City Spends $77,000 To Resolve Harassment Claim Against Spencer

City Attorney Tearman Spencer speaks at a press conference Oct. 29, 2021. Photo by Jeramey Jannene.

In its last meeting before the spring election, the Milwaukee Common Council did no favor to City Attorney Tearman Spencer‘s reelection bid.

The council voted unanimously Tuesday to pay the final component of what has become a $77,500 expense to resolve a sex discrimination claim.

Naomi Gehling alleges in July 2020, the then-newly-elected Spencer touched her inappropriately when she was an assistant city attorney and created a “toxic and uncomfortable” workplace. She claims Spencer placed his hand on her knee inappropriately during a meeting, then proceeded to mistreat and ostraicize her after she reported the incident.

The council unanimously approved a $40,000 settlement for Gehling in late February. But it will have spent almost as much on an outside attorney to defend its elected attorney.

On Tuesday the council voted to pay $17,500 to law firm Lindner & Marsack to conclude the work of its attorney Daniel J. Finerty defending the city. He previously used up a $20,000 initial allotment and received approval for up to $50,000 more.

Gehling is one of the six attorneys that filed a complaint with the Department of Employee Relations (DER), which launched an investigation into Spencer that concluded only for a lack of jurisdiction. A subsequent complaint, filed with the state’s Equal Rights Division in 2022 by Gehling, alleges that after she reported the incident, she was mistreated and ostracized and Spencer sought to reassign her to an “undesirable” position. In April 2021, Spencer said the accusations from the six attorneys were “false” and “unfounded.” He attributed the issue to a Black person taking a position of power and wanting change. Gehling, now the deputy director of the city’s Fire & Police Commission, also identifies as Black and there are accusations that Spencer targeted her even after she left the City Attorney’s office.

For more on the settlement and Gehling’s claim, see our coverage from February.

The city attorney has effectively become the top-of-the-ticket race after Mayor Cavalier Johnson won his three-way primary with more than 85% of the vote. Spencer faces State Rep. Evan Goyke in the April general election.

Council Demurs on Ohiku Matter

A proposal to restrict members of the City Attorney’s office from practicing law for non-city clients was not adopted Tuesday, and instead sent back to the Judiciary & Legislation Committee for further review.

The proposal was triggered by an investigation by the council’s inspector general Ronda Kohlheim into Spencer and his now-former deputy Odalo J. Ohiku, who was paid by the city for working while he was representing a private client. Ohiku resigned, though the Ethics Board revealed it did not have the authority to prevent him from working for outside clients. Spencer is currently the only city official prohibited from working for outside clients.

Alderwoman Milele A. Coggs, an attorney, led a coalition of council members in asking questions about the proposal. The key thing unearthed in Coggs’ questioning was that the Ethics Board had not formally weighed in on the proposal, but would be required to enforce the matter.

“This is just so interesting,” she said. Coggs asked if research was completed on whether other cities imposed similar restrictions, but no one could affirm it was.

Ald. Robert Bauman, also an attorney, said the proposal was “simply a matter of divided loyalty.” He said it was standard practice for employing an attorney. “They are being paid a salary to devote 100% of their time, effort and loyalty to the city of Milwaukee.” But Coggs contended that wasn’t always the case for private attorneys.

Ald. Mark Chambers, Jr., who previously voted for the measure at committee, said it could prevent city attorneys from being paid for filing taxes for friends and family. Bauman said they could do it for free without violating the ordinance.

But Chambers said more review was needed. “We are not questioning what former deputy attorney Ohiku did, that’s not the basis for any argument,” he said.

“Either put it back to the committee or I’m a no to this,” said Ald. Russell W. Stamper, II.

An 11-4 vote punted the issue back to the committee level, with Bauman, Jonathan Brostoff, Marina Dimitrijevic and JoCasta Zamarripa objecting.