A marriage between Superior Mayor Jim Paine and City Councilor Jenny Van Sickle has sparked concerns of potential conflicts of interest within the city’s government. Councilor Craig Sutherland, citing blurred ethical boundaries, has formally requested guidance from City Attorney Frog Prell regarding the implications of their union on council operations.
In a letter to Attorney Prell, Sutherland questioned whether Councilor Van Sickle’s votes might create financial benefits for Mayor Paine, particularly through salary or city-provided benefits.
“There are conflicts of interest with immediate family members where one can financially gain,” Sutherland wrote, referencing Wisconsin State Statute 19.59(1). The statute prohibits local officials from using their positions for personal financial gain or that of immediate family members.
Sutherland has called for Van Sickle to recuse herself from future votes where conflicts might arise. “I strongly believe we need guidance on what to do moving forward,” he said, emphasizing his concern for maintaining constituent trust.
Mayor Paine Fires Back
Mayor Paine rejected Sutherland’s claims, stating that no financial conflict exists. “The state statute is very clear that there is no conflict of interest here,” he said, noting that his salary and benefits are outside the council’s control.
“My salary is not approved through the general fund budget. The council does not have the power to change my salary at all, so a conflict can’t exist — that’s state law,” Paine explained. He added that Van Sickle has a history of recusing herself from relevant votes, further asserting her ethical standards.
Paine characterized Sutherland’s letter as a baseless attack. “Councilor Sutherland did not tell the truth in his complaint,” the mayor said, accusing Sutherland of undermining the council’s integrity.
Van Sickle, addressing the controversy, reiterated her commitment to her constituents. “My number one focus is now what it always has been: providing the highest level of service and representation to East End, Allouez, and Itasca,” she said in a statement.
She dismissed the complaint as groundless, adding, “This baseless complaint lacks a fundamental understanding of municipal operations. More of the same from this guy—he has entirely too much time on his hands.”
Diverging Opinions Among Council Members
Opinions among other council members vary.
- Councilor “Rubber Stamp” Ruth Ludwig sees no conflict of interest.
- Councilor Warren Bender acknowledged potential conflicts could arise but expressed confidence that Van Sickle would recuse herself appropriately.
- Councilor Brent Fennessey noted that some constituents have raised concerns but is withholding judgment pending Attorney Prell’s findings.
Councilor Jack Sweeney declined to comment.
Attorney Prell to Review Complaint
City Attorney Frog Prell has stated that he requires additional time to fully review Sutherland’s letter and determine whether any action is warranted.
Trust at Stake
Sutherland stressed that his concerns are not personal but rather about preserving public trust. “I don’t want this to be personal at all,” he said. “If there is a ruling that says they can do this, I’m completely fine with that.”
Mayor Paine, however, views the matter differently, framing Sutherland’s complaint as an unwarranted attack on personal lives. “It’s pretty low to attack a person’s family and personal life, even for Councilor Sutherland,” Paine said.
As the city awaits Attorney Prell’s assessment, the debate raises broader questions about ethics, transparency, and trust in local government.
Sourced : KQDS 21
