Investigation, Closed Session, & Resignation

A recent post by Trustee Kelly Coyle has opened a can of worms regarding a recent not-so-confidential investigation at Kronenwetter.   In my opinion, this investigation represents taxpayer money  being wasted to pursue the personal political aims of those at the Village (Dan Joling, Jim Davel) who it appears are responsible for what some people are calling a "witch hunt". 

Mr Coyle's comments look like the beginning of yet another smear campaign. He throws out this red herring distraction by claiming Ms Sorensen's resignation reveals "closed session" information, when Coyle already knows that he himself posted pre-election false statements that could only have been based on closed session discussion that he obtained illicitly. His wife Kim and thus everyone at the office apparently knows the same closed session information. 

Ms. Sorensen's resignation revealed nothing confidential. Certainly nothing that Coyle's previous online comments had not already opened the door to. Similarly, Mr. Dan Joling referred to closed session material in his diatribe at the April 2026 APC meeting attacking Ms Sorensen as she gaveled him repeatedly for his conduct being out of order.

The tactics 

For those who don't already know this tactic, let me explain - When someone like Kelly Coyle or Dan Joling assumes a false moral high ground and tries to define who is allowed to say what, as Coyle has apparently tried here, we should recognize it for what it looks and sounds like - a "canceling" propaganda tactic of the woke left crowd. We have seen this used in Kronenwetter ever since Coyle and Alex Vedvic came on the Village scene a few years ago.

The technique is to draw attention away from the facts of a matter by finding some excuse and/or innuendo to malign or shame someone for simply speaking the truth. Facts are irrelevaant to using this technique.  Propagandists of this type seek to establish a double standard where they can lob false accusations all day long, but cry foul at any factual response.

Coyle's statement refers to "Trustee Sorenson's role in creating an investigation that cost the village taxpayers over $26,000". This makes the false assumption that she even had a "role" worth mentioning to begin with. Likewise with his allusion to her "motives and tactics", which again falsely implies guilt of some kind. These are smear tactics of those who apparently have no fact to base a legitimate argument on.

We as taxpayers need to diligently seek the truth of matters pertaining to this investigation and who the players really are, because I'm sure the new Village organization under the control of  Davel, Joling, and now Coyle piping up, is certainly not going to provide any of it.

The fact is, that we as taxpayers need to find out the "motives and tactics" of Mr Davel, Joling, and Trustee Stowell  who to my knowledge and opinion together perpetrated this costly theater show of an "investigation". When the shield of closed-session secrecy is lifted from this case, we will better be able to reveal the facts of a solid case to show Davel's, Joling's, and Stowell's "role in creating an investigation that cost the village taxpayers over $26,000".

Confidentiality 

I think Ms Buchberger is correct in her posted comment about a closed session being confidential, but only to the extent that the information discussed is actually closed session subject matter to begin with.

It has been my experience-based opinion that Mr Joling and Davel have violated open meetings law and commonly abused closed session restrictions ever since the two got together in early November, so who knows what is legitimately confidential and what isn't?

I have pointed out for months that rules, laws, etc. seem to make no difference to those two.

"Closed session" is not intended to be an absolute shield of secrecy to allow random discussion or behind the scenes plotting about anything and everything that they feel like. Nor is it intended to be a venue to abuse, defame or slander employees or elected officials in a setting concealed from the public eye. In other words, it is not a free pass for thuggish behavior that they would be afraid to commit for the public to see in open session.

In local government, very little is allowed to legally be kept secret, and public policy in Wisconsin overwhelmingly favors the public's right to know. This appears to be diametrically opposed to the "new normal" current lawless philosophy that seems to be prevailing in Kronenwetter.

Coyle's implication that Ms. Sorensen is somehow responsible for the cost of this investigation is just his usual absurd innuendo and a false public "guilt by accusation" that he and "that crowd" seem to have engaged in for years.

Don't forget, the key players here - Davel, Joling, and Stowell all apparently have a heavy self-interest in avoiding their own accountability, by framing Sandi Sorensen for causing the cost. It seems to be no accident that Joling scheduled the second closed session on a date one day after he knew Sorensen would be leaving town and not be able to attend due to a previously planned vacation.

I voted against contracting for this investigation because none of the story made logical sense. We have this very expensive, unnecessary, investigation which brings embarrassment to the Village, right on the heels of the clown-show-from-hell sand pit appeal process, and in my opinion the same people are responsible for both.

The public spoke out about what appears to be the dishonest process of approving the sand pit, and they understandably ridiculed Mr Joling's public statements about how a sand pit would generate revenue for the Village. I think this $30,000 investigation should be publicly examined even more critically than the alleged corruption associated with that sand pit.

There has yet to be a reasonable explanation for it. What did the Village get for that money, other than the loss of one (so far) very critical and competent employee, the loss of a diligent, honest trustee, and the apparent gratification of Davel and Joling's egos by showing the remaining employees "who is boss"?

Just like the doctor who removes a leg because he doesn't have the skill to heal an infected foot, so also I believe the firing of a highly competent worker is the sign of not only chronically incompetent management, but I'll say it is also unnecessarily mean-spirited, vindictive, and heavy handed.

As the philosopher Seneca once said: "All cruelty springs from weakness". Weak, unprincipled leadership seems to be the rule lately.

There is much, much more to say on this subject of the investigation and what is looking to me like some kind of cover-up, that I have posted elsewhere on this site.