The Investigation Part 2, A dive into how these "third-party, outside investigations work."

 

 Be sure to check out my other posts!

           

The "Investigation" Part 2

In the previous post on this site "The 'Investigation' Part 1" we looked at some introductory information regarding facts and events relating to President Joling's "third-party investigation", such as:

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

• There was no "complaint" involved at all, other than some kind of phantom, fictionalized one imagined by President Joling.

• Joling initiated the process of an investigation into a non-existent "complaint" without informing or consulting the Village Board, as required by Village Policy.

• To the extent of addressing Administrator Davel's behavior, Joling ignored the policy of procedures directed in the Employee Handbook and Village Policy HR-009, intended to quickly resolve such matters.

• Dan Joling seems to have had a huge conflict of interest in having anything to do with directing the course of the investigation.

• The closed session meetings from February to June appear to have been consistently in violation of the Wisconsin Open meetings law. They prioritized secrecy over open government public's right to be fully informed.

• Von Briesen & Roper appears to also have had a conflict of interest in being involved with the investigation of Davel, since Davel had worked with von Briesen at Shawano less than a year earlier in his allegedly retaliatory complaints against elected officials there.

• This investigation which the Board approved to look into Davel's behavior, was suddenly and inexplicably redirected to target a bystander employee, Peter Wegner.

• Both the scope of the investigation, and the abrupt change in scope were apparently directed by Dan Joling, since there is no record of the Village Board voting to approve either the scope or the supposed change in scope.

In Part 2 will present for your consideration the following:

• The Village Policy on human resource conflict resolution was ignored by Pres. Joling.

• Third-party investigations provide no due process protection, and have little value for the purposes of discipline or termination.

• Investigator's findings can not be used on their own to determine credibility or alleged facts.

• Following established Village Policy would have met due process standards at a far lower cost.

• The scope of work worded by Joling virtually guaranteed that Davel would be cleared.

• Credibility of witnesses appears to have been determined by a double-standard.

• The single legitimate "allegation" (Davel telling improper stories) was not shown to be false, but only "unsubstantiated". I have yet to see or hear of a clear statement from Davel denying that he told the bawdy story as described.

• The law firms' terms of agreement basically acknowledge that the results of the investigation are outcome-based according to client "guidance".

• The "labor counsel" law firm worked closely with Mr. Davel, the original subject of the investigation. This appears to create a conflict of interest potentially in his favor.

• Davel appears to have had substantial contact with witnesses before the investigation began, and under suspicious circumstances.

• There appears to be no valid reason given to switch the investigation's direction from looking into Davel's behavior, to attacking Wegner.

• This switch targeting Wegner appears to have cost an additional $20,000.

• The investigation appears to have been pre-planned to produce an outcome not originally known by the Board, or included in any known "scope of duties"

The Kronenwetter Employee Handbook is the first go-to source for information on how to resolve employee disputes and issues like this. The first thing it directs, is a discussion between the parties to try to resolve the matter.

Incredibly, this obvious solution was not even attempted in this case. Had such common sense been used, I believe that this particular matter could very likely have been settled right there and then.

If for some reason the issue could not be resolved with a discussion, then Village Policy HR-009 has a very straightforward process on how to select a qualified hearing officer who would then hold a hearing to take sworn testimony, cross-examination, and evidence from both sides. Then the hearing officer would make a determination based on that verified information. This is very much like a regular court bench trial.

This is an efficient and fair process intended to be concluded in just a few weeks and is very cost-effective.

HR-009 can be seen here

https://cms6.revize.com/revize/kronenwettervillage/HR-009_Grievance%20Procedure%20Policy%2008.22.11.pdf?t=202208170914500&t=202208170914500

Mr. Joling chose to not have a discussion, and to not follow that prescribed Village policy. Instead he apparently took it upon himself to initiate a very expensive "third-party investigation" without consulting the Village Board. This kind of investigation process which has just taken place in Kronenwetter has none of the due process features that HR-009 requires.

• No sworn testimony.

• No cross-examination.

• One-sided evidence only.

• No notice of termination

• No opportunity at all for Wegner to present a defense or rebuttal to accusations that he was blindsided with.

After Trustee Sandi Sorensen privately asked President Dan Joling to look into Administrator James Davel's allegedly bawdy storytelling, Joling apparently went directly to Davel.

I believe that this is the genesis of the idea to use a third-party investigation against Wegner, which is similar to what Davel had reportedly done to his critics in Shawano.

This may also explain why Joling appeared so determined to conduct this investigation in spite of the fact that there was no complaint and no apparent, objectively rational reason to do so.

In my post "The Investigation Part 1, we looked at information indicating that Community Development Director Peter Wegner was fired "with cause", apparently based on results and/or legal advice in the April 2026 von Briesen/HJC investigation report.

This should be concerning to everyone because according to my research as a layman (I am happily not a lawyer) these investigations do not carry the weight or credibility for such heavy-handed action.

The Nature of Third party Investigations

   Everyone involved should understand that a private "investigation" is not at all like a police investigation or courtroom evidence.

From a legal perspective - the final report produced by a village-hired investigator, based on interviews of several employees where no one is sworn and there are no established rules of evidence, has limited persuasive value. The report should not be treated as determinative of guilt or misconduct. Instead, its findings are subject to testing and must be supplemented by sworn testimony or other admissible evidence in a subsequent process.

The investigation report can serve as background information or prima facie basis only, but not a substitute for proper evidence and a due-process hearing.

Firing Wegner "with cause" based on a hearsay-based investigation report seems pretty irresponsible to me from a liability point of view. Doing so without allowing a defense or rebuttal of any kind to be presented seems obviously malicious and unjust, not to mention about as un-American as it gets.

To my knowledge, this investigation, just like the previous 2024 von Briesen Report, provided no new verified facts that we did not already know before Joling engaged von Briesen for this project.

Village Policy GEN-001 requires that before incurring costs of consultants, we are to seek the information in-house, among employees, records, or from elected officials.

Joling obviously did nothing like this.

From a legal or evidentiary standpoint the report and conclusions of one of these "third-party investigations" should at best be treated as one piece of evidence among others; not as the sole basis for discipline or termination.

At minimum, due process requires a meaningful opportunity to be heard and to test the evidence before action is taken. This includes a process akin to a fair hearing where the employee can challenge the findings and submit evidence in rebuttal.

None of this was allowed, but this is exactly what HR-009 would have provided for.

In practice, this translates to pre-termination notice and an opportunity for a response, and then a more complete evidentiary process if termination is pursued, rather than reliance on an untested report.

The practical implication in Wisconsin is that if a village relies solely on an unsworn investigative report with no evidence rules or testing, the decision to discipline (or terminate) an employee would risk running afoul of due-process principles emphasized by the higher courts. In other words, it appears to expose the Village to a lawsuit having a good chance of success.

The village could or should have instead done any or all of the following:

• Used the report as background, then required sworn or otherwise admissible testimony to establish facts to give the employee a meaningful opportunity to cross- examine witnesses and present evidence in rebuttal.

• Ensured that there is an evidentiary basis for any credibility determinations; the Village Board should not rely solely on the investigator’s conclusions about credibility.

• Provided notice and an opportunity to be heard, with a process adequate to protect the employee’s property interest in employment, consistent with Loudermill principles and related due- process standards.

• Reserve the final assessments of the credibility of supporting witnesses for the administrative law judge, (such as the "hearing officer" stipulated in HR-009) before whom an opportunity for complete cross-examination of opposing witnesses must be provided.

• The party is entitled to be fully apprised of the evidence to be considered, with the opportunity to cross- examine witnesses, inspect documents and offer evidence in rebuttal or explanation. This supports the due process requirement for a fair hearing with opportunity to challenge the evidence.

• In short, credibility determinations belong to a real, qualified factfinder at a formal proceeding, not to the investigative firm, and due-process protections require testing of the information through cross examination and a reasoned, independent assessment of credibility.

What the Village got for $40,000 was basically nothing of value.

Contrary to the above mentioned requirements of Constitutionally compliant due process, the Village paid $40,000 for an end product that I believe by its very nature falls far short of of due process standards because in reality it was likely never intended to serve that purpose.

That is not the investigators fault or von Briesen's fault. This kind of investigation has its purposes, but establishing "just cause" on its own for termination purposes does not appear to be one of them.

If the Village had wanted a lawful, due process hearing to present verified and tested evidence, then I'm sure that either law firm would have provided someone to serve as the hearing officer required in Hr-009 and we would have had a whole different ball game. But that is not the ball that Joling got rolling.

In the kinds of investigations like we just went through, there are no set rules of evidence, nor is there any sworn testimony (replaced instead by "interviews"). It is all just words (perhaps cherry-picked or out of context) and conclusions (arbitrary or otherwise) regardless of whether or not any of it is true, false, objective or subjective. The investigator in this case appears to have assumed the role of sole arbiter as to who or what is "credible" or not. His reasoning for this appears to be very subjective. This is exactly what also happened in the 2024 report.

Information may be minimized or magnified at the investigator's discretion and judgement. Witness information can be disregarded as "non-credible" or "out-of-scope" to the investigation, while other out-of-scope subject matter may be brought "into scope" and pursued as directed by the "client" (in this case Joling).

These are all discretionary actions, commonly known as the "spin" that the client may require. Even an objective investigator is bound by the quality (or lack thereof) of witness accounts and evidence. There is no oath to cause dishonest people to tell the truth, and thus no penalty for perjury.

There are only two "village officials" in Kronenwetter with the authority to contact and/or direct investigating lawyers - President Dan Joling and Administrator James Davel.

Consider the fact that by their privilege of direct access to the lawyers, these two Village officials are in a position to control the information, the narrative, the playbook, and the results of this investigation. The investigating firms seem to be quite open and forthright about this fact. Informing the Village Board about Joling's discussions appears to be optional and and in my experience, unlikely.

What we effectively end up with is a complainant (like Joling, or in the past clerk LaBarge) with a stake in the outcome, who are also the defacto client who have a degree of control over that outcome by providing selected evidence, selected interviewees, selected questions and an expressed goal.

In other words - as I believe the previous (2024) "von Briesen Report" has amply demonstrated - if there is a desired outcome, the investigating firm will do their best to deliver it, because that is what they are paid and directed to do.

The Bottom Line

The end result of Joling/Davel's actions, is that in their apparent zeal to sack Wegner "with cause", Joling and the Board spent $40,000 on an investigation of questionable value because the process followed NONE of the above mentioned requirements necessary for due process. The goal apparently was to buy an investigation report that, whether credible or not, was intended to lend credulity to false or hyped accusations that I believe would not hold up for 5 minutes if a proper a due process cross examination or rebuttal would have been allowed.

Wisconsin is an "at will" state where employees can be terminated without reason. The Courts and common sense tells us that termination "with cause" requires a bona-fide reason. That reason should be verified by a hearing and due process to establish exactly what that "cause" is.

In other words, Joling and the Board spent $40,000 for an investigation that revealed no new information and a handful of unverified defamatory, even slanderous allegations which may expose the village to litigation more than anything else.

If anyone was bent on honestly firing Wegner "with cause" then they should have followed the HR-009 hearing process which provides exactly what the courts call for, just as Village Policy instructs to be done in the first place.

What benefit did the Village Taxpayers get for the $40,000 spent?

The lawyers have been forthright about what they do. It is up to us to simply read and understand what they are telling us.

Regarding von Briesen & Roper (VB&R) and their working partner HJC - neither law firm ever stated that seeking truth, fairness, objectivity or justice was the end goal of their services, and we have no evidence to show that that was what the client (Village) demanded .

The VB&R engagement letter states:

"SCOPE OF SERVICES You asked us to represent the Village in connection with labor and personnel matters.

RESPONSIBILITIES In reliance upon information and guidance provided by you, we will provide legal counsel and assistance in accordance with this letter, keep you reasonably informed of progress and developments, and respond to your inquiries."

That bold part above is not hard to understand. It is clear that the client controls the information, and the "guidance" tells the lawyer what the client wants accomplished.

This understanding corresponds to what the Wisconsin Supreme Court has set in their rules for lawyer conduct (referred to as SCR 20).

SCR 20:1.2 Scope of representation and allocation of authority between lawyer and client states this:

"...a lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation and, as required by SCR 20:1.4, shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued."

Joling "consulted" extensively with both law firms, establishing the "scope" and "approach" to the investigation and anything else he decided on.

The Village Board had no say in any of that, other than to vote to have VB&R to "commence investigation and select an investigator regarding a claim involving a personnel matter", then later approve the contracts.

The HJC engagement letter likewise states a scope of work:

"You have asked me to represent the Village by serving as an Independent Investigator relating to various personnel concerns within the Village. The scope of services may be broadened upon mutual agreement of both parties. From time to time, I may open a different “matter” internally, which you will see embodied by submission of a separate billing statement."

There appears to be nothing other than regular billing in this case, so it looks like there was no "mutual agreement" to change the scope or open up a new investigation. So, how did the investigative guns suddenly turn from Davel to Wegner?

Investigator Curtis is also forthright when he says:

"Throughout the interview process, Counsel provided updates regarding the ongoing nature and scope of the interviews to the Village Board President, who provided relevant documentation for purposes of initiating the interviews."

I think it goes without saying, that whoever determines what is "relevant" determines the nature of the questions which in turn determines the outcome.

Case in point- Sandi Sorensen had a thick folder of documentation to present as alleged evidence of Davel's lack of character and credibility. That information was apparently dismissed and determined by someone to be not relevant to an investigation into Davel's behavior.

Curtis in his report also dismissed the testimony of two credible witnesses who maintain that they heard Davel's improper story, simply because one of them initially gave an incorrect time frame of when he heard the story, but later clarified and corrected himself.

On the other hand, unrelated information against Wegner and provided to Curtis on the side suddenly takes priority even though Curtis admits it was "not directly related to the scope of the investigation".

Joling apparently waited until after Wegner's interview to have witnesses present  off-point information to Curtis. Curtis apparently never circled back to Wegner for him to see or respond to this new information. This newly introduced, off-point information along with  another $20,000 in cost, then appears to have become the catalyst used to create an entirely new "scope of investigation" apparently intended to target and terminate Wegner "with cause".

According to his March 16 email Curtis stated that the scope of the investigation (directed by Joling) was intended to include but not limited to:

"The truth or falsity of the allegations involving the Village Administrator and staff members and involves the VA making sexually inappropriate comments to those staff members and thereby making them feel uncomfortable;"

This scope does not come near meeting the bar of "Harassment" and particularly "sexual harassment" as defined in the Employee Handbook, and which is the only basis that requires the cost or trouble of a third party investigation. Anything less would not have justified this extreme measure.

No one ever said Davel made "sexually inappropriate comments to staff", so this "scope" as defined by Joling put forth strawman accusations that virtually guaranteed that Davel would not be found in violation.

Any inappropriate or bawdy stories that did NOT make those present feel uncomfortable would not count. "Sexually inappropriate" and "Uncomfortable" are strong terms, virtually no one, not even Wegner and Poyer who heard the tattoo story were necessarily made "uncomfortable", but they still felt it was inappropriate and that was the issue that Sorensen brought to Joling.

With honest, competent, responsible handling, the storytelling issue should have been a matter quickly resolved with a simple discussion and reminder of proper workplace behavior, and investigator Curtis says almost exactly that in his initial report.

   The Village had a single scope of work as confirmed by Curtis. To broaden that scope should have required a "mutual agreement of both parties". By that, we must assume that "both parties" refers to "the Village and HJC", not "Davel & Joling". No issue of broadening or changing the scope of the investigation ever came before the Village Board for approval.

Much later, when the initial report came out, we saw that the scope of the investigation had indeed been significantly changed without Board knowledge. Even then, it had nothing to do with firing or making life miserable for quality employees.

The original scope had two more added to it:

• "If the allegations are determined to be false, the original source of the allegations and the motivation behind the allegations."

• "The individuals involved in releasing information and innuendo about the investigation and allegations to the public, despite the investigation not yet commencing and the matter having only been discussed in closed session to date."

Neither of these additional scopes have anything to do with Wegner. Yet, that is the direction that Curtis pursued and billed the Village for. Why?

We know that Dan Joling created this scope, but we do not know where the Board ever approved either the first scope, or the additional two add-on scopes. Furthermore, Mr. Curtis appears to have broadened the investigation without broadening the scope at some point. He states in item (v) of his introduction:

"While not directly related to the scope of the investigation (memorialized in an email authored by the Village Board President and included below), during the course of the investigation extremely troubling revelations were uncovered regarding the conduct of a Village employee that potentially exposes the Village to significant legal liability, warranting additional review and action by the Village Board."

Curtis' use of the term "revelation" instead of "allegation" seems meant to convey an element of certainty which indicates to me that he had a bias in his choice of words here.

The Board never voted to pay for "additional review" or to take any new "action" The fact that Curtis gave so much attention to something that he himself said is "not directly related to the scope" (out of scope) indicates to me that he was directed to do so within this investigation. Who but Joling could have given that $20,000 go-ahead to pursue an entirely new subject matter?

I think it is reasonable to conclude that once the Board was finagled into approving the contracts with von Briesen and HJC, the Board was left out of any further decisions. It is apparent to me that Joling took full though illegitimate control of the direction right from the beginning; treating this as his own private investigation, for his own personal campaign to target an employee that Joling had been disparaging, falsely accusing, and grousing against for months.

For clarity to the reader, when I mention "Joling" in relation to this investigation, in my mind I consider him and Davel to be consistent co-conspirators in this operation. A normal "investigation" would normally have put Davel on administrative leave. Not so, in this case.

Davel appears to have had plenty of opportunity for contact with employee witnesses before the interviews took place, both in person at the office and remotely during his "work from home" status.

For example, Davel was reportedly observed taking two employees to the privacy of downstairs Village Hall several times on February 27, the day after the investigation was announced.

Interestingly, weeks later both of these employees were secretly set up with a $1000 per pay period "bonus" (for lack of a better term), for additional duties which have not been determined. See my June 21 post "Money for Nothing".

Joling appears to me to have simply functioned as Davel's protector and willing agent throughout the pendancy of this case. More on this relationship coming up in Part 3 of this series of articles on "The Investigation".

In my opinion, Joling appears to have had a HUGE conflict of interest in how this investigation turned out. I believe that his unauthorized actions that inexplicably initiated this investigation are reason to consider him to be a "person of interest" with ulterior motives and his own personal interest of avoiding accountability for the tremendous unnecessary cost.

Don't forget that Joling was a police chief, then a private investigator. He would likely have experience in how these things work and thus how outcomes might be manipulated. Davel likewise has a reported history at Shawano of allegedly using taxpayer funds to pursue very questionable complaints against his critics who had to pay for their own defense.

Law Firms Involved

As I related in Part 1 - I question the use of a law firm that has shown itself to be biased in its findings and conclusions in a previous report. Particularly when we know that they have had a prior working relationship with Davel that may interfere with objectivity.

VB&R apparently worked directly with Mr Davel very recently in 2025, when he filed several ethics complaints against two Shawano County supervisors.

The supervisors had apparently been looking for answers regarding his alleged involvement in an unauthorized transfer of $1 million dollars to another account, and the alleged unauthorized spending of $600,000 out of that account.

Davel's complaints against those supervisors were perceived by many as retaliation for their inquiries into his activities. These inquiries reportedly also included looking into quite a number of employee complaints against Davel that were ignored or unresolved, it is claimed, due to the HR director being subordinate to his direction. A list of other employees reportedly resigned without bothering to file complaints. Intimidation, threats, and bullying have been reported among those complaints.

Regarding law firms - To avoid a perception of possible bias, favoritism, or possible conflict of interest under SCR20:1.7 and 1.9, it is normally considered to be a matter of prudence and lawyer ethics for a law firm to decline involvement with a case resolving "a claim involving a personnel matter", when that personnel matter centered around the possible misconduct of someone (like Davel) who, as administrative coordinator for Shawano County, worked directly with that law firm on a very recent case.

To my knowledge, Attorney Heiden has never disclosed that relationship to the Kronenwetter Village Board. This conflict would seem to carry over to HJC Law firm as well, since they work closely with VB&R.

The motion by the Village at the February 26 meeting was "to authorize labor council [VB&R] to commence investigation and select an investigator regarding a claim...".

Since von Briesen selected HJC as investigator, it would indicate an ongoing compatible working relationship.

What is also interesting is that at that same meeting the Board voted on a motion "to continue to retain Von Briesen & Roper as labor council". How could they "continue" to retain a law firm that they did not even have a contract with until the vote on March 12?

It seems obvious to me that Joling unlawfully retained that law firm on or around February 19 and already had legal costs sunk into the process, which basically committed the Board to follow through with a course of action that he had already started.

In summary,

I think this whole process was a shame, a sham, and yet another embarrassment to the Village.

It seems clear to me that while Wegner could have been fired by the Board at any time, certain people went through the extravagant trouble and expense of this investigation to simply to create a simulation or imitation of due process which in turn was used as an excuse to fire Mr. Wegner "with cause", along with all the malice and unjust harm to him that it implies.

As a bonus, the report seems to have had the unjust intent to somehow blame Sandra Sorensen as scapegoat for "causing" the investigation, in spite of all of her documentation to the contrary.

Falsely imputing ill-intent to Sorensen is something that was also done in the 2024 von Briesen report to me as well. The false conclusion in this report that Sorensen "brought the matter to the Board" has no factual basis, as it flies in the face reality.

 The facts show that it was Dan Joling on his own who contacted lawyers, then he and Trustee Stowell interviewed witnesses Wegner and Poyer who confirmed the storytelling, but adamantly denied any intentions for a complaint of any kind. Yet, Joling still persisted by calling a special meeting with the intent of pursuing an investigation for something that had no complaint, and barely even a violation to deal with.

I believe that the false accusation against Sorensen serves only to reveal the false accusers' true character, and to distract attention away from Joling's apparent animosity toward Wegner, and away from his own obvious culpability and accountability as the driver of this absurd expense right from the beginning.