The Volls, Trump signs, and Village Politics

   

 

   Below is from an email I sent to the Village Board in 2021, dealing with using Village resources to provide special help to Holly Voll in her mission to eradicate  pro-Trump political signs, while knowing such signs were legally protected.

    ___________________________________________________________________

Richard,

   A few weeks ago I asked for two things - copies of the complaints that you said you had gotten about yard signs, and examples of when you expend village funds to research other complaints like this. I have not heard from you on either of these items.

  The circumstances surrounding this entire incident leaves a lot of questions still unanswered. So I am asking them in this email.

   In addition to that, the ending note of your August 12 email alluding to slander and hostile work environment causes me to think I'd better explain myself a bit more clearly, explaining what the events of these emails look like to me, and why.

  I am providing the following timeline to lay out the events in an orderly fashion to form a basis for my questions near the end.

   The bullet-point dates below correspond to the emails that you sent in an email thread to the Village Board on August 11, 2021, and your two emails that followed. See the emails themselves for further details on each of the dates listed.

  

•    7/28 In an email to Richard Downey, Holly Voll  made a complaint about a small sign on trustee Kim Tapper’s property, vaguely questioning his right to display it. The sign says "Watch for August. Former President Trump will run again! He will make America even better!"
•    7/30 Mr. Downey told Mrs, Voll that the village cannot regulate Mr. Tapper's activities regarding signs like that, and referred the matter to Mr. Randy Fifrick the Zoning Administrator, who he said is “very knowledgeable about the sign regulations”.
•    7/30 Mrs. Voll admits that Mr. Tapper's sign is not a "political sign", but then enlarges the scope of her complaint by asserting that the sign constituted “domestic terrorism” citing Federal law which clearly does not apply in this case. She says "this is what I'm concerned about", and then calls Mr. Tapper's sign “garbage” that “needs to be stopped”.
   

   Based upon her own words it appears that for Mrs. Voll, this is not simply a matter of enforcing a sign ordinance violation, but a matter of personal animosity toward the sign content that she was determined to eliminate.

•     7/30 She seeks to find a way to use a State statute Trans 201.07 to achieve her goal, which now  includes removing “Trump” signs from 3 other residents’ property, aside from Mr. Tapper's.
  

   Wisconsin Chapter Trans 201 is entitled "CONTROL OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ALONG AND VISIBLE FROM HIGHWAYS ON THE INTERSTATE AND FEDERAL-AID PRIMARY SYSTEMS" so it is clear that anything in that chapter refers only to the subject matter of that chapter title. Mrs. Voll is invoking another law here that does not apply to removing yard signs in the village.  

•    8/2 President Voll intervenes on Mrs. Voll’s behalf, seeking further answers from Mr. Fifrick.
•    8/2 Mr. Fifrick thoroughly explains why the sign ordinance is unenforceable due to case law supporting basic rights, and he includes two controlling court decisions as evidence to that fact. He explains that even profanity is protected by the First Amendment. Also, that Police Chief McHugh and the village attorney have discussed this issue a number of times during the past year. Implying that they had come to the same conclusion that enforcement is not advisable.
  

  This email tells us that the yard sign/First Amendment issue was well understood by both Mr. Fifrick and Chief McHugh, and it seems apparent to me that at this point a typical complaint seeking code enforcement like this would have been concluded, and should have required no more time or effort by the Village to pursue.

•    8/3  President Voll  mentions a way to perhaps use the “state code” (apparently referring to Trans 201 that his wife brought up on 7/30) as an “easy out”. This was apparently intended  circumvent the 1st Amendment rights that Mr. Fifrick  just got done explaining to him as being  unenforceable to prohibit. Voll says “Sue the state if you want your sign, not the local gov.” 

•    8/4 Mr. Fifrick again informs Voll that the results he is seeking cannot be achieved. He explains that the only state sign code is one that applies to state right of way, and the state leaves this issue to local government to deal with. Bottom line is that the Village can not lawfully enforce the yard sign removal without a risk of litigation.

 This is another point where this matter should have ended for anyone seeking a simple code enforcement. However, President Voll further persists by directing Mr. Fifrick to review municipalities that have what he believes to be more stringent sign ordinances, apparently to get ideas on how to apply them to Kronenwetter enforcement.

    I see this as a grey area of proper conduct, because an elected position should not be used as leverage to direct village resources beyond a point that they would have been expended for an average person with a similar complaint.  Especially once it became evident that a local sign ordinance was unenforceable.

• 8/5 Holly Voll files complaints against the same four residents through the village website complaint form. She cites the same statute that Mr. Fifrick just thoroughly explained to Mr. Voll as being inapplicable and unenforcable. Having previously stated that she did not think Mr. Tapper's sign was a "political sign", she now claims that it does qualify as such in her complaint. She also asserts that his signs do not qualify as a free speech right, unless the Village specifically allows him this freedom through an ordinance.
  

  I see some profound ethical issues that should be recognized, such as one person putting great effort into attempting to censor the views and self-expression of not just four other Kronenwetter residents, but in reality attempting to set a standard of oppression for any and all who wish to express political views within the Village.

   I see her husband using his elected position to assign tasks to Mr Fifrick that reflect no benefit to the public interest at all, but only seek to achieve a private benefit to his wife's personal  "garbage elimination" efforts.

   I don't necessarily want to see these things, because it does not exactly paint a pleasant picture of neighborliness, but Mr Downey has put these emails on display right in front of us, how can I not see what he has shown us? This bell has been rung and it cannot be un-rung, and now it needs to be addressed. 

•  8/6  Mr Fifrick  reviews Holly Voll's complaint against the four residents, and marks the action taken as "political signs; can not enforce". Presumably closing the matter. 

•  8/9 Three days later, Mr. Fifrick inexplicably contacts village attorney Wolfgram seeking information on a matter that he is already well familiar with, and looking for a way to enforce an ordinance that he already knows is unenforceable. He refers to this as a “dilemma”.

   So, we see that 3 days after the matter is closed, Mr. Fifrick is again expending village resources, we find out later that this time it is based on Mr. Downey's instructions. Resurrecting the effort to even further beat the dead horse of pursuing Mrs. Voll's personal censorship goals.

  The first question is: What is this "dilemma” that Mr. Fifrick refers to? When someone makes a complaint and there’s nothing that can be legally done about it, the case is closed and everyone normally moves on; just as Mr. Fifrick did on August 6th. 

   Why did he receive new instructions from Mr. Downey to reopen the matter? These instructions only served to create the dilemma that Mr Fifrick was now under pressure to, against all odds, find a solution for. Why was this dead-end matter given given such priority by Mr. Downey?  

• 8/11 Mr. Wolfgram replies to Mr. Fifrick's request, only to confirm that everything that Mr Fifrick had already known and explained to the Volls is totally correct.

• 8/11 Mr. Downey sends a notice to the Village Board stating "The Village has received several complaints on political signs within the Village.   The complaints about the signs are from the past election. I directed Randy to contact Mr. Wolfgram on the matter.   I wanted everyone on the Village Board to see Mr. Wolfgram’s response if anyone were to contact you as elected officials."

    Mr. Downey's choice of words seems misleading by making it appear that the issue was bigger than the one-person campaign that it actually was. Why? He fails to point out that four of the "several complaints" were all from the same person - Holly Voll.

   Mr. Downey states in his email"This complaint was a complaint that we have heard before from other residents."

 

  Where are the rest of the "several complaints" that Mr. Downey refers to, and that I requested to see weeks ago?

   Aren't complaints like this normally forwarded to the trustees, just as the recent roadside trimming complaint was? 

   Given these facts, why would Mr. Downey expect trustees to be getting complaints, when he knew that the one and only person making the complaints has already been answered with factual information, and the matter closed days earlier? 

   Mr. Downey fails to reveal to the Village Board the fact that the information he instructed Mr Fifrick to obtain was already common knowledge to both of them. Mr Fifrick's knowledge of this issue was apparent from his emails, and Mr. Downey was cc'd on these emails. Downey could have simply forwarded Fifrick's explanations to the Board, if that was really necessary.

  Why waste the money and effort on obtaining a legal opinion on a matter that was already known?  

 

• 8/11 I reply to Richard Downey and the Village Board, expressing my immediate-impression disappointment in President Voll's involvement in seeking to target the rights of an elected official, and undermine the free speech rights of the public in general. The "special treatment" for an elected official's immediate family member is also an issue of serious concern.
  

•  8/12 Mr. Downey says he authorized this expenditure, and did so because “I am protecting the Village from potential liabilities”.  He also says “due to the potential nature of political signage, I wanted to ensure that we were responding to the complaint with the best information.”

   So what could these “potential liabilities” be, that Mr. Downey is so concerned about? Were the Voll's somehow threatening litigation?

   Mr. Fifrick's responses were entirely correct; closely following the current controlling case law. What harm could the Village possibly suffer because of Mr Fifrick's accurate answers? 

   Mr. Fifrick had already explained that the risk of liability came with enforcement efforts of removing signs, not with leaving the signs alone, as was already the determined course of action. So what "potential liabilities" was Mr. Downey talking about?

   What made Mr. Downey think that we didn't already have the "best" information for Mrs. Voll's complaints? The information already provided at that point (August 9) was more than adequate for a complaint like this, as Mr. Downey had earlier acknowledged that Mr. Fifrick was very knowledgeable about the sign regulations.

   Downey had also stated several times how conservative he is in using the Village attorney's services, being only when necessary. In a report to APC he also said that the lower attorney bills came from

"a combination of using the legal advice from the League of Municipalities that the Village is provided as a member" and "having an administrator who can answer basic legal questions..."

   The League has a number of very informative articles on this subject online, that agree with Mr. Fifrick's evaluation, so what was wrong with their information?

   Having been provided no evidence which challenges the abundance of available information, the excuse that Mr Downey gives for the whole expenditure as being based on "potential liabilities" makes no sense at all. Why did he make this big splurge which apparently just happened to be for the sake of an elected official's immediate family member?

   Likewise with the "best infomation"   Without a reason to challenge to existing information already on hand, Mr. Downey's special effort to get the "best information"  only serves to support the "special treatment" conclusion I had previously arrived at from the previous emails.

    

  What does Mr. Downey mean in his email of Aug 11 when he says the “potential nature of political signage”? It sounds meaningless to me.

  Furthermore, Mr Downey goes on to say in his email - “Hence, I directed the Community Development office to reach out to the Village Attorney to ensure we were correct before responding to the complaint.”

   His reasoning for giving this direction once again makes no sense at all because Mr. Downey gave the order to Mr. Fifrick days after Mrs. Voll’s email complaint had already been thoroughly discussed and addressed. Her other online complaint against the same four people had also been closed on August 6 which was days before Downey instructed Fifrick to contact the lawyer.

   So the rationalization that Mr. Downey expresses in his email as a justification for his actions is actually an impossibility.  I mean, how do you get information days after you've responded to the complaint, to ensure that you would have the correct information before responding to the complaint?

   The whole excuse for this expenditure raises red flags. Then add to it this whole created scenario of there being some kind of rash of yard sign complaints that we were told we should be prepared for when it really didn't even exist, is something that causes me to ask - What is really going on here?

  

  My observations and conclusions are only my opinion, but I think the questions I have raised deserve straight answers, because Village resources have been expended without a reasonable explanation, and that is no small deal.

   If certain people feel they need to police that thoughts and opinions of others, that's their business. When it involves expending public funds it becomes the business of the elected officials, and we should all be paying attention to it.

I look forward to your answers.

Thanks,

Ken Charneski