Wausau’s Independent: Tom Kilian for Wausau Pilot & Review

Recently, our new mayor vetoed a resolution approving the authorization for a request for proposal for the North Riverfront Redevelopment Plan. Tuesday night, that veto was sustained by the city council.

Objectively, in relation to Wausau and its history, neither of these actions is either surprising or uncommon. In fact, mayoral vetoes are common throughout Wausau’s history.

But one may not think so if their only exposure to the subject matter was watching Tuesday’s city council meeting.

On Tuesday, some city council members suggested the new mayor’s veto was an illegitimate attack on the body’s role and process. One member went so far as to label the mayor’s veto as a random attack “on this body’s authority and autonomy.”

As we will see, these characterizations are false.

Other council members argued that vetoing the RFP for the North Riverfront Redevelopment Plan to prioritize other areas of local development was not appropriate and jeopardized progress for our local economy. The argument seemed to characterize the veto as being anti-development in nature.

This is also incorrect and, in reality, we would not have even had a mall built in downtown Wausau had similar vetoes not occurred in the late 1970s.

Even a cursory review of Wausau’s past would reveal that both of these two types of arguments from council members on Tuesday evening are misguided.

And it is simply not possible to grasp Wausau’s history – especially its economic development history – without understanding the legitimate and profound role that mayoral vetoes have played in it.

Mayoral Veto Power Exists in the 1870s Charter for the City of Wausau

Mayoral vetoes have essentially been part of the city of Wausau since its inception, and it can currently be found in the standing rules of the common council, municipal code, and elsewhere.  

A review of the charter for the city of Wausau in the early 1870s reveals that the powers and duties of local officers were laid out early on. Under Chapter III, Section 2, the veto power of the Wausau mayor is clearly defined: “The mayor shall have power to veto any ordinance or resolution passed by the common council…”

As is evident, this veto power bestowed upon our city’s leader is nothing new, nor – contrary to assertions made on Tuesday – is it an illegitimate tool to undermine the democratic process. It is actually a codified part of the democratic process.

One can review this iteration of the city of Wausau charter in the March 18, 1874 edition of the Wisconsin State Journal.

If, as it seemed this week, some city council members desired to eliminate the local mayor’s ability to veto, they are about 150 years too late.

Without the 1977 Kannenberg Veto, Wausau Would Not Have Even Had a Mall Downtown

Had Mayor John Kannenberg not vetoed a rezoning ordinance passed by the common council in 1977 for the Carazalla property, we would not even have had a mall in downtown Wausau.

Yes, if the rezoning ordinance passed by the common council had been allowed to proceed by Mayor Kannenberg, the mall would have likely been built on the rezoned property on the north side of town by a shopping center outfit from Tennessee, as 1977 articles from the Wausau Daily Herald, like “Mayor veto blocks mall plan,” suggest. The veto was subsequently upheld by the city council.

In effect, Mayor Kannenberg vetoed development attention to one part of town in order to focus on another.

Seems pretty important and ironic to overlook this fact, especially when it was overlooked by council members who have both 1) devoted much of their attention to downtown development and 2) dramatically denounced the mayor’s recent veto.

Whether or not one agrees entirely with Kannenberg’s decision is up to the individual citizen. Some likely saw the move as favoring downtown business interests of the local power establishment over out-of-town interests. In my past column on the local Good Ol’ Boys culture, it was pointed out that the “Wausau Group reportedly slowly acquired land for 10 years before making a public announcement in the late 1970s of the mall plans.”

From Barns to Land Deals, Wausau’s History is Full of Mayoral Vetoes

The narrative peddled by some at Tuesday’s council meeting that mayoral vetoes in town are some kind of irregularity or abomination is not based in fact.

One will find mayoral vetoes throughout Wausau History. Some mayors seemed to veto the heck out of things.

Per local media records, in the early 1900s, Mayor Louis Marchetti evidently had periods where he would veto something nearly every month. Imagine the outrage this would cause now among some current city council members who apparently view a mayoral veto as some form of coup d’état.

In 1925, Mayor Emil Flatter, notably, for many of the same reasons behind the recent veto from the current mayor – that pubic funds were scarce and the community was already burdened with other existing plans – vetoed the addition to the “city barn.” How dare he.

And the trail and pattern of mayoral vetoes in Wausau goes on and on.

In a 1988 Wausau Daily Herald article, Mayor John Robinson – whose policy cloth multiple current city council members appear to be cut from – said that when a mayor uses the veto, it shows the system is not functioning as it should. He then went on to veto a land sale approved by the city council in 1990.

There are even sitting city council members who vigorously opposed Mayor Diny’s veto on Tuesday night who have been fully supportive of mayoral vetoes in the past – like the current city council president.

While she may not have agreed with some of Mayor Jim Tipple’s vetoes, she happily supported others. City records show that in April 2013 she supported and voted to sustain Mayor Tipple’s veto of the six-day rule for city committees to provide meeting packet information six days in advance of the meeting date.

In the 2024 mayoral election, the six-day rule for packet information came up repeatedly due to the significant lack of transparency, preparation, and public involvement that results from not following this timeframe.

Standing Behind Commitments is Not a Form of Government Overthrow

In light of Wausau’s history, the only thing “new” about the recent veto in Wausau is that it came from a new mayor. He made declarations and commitments while campaigning about unnecessary city spending and trying to bring down costs for citizens and taxpayers. I imagine that his veto was an early attempt and action to follow through on such things.

Vetoing a resolution approving the authorization for an RFP is within the appropriate powers bestowed upon Wausau mayors since the early 1870s. It is not a hijacking of local democratic processes, as some tried to paint it.

While much has been made in the press about the lack of vetoes during the Mielke and Rosenberg administrations, I am not sure that this type of specific inaction or omission during their years of service was actually in the community’s best interest for policy outcomes on multiple fronts.

Strength and credibility does not stem from a one-off endeavor, nor will it for our new mayor. This may be his first veto, but I presume and hope that it will not be his last or his most important while in office – not if true reform and policy improvement is to sustain in Wausau.

Editor’s note: Wausau Pilot & Review gladly publishes commentary from readers, residents and candidates for local offices. The views of readers and columnists are independent of this newspaper and do not necessarily reflect the views of Wausau Pilot & Review. To submit, email [email protected] or mail to 500 N. Third St., Suite 208-8, Wausau, Wis. 54403.