"The Investigation" Part 4 Davel Claims "Retaliation"?

    The much waited for "investigation report" has finally been released due to public pressure. In my opinion, if even half of the augmentation is true, this has been the most corrupt, dirty, bungled and just plain stupid waste of taxpayer money that I have ever seen in Kronenwetter. That is saying a lot.

   I have posted 3 other articles on "The Investigation" Parts 1,2, and 2.5 weeks ago. I stand by every word of those, and much more coming now that the full report is available to the public. 

   The various future articles will be posted in no particular order, just as I get them written.

 The statement has been put forth that  administrator James Davel claims publicly that the investigation was "retaliation" against him by former Trustees Charneski and  Sorensen over the sand mine issue.

So, here is my reply to that:

   I believe this accusation is likely his deliberate tactic to distract attention from the facts of his own culpability in causing this investigation.

    On the other hand, if he is drinking his own Kool-aid and really believes his own lies, then it appears to me to be a classic case of Proverbs 28:1 "The wicked flee when no man pursueth"

Retaliation? - For what, exactly? Sure, he apparently was involved and followed the script that Joling and Attorney VanderWaal reportedly created for the corrupted sand pit appeal, but Davel was just a small fry in all that. He was not worth retaliating against, even if a person was the "retaliating type".

A Quick Summary of Facts that Refutes Davel's "retaliation" Claim.

• I was consistently against the investigation; on and off the record.

• Sandi Sorensen's concerns to Joling were low level and discreet:

  • She told him privately; no big public smear job.

  • She told Joling, and not the whole Board.

  • It was a concerning issue she felt needed to at least be addressed. It was not made out to be a huge, sensational issue that you would expect in a case of "retaliation", until Joling apparently made it so.

  • No hyperbole involved on Sorensen's part at all.

  • No false accusations. Her information was accurate.

• I think it is worthy of note that NONE of the above can be said of Joling/Davel's efforts against Wegner, Sorensen, and Poyer.

• It was clearly Joling who, after talking to Davel, immediately took this issue to the Village Attorney Remzy Bitar, and engaged vonBriesen & Roper law firm to get the investigation ball roling. Not me, not Sorensen, but Joling and no one else. Joling had zero authority to proceed like that, and von Briesen appears to have violated State lawyer ethics regulations by billing for that early work with a "client" without a contract or fee agreement.

• It was clearly Joling who brought this issue to the Village Board and ultimately to the public, not me or Sorensen.

• I believe that Davel's own apparent lack of  honor or integrity to own up to something so minor as telling an inappropriately crude story, tells us who we are dealing with here. 

• Davel and Joling apparently perceived Sandi's comments as personal attacks, and admittedly (by Davel) threw Wegner and Poyer under the bus as collateral damage scapegoats to protect Davel's  "good name" and reputation which to me, does not seem too great in the first place. 

• The "retaliation" claim appears to me to merely be Davel playing out that "victim" role to a dishonorable end by falsely blaming and accusing others.

• I have plenty of reason to oppose Davel's antics due to what I see as his multiple failures as a village administrator, but I deal with them openly, factually, and as honestly as I can in my blog and public postings. I do not "retaliate".  No need for it because the simple truth speaks for itself.

• It appears that both Mr. Davel and Joling have aggressively opposed core values such as transparency and accountability that they and their cohorts are rightfully subject to.

• It appears that Mr. Davel considers any information that addresses or even alludes to his failures and shortcomings, as some kind of "retaliation" or attack on himself. We went through that same behavioral mindset with a previous village clerk.   See my posting "Davel's Complaining 'Complaint'" as a sample of his apparently fragile ego and frivolous  use of a "complaint".

Let's take a more exhaustive look, if you're interested in details.

"Retaliation" in General

   To begin with, I have spent 8 years being insulted, yelled at, and outvoted at Board meetings on various issues. I realize that much of it is pretense and political theater, so it is all rain off of a duck's back to me. I observe and evaluate the level of honesty and character of those involved, but I don't take anything personally. This sand pit appeal was the same as anything else. I put my best effort into doing what is factual and right. When it was concluded, I moved on.

   I think the cry of "Retaliation" is both the weapon and the excuse of choice for weak people who wish to avoid the accountability associated with facing criticism. It is a very cheap offensive tactic used to discredit others, since it is free to use by merely saying it.  It is equally cheap as a defense to cry "retaliation"  when their own wrongdoing is identified.

   Village ex-clerk Bobbi Birk-LaBarge for example took the "retaliation" tactic to the realm of the absurd. Not only as an attack on me which acted as an automatic defense for anything that she did wrong, but she also "filed" retaliation complaints against every Village Board member and the Village Attorney when they did not cater to her. The Board (minus my vote) ended up reappointing her as clerk, apparently just to mollify her, even in the face of four separate and serious election violation complaints pending against her. The mere mention of "retaliation" can be a bluff tactic that often works for some to get their way.

     The concept of claiming retaliation as a defense against factual allegations is simply the last-ditch refuge of those who have nothing more rational or factual to offer. In other words - It's the best they can come up with. In the same vein I believe Davel's claim of victimhood due to such alleged "retaliation" is just a diversion  to distract attention away from the facts of the current Village scandal.

   I believe the evidence shows that rather than being a victim, he creates them. 

The Sand Pit Appeal

   Both Davel and Joling seem to have manufactured the "sore loser" canard in their false portrayal of Trustee Sorensen and myself just because we were outvoted. Apparently they are projecting onto us how they themselves would respond in the same situation.

   In my opinion the process by which Joling conducted the January appeal process to approve the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the sand pit near Maple Ridge Road, was profoundly and blatantly "crooked as hell". I have made that clear to all involved since the meeting itself, and it is a view shared by many.

   I posted 3 fact-based articles on this site about that incident for public information. I think this is relevant now, because the same M.O. of an "ends justifies the means", "screw the law and ethics" attitude seems apparent in both the CUP appeal, and the investigation.

   If Joling allegedly got away with making up the rules for the sand pit appeal, which is a regulated process, why would he not apply the same "I'll make up the rules" approach to achieve a desired outcome with this investigation?

Here are the articles if you are interested:

•   My Report to the Village Board on the Milestone sand pit appeal" Joling, being aggressively in favor of the sand pit, but for all the wrong reasons(help out local business, etc), first asked then demanded that I provide "court cases" that supported my (and Plan Commission's) opposition to the mine permit. This article is a reproduction of exactly what I sent to Joling and the Board the week previous to the meeting. https://kencharneskireport.blogspot.com/2026/06/my-report-to-village-board-on.html

• "My (unanswered) Questions to the Village Attorney regarding Milestone Sand Pit Appeal Process" This is an exact copy of what I sent to the Village attorney at the request of the Village Board, detailing the legal and ethical violations that I saw with the process. At a later meeting, the Board confirmed that they wanted the the issues raised in my letter addressed by the Village Attorney, whatever the cost would be. Bitar's response effectively bypassed the issues presented in the letter and toed the line by promoting approval of the CUP. https://kencharneskireport.blogspot.com/2026/06/my-unanswered-questions-to-village.html Bitar's response is posted on the Village website here, but unfortunately they declined to post my letter and 2 follow up emails along with it for public reference for what Bitar was respondnig to. https://www.kronenwetter.org/FAQS/milestone%20mine%20review%203-2-26.pdf?t=202603101615420

  The above is an example in the new pattern of behavior where the Village   presents only the part of the information that they want known. 

• "The Milestone Sand Pit Approval - A textbook case of alleged corruption and incompetence." This is a quick bullet point list of facts for those who don't care to read too much. https://kencharneskireport.blogspot.com/2026/06/the-milestone-sand-pit-approval.html

   One thought to consider is that if Davel thinks the sand pit issue was a cause for "retaliation", logic dictates that he must believe that he and Joling did something pretty bad to even be worth retaliating for.

Davel's low significance.

   James Davel was a small fish compared to the main drivers of the CUP approval. My posted articles show that I laid the corrupted process of the sand pit appeal entirely on Joling, with I believe, Atty Shane Vanderwaal directing him.

   Davel was a mere sidekick keeping pretty quiet because he was still within his 90-day probation period.  Attorney VanderWaal claimed to represent the Village at the appeal meeting when he had no basis of fact to make that claim. It turns out that VanderWaal's legal fees were paid for by Milestone.

   Among other things, the alleged unscrupulous nature of how the sand pit appeal was handled along with its "clean getaway", seems to have served as a precursor and inspiration for the handling of the investigation and its aftermath.

   As a bit of confirmation of Davel's low significance. On February 5th I wrote an email to Pete Wegner trying to have a more practical approach to the sand pit situation (included in the article entitled "Davel's Complaining ").

   In that email, I identified Joling and VanderWaal as the key drivers, not Davel. For him I used the metaphor of a tag-along "waterboy". which may have been unflattering, but I think was accurate.

   So, in the overall scheme of things, I believe  Davel was certainly involved and partially responsible for the sand mine outcome, but he should only get a mention as a supporting actor.

   As far as I am concerned, James Davel was a mere toadie to Joling and VanderWaal. There would be little reason for retaliation against Davel, because he is not worth the effort to retaliate against.

Elder Abuse

   Now granted, after his 90 day probation ended, and after Sandi Sorensen voted to give Davel a raise, he turned around and apparently tried to berate, insult, and otherwise bully her on the phone into changing her request for a meeting item. Sandi certainly did not like that. However, that was more a case of "instant karma" against Davel, which left no reason for Sandi to retaliate.

   Davel's effort apparently blew up in his face as she was not about to take his guff and told him off.  Unknowingly on her part, she humiliated him in front of Joling and Wegner, who were in the room with him as an "audience" while Davel had the call on speakerphone.

    All that incident really accomplished was to demonstrate for Sorensen what an unprofessional jerk Davel could be. Far from "retaliation" by anyone else, I believe that it is Davel's own lack of couth that is his own worst enemy, and it appears to be the cause of all this to begin with.

   In my opinion, the way that phone call turned out was more of a reason for Davel to retaliate against Sorensen, than it ever would be for Sorensen or me to do so against him. 

   So if there was any "retaliation" to be done at all due to the sand pit issue, it would be by Davel, due to Sandi burning his ego by lecturing him like a little schoolboy in front of his two associates that he was apparently trying to impress.

   Speaking of ego problems, I have a report from within Rothschild Village Hall that alleges Davel brags to them about "putting trustees in their place". So I think there definitely seems to be a problem with immaturity, lack of professionalism, and a complete disrespect for a representational form of government.

A Realistic View of What Actually Happened, Minus the "retaliation theory"

   Sandi Sorensen went to Joling privately with a concern about Davel's alleged behavior. She told Joling about an issue that, though worthy of legitimate concern, everyone involved including the investigator has agreed would have pretty low if any consequences, even if/when it was shown to be true.

   Those two facts alone raise the question: How can anyone with even a modicum of maturity or intelligence ever construe Sorenen's appropriate, reasonable,  a low key act as any kind of "retaliation" plot? Had Joling taken her information and acted in a sane, honest, and responsible manner, the issue would have been quietly addressed and gone away with barely a ripple.

   In summary:  Davel's assertion of "retaliation" is ludicrous on its face.

Statement #2 - Joling claims that  Sorensen and I were proposing "whistleblower" language to counter the employee handbook's direction on subordinate complaints.

  My reply:

    Yes, that would be our job as trustees. I wrote up the proposed changes, but never referred to it as "whistleblower" or made it an issue to deal specifically with complaints. It was not written to "counter" any complaint process, but instead to change the handbook for the better by providing an alternate rout for such a process if the employee would chose to do so. Improving things is what trustees are supposed to do.

   So, even at that, - what exactly is Joling's point, and what is the relevance of those agenda items to  the investigation and attack on village employees?  I think Joling is "seeing black bears in a coal mine" here. Again, "The wicked flee when none pursueth..."

   The real question should be "why are Davel and Joling so emphatically opposed to the the idea of transparency of open communication?" 

The Agenda Item Regarding the Employee Handbook

The report I provided  for the agenda item states:

"OBJECTIVE(S): This change to the handbook would support the staff in the event that there was no administrator, or for any other time when employees felt that trustees need to be made aware important information.

This proposed change provides an alternative route for transparency, confidence, and more of a team atmosphere between the staff and Village Board."

HISTORY/BACKGROUND PROPOSAL: This item was discussed at the February 17, and March 17, 2026 APC meeting and tabled pending the submission of a cover report explaining the purpose regarding this item.

This simple change is intended to grant open communication between staff or other employees and the Kronenwetter Village Board. The current handbook makes such communication punishable.

This change is intended to improve efficiency, productivity, morale, and to reduce the potential for information bottlenecks or information falling through the cracks somehow.

While this may not happen too often, when it does, it can lead to serious detrimental consequences; the erroneous sale of the yard waste site is a good example.

In any event. it seems that the current prohibition of open communication does not serve the interests of efficient village operations, nor does it fully unleash the performance potential of our employees."

   I never considered this item a "whistleblower" change, as much as an opening of communication in general. Currently the handbook contains somewhat draconian language which forbids communication under penalty of unpaid suspension or termination without progressive discipline.  It is ambiguous because it is unclear who determines what "should" be directed to a department head or administrator.

   I for one have found in the past 8 years that it is much more beneficial to talk to knowledgeable staff than to talk to the Administrator. Except for a few exceptions, it seems the administrator is more concerned with disguising his/her lack of knowledge by pretending to know what they are talking about, when the department heads generally are more likely to know their stuff.

   Lately that contrast in knowledge has been at an extreme. Forbidding such trustee/employee discussions basically creates a reliance by the Board on the administrator for whatever information that he decides to provide in order for the Board to make decisions. That bottleneck not only controls the staff, but the Board as well.

   Absent any Village Board push back, this situation effectively undercuts representative government and establishes administrative rule.

   I think that currently, this control of information and thus the control of  how the Board votes, is the whole idea behind the opposition to this proposal for open communication.

I provided public input at that meeting to further explain the purpose, which said in part:

Item 5F Revisions to Employee Handbook - The discussion on this issue seems to have gone in a direction that emphasized complaints. While complaints may be included as a reason for open communication, they are not necessarily the focus of this change.

Currently, communication by staff with elected officials is lumped in together with lying to or misleading supervisors. This is absurd, and backward thinking.

Current punishment stated in the last paragraph of page 11, appears to be discretionary to a degree, and can be severe. This is not supportive of employee candor.

The purpose for this change is simple. It allows for a free flow of open source information of any kind without the overhanging shadow of possibility for employees to be punished for such communication. The wall of separation between staff and elected officials has been here for years, and I can think of several situations where secrecy or restricted information has been detrimental to Village interests.

This barrier should be dissolved if the Village hopes to claim any kind of "team" atmosphere.

The proposed changes [are]objective.

They are not specific to who currently holds any of these positions.

Open communication is a basic prerequisite to intelligent, efficient village operations, no matter who holds what position.

This change should have been made years ago.

There is a quote attributed to Albert Einstein that says something like

"You cannot solve a problem with the same level of thinking that was used to create the problem."

Both of these changes are intended to prevent problems and raise the level of thinking and decision - making as the Village moves forward.

I ask that you consider them very objectively.

Thanks,

Ken Charneski"

   The item was voted down after Davel, Sarah the committee clerk, and treasurer John Jacobs aggressively chimed in, calling the change "offensive".

   Joling obviously still thinks the idea is so bad that he apparently considers it some kind of attack on himself and Davel, and somehow relevant to justify his actions and part in the investigation.

     Effectively, the LACK of this kind of open door has cost the Village one office worker, and a village clerk, because the administrator and president were reportedly unresponsive to employee issues brought forth.. 

   In a written statement, the office worker  described  a lying, crude, bullying co-worker who's activities were being protected by the administrator, while the alleged victim's concerns were brushed off with a "just deal with it" attitude. 

   After resigning, she apparently was never provided with the exit interview form that Davel said was sent. She said she told Joling about it and wanted to bring her story to the Board, but Joling declined saying it was not necessary. So again, we see joint effort of two bad apple officials.

   So based on this previous employee's account, from an operational standpoint, it seems apparent why Joling and Davel  would oppose this handbook change.  The "them versus us" mindset of "loyalists" and "enemies" appears to be the cultural "new normal" being imposed on the workplace.  We can see why that proposed handbook change might stand out in Joling's mind as a threat to his personal politics and control philosophy.

   Along with all that, I see an apparent, profound disdain for basic patriotic, Constitutional principles of open government. They have both publicly expressed numerous times an opposition, disdain and disregard for open meetings and open records law, or government transparency of any kind. Municipal budgetary laws, seem to be scorned, and respect or consideration of any kind for the taxpayers appears to be non-existent.

   I believe that Kronenwetter has broken down and has become dysfunctional as a municipality. This kind ofthing is nothing new. The ancient Greeks called a situation like this a  "Kakistocracy".  Definition: A government run by the least qualified, most incompetent, or most corrupt individuals. 

I don't think I am overstating the problem. I am only starting.

 All just my opinion, in an exercise of freedom of speech, assembly, and redress of grievances..