aldermanic salary was increased incorrectly, 3 times because the number of Council members who approved the increase did not reach the statutory 3/4th required to increase the salary, and once because, although the Common Council approved no increase, city staff incorrectly implemented a 1% increase. (https://allthingsappleton.com/2024/08/20/15000-in-salary-overpayments-made-to-common-council-since-2017/) The total amount of overpayments the Common Council received over those years amounted to slightly over $15,000 of taxpayer money.
The question then arose, were the Council members allowed to keep that money or would the city be seeking to recoup it in some way. The short answer is that due to statutory limits, the alderpersons who received overpayments are legally allowed to keep that money and do not have to repay it.
I reached out to Finance Director Jeri Ohman and asked her:
- Now that the city is aware of these overpayments, do they have to be recorded or accounted for in the city’s books in any way? How does that work?
- Is the city able to try to seek repayment for the money that it paid out in error? If it is able, are any such steps being pursued?
Director Ohman responded and said:
The increases that were approved by majority vote (but not by ¾), were procedural errors and are subject to time limits of when they can be challenged with a Point of Order. A Point of Order can be called by any Alder during the meeting it was ruled as approved. Additionally, a Motion to Reconsider could have been raised at the same meeting as the vote or the next meeting of Council by an Alder based on a procedural error. In these cases, neither of those happened, so those approvals stand.
This leaves the processing error that increased salaries from $5,921 to $5,980, or $59 over the course of two years. The two year statutory limit to address wage claims may apply, in which case we’re well beyond that time limit. In addition to the limit on wage claims, the individuals affected by the overpayment would have no recourse to file amended tax returns since these are limited to 3 years after filing. If it was decided to pursue collection after these two considerations, I would estimate that staff would spend a minimum of one hour per alder to send the proper notification and invoice to recoup the overpayments from the 15 alders. The average salary and fringe rate for staff involved is approximately $45/hour. The time to process would increase if a current address is not on file, if there are questions, or the payment is not received with the first invoice sent.
You also questioned whether the overpayment would be recorded in the City’s accounting records. The payments were recorded as expenses when paid. No further entries would be made at this time unless repayment was sought.
Additionally, during the 09/25/2024 Human Resources and Information Technology Committee meeting during which 2026-27 aldermanic salary was discussed and voted on, Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland took issue with using the term “overpayment” to describe the $15,000 that had been approved and/or paid out incorrectly. At the time, she stated, “I just want to be careful with the phrase overpayment, because as I understand it, you know, there may have been a procedural issue, but that procedural issue was reaffirmed in future votes. I still think this is the right thing to do, but I just want to clarify that for people at home, so that they don’t think that people just received free money and are keeping it.”
I reached out to her and asked, “I wasn’t sure what you meant when you said that this was not a situation in which people just received free money and were keeping it. I understand that eventually those salary increases were legally approved, but for four years those increases were not legally approved, and subsequent approval did not retroactively make those past payments legally allowable. Have all the alderpersons who received payments during the 4 years when those salary increases had not been legally approved returned the excess money they received?”
Alderperson Van Zeeland responded:
My comment was based on the information I received from Attorney Behrens when I asked him what could be done to address the previous votes that did not meet the required threshold since state law provides firm deadlines beyond which alders cannot decrease, increase, or waive their own salaries.
The future alder salary approvals (most of which occurred before the election of a majority of current alders, including myself, the current Mayor, and the current City Attorney) were approved by majority vote instead of a ¾ vote, which is a procedural error. He explained that procedural errors must be challenged in a timely manner after the Mayor rules the item as approved. Examples of recourse for such errors could be an alder immediately raising a point of order that challenges the ruling as incorrect or bringing a motion to reconsider at the same or next Common Council meeting due to a procedural error.
Since the alders serving then did not take the necessary steps to challenge the ruling within the permitted time, the Mayor’s ruling (approving the majority action regarding salary adjustments) stood as approved. Furthermore, the salary amounts were reaffirmed through subsequent budget adoptions.
I then asked, “Has there been any discussion or thought given amongst the alderpersons to simply willingly returning the money or donating it back to the city even though, due to a technicality, you are allowed to keep this money that you should not have received?”
Alderperson Van Zeeland then responded, “No alder received a salary due to a technicality. The redundancy built into municipal funding ensures that our body thoroughly discusses and legally reaffirms these decisions transparently and publicly while adhering to state laws that prevent us from increasing, decreasing, or relinquishing our salaries after a statutory deadline has passed.”
Be the first to reply