Chris Voll's and Aaron Myszka's "von Briesen Report" Part 2 - A $65,000 crime against Kronenwetter Taxpayers

 

Be sure to check my other recent posts on this blog.

On March 24, 2025 I brought to the Village Board meeting Agenda item O - Review of von Briesen Report

   The objective was to determine how $65,000 of taxpayer money got spent on a project after the Village Board voted specifically not to engage in.

  On January 31st 2024 the Village Board held a special meeting with a single agenda item which was "Discussion & Action: Selection of independent Counsel in Reference to Employee Complaint."

   The Board and village attorney determined in closed session that the December 14 email from an employee that had gained such attention was not a legitimate complaint, but a page-long venting session.

The approved Minutes of that meeting state the following:

Motion by Dumais/Coyle not to select independent counsel and direct Administrator Ludi to work with personnel on a bonafide complaint, if any, and apply the employee handbook if appropriate. Motion carried by roll call vote 7:0.

The process that the Board directed ("apply the employee handbook") refers the matter of complaints to Village Policy HR-002, Problem Resolution, which directs the Village Administrator to try to resolve the problem after consulting with all parties involved (Step 2), and to document these discussions.

HR-002 then refers any unresolved issues to the process directed in HR-009 (attached).

In Part III Step 2 of HR-009,https://cms6.revize.com/revize/kronenwettervillage/HR-009_Grievance%20Procedure%20Policy%2008.22.11.pdf

 That policy defines the elements required for a bona fide written complaint, and provides for a meeting with the grievant, and a written response from the administrator; all to be concluded within 15 days of receiving the written complaint.

Step 3 provides for an appeal by the grievant upon written request within 10 days, for a hearing before a Hearing Officer.

Upon such request for appeal, the administrator shall turn over the grievance and all grievance responses, along with a copy of HR-009, to the Hearing Officer.

The Hearing Officer is directed to conduct an open hearing within 20 days,recorded by a court reporter, and include witness testimony taken under oath all very much like a regular court of law. This seems like a fair and reasonable way to get to the facts of the issue.

Part VI of HR-009 provides for a selection of 3 qualified candidates for the position of Hearing Officer, with the grievant and respondent allowed to each strike one candidate, leaving the remaining person to be the designated Hearing Officer. Again, this seems fair.

HR-009 requires a straightforward, public hearing and an honest third party review based on verified facts, and conducted as the policy dictates. This is a fair and cost- efficient procedure to settle complaint matters. It is a process that the Board approved, and it is what the administrator was directed to follow.

The January 31 Village Board motion was specifically "NOT to select independent counsel" for any kind of investigation, and to "apply the employee handbook if appropriate".

Yet, it appears that Mr. Ludi (Village Administrator at the time) did the exact opposite of what the Board Directed when he went ahead and signed a contract with von Briesen & Roper law firm on February 13, allegedly to conduct some kind of "investigation".

We do not know what the law firm was hired to do, because the contract is extremely vague stating thatas a scope of duties they will "consult with and assist the Village of Kronenwetter with personnel issues and concerns".

Any public information inquiries regarding who the "client" of this contract is, have been refused based on "attorney-client privilege", even though the confidentiality was lost before the contract was even made, and certainly lost now, since Chris Voll had the "report" posted on the Village website. For the purpose of the agenda item, we have to assume that the Village Board is the Client.

Unauthorized Contract and Expenditure

Village Policy FIN-004 Purchasing Policy https://cms6.revize.com/revize/kronenwettervillage/Policies/Finance/FIN-004_Purchasing%20Policy_Approved_Signed_2.26.24%20VB.pdf directs that:

"all Professional contracted legal, architectural, engineering, auditing, financial advising, ambulance, informational technology and garbage services, except in the case of emergency purchases, shall be reviewed for recommendation to the Village Board by the appropriate committee".

So then regarding the contract that Ludu made:

• Where are the Requests For Proposals (bids) as required?

• Where is the committee review and recommendation for this contract?

• Where is the Board approval of this contract?

• Where is anything that would reflect an honest, responsible, open government process?

In other words, it appears that someone within the Village defied Village Board instructions when they arranged for an open-ended contract that cost $65,000 of taxpayer funds to be spent solely for political purposes and for the benefit of the former village clerk. and it seems to have been all done without knowledge or approval of any committee or Village Board.

The village attorney says these documents should remain secret because of there is uncertainty whether or not further litigation may be coming. Ironically, this potential litigation would likely be based on the very report that was funded by the unauthorized $65,000.

In other words, someone funded an extremely hostile potential legal adversary with exclusive access to a high priced lawyer to try to legitimize Karen-like complaints, and then say that we can't find out who incurred or misappropriated these funds (attorney-client privilege) because we might get sued. All in an apparent attempt to "smear Charneski" with an unprofessional, opinionated, biased "vonBriesen Report".

Some quick facts about the background of the "report":

• In spite of the purchasing safeguards described above, and in spite of the Village Board instruction to NOT hire an outside attorney, Village attorney Lee Turonie has invoiced for reviewing and preparing the contract with von Briesen. Although, Mr. Turonie told the Village Board on February 10, 2025 that "he had nothing to do with it".

• Mr. Turonie appears to have had a clear financial conflict of interest in facilitating this contract between the Village and von Briesen. He also knew that the Village Board voted against hiring an outside law form to investigate a "complaint", as he was at the January 31, 2024 meeting.

• Mr. Turonie's lawyer attempted to submit this "von Briesen Report" as evidence at a Marathon County Court hearing on March 19, 2025, and the judge in that case quickly recognized it as "hearsay of other hearsay" or something very close to that, indicating its dubious value.

• The judge also questioned the authenticity of the document, observing that it does not state its authority, nor is it signed by the investigator.

• All such investigative reports start with a statement about who authorized the investigation, and what exactly they were investigating. This report has no such introduction, no signature of the investigator, and no supporting documents.

• The contract was made between Administrator Leonard Ludi and von Briesen attorney Robert Simandl. The investigator was Anne Barry-Hanneman.

• Charneski informed Ms. Hanneman that this investigation was unauthorized and why, but she proceeded with it anyway.

• Both Simandle and Hanneman are no longer with von Briesen & Roper.

• There is currently no record of any complaint being filed against Trustee Charneski for anything at any time.

• The alleged "complaint, if any, that von Briesen supposedly was to investigate has never been revealed to anyone. We do not know what was alleged.

• In the report, Hanneman cites no law, rule, or even cultural norm that Charneski might have violated.

• If there was a real complaint of any legitimacy, it would not be concealed from the accused, and it would not take this kind of expense and effort to try to find some reason to proclaim wrongdoing in order to justify it. This is about as un-American is it can get.

   
• All documents were apparently submitted by the complainant.
  

• The report's conclusions, and even the descriptions of circumstances appear to be highly subjective and based on partial truth at best. Hanneman's lack of objectivity and unfounded negative assumptions and conclusions appear to be extremely unprofessional and in violation of lawyer regulations.

• Hanneman repeatedly use the word "harassment" in her report, but she did so while ignoring the definition of the word from page 8 of the Village Employee Handbook:

"Harassment includes unwelcome conduct (verbal or physical), actions, words, jokes, or comments based on an individual’s protected status such as gender, sexual orientation, color, race, ethnicity, age, religion, disability, marital status, or any other legally protected characteristic. We will not tolerate harassing conduct that affects job benefits, interferes unreasonably with an employee’s work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment."

• The definition above is the only basis for which an outside investigator can be hired, according to the handbook, which further states:

"Every reported incident of employee harassment will be thoroughly investigated by a third party selected by the Village Board with respect for the confidences and sensitivities of the situation.

https://cms6.revize.com/revize/kronenwettervillage/VOK%20Employee%20Handbook%20approved%202132023.pdf

• The Village Board was not informed, let alone involved in selecting any third party investigator. It appears that this was all done in a way so as NOT to inform the Village Board (or certain members, at least).

• Even then, the purchasing process of FIN-004 must be carried out, but was not, which seems to qualify as a $65,000 misappropriation of public funds.

• Nothing like the above definition of harassment appears in Hanneman's highly critical (and criticized) summary, yet her whole summary claims alleged "harassment" based merely on subjective opinion unrelated to the definition.

• The report is based solely on ultra-sensitive perceptions, opinions, and unverified statements from anonymous people.

  Email examples in the report were cherry picked, some were edited or out of context, some were omitted, and all were interpreted by Hanneman to ascribe the most negative motives imaginable to the respondent Charneski, while ignoring the bizarre, belligerant  and unprofessional behavior of the complainant. 
  

An article from Psychology Today describes "What is Canceling?" https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-science-behind-behavior/202007/what-is-cancel-culture

It describes perceived violations based on strong negative emotions resulting in efforts to harm or shame the perceived violator.

The behavior of the complainant and her coworker friends, and the approach that Hanneman uses in her report seem to fit that description of "cancelling" perfectly. Hanneman's own emotional or personal biases obscured any pretense to objectivity. This reflects the unverified claims of a "toxic" environment, etc. that have been circulated since late March of 2022.

The lack of value of the report is a side issue at this point. The problem that I presented to the Village Board at the March 24, 2025 meeting is the clandestine nature of how this contract was approved, signed, and paid for with a very minimal paper trail, and the documents that do exist being locked up under the guise of "attorney-client privilege".

The only justification for the secrecy around this expenditure appears to be for the protection of the perpetrators involved with this unauthorized $65,000 expenditure, and those who stood to gain from it.

The numerous anomalies of this contract needs to be investigated. The logical place to start was with the documents (currently labeled "attorney-client privilege) associated with the initiation and execution of the von Briesen contract and investigation. It is too much money to just let slip away on secretive village personal politics.

My recommended action at the March 24 meeting was that the Village Board as the "client" move to review all emails and other relevant documents currently identified as "confidential" or "attorney client privilege" that are associated with the creation, payment or investigation or other fulfillment of the recent contract with von Briesen & Roper. This was intended to discover facts and hold perpetrators accountable.

The CYA efforts at the meeting are obvious, and the meeting can be heard here

https://soundcloud.com/kronenwetter/march-24-2025-village-of-kronenwetter-village-board-meeting-audio

Starting at the 37:00 mark.

Aaron Myszka made the motion "to take no action" on this item, and the vote was Yes - Myszka, Voll, Coyle; Vote No - Charneski; Abstain - Eiden, Mortenson.