Why I Filed the Open Meetings Complaint

 

Background

   Mr Joling was appointed village president just a short while before James Davel showed up for his first day on the job November 3rd. Almost ever since then I noticed that they did many things with a disregard for Village ordinances, policy, state statutes or other legal requirements.

During the Milestone sand pit appeal, Joling appeared to carry the ball for Milestone, while Davel sat on the sidelines more like a waterboy. This was probably because he was in a 90 day probationary employment period behaving himself.

There appears to be lots of evidence to believe they both participated in subverting the appeal process in favor of Milestone Corp, and against the interests of the Village and harm to certain residents in particular.

Examples of My Efforts 

Joling wanted me to write up a summary of legal cases that supported a denial of the sand pit permit. He insisted on it. I delivered to him and the Board a 17 page report documenting the rules of appeal, Wisconsin statutes, and numerous high court decisions relevant to the sand pit appeal.

    Joling and Davel ignored that information.

Later in that appeal process, Joling wanted me to write up another report detailing all the illegalities in the procedure that I felt he was conducting and that I had been complaining about. The intention supposedly was to send it to the Village Attorney for his legal opinion.

    I wrote up a 10 page memorandum to the Village Attorney Bitar, raising numerous detailed issues of wrongdoing and alleged illegalities. The Board voted unanimously to have the attorney address those issues with a legal opinion regardless of cost.

The lawyer was apparently instructed otherwise, very likely by Davel, who was now past his 90 day review, hired full time, and no longer the waterboy lying low as he appeared to be earlier. Instead Davel became a more aggressive though bumbling player, working toward getting the Milestone sand pit permitted.

Bottom line is that attorney Bitar responded with a letter that effectively sidesteped his obligation to answer all of the points and questions and his letter of reply looked to me like an act against basic rule of law and contrary to the best interest of his client the Village.

   So, that was a waste of time too. 

Late in 2025, at CLIPP committee, Joling asked if I could rewrite the nuisance ordinance. I agreed and rewrote it in a way that complied with higher court rulings and definitions. This happened to disqualify about 80% of the ordinance which did not fit the legal definition of a "nuisance" and thus basically unenforceable. Joling didn't like it, so the ordinance remains unchanged.

   So for the sake of examples, here are three to show that I am  wasting my time to, in good faith, provide facts to help Mr Joling, and even Davel get a little up-to-speed on how things are supposed to be run in an honest open government.

    Neither of them apparently had or have any intention of putting  information like this  to good use.

   There are other examples, but the point is that I am done casting my pearls before swine. I do not believe that either Joling or Davel are interested in following any rules but those that they make up on their own.

  Chief McHugh has publicly stated that he will not deal with complaints against public officials like Joling and Davel. I know for a fact that he has torpedoed such citizen complaints in the past.

  So then, when not-so-random acts of lawlessness take place to betray the public trust, what options are left? All a person can do is to try to get an adult into the room by filing complaints at a higher level like with the District Attorney. Whether he acts on anything or not, I cannot say, but it is our obligation to try.

   To me, the obvious place to start is with Joling/Davel's constant Open Meeting violations regarding nearly all of these numerous closed sessions that they have been conducting in the past few months.     

   Nearly every agenda notice for closed sessions appear to be intentionally vague and do not comply with the letter or spirit of Wisconsin law.

Wisconsin Statutes 19.81 Declaration of Policy states:

19.81(1) In recognition of the fact that a representative government of the American type is dependent upon an informed electorate, it is declared to be the policy of this state that the public is entitled to the fullest and most complete information regarding the affairs of government as is compatible with the conduct of governmental business.

(2) To implement and ensure the public policy herein expressed, all meetings of all state and local governmental bodies shall be publicly held in places reasonably accessible to members of the public and shall be open to all citizens at all times unless otherwise expressly provided by law.

(3) In conformance with article IV, section 10, of the constitution, which states that the doors of each house shall remain open, except when the public welfare requires secrecy, it is declared to be the intent of the legislature to comply to the fullest extent with this subchapter

(4) This subchapter shall be liberally construed to achieve the purposes set forth in this section,..." 

Wis. Stat. § 19.84(2) states:

Every public notice of a meeting of a governmental body shall set forth the time, date, place and subject matter of the meeting, including that intended for consideration at any contemplated closed session, in such form as is reasonably likely to apprise members of the public and the news media thereof.

The May 11, 2025 Village Board meeting. As detailed below, the agenda notice for the closed session held at that meeting failed to meet the legal specificity requirements mandated by statute and controlling Wisconsin Supreme Court precedent, rendering the actions taken in that closed session void and subject to enforcement.

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 what is required.

A basic rule of thumb is that if you the public have no clue as to what the meeting is actually about, then it fails to meet the legal standard of the Open Meetings Law. Joling and Davel have done this time after time after time, and I believe it is deliberate in order to avoid public observation and criticism for what they have been colluding at and getting away with. 

    This would include the Village Board members who along with Mr Joling, appear to sit at the feet of  administrator Davel for guidance and instruction.

The Reasonableness Standard for Agenda Specificity

The controlling standard for evaluating the sufficiency of meeting notice is set forth in State ex rel. Buswell v. Tomah Area School District, 2007 WI 71, 301 Wis. 2d 178, 732 N.W.2d 804 (Wis. 2007). The Wisconsin Supreme Court here explicitly announced a new reasonableness standard: a meeting notice must be "reasonably specific under the circumstances of the case" and contain "such detail as will reasonably inform the public of the specific items to be considered."

The Court stated:

"We note, too, that § 19.81(1) states that the open meetings law is based on the premise that "representative government [depends] upon an informed electorate." We observe that government functions best when it is open and when people have information about its operations. It is not, however, merely a matter of enhancing the functions of government. Rather, the government must be accountable to the governed. It must be accountable to the people who underwrite government finances and provide its legitimacy. Having access to information about the workings of government undercuts arguments of subterfuge and ultimately promotes public trust and confidence. Moreover, as this court determined in Badke, the notice requirement gives the public information about the business to be conducted that will alert them to the importance of the meeting, so that they can make an informed decision whether to attend. Badke, 173 Wis. 2d at 573-74 and 577-78.", 301 Wis. 2d 178, (Jun 13, 2007)

They go on to state:

"Notice of closed sessions must contain enough information for the public to discern whether the subject matter is authorized for closed session under § 19.85(1)."

The Court identified the following factors to determine whether notice is sufficiently specific:

1. The burden of providing more detailed notice;

2. Whether the subject is of particular public interest;

3. Whether the action is non-routine and the public would be unlikely to anticipate it.

The Court specifically held that "novel issues may require more specific notice" because they "are more likely to catch the public unaware." and explicitly rejected the use of generic agenda descriptions such as "new business," "old business," "licenses," or "contracts" standing alone as insufficient notice as a matter of law. This includes vague terms like "employee pay increases" and "concerns" about employment issues.

 Reasonable Expectations

    Wouldn't you say that an investigation into admin Davel's behavior is "of particular public interest" or "non-routine"? Would Joling possibly be protecting his friend Davel from public notice with deliberately vague agenda language? 

   Maybe Davel is overly sensitive to name exposure due to the numerous employee complaints against him in Shawano?

   Might Peter Wegner's railroad-style firing "with cause" have been concealed with the same vague agenda language, to prevent public awareness and outcry? Was malice the whole reason for the $40-60,000 "investigation"?

   Might Joling and Davel have deliberately concealed their friend Kim Coyle's name from the agenda, because she was a recipient of a $2000 per month "pay increase" ($26,000 per year) that has no apparent, logical justification, and because their buddy Kelly Coyle is a trustee? (see below)

   Will the upcoming "investigation report" show some kind of tie-in  between Wegner's firing and Kim Coyle getting a share of his wages? 

   I would say that all of the above subject matter of these meetings would have been "of particular public interest"if the public would only have known about it.

    I would also say that this kind of thing may be just the tip of the iceberg of what Joling and Davel have brought to Kronenwetter.      

   The sand pit debacle mentioned above has shown what they and certain board members are capable of. Perhaps what we are seeing here is their efforts to take everything underground, away from public awareness, so as not to have the public visibility that the sand pit issue had.

    It seems to me that these various secret meetings held under "closed session" but allegedly in violation of Open Meetings laws, are one of the main strategies that enables all the other shady Village goings-on.      

 Sufficient Agenda Notice

This required standards mentioned above has been consistently applied by Wisconsin's Department of Justice, which advises that governmental bodies must provide notice describing "specific matters about which members of the body anticipate discussion" — including any closed sessions and the reasons therefor. See DOJ Open Meetings Law Compliance Guide (March 2025).

Closed Session Exemptions Are Narrowly Construed — Wis. Stat. § 19.85(1)(c)

Wis. Stat. § 19.85(1)(c) permits a governmental body to convene in closed session for "consideration of employment, promotion, compensation or performance evaluation data of any public employee over which the governmental body has jurisdiction or exercises responsibility." This exemption is strictly and narrowly construed; any doubt as to whether an exemption applies must be resolved in favor of openness. See Wis. Stat. § 19.83(1); DOJ Compliance Guide.

Critically, § 19.85(1)(c) applies only to specific, identified employees — not to generalized compensation policy discussions affecting entire departments or positions. Moreover, a one-time "stipend" of a type not reasonably described as a routine compensation adjustment is not self-evidently within the scope of the § 19.85(1)(c) exemption and would require specific public notice describing the nature of that action.

I started with the May 11 meeting, which seems to me like the most aggressive, obvious violation.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The May 11, 2025 Village of Kronenwetter Village Board meeting agenda listed the following 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.

Following the meeting, through emails with Coyle, Joling, and Clerk Poyer, on May 14 and 15, 2025, I was told that the following specific items of business were directed and decided in the closed session — none of which was adequately disclosed to the public in the agenda notice:

4. Police Lieutenant pay raise. An annual pay increase was approved for Police Lieutenant Smart, who was not identified by name or position on the agenda.

5. Village Treasurer stipend of $5,000. A one-time stipend of $5,000 was approved for the Village Treasurer for extra hours worked. The Treasurer was not identified on the agenda,nor was the "stipend" mentioned.

6. Three employees — additional compensation of approximately $24,000 per year each. A pay increase of $1,000 per pay period (approximately $26,000 annually) was approved for three employees — two salaried and one hourly union worker — for "additional duties" that were neither specified in the agenda nor publicly disclosed. The recipients were not named or identified on the agenda. The action again, appears to be outside the scope of the § 19.85(1)(c) exemption.

   The funding for the compensation described in item (3) above is reported to derive from the budget line item of a recently terminated department head Peter Wegner, which raises a reasonable inference that this compensation arrangement may have been pre-arranged — further compounding the public interest in open deliberation.

   In other words, all of the above was done and intentionally kept secret from the public. 

ALLEGED VIOLATIONS of Open Meeting Law

Violation of Wis. Stat. § 19.84(2) — Insufficient Agenda Notice

The agenda notice for the May 11, 2025 closed session violated Wis. Stat. § 19.84(2) and the Buswell reasonableness standard in the following specific respects:

7. Lieutenant Smart was not identified. A specific named employee's annual pay increase is not a matter the public would anticipate from language referencing only "staff's annual evaluation and/or pay increases." Under Buswell, the particular public interest in an identified officer's compensation required greater specificity in the notice.

8. The Village Treasurer and the $5,000 stipend were not identified. A one-time stipend for hours already worked is non-routine and of particular public interest — precisely the type of "novel" action Buswell holds requires specific notice.

   Neither the recipient nor the nature of the action was disclosed.

9. The three recipients of the $24,000 annual compensation increases were unnamed, and the action was non-routine. An extraordinary pay increase of approximately $24,000 annually for unspecified "additional duties" funded from a terminated employee's salary line is not a standard annual merit increase. This is precisely the kind of non-routine, high-public-interest action that Buswell requires to be specifically disclosed. The complete omission of the recipients' identities and the nature of the action deprived the public of any opportunity to attend, participate in public comment, or scrutinize the decision.

Potential Violation of Wis. Stat. § 19.85(1)(c) — Actions Outside the Scope of the Closed Session Exemption

The approval of a $5,000 "stipend" for hours already worked by the Village Treasurer may not fall within the § 19.85(1)(c) exemption, which is limited to "consideration of employment, promotion, compensation or performance evaluation data." A retroactive payment for past services rendered is qualitatively different from prospective compensation decisions. Because § 19.85 exemptions "must be interpreted strictly and narrowly," any doubt as to whether the stipend falls within the exemption must be resolved in favor of open session. See DOJ Compliance Guide; Wis. Stat. § 19.83(1).

Similarly, the approval of substantial pay increases for unnamed employees for unspecified "additional duties" is not a routine compensation matter. If the Board directed the administrator to allocate these funds without having identified the employees and duties in a manner that allowed for lawful closed-session consideration, the action was further outside the scope of the exemption.

Enforcement Action

If the DA decides to prosecute these violations, he may seek civil forfeitures against each member of the Village Board who participated in the unlawful closed session action. Up to $500.00, which the Village does not cover.

I would also hope he seeks to have the Court void the actions taken in the closed session regarding the items identified above, including the pay raise for Lieutenant Smart, the $5,000 Treasurer stipend, and the $24,000 annual increases to the three unnamed employees. Smart's pay raise would need to be properly re-approved. The other actions would have to be redone above the table in open session as well.

If the DA declines or otherwise fails to commence an enforcement action within 20 days of receiving my verified complaint turned in last Friday, I intend to pursue enforcement on behalf of the State as a private relator.

The Buswell Court said:

"Section 19.81(4) requires that the provisions of the open meetings law be liberally construed to advance the law's purposes. This court has interpreted that requirement to merit awarding attorney fees to the prevailing relator where doing so advances the purposes of the open meetings law. Hodge v. Town of Turtle Lake, 180 Wis. 2d at 78. Such is the case here. Awarding attorney fees to Buswell will provide an incentive to others to protect the public's right to open meetings and to deter governmental bodies from skirting the open meetings law. Accordingly, we remand the case to the circuit court to determine the appropriate award.",