My (unanswered) Questions to the Village Attorney regarding the Corrupted Milestone Sand Pit Appeal Process
Below is my Board-authorized letter to Village Attorney Remzy Bitar, with questions regarding the improprieties and illegalities which pervaded the Milestone sand pit appeal. The intent here was to actually get a legal opinion on all the failures that made a sham of the appeal hearing, since the Board had no legal guidance whatsoever before.
Bitar's response completely sidesteps these important questions. Instead, he basically says whether right or wrong, legal or not, what's done is done (the Board decision to issue the permit) and if the Village does not issue the permit, it will be sued by Milestone.
What Bitar does not say however, is that Milestone would almost certainly lose the case because the Court would throw out the Board's decision based on all the issues raised in my questions below.
He seems to basically refuse to answer the questions when he says " Again, my representation is of the Board as a whole, not any single person, such that I cannot be utilized to help engineer evidence and legal theories on behalf of a potentially aggrieved party".
In other words - if Bitar answered the questions honestly, he would create admissions that Joling, Davel, and certain Board members approved the sand pit permit improperly/illegally.
He ends his letter with a general summary that agrees exactly with what I had been telling the Board, but which they disregarded. A fact that Bitar declines to state an opinion on -
"Certainly in any CUP proceedings, there can be no bias – a review of a CUP is quasijudicial, such that the Plan Commission members and Board Trustees must be neutral, objective, and must evaluate the evidence put before them (i.e., not undertake their own investigations or rely upon ex parte information). That observation is a pure statement of law, not an observation that something was amiss here."
These instructions go to show why Bitar was excluded from the process until after the CUP approval was in the bag.
Bitar's full response can be found at this link
https://www.kronenwetter.org/FAQS/milestone%20mine%20review%203-2-26.pdf?t=202603101615420
Read my summary and questions below, and then see what you think of his response.
Municipal Law Firm
Attn: Remzy Bitar
Mr Bitar,
I an Ken Charneski, a trustee in the Village of Kronenwetter, and I have accepted the task suggested by Village President Joling to present facts and argument regarding a somewhat contentious situation in Kronenwetter about which we need some independent and objective legal opinions and suggestions.
Below is timeline narrative, with questions for you highlighted in yellow. This information is already generally known among the Village Board and the public. Relevant documents are attached for your review.
Basically, we are looking for a candid, objective opinion that is suitable for public review, as to what a Village Board's duties and obligations are when it reviews a Plan Commission denial
of a sand pit conditional use permit, and what a legitimate appeal process should look like. This would include elements of objectivity, and maintaining due process for the applicant and all affected parties. Most importantly, an opinion would be informative as to whether or not the process which actually took place qualifies as something that would likely survive a court certiorari review.
We would also be looking for any other observations educational information or comments that you might provide.
In order to keep this document as short as possible, I have limited it to basic narrative, without including various common law authorities.
The quick summary to the situation is this:
1. On October 20th, 2025, the Plan Commission with a 6-0 vote denied a conditional use permit (CUP) for a sand mine.
2. Shortly after receiving the denial letter, the applicant appealed the denial to the Village Board as per our ordinance.
3. On November 12, the Board was informed of the appeal and told by President Joling "we can only consider the facts and statements as they were presented and discussed during the planning commission meeting" It was also suggested to listen to the audio
of the Plan Commission meeting that resulted in the denial.
4. The day before the Jan 27 Village Board meeting to review the appeal, the applicant Milestone sent an 11 page position statement that along with various argument, included new information and a full page of conditions not originally presented to Plan Commission.
5. On Jan 27, 2026, the Village Board held a meeting to review the appeal, and reversed Plan Commission decision in a 3 yes, 2 no vote, with 2 others abstaining.
6. Those abstaining eventually said privately that they did so due to confusion of the last minute added information by Milestone.
7. Contention has arisen from the public and from Board members concerning numerous anomalies in the appeal process which seem to violate due process and other appeal procedures with such significance, that the matter may likely go to circuit court for
resolution.
Given the first three points above, and the situation at that time, the first question is generally, what would the normal actions or advisement of a village attorney have been when an appeal has been initiated? What is the village attorney's role at that point?
I believe it is important for all involved to know what is generally normal, and what is not.
8 The Main Subject Areas of Contention with the Appeal procedure can be narrowed down to these:
- Whether or not the Board had actual, ethical, and effective legal representation in this process.
2 Were proper/legally acceptable procedure and due process requirements followed for the appeal meeting?
3 The creation of an after-the-fact "Affirmative Finding Report" in support of the appeal decision, not based on the record of the meeting.
First Issue - Proper and effective legal representation, counsel, or guidance
4 As background, we go back to April 2025.
5 Attorney Shane Vanderwaal was hired as "Interim Village Attorney" in April 2025.
6 The signed fee agreement had with it a verbal agreement made by then-president David Baker, which was that the Village would continue to actively seek to hire a permanent attorney, and that Vanderwaal's term would end at that time.
7 From June to August, Vanderwaal billed the Village for almost 8 hours regarding a Milestone sand mine CUP application for different location in the village. This included various calls to Milestone's attorney Olson totaling 2 hours.
8 The CUP for that location was denied by Plan Commission on August 18.
9 On October 13, 2025 Vanderwaal terminated his contract with the Village of Kronenwetter, effective 30 days later, November 12. (Attachment #3)
10 On October 20, 2025, the Plan Commission denied Milestone's CUP for a sand mine in a new location on Maple Ridge Road, citing numerous reasons on the record. (Attachment #1)
11 On October 28, Milestone filed their appeal to the Village Board regarding this denial. (Attachment #2)
12 On October 29, Attorney Vanderwaal sent President Joling information apparently intended to encourage approval of the CUP in the appeal. (Detailed below, under #17).
13 On Nov 3, unknown to the Board until days later, Mr Joling and Davel met with Vanderwaal for 1.5 hours about this sand mine CUP appeal.
14 On Nov 5 or so, Mr Joling began his pro-mine lobbying by handing Trustee Charneski hard copies of documents provided by Vanderwaal two days earlier. At that time, Joling verbally
expressed to Charneski a heavy personal philosophy in favor of industrial/commercial growth in the Village; American Asphalt (AA) in particular.
15 AA is a co-subsidiary along with Milestone Materials, both owned by Mathey Construction.
16 Joling expressed his belief that AA and other Village "growth" needed extra consideration over the rights of home owners/residential needs, in order to draw business to the village.
17 On Nov 12, Mr Joling forwarded to the Village Board Vanderwaal's Oct 29 email, and attachments described by Vanderwaal as: (beyond the appeal request and denial letter)... #2 is my a portion of my legal argument in a case I recently had in Adams County discussing personal preference and cup’s as well as appropriate there of campgrounds in general. The last attachment is a portion of the Court’s decision agreeing. The #1 attachment is the Comp. Plan statute I mentioned yesterday." (Attachment #4-6)
18 Joling sent these attachments to the Village Board along with his cover letter email stating in part and emphasis added:
"Please note that the appeal hearing we can only consider the facts and statements as they were presented and discussed during the planning commission meeting. But I think it’s important that we go into this as educated as possible. I would also further suggest that you take the time and listen to the commission meeting on October 20th, 2025 regarding this matter.
Please keep in mind that the attached documents are marked as confidential by Mr. Vanderwaal and we need to respect that, keep them to yourself. Should there be any questions don’t hesitate to ask and Mr. Davel is up to speed on this and can assist you."
19 Around the time of the November 12 emailing of the information packet, other trustees were lobbied by Joling by phone in favor of approving the CUP application.
20 Joling's pro- American Asphalt bias appeared to display the exact same principle as the pro-homeowner bias pointed out by the court in the very case that Joling was distributing on Nov 12.
21 In that case, the Court referred to the disqualifying attribute of the decision-maker as "the personal philosophy that progress must sometimes take a back seat to families". Joling's personal philosophy was to be in favor of the applicant and not due process for the people negatively affected by a CUP approval.
22 At the November 24 meeting,The Village Board voted to hire Municipal Law Firm as the permanent village attorney.
23 On December 17, Village Trustee Charneski inquired about cutting ties withVanderwaal, and was
told by Mr Davel and Joling that Joling wanted to keep Vanderwaal specifically just for the Milestone CUP. He said due to cost considerations.
24 On Dec 18 Charneski emailed:
"I think it is a big mistake to keep VanderWaal involved in the sand pit issue, as his "familiarity" with the issue appears to me to translate to a heavy bias, if not complete conflict of interest, in favor of Milestone. They were more than eager to terminate the contract with Dave's resignation; they urged us to find another law firm so they could cut us loose, but now they apparently want to stay on for this one issue? I think this is a red flag; something is not
right here. We owe it to the public to be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves in a situation like this.
I don't see where we need any lawyer involved with the appeal at all at this point. We just need to make sure that no new information or other influences affect the Board's evaluation which might give cause for allegations of impropriety.
If the Board can step into the shoes of the Planning Commission with the information that it had at the time of the denial, and a review of the PC reasoning for it, we should have no worries about retaliatory litigation from Milestone.
But if it comes to that, and a legal opinion is necessary, then I would favor a new, fresh set of legal eyes on it that can provide objectivity."
Joling replied:
"Regarding Milestone I find interesting is that we don’t seem to want to listen to attorneys until we’re up to our eyeballs in litigation given the past history of this Village especially that since 2018. I would think maybe we need to take a different approach on how we do things.
Also, given the fact that you apparently are privy to some laws or statutes with regards to conditional use permits that you cited during the planning commission meeting, I’m wondering what those are that further solidifies your stance. To date you have not provided
me with that information. Yes I too can read statutes. [later provided in attachment #10]
Therefore, we can discuss the merits of legal counsel especially that of Vanderwaal Law at the upcoming board meeting if that’s what you want to do and we’ll get the feeling from the rest
of the Board due to the fact that we are only two of seven. I personally feel it’s a financially responsible way to handle this matter..."
25 Mr. Joling did not bring the matter of re-hiring Vanderwaal to the Village Board or to committee for any review or approval as required by Village Purchasing Policy FIN-004. (Attachment #7)
26 Joling's implication of looming litigation apparently came from Vanderwaal, who made a similar statement at the Jan 27 appeal meeting. It appeared to me to be a standard scare tactic to encourage
Board approval of the CUP.
27 From December 1 through to the present Mr Vanderwaal has continued somehow working with Milestone's attorney Olson on the Milestone sand pit CUP, while Mr Joling and Administrator
Davel have maintained unauthorized and exclusive contact with Vanderwaal on the issue. This is being done without Village Board involvement, benefit, specific knowledge or expressed approval. and without a valid attorney's fee agreement in place (contract).
28 Administrator Davel is responsible for enforcing policy, but failed to alert the Village Board to any of the anomalous, secretive activities, or unauthorized expenditures.
29 Neither the Village President or the Administrator have been given authority to hire an attorney or engage in similar contracts without Village Board approval.
30 Disregarding the legitimate village attorney in a potentially litigious situation has raised red flags with some Board members and the public, as it appears to be an abuse of discretion, unprofessional if not unethical, and at the very least poor judgment on Davel's, Jolings's, and Vanderwaal's part.
31 All indications are, that Mr. Vanderwaal is not authorized to represent the village in any way, nor does there appear to be authority for the Village to pay his invoices. The Board has no clue as to what he is actually been doing in his dealings with Milestone.
32 Since the Oct 28 announcement that Milestone was appealing the PC decision, the Village Board has not been treated as if it was Mr. Vanderwaal's client. Mr Joling appears to have been the defacto
"client".
33 From October to January, Mr Vanderwaal billed about 12 hours relating to the current Milestone CUP, about 10 hours of which is without a contract with the Village for such services.
34 The Board received no communication, information, legal guidance or preparation for the meeting as to the nature of the proceedings, evidentiary requirements or standards, or the Board's
obligations and duties in a quasi-judicial capacity.
35 The Village Board was exceptionally inexperienced. As of the January appeal meeting, 6 of 7 Village Board members have been on the board an average of 10 months. The remaining trustee had 8
years experience, but was for the most part disregarded by the others, or alienated by Mr. Joling and Vanderwaal.
36 In the past, the typical procedure with a Village attorney was to include the entire Village Board in on any discussions or advisement on big issues, leaving an opportunity for questions, and everyone with the same information. Not so, in this case.
37 On January 22, there was another meeting of Joling, Wegner and Davel with attorney Vanderwaal for up to 2.4 hours, including various emails. The existence of the meetings and emails were again, unknown to the Board until after they were over. Specific contents remain unknown until this day.
38 In his Jan 22, 2026 report to the Village Board Mr Davel said (emphasis added):
"Attended a meeting with attorney VanderWaal with the Village President concerning the upcoming appeal hearing. This meetings focus was to make sure the President understood the process of running an appeal hearing. Please review the materials provided in the board packet and listen to the October 20 meeting if you have time. As a reminder, no new evidence can be heard."
39 It appears that the contracted Village Attorney was either never made aware of the Milestone appeal review, or was told about it, but then told to stay out of it. In either event, the Village had no effective legal counsel or representation at all. It is unknown what was meant by "making sure the President understood the process of running an appeal hearing"?
40 Mr Vanderwaal has a pro-mining litigation history, which was in harmony with Mr Joling's bias in favor of American Asphalt. https://www.vanderlaw.net/shane-vanderwaal
41 In any event, the evidence here suggests that Davel, Joling, and Vanderwaal worked together behind closed doors. The effective result was that the board was as confused, uninformed and misinformed during the appeal meeting.
42 At the January 27 appeal meeting, Mr. Vanderwaal introduced himself as "the attorney representing the Village in this matter". He did not say who retained him or designated him to that position.
Questions for this section - Proper legal representation
Line 7 - What would be the legitimate purpose of constant communication between Mr Vanderwaal and applicant lawyers, particularly if no information was forthcoming to the Plan
Commission either before or after the Oct 20 meeting, and essentially no information or advisement to the village board gained by these calls?
Is it allowable for the client-village board be excluded from these meetings and any information gathered from the discussions like this kept secret? Particularly in a quasi-judicial capacity/situation?
Line 13 and 36 - Is it acceptable for a board member to engage in ex-parte discussions like this?
Line 14, 16, 19, 20 - Is it allowable for an appeals board member to separately lobby other board members to come to a particular pre-arranged conclusion for the appeal?
Does this kind of activity constitute a walking quorum?
Is a philosophical bias for or against the applicant or applicant's business, grounds for recusal of the board member from the appeal proceedings?
Line 9, Given the written termination of the fee agreement/contract, is it possible for there to be an attorney-client relationship with the Village without there being a new contract approved by the Village board, or any contact with the Board?
Line 23 - What legal or practical effect would a retro-active approval of Vanderwaal's contract as "representing the village in this matter" have on the legitimacy of the appeal?
Line 22, 30, 36 - Is it legally, ethically, or as a practical matter acceptable for a standing village attorney to be excluded from the loop of awareness on a matter of this importance?
Particularly upon the arbitrary decision of the president, and/or the administrator alone?
Second Issue - Proper/legally acceptable procedure and due process requirements for the appeal meeting.
Village Ordinance 520-121 (F) (3) states:
"The village board shall, by resolution, make a final decision to grant, with or without conditions, or to deny each application for a conditional use permit after receiving and reviewing the commission's findings and making its own findings as to whether or not the proposed use will satisfy the standards for approval set
forth in subsection G and shall have all of the powers of the commission under this section. The village board's determination shall be final and subject to appeal to the circuit court under any procedure authorized by statute".
43 From a layman's point of view, it is our understanding that a local appeal review can be one of two different types - "appellate" or "de novo".
44 The Appellate (review the record only") process means that the Village Board must review the facts exactly as presented to the Plan Commission, with no new information added, and find whether or not the PC made a proper decision.
45 The Board's appellate process should begin by polling the Board as to whether or not they have had any ex parte discussion or any new information that was not in the PC record.
46 This review would require specific examination of Plan Commission findings and the evidence that they had, along with the Board's deliberation, and conclusions reached on each of the 5 ordinance criteria that are required to pass, in order for the CUP to be approved.
47 As standard procedure for an appeal like this, the reviewing decision-makers must consider whether or not the Plan Commission:
(1) kept within its jurisdiction;
(2) proceeded on a correct theory of law;
(3) acted arbitrarily, oppressively, or unreasonably (exercising will instead of judgment); and
(4) reached a conclusion that reasonably could be made on the evidence.
48 These findings must all be done on the record, at that Village Board meeting reviewing the appeal, and with minimal if any influence from non-board members or information not already known to Plan Commission at the time of their decision. Participants in the appeal must be objective and able to apply the evidence to the criteria in the ordinance.
49 In the event that the Village Board finds that the Plan Commission failed any one or more of the four tests or the 5 criteria it may, after deliberation and findings of such being on the record, then proceed to make its own findings based on the information in the Plan Commission record.
50 According to lines 18, 24, and 37 above, the Board was led to believe that this would be an appellate type of review of the Plan commission' decision, with no new information other than
what the Plan Commission had at the time.
51 A "de novo" appeal means that the Board can start from scratch, gathering all new evidence, public input, etc. and the Board can then make their own decision, regardless of what Plan Commission determined.
52 This requires proper notice of hearing, conducting the hearing, examination of evidence, testimony, deliberation, and conclusions reached on each of the 5 ordinance criteria that are required to pass, in order for the CUP to be approved.
53 This must also all be done on the record at that meeting reviewing the appeal. Participants must be objective and able to apply the evidence to the criteria in the ordinance.
54 In either case, any decision maker with a personal bias for or against the applicant or the conditional use, should be disqualified from the process, as they are considered to be incapable of objectively applying facts to the law.
55 The day before the Jan 27 appeal meeting, the applicant Milestone sent an 11 page position statement that along with various argument, included new information and numerous conditions not originally presented to Plan Commission. (Attachment #8)
56 The audio of the appeal meeting is here:
https://soundcloud.com/kronenwetter/january-27-2026-special-village-board-meeting-
recording?
si=abd448b70625481cb69dda291f6b8fd5&utm_source=clipboard&utm_medium=text&utm_c
ampaign=social_sharing
Questions for Mr Bitar about the meeting:
Is the assumption/basic understanding of the appeal process as described in lines 42-53 above basically correct? Much of it comes from case law that can be found in attachment #10, and Statutes
Chapter 68.
68.001 "Legislative purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to afford a constitutionally sufficient, fair and orderly administrative procedure and review in connection with determinations by municipal authorities which involve constitutionally protected rights of specific persons which are entitled to due process protection under the 14th amendment to the U.S. constitution."
To survive a circuit court certiorari review, can it reasonably be expected that an appeal procedure would need to include the following?
• The Plan Commission be notified of the appeal, and be provided with the option of legal representation at the appeal review?
• The Board be given clear instructions and information as to their objective, duties, expected procedure, rules, etc in relation to their quasi-judicial function?
• That the Board be polled as to any ex-parte discussions or information that they might have experienced?
• That the Board be provided a transcript to review of the Plan Commission hearing, meeting deliberation, and conclusions on the CUP denial?
• That the meeting Chairman or village attorney prevent any new information, evidence, argument, including additional conditions from being presented to the Board?
• That the Plan Commission decision be specifically examined as per the Chapter 68, and addressing items in Line 46 (1-4), and starting with the assumption that the PC decision was correct?
• That the 5 criteria of ordinance 520-121 (G) be individually examined and consensus or vote taken on each of the 5 items on the record?
• That no new information gathering or motion be conducted by the Board until the above process was carried out and the PC was found to have been in error?
• That if by some bait-and-switch legal tactic, the presiding officer was going to allow the asking of questions and accept new information from the applicant that was not in the Plan Commission record, then a new hearing needed to be held, allowing due process for all involved to provide input, evidence, and argument?
• That the Village Board itself be provided with effective, neutral legal representation and advisement to ensure they maintain core procedural protections of a fair quasi-judicial proceding for all parties?
Other questions:
Is the Village President automatically the chairman of a quasi-judicial appeal like this, or is it normal procedure for the Board to select a chair for this quasi-judicial special meeting?
Can the Village Administrator and President claim that this will be an appellate (record only) review, but then allow the applicant to present new information whether it is argument, new facts, or new conditions?
If so, can the President tell the public that this "is not a hearing" and do not allow them to present anything?
Is it acceptable practice for the "attorney representing the Village in this matter" to argue in favor of approval of the CUP, or to misrepresent the law to his alleged client in a way that would tend to influence a vote for approval?
Is it acceptable in an appeal review for the attorney to raise the issue of the village being sued if the CUP is not approved?
Is it acceptable practice for the "attorney representing the Village in this matter" to create a hostile environment for any Board member raising facts or reasoning in favor of sustaining the Plan
Commission denial of the CUP?
Is it an acceptable practice to prevent the contracted Village Attorney's knowledge of, or involvement in advising the Board in this appeal?
Is the Village Board as client entitled to know what exactly was discussed at the Nov 3 meeting between Mr. Davel, Joling, Wegner, and Vanderwaal? This was while Vanderwaal was still under contract.
Is the Village Board entitled to know what exactly was discussed at the Jan 22 meeting between Mr. Davel, Joling, Wegner, and Vanderwaal? This was about 2 months after the
Vanderwaal contract expired due to written termination.
Given that the required "Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities" of the Village Administrator include, according to the job description: "Ability to analyze and interpret financial information, government publications, governmental regulations and statutes, engineering,
audit and legal reports, and administrative rules affecting the Village and when necessary to convert such information into an easily understood layman’s report.", should Administrator
Davel have been expected to alert the board to these multiple anomalies of the appeal procedure even if Vanderwaal did not?
Does a Village Board motion to "reverse the determination of the Plan Commission with all the conditions from Attorney Shane VanderWaal; Zoning Administrator Peter Wegner; and the
January 23, 2026 Milestone Materials CUP APPEAL – Position Statement from Attorney Mitchell R. Olson." automatically grant approval to the CUP?
Since Village Ordinance 520-121 (F) (3) states that
"The village board shall, by resolution, make a final decision to grant, with or without conditions, or to deny each application for a conditional use permit..."
can it be reasonably construed that approval has NOT been granted until the resolution is voted on and approved?
Third Issue - after-the-fact "Affirmative Finding Report"
57 Regardless of how the Board vote turned out, there were few if any actual Board "findings" at the appeal meeting.
58 When the public raised questions as to the actual reasoning for the affirmative votes of the majority, Mr Joling created an "Affirmative Finding Report" 3 days after the meeting, "with
input from" the two other trustees voting in the majority. (Attachment #9)
59 Being created after the meeting, it is not part of the appeal record.
60 It consists largely of Milestone's speculative and unsubstantiated arguments in favor of the CUP approval.
61 Mr Joling simply copied and pasted Milestone's attorney Olson's position into Mr Joling's document.
62 Mr. Joling's own, additional comments rely heavily on future results "envisioned" by him to happen, with terms like "one would assume" being the basis of his findings.
63 This report appears to contain the type of language that Act 67 prohibits.
64 Instead of factual findings, the report shows that it lacks substantial evidence and is based on specious and fallacious reasoning.
65 Joling's report contains numerous and important factual errors.
66 The report fails to be based on evidence that matches the "reasonable man" standard, particularly when compared to Plan Commission findings.(Attachment #10)
67 In public comments made after the meeting Mr Joling openly expressed his personal bias in favor of AA, as well as his misunderstanding of the term "development", and of the financial ramifications to the Village with regard to criteria #5 of ordinance 520-121 (G). (Attached document #12)
68 Trustee Stowell seemed confused as to the facts. For example after the meeting she posted online that she understood that there would be only 3-5 trucks per day, when the applicant actually told her that trucks making multiple trips would result in more like 35 loads per day.
69 Trustee Myszka seems unable to articulate a single valid reason for his approving vote, other that the AR zoning district allows mining as a conditional use.
70 Joling's report does not reflect much of anything that was actually deliberated at the appeal meeting.
71 By avoiding mention of any findings at the appeal meeting, the report's findings and conclusions have effectively escaped the due process requirement of examination or debate on the record.
72 The report does not address or dispute the Plan Commission's findings at all; the facts and conclusions of which are in Trustee Charneski's Report Relating to Junior Ridge CUP.
(Attachment #10)
73 Analyzing the Plan Commission findings was expected to be the primary purpose of the appeal, according to (no new information" notices by Joling and Davel.
Questions for the Village Attorney Bitar:
Given its after-meeting origin, is the above-described "Affirmative Findings" report of any
value?
Can it be used to support the Board's vote in the event of a circuit court challenge?
Can it be used for the opposite purpose of negating the Board's vote in a circuit court
challenge?
Do findings need to be established in the record of the meeting?
Did the Board need to apply a presumption of correctness to the PC decision, and then overcome that presumption with facts already on the record that show otherwise?
Does discussion at least need to show findings that can later be summarized in a document?
Issue of Recusal
74 A few hours before the appeal meeting, President Joling sent a carefully worded email to Trustee Charneski stating:
"Please see the attached. I believe at this point you have your mind pretty well made up and I understand from your perspective where you’re coming from but at the same point this being an appeal hearing they need to be given an unbiased quasijudicial hearing.
I would like to meet with you this afternoon At 3:30PM at the municipal center if you choose to attend. I really hope better judgment prevails here today."
75 He attached a highlighted copy of excerpts from the Marris v. Cedarburg case.
76 Charneski responded with an email "Better judgement yes, but my hope was also that honesty and integrity would prevail. See my reply in the attachment.". (Attachment #11)
77 The attached file explained the abnormalities of how Joling, Vanderwaal, and Davel were orchestrating this meeting to ensure approval of the CUP, and why Joling was the person that needed to be recused.
78 At the appeal meeting, Vanderwaal aggressively sought Charneski's recusal using a subjective interpretation of the Marris case, while refusing to discuss Joling's recusal.
79 Charneski did not recuse himself, citing a lack of a valid reason to do so.
80 The reasons for or against anyone's recusal could be discussed at length at any time. The point of bringing it up here, is merely background for the events of the appeal meeting, and to illustrate the aggressiveness of this group of players in their effort to achieve Board approval of the sand mine CUP.
Questions for Mr. Bitar:
Does a personal over-all philosophy of allowing special consideration or favors to encourage business in the Village, constitute a bias that violates due process fairness when it
involves such a business, and thus requires recusal?
Does a Board member who is also a Plan Commission member constitute a bias that violates due process fairness, if he maintains a fact-based decision making process in both positions, without showing favoritism one way or the other?
Is a "mind already made up" in a record-only appeal review, a standard for recusal?
Is a "mind already made up" in a "new evidence" appeal review, a standard for recusal, since new evidence is essentially a new case?
Is there a way for the Village to redo this process without the expense of going to court?
Thank you for you attention and legal opinions on this matter.
Trustee Ken Charneski
Village of Kronenwetter
Comments
Post a Comment