The Investigation Part 1 - Something Wicked this way Comes

 

The Investigation Part 1

The key takeaway information in this report is:

• The current $40,000 "third-party investigation" had no legitimate purpose.

• There was no "complaint" other than an unseen, fictionalized one conjured up by President Joling.

• Joling initiated the process of an investigation without informing the Village Board.

• To the extent that there might need to be a resolution of some kind, Joling ignored the policy procedures directed in the Employee Handbook.

• Dan Joling directed the course of the investigation as it took place; providing documents and questions for each interviewee, he also was a witness and a defacto "person of interest" being responsible for a gross waste of taxpayer money. He certainly had a personal stake in the outcome of the investigation.

• The closed session meetings from February to June were in violation of the Wisconsin Open meetings law.

• The pre-meditated, pre-determined outcome and plan was to "clear Davel" and "fire Wegner with cause"; the rest was just theater.

• Investigations like this even under the best of circumstances, cannot be used on their own to fire or discipline someone, since they are based entirely on subjectivity and hearsay.

• Von Briesen & Roper had a conflict of interest in the investigation of Davel, since Davel had worked with them at Shawano less than a year earlier in his retaliatory complaints against elected officials there.

From the standpoint of logic, honesty or integrity, Kronenwetter's "investigation" makes no sense.

You may or may not remember the mysterious "investigation" that Pres Joling initiated late in February. The reason it is mysterious is because they have concealed the details about it from the public. The reason they they have concealed the details is first - secrecy is the "new normal" in Kronenwetter, and second - they seem to be pulling off a job in particular here, that they do not want the public to know about, or to understand.

It has been two months since an "initial report" that allegedly found "no wrongdoing" by Davel, and still the public has not yet seen that report. What does the taxpaying public even know about this investigation? Joling, Davel and the Village Board members are hiding it all behind a cloak of "closed session" and "attorney-client" secrecy. This doesn't happen for no reason.

It is apparent to me that they are stalling for time and hoping it will be forgotten. I don't need to know their details at this point. I have seen this movie before and I think we can use use the previous 2024 "von Briesen Report" as a model, almost a formula outline to understand the how these investigations actually operate. Thus we can reasonably prognosticate from the information available, much of what is going on with this.

As trustee, I sat in on three closed sessions dealing with this investigation. I do not need to reveal anything that I learned in those sessions. If the report is ever released to the public, then the closed session confidentiality will no longer serve as a shield for the culpable actors in all this. At that time I can provide a much more complete report.

For now, let us instead see how much we can put together by connecting the dots of information gathered from the public record, public documents, and elsewhere outside of those closed sessions.

Due to the large amount of information and almost unbelievable malice and corruption involved, this K Report on "The Investigation" will have to be broken up into three separate reports:

1. The introduction and basic timeline, (which is this report).

2. A dive into how these "third-party, outside investigations work. (They are basically useless as being any kind of "evidence).

3. The facts as to who is who and what is what in this taxpayer funded "theater show". (Both Joling and Davel have histories of wrongdoing cover-ups, and using "investigations" as weapons and distractions)

Before we get into this, just remember that this "third party investigation" is brought to us by the same people who brought us the travesty of the Milestone CUP appeal. (see my other posts "The Milestone Sand Pit Approval - A textbook case of corruption and incompetence.", and "My (unanswered) Questions to the Village Attorney regarding the Corrupted Milestone Sand Pit Appeal Process")

A Timeline Based on Publicly Available Information

Let's start with the Open Meetings violations.

The Feb 26, March 12, and April 30 closed session Village Board Meetings gave notice on the Agendas to the public as "to wit specific concerns regarding a personnel employment issue and possible action to address the same."

Right off the bat, it appears that this notice is legally insufficient to meet the "reasonableness standard" for Open Meetings law, as defined by the Wisconsin Supreme Court (See my post entitled "Why I Filed an Open Meetings Complaint with the DA"). 

The basic rule, is that if an employment matter involves an identifiable person or individual persons, the public should be made aware of that in the agenda. In this case and in every closed session on this matter since then, the agenda notices have been unacceptably vague.

Mr Joling neglected to include the required fact that the "personnel employment issue" was about Administrator Davel. The notice does not say whether or not there was any complaint or charge against him, but it does say it is regarding "specific concerns". It appears that Joling should have also included the fact of a "claim" in that notice, but chose not to.

This is because the Feb 26 Minutes state that the Board hired von Briesen & Roper as "labor counsel" and authorized them "to commence investigation and select an investigator regarding a claim involving a personnel matter." Dan Joling had to be aware of a "claim" ahead of time. otherwise why call the special meeting, and why did he have not just one but two lawyers there? He had already spent a lot of effort communicating with both the village attorney and von Briesen "labor counsel" on this matter before ever seeking Village Board involvement, let alone approval. 

Joling inexplicably also disregarded the procedure policy directed in the Employee Handbook for these matters. This procedure is efficient, cost-effective, and fair, because it involves sworn testimony and valid rules of evidence. Both of which are absent in these "third party independent investigations.

At the March 9 open meeting, the Board discussed hiring Von Breisen and Roper law firm. The need to obtain a contract makes it evident that Joling's dealings with attorney Ryan Heiden of von Briesen before that point and incurring several thousand dollars of unauthorized cost, had all been without a valid, written contract.

I understand that this is unethical conduct for a lawyer, according to regulations that the Supreme Court has established. We know for a fact that it was not legal on Joling's part, as he has no authority at all to incur costs with consultants of his choosing not approved by the Village Board.

This kind of abuse of his position is nothing new for Joling. It is well known that he involved attorney Shane Vanderwall in the Milestone sand pit appeal earlier this year as "the attorney representing the Village in this matter". I would define that statement as an obvious lie, because he had no contract or Village Board approval to make that statement; only Joling's say-so, which is worth nothing in the way of authority. Vanderwaal just showed up at the appeal meeting with no previous contact with the Board, and said basically "Here I am. I am representing you".

Joling dismisses the alleged illegality of his actions as simply "making an executive decision" (February APC meeting). The trouble is, that a Village president is not an "executive" the same way as a United States president is. Wisconsin statute 946.12 defines actions like this as felony "misconduct in office".

The reason I took that little sidetrack into the Milestone appeal and Joling's alleged misconduct, is because I believe that his apparently self-serving misuse of his position at that time has repeated itself with the same kind of self-determined "executive decisions" and deception that have taken place with this investigation.

At that March 9th meeting I raised issues about the fact that we had no specified scope of work requested, and no cost limit for the Board to consider. I related the previous experience with von Briesen and the widely held perception that their previous work product was essentially a "hit piece". Joling himself stated at the July 14, 2025 Board meeting that the von Briesen report was a "really smelly embarrassment". (see my post "Part 3 FYI: the von Briesen Report Repudiated by the Village Board")

I questioned the need for outside attorneys at all, given the nature of the issue that we were seeking to address. Joling persisted; apparently seeking another "really smelly embarrassment", and set up a special closed session meeting for March 12.

After the Board came out of the March 12 closed session, they voted to hire both von Briesen and HJC law firms. Mr Joling announced that he had an estimated cost of $20,000 for this project. Interestingly, when this limit was about to be voted on by the Board, von Breisen lawyer Ryan Heiden interrupted and advised against placing a cap on the cost, so no vote was taken on that issue. This should have been a red flag to any Board member or public observer.

No scope of work was mentioned at all, even though Joling had devised the undisclosed scope of work with HJC lawyer Jacob Curtis days earlier. This was another red flag, since without public knowledge of what their tax money was being spent on, Joling was allowed complete opportunity to arbitrarily redirect and unleash the investigator on anyone for anything. I have no doubt that this was the plan from the beginning.

The continued secrecy and numerous closed sessions since March 30th and the targeting and firing "with cause" of Community Developement Director Peter Wegner indicates to me that this is exactly what has been going on.

Moreover, the early move to nix the cost limit on this project is another significant clue that there was a pre-determined plan to have this investigation used for something other than simply looking into the Davel misconduct issue. I think Heiden's suggestion to skip the cost limit was prearranged theater covering for the fact that it was Joling and Davel who wanted no cost limit.

The third concern that I raised on March 9, was about the disreputable nature of von Briesen's previous work in 2024, (see my earlier posts on that). This problem was apparently solved through the legal technicality of having HJC provide a separate letter of engagement for the Board to approve. This switch was to have HJC work directly for the Village instead of working for von Briesen, as the February 26 motions had indicated. Those approvals were never rescinded.

This move appears to me to have been intended for the sole purpose of having the public believe what the press release claimed to be an independent "third-party investigator who had no prior relationship with the Village".

Legal and technical semantics aside, I believe that statement to be materially false for all practical purposes. Who HJC technically worked "for", is not as important as who they were working "with". The modus operandi of HJC working hand-in-glove with von Briesen had not changed. (see my post "The Investigation Part 2")

We know from the Feb 26 motions by the Board, that HJC was selected by, partnered with, and working with von Briesen on this project. Investigator Curtis counseled extensively with von Briesen and Joling throughout the process, including what "approach" should be taken with the investigation.

We also know that Von Briesen had an extensive though unauthorized relationship with the Village through the former village clerk less than two years ago. Because of their nexus with HJC, I think it is fair to say that von Briesen's previous relationship with the Village realistically carries over to disqualify HJC's status as "having no prior association with the Village" in anything other than name, since the two law firms were closely associated.

What is even more significant and what has gone unmentioned is the fact that von Briesen has had an extensive prior relationship with James Davel and his antics at Shawano less than a year ago. Why is von Briesen involved here at all, when there is yet another obvious conflict of interest issue? Why did neither von Briesen, Davel, or Mr Joling divulge this important fact to the Village Board?

If and when the Investigation Report is released, perhaps the public will be able to determine whether or not the "approach" was predetermined to "clear" Davel of wrongdoing, and also whether or not the report actually does so.

Bottom Line

None of the key concerns raised at the March 9 meeting were actually settled at the special March 12 meeting. I voted against all of it for obvious reasons.

Why was the scope of work kept from the public?

Who gave Joling the authority to create this scope of work? Was it just another self-serving "executive decision" on his part?

I guess I should explain that the investigation was purportedly to look into Davel's behavior, but also at issue is the question as to why we needed to spend "$20,000" for a relatively small matter that could have been easily resolved at Village Hall. This question was the bigger issue in my mind, than Davel's misbehavior.

When something like this makes no sense, it is often because we are looking at it from the wrong perspective. From a reasonable, honest point of view, it makes no sense to hold a high priced investigation for a minor infraction of telling improper stories in mixed company. But from the point of view of a pre-planned weaponization of the investigation to achieve personal aims, then everything seems to fit into place.

This investigation realistically and logically should never have been conducted. Since Joling did ramrod it through, it should have been concluded on March 30th with the "no wrongdoing" determination in the investigator's initial report provided to the Village Board in late April. That report should have been released to the public at that time; before the election.

After the March 30th "no wrongdoing" conclusion, a third question arises as to why and how this investigation dramatically changed course and turned on Mr. Wegner.

Joling Bears Accountability for the Cost

Joling himself bears responsibility for initiating the tremendous cost ($40,000 and rising?) of a so-called investigation that he has yet to explain. Being potentially on the carpet from the very beginning for of all this, it should be obvious that he had a clear stake in the outcome, and a clear motive to direct the investigation to divert attention away from his role in creating this disaster, and toward Trustee Sorensen as a scapegoat who did nothing but privately bring the matter to Joling's attention. (See my other post "Money for Nothing".)

That brings us to a side issue as to why Kelly Coyle and Jessica Stowell were dutifully making widespread accusations against Sorensen in social media. These appear to be lies in service to the Davel/Joling "organization", but the very suspicious $26,000 annual "pay raise" given to Trustee Kelly Coyle's wife Kim Coyle for future unknown work duties yet to be determined, cannot help but to create doubts as to their or "the organization's" credibility.

The Joling-created "scope" apparently also allowed for throwing other employees like Wegner under the bus, But for what? Diversion and distraction? Retaliation? Maybe a purge of anyone who did not give Davel a glowing evaluation review (such as Peter Wegner, Jennifer Poyer, or Theresa Obrien)?

In my book, Joling's alleged collusion with Davel is magnitudes worse than any purported "claim" originally alleged against Davel to begin with, or what they and minions Trustees Jessica Stowell and Kelly Coyle blame Sandi Sorensen for.

It seems unquestionable that this entire investigation was Joling's doing, and in disregard for taxpayer expense. In my opinion, it is there is no doubt that it was deceptively initiated for predetermined nefarious purposes and outcomes.

Joling's involvement as director of this investigation while also being the "complaint creator", defendant, and witness this case, has marked similarities to the previous, 2024 von Briesen investigation. In that case, we had the same situation where the complainant (former village clerk) was also the "client" providing the desired outcome and was the director of the investigation who supplied the list of who and who not to interview, cherry-picked documents, etc.. These features of a "rigged game" seem to be the hallmarks of these fake "investigations".

In the March 30 meeting minutes, we see that the Board approved a press release which was again written by Joling, but that document is not in the packet or attached to the minutes, which is another anomaly.

After two months of being unjustifiably kept in the dark, the Kronenwetter public finally found out on March 31 that the investigation was about Administrator James Davel all along, but there still appears to be public confusion as to whether it was a complaint, a claim, or only an "allegation".

If we go by the news reports, we see that:

The Shawano Daily Helper News media responds to the release and reports that

"Village of Kronenwetter Administrator James Davel, has been cleared of wrongdoing following a workplace complaint in Kronenwetter."

They go on to say -

"Davel previously served in Shawano County as Administrative Coordinator, where he faced criticism and controversy tied to workplace conduct concerns raised by some county officials. No additional details about the Kronenwetter complaint have been released, but village leaders say they are ready to move forward and focus on serving the community."

https://www.tchdailynews.com/2026/04/07/93570/

We see from the news report that this is not Davel's first rodeo dealing with complaints against himself.

James Davel has had numerous complaints against him at his previous job in Shawano. I found that he also has a history of using his own complaints as weapons against those who inquire into his performance. He even "filed" a childish, petty complaint against me on February 26th. I don't know what his purpose was, but I think it is a perfect example of his weak character. That complaint is here. In other words, retaliation seems to be his defense of choice. Apparently, if he has to fabricate a reason to file a complaint, he will. (His poor reputation and work history at Shawano will be covered in detail in upcoming posts) His complaint filing is apparently where his relationship with von Briesen Law Firm came in the first time.

https://www.newmedia-wi.com/committee-wrangles-over-ethics-accusations

The Board was never informed of these numerous complaints against Davel before we hired him "pending a background check".

Incredibly, Kronenwetter Police Department did the background check and reported NO ISSUES.

In a separate post I will go into information readily discoverable that you would think Police Chief Terry McHugh would have found regarding Mr, Davel's pattern of activity, and would have reported to the Board. It has even been reported that one person from Shawano told the KPD caller flat out - "I would not hire him."

The VOK press release written by Pres Joling says :

"The Village is looking forward to putting this matter behind it so it can continue to focus on improving the community and addressing its taxpayers’ interests.”

Apparently, that press release was not exactly honest about that either, because a month later on April 30, we see yet another closed session which again appears to provide the same vague, inadequate notice on the agenda as to the nature of the business to be conducted.

In the minutes we find out weeks later what that business was. The April 30 minutes read:

"Motion by Lesniak/Myszka to terminate the employment of the Community Development Director for just cause."

So, if we are to understand this right - by March 30 we had an apparently completed investigation to address "specific concerns" about Administrator Davel, which Trustee Myszka expressed on March 12 as a worst case scenario cost of $20,000. Along with that, we have an official Village press release approved March 30 stating a desire of "putting this matter behind us", leading the readers to believe the matter was ended and within estimated cost.

However, this settled, optimistic situation somehow suddenly elevated catastrophically into firing department head Peter Wegner, who was the one person with the work ethic, loyalty, and knowledge most critical to the press release stated goal of "improving the community and addressing taxpayer interests".

This extra legal fees involved in going after Wegner came at a total cost to the Village estimated to be at north of $40,000 and I won't be surprised if it hits $50K before it is all done; not Myszka's expected $20K "worst case scenario".

The whole process has been done under the secrecy of "closed session" Open Meeting violations, and treacherous, thuggish actions against Mr. Wegner.

The March 30 minutes show that the three lawyers (Bitar, Curtis, Heiden) were present at this meeting ($1000 per hour total cost). Two, and arguably all three were involved with the original investigation into Davel. By this we knw that Wegner's firing is tied to the investigation of Davel.

We can reasonably conclude that Joling originally initiated an investigation which was pre-determined to whitewash over a minor incident of improper storytelling by his friend Davel. Joling has a well-documented history of covering up crimes and other wrongdoings of his cohorts, and concealing them from the public. In this case, the minor nature of the storytelling did not realistically even need whitewashing to begin with; there was no "complaint " to begin with, other than what Joling fictionalized.

It becomes apparent that the true purpose of Joling's $40K expenditure was to fabricate a reason to fire Wegner "with cause", even though "investigations" like this are NEVER supposed to be used for this purpose. (See "The Investigation Part 2")

Based on my previous experience with von Breisen's 2024 report, this "reason" did not need to be legitimate, but only made to appear so through wordsmithing of the investigator.

In a nutshell, I'll say that when Joling engaged von Briesen for this project, he was not looking for facts to honestly come to the truth of a matter. I think he was instead having the Village pay for the "official investigation" to "find out" and rehash facts that were already known and dealt with before the investigation. Facts that were then trumped up, perhaps with a few key lies intended to vilify Wegner and to justify the "with cause" firing.

That is very similar to what happened with the 2024 "Von Briesen Report". You had known set of facts that drew no undue attention because they were par for the course in human interactions. But when the same set of facts comes out of an "official investigation" and are embellished and fortified by lies of omission and a lawyer's bias, they now become a big deal, and the more the Village pays for the report, the more credibility people tend give it, whether or not it is true.

Lawyers who are paid and directed to make something out of nothing can generally pretty well do so. We see that all the time in both criminal and civil cases.

The question arises as to how does firing Mr Wegner tie in to a previous investigation into Davel's behavior, which in turn was not reasonably necessary to begin with? The answer to me is obvious - The Joling/Davel plan MADE it tie in, because that was the plan from the beginning.

The entire process looks like it was the result of Jolings many undisclosed communications with the lawyers, and a series of closed sessions that did not comply with Open Meeting law requirements.

Wisconsin is an "at will" state. You do not need a reason to terminate anyone's employment. So if Davel and Joling had it in for Wegner, the current Board would have almost certainly have followed instructions and gone along with it without spending $40,000 to justify it.

Wegner or any other self-confident, competent employee would likely resign if asked to do so.

However, while anyone can fire anyone "at will", the acts of conniving and colluding to smear someone and create a "just cause" to blackball him from future employment, is an entirely different breed of cat; it indicates an element of malice and/or retaliation, which both Davel and Joling seem to be known for.

As I have started to explain, and will do so more thoroughly in the next post - an investigation like this carries little to no weight as evidence, and it is only of limited value as a recommendation for certain things like policy changes. These investigations CANNOT be used as a basis to defame or to fire or discipline someone, because they are based on unverified, hearsay, which is exactly what this current investigation is based on.

Based on their already established lack of judgment and trustworthiness, I believe that Davel and Joling have a complete disregard for taxpayer money when it comes to getting what they personally want, and that they have used this investigation for their own personal purposes to the detriment of high quality employees which in turn is against the Village's best interests.

If my observations are correct, I think this whole idea of an unnecessary investigation was an extremely arrogant, ill-conceived and malicious thing for them to do. I think they have irrationally set the Village up for legal liability.

I do not have one good word to say about a Village Board made up of supposed adults whodid not have the moral or practical sense to put an end to this witch hunt many weeks ago.

The Board has the authority to fire Davel and remove Joling. As a liability concern, I think this is exactly what should be done.