My Open Meetings Complaint to the DA

   Below is the complaint I sent to the Marathon County District Attorney. 

   My reasons are  described in the complaint. 

   The problem is not just in this one meeting. It appears to me that Admin Davel and Pres Joling have made it a habit to do their deeds under the cover of illegitimate closed session, based on insufficient notice on the published agenda. There are a half dozen other such meetings that should be prosecuted as well.

   The Wisconsin Supreme Court has defined guidelines for public notices of closed session meetings and it is not rocket science for Joling or even Davel to understand.

   A basic rule of thumb is that if you the public have no clue as to what the meeting is actually about, then it is in violation of the Open Meetings Law. Joling and Davel have done this time after time after time, and I believe it is deliberate because they are both too cowardly to face public observation and criticism for what they have been getting away with. 

   Read below, and see if you think I am off base. 

  

May 29, 2026

District Attorney, Marathon County,

Mr Mayo,

This letter serves as my complaint in accordance with Wis. Stat 19.97 regarding violations of Wis Stats 19.81 and 19.85 Wisconsin open meetings law, by the Kronenwetter Administrator James Davel, Presidend Dan Joling, and the Village Boad members Trustees Myszka, Stowell, Coyle, Mortensen, Lesniak.

Administrator Davel bears partial responsibility as a defendant because one of his job description requirements, is:

"Works with the Village Board and its President, Commission and Committee Chairpersons, Attorney, and Clerk to ensure that all Open Meetings Laws are adhered to strictly and consistently for all Board, Commission, and Committee meetings."

The background and details of the violation are as follows:

The May 11, 2025 Kronenwetter Village Board meeting agenda states under Item 9:

"CLOSED SESSION Consideration of motion to convene into closed session pursuant to Wis. Stat. 19.85 (1)( c ) for consideration of employment, promotion, compensation or performance evaluation data of any public employee over which the governmental body has jurisdiction or exercises responsibility – to wit staff's annual evaluation and/or pay increases "

Upon coming out of closed session, Trustee Aaron Myszka made the motion "to approve the pay raises as directed by the Board", which was seconded by Trustee Stowell. President Joling inexplicably reworded the motion, saying "accept the recommendations by the board and direct the administrator to move on same" before taking the vote, which was approved 4-0 with President Joling and Trustee Coyle abstaining.

Trustee Coyle made it a point to state for the record that he had recused himself from part of the closed session.

Having heard the audio of the meeting, I noted the comments of Coyle's recusal and Joling and Coyle's abstention from the vote.

On May 14 and 15, I emailed Coyle and Joling with inquiries (attached) and learned that several items of business were discussed and "directed" in that closed meeting, all of which was insufficiently noticed on the agenda to the public.

Namely:

1. An annual pay increase for police lieutenant Smart

2. Providing a $5000 stipend to the Village Treasurer for claimed extra hours worked.

3. A pay increase of $1000 each, per pay period, or about $24,000 annually, for additional duties still unspecified, to three employees. Two salaried, and one union worker paid hourly.

That is a nutshell summary of the open meeting complaint.

My complaint is that the agenda notice was not sufficiently specific to be "reasonably likely to apprise members of the public" of what the business was that took place in the closed session.

1. Lieutenant Smart was not identified on the agenda for the pay raise.

2. The treasurer was not identified, and the subject matter of a "stipend" - an apparently arbitrary $5000 sum for unspecified work - appears to be outside of the purview of a 19.85 (1) (c) exemption.

3. The three recipients of the arbitrary $24,000 annual increase are unnamed to the public, and this subject matter also appears to be non-routine, special and very questionable circumstances beyond an "evaluation" or typical "pay increase". It is insufficiently noticed on the agenda even if it did meet the requirements of a 19.85 (1) (c) exemption.

Additional factors of interest strongly indicate that intentionally vague language and motion was deliberate, in order to conceal their actions from public awareness and potential criticism. I will be glad to provide information along those lines, if you think that it is relevant to the prosecution.

I also have evidence for a prior violation on December 22, 2025 if that is of any relevance.

See guidance at -

STATE of Wisconsin EX REL. Brian L. BUSWELL, Plaintiff-AppellantPetitioner, v. TOMAH AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, DefendantRespondent. 301 Wis. 2d 178 . 2007 WI 71 . 732 N.W.2d 804 . Supreme Court of Wisconsin. (Jun 13, 2007)

The activities of the above named defendants appears to be a clear violation of the intent and letter of Wisconsin's Open Meetings Law. I am aware that your office is very busy, but Public Policy and the interests of the Village taxpayers can only be served by prosecution.

Please let me know if for whatever reason, you do not plan on prosecuting this matter within 20 days. I am willing to pursue this matter through other avenues as allowed by Wis Stat 19.97 (4).

Thank you for your attention and prompt action or response in this matter.

The information in this complaint is submitted under oath to be true to the best of my knowledge.

__________________________________

Kenneth Charneski

715 310 3572

charneski7@gmail.com

Attached:

• Emails to/from Pres Joling, Trustee Coyle, Admin Davel, Clerk Poyer

• Meeting agenda,

• Job description