The Investigation Part 1.1 upgrade - Something Wicked this way Comes
The Investigation Part 1
The key takeaway information in this report is:
The current $40,000 "third-party investigation" appears to have had no apparent legitimate purpose.
There was no "complaint" other than some unseen, apparently fictionalized one conjured up by President Joling.
Joling apparently initiated the process of an investigation without informing the Village Board.
To the extent that there might need to be a dispute resolution of some kind, Joling appears to have ignored the policy procedures directed in the Employee Handbook.
Dan Joling appears to have directed the course of the investigation as it took place; providing documents and questions for the interviewees, he also was a witness and I would say a "person of interest" allegedly being responsible for a gross waste of taxpayer money. It appears that he had a clear personal stake in the outcome of the investigation.
The closed session meetings held on this matter from February to June appear to have been in violation of the Wisconsin Open meetings law.
The apparent pre-meditated, pre-determined outcome and plan appears to have been to "clear Davel" and "fire Wegner with cause".
Investigations like this even under the best of circumstances, apparently cannot be used on their own as evidence to fire or discipline someone, since they are based entirely on subjectivity and unsworn hearsay.
Von Briesen & Roper appears to have had a conflict of interest in the investigation of Davel, since he had reportedly worked with them at Shawano less than a year earlier in his allegedly retaliatory complaints against elected officials there.
In my opinion, from the standpoint of logic, honesty or integrity, Kronenwetter's "investigation" makes no sense.
You may or may not remember the mysterious "investigation" from late in February. The reason it is mysterious is because the details have been deemed "confidential" and kept from the public. The reason I think the details have been concealed is first - secrecy seems to be the "new normal" in Kronenwetter, and second - it looks to me like a job of some kind is being pulled off here, that someone apparently does not want the public to know about, or to understand.
It has been two months since an "initial report" that allegedly found "no wrongdoing" by Davel, and still the public has not yet seen that report. What does the taxpaying public even know about this investigation?
It seems to me that it is all being shuffled around to buy time behind a cloak of "closed session" and "attorney-client" secrecy. In my opinion this doesn't happen for no reason. I don't need to know a lot of details at this point. I have observed enough in the past 8 years as trustee to know when things feel "normal" and when "something is going on".
I have seen this movie before and I think we can use use the previous 2024 "von Briesen Report" as a model, almost a formula outline to understand the how these investigations actually operate from a practical standpoint. Thus, I think we can reasonably prognosticate from the information available and a layman's point of view much of what is going on with this.
As trustee, I sat in on three closed sessions dealing with this investigation. I do not need to reveal anything that I learned in those sessions. If the report is ever released to the public, then the closed session confidentiality should no longer serve as a shield for potentially culpable actors in all this. At that time I can provide a much more complete report.
For now, let us instead see how much we can put together by connecting the dots of information gathered from the public record, public documents, and elsewhere outside of those closed sessions.
Due to the large amount of information and what I see as an almost unbelievable amount of ill will and alleged manipulation involved, this K Report on "The Investigation" will have to be broken up into three or more separate reports:
The introduction and basic timeline, (which is this report).
A dive into how these "third-party, outside investigations work. (They appear to be basically useless as being any kind of "evidence).
The facts as to who is who and what is what in this taxpayer funded "theater show". (Joling and/or Davel have histories of alleged wrongdoing cover-ups, which apparently would include using "investigations" as weapons and distractions)
Before we get into this, just remember that this "third party investigation" is brought to us by the same people who brought us the Milestone CUP appeal. See my other posts "The Milestone Sand Pit Approval - A textbook case of alleged corruption and incompetence.", and "My (unanswered) Questions to the Village Attorney regarding the (allegedly) Corrupted Milestone Sand Pit Appeal Process".
A Timeline Based on Publicly Available Information
Let's start with the Open Meetings violations.
The Feb 26, March 12, and April 30 closed session Village Board Meetings gave notice on the Agendas to the public as "to wit specific concerns regarding a personnel employment issue and possible action to address the same."
Right off the bat, it appears that this notice is legally insufficient to meet the "reasonableness standard" for Open Meetings law, as defined by the Wisconsin Supreme Court (See my post entitled "Why I Filed an Open Meetings Complaint with the DA").
The basic rule, seems to be that if an employment matter involves an identifiable person or individual persons, the public should be made aware of that in the agenda. In this case and in every closed session on this matter since then, it appears that the agenda notices have been unacceptably vague.
Mr Joling seems to have neglected to include the required fact that the "personnel employment issue" was about Administrator Davel. The notice does not say whether or not there was any complaint or charge against him, but it does say it is regarding "specific concerns". It appears that Joling should have also clarified the fact of a "claim" in that notice if there was one, but he apparently decided not to.
I say this because the Feb 26 Minutes state that the Board hired von Briesen & Roper as "labor counsel" and authorized them "to commence investigation and select an investigator regarding a claim involving a personnel matter." I believe that Dan Joling had to be aware of a "claim" ahead of time. otherwise why call the special meeting, and why did he have not just one but two lawyers there? According to attorney invoices, Joling had apparently already spent substantial effort communicating with both the village attorney and von Briesen as the engaged "labor counsel" on this matter before ever seeking any Village Board involvement, let alone approval.
Joling inexplicably also seems to have disregarded the procedure policy directed in the Employee Handbook for these matters. This procedure appears to me to be efficient, cost-effective, and fair. It requires sworn testimony and valid rules of evidence. Both of which appear to be absent in these "third party independent investigations.
At the March 9 open meeting, the Board discussed hiring Von Breisen and Roper law firm. I think that the need to obtain a contract at that point makes it evident that Joling's dealings with attorney Ryan Heiden of von Briesen before that point and incurring a few thousand dollars of allegedly unauthorized cost, had all apparently been done without a valid, written contract.
I understand that this is considered to be unethical conduct for a lawyer, according to regulations that the Supreme Court has established. To me, it gives the appearance of illegality on Joling's part, because there seems to be no known authority for a village president to incur costs with consultants of his choosing without Village Board approval.
This kind of alleged abuse of his position is nothing new for Joling. It seems well known, and reportedly by his own admission, that he involved attorney Shane Vanderwall in the Milestone sand pit appeal earlier this year as "the attorney representing the Village in this matter".
I consider that alleged claim of his position with the Village to be an obviously false statement, as it appears that he had no valid contract or Village Board approval to make that statement. In fact we have just the opposite - his letter from months earlier in October where he clearly terminated his agreement with the village in no uncertain terms. A new law firm was hired shortly thereafter, but excluded from that appeal proceeding.
All he apparently had to make his claim at that appeal was Joling's say-so, which appears to be worth nothing in the way of authority for something like that. Vanderwaal apparently just showed up at the appeal meeting with no previous contact with the Board, and allegedly said basically, "Here I am. I am representing you".
Joling dismisses the alleged illegality of his actions as simply "making an executive decision" (February APC meeting). I would like to see the Village Attorney's written opinion on that. As I see it, the trouble with that idea is that a Village president is not an "executive" the same way as a United States president is. A village president has no authority to make "executive decisions" like that.
Wisconsin statute 946.12 (2) seems to differ with Joling's opinion where it defines "misconduct" as:
"In the officer’s or employee’s capacity as such officer or employee, does an act which the officer or employee knows is in excess of the officer’s or employee’s lawful authority... "
The reason I took that little sidetrack into the Milestone appeal and Joling's apparently inflated opinion of his own authority, is because I believe that his seemingly habitual, self-serving misuse of his position at that time, has repeated itself with the same kind of unfettered "executive decisions" and confusion that seems to have taken place with this investigation.
At that March 9th meeting I raised issues about the fact that we had no specified scope of work requested, and no cost limit for the Board to consider. I related the previous experience with von Briesen and the widely held perception that their previous work product was essentially a "hit piece". Joling himself stated at the July 14, 2025 Board meeting that the von Briesen report was a "really smelly embarrassment". (see my post "Part 3 FYI: the von Briesen Report Repudiated by the Village Board")
I questioned the need for any outside attorneys at all, given the nature of the issue that we were seeking to address (now known as improper subject matter for office storytelling). My sentiments were confirmed a few weeks later by investigator Curtis who wrote:
"Critically, even if the allegation was substantiated, it would likely not rise to the level of anything more than a verbal reprimand to avoid such commentary in a professional setting."
I believe that everyone on the Board understood this from the beginning, but yet Joling persisted; apparently seeking another "really smelly embarrassment", and he set up a special closed session meeting for March 12 to approve the contracts for the investigation.
After the Board came out of the March 12 closed session, they voted to hire both von Briesen and HJC law firms. Mr Joling announced that he had an estimated cost of $20,000 for this project. Interestingly, when this limit was about to be voted on by the Board, von Breisen lawyer Ryan Heiden interrupted and appears on the record to have advised against placing a cap on the cost, so no vote was taken on that issue. I think this should have been a red flag to any Board member or public observer.
No scope of work appears on the meeting record at all, even though according to the HJC invoice Joling had apparently devised the undisclosed scope of work with HJC lawyer Jacob Curtis days earlier which was not revealed to the Board until days after the approval. The fact that there was no cost limit and no defined scope for the investigation seemed to have allowed Joling complete opportunity to redirect and unleash the investigator on anyone for anything. I strongly suspect that this was the plan from the beginning.
The continued secrecy and numerous closed sessions since March 30th and the alleged targeting and unusual firing "with cause" of Community Development Director Peter Wegner as an apparent offshoot result of investigating Davel, indicates to me that there was nothing going on here that was "just happening to be working out that way".
Moreover, the early move to nix the cost limit on this project is another significant clue that there was, in my opinion, a pre-determined plan to have this investigation used for something other than simply looking into the Davel misconduct issue.
I speculate here, that Heiden's suggestion to skip the cost limit may have been prearranged theater to cut short any perception that it was Joling and Davel who may not have wanted a cost limit.
The third concern that I raised on March 9, was about the alleged disreputable nature of von Briesen's previous work in 2024, (see my earlier posts on that). This problem was apparently solved through the legal technicality of having HJC provide a separate letter of engagement for the Board to approve. This switch was to have HJC work directly for the Village instead of working for von Briesen, as the February 26 motions had indicated. To my knowledge, those earlier Village Board approvals were never rescinded.
This move appears to me to have been intended for the sole purpose of creating public perception that the press release claimed to be an independent "third-party investigator who had no prior relationship with the Village".
Legal and technical semantics aside, I believe that statement to be materially false for all practical purposes. I think that who HJC technically worked "for", is not as important to me, as who they were working "with". I don't see why the working model of how HJC worked hand-in-glove with von Briesen would have significantly changed because of the separate contracts. (see my post "The Investigation Part 2")
We know from the Feb 26 motions by the Board, that HJC appears to already have been selected by and working with von Briesen on this project. Investigator Curtis appears to have counseled extensively with von Briesen and Joling throughout the process, apparently including what "approach" should be taken with the investigation.
Von Briesen seems to have had an extensive though unauthorized relationship with the Village through the former village clerk less than two years ago. Because of their association with HJC, I believe it is fair to say that von Briesen's previous relationship with the Village realistically carries over to disqualify HJC's status as "having no prior association with the Village" in anything other than name, since the two law firms are closely associated on this project. But this is just my opinion.
What I believe is even more significant and what apparently has gone unmentioned is the fact that von Briesen appears to have had an extensive prior relationship with James Davel in his position at Shawano less than a year ago. Why is von Briesen involved here at all, when there appears to be these other apparent conflict of interest issues? Why did neither von Briesen, Davel, or Mr Joling divulge any "prior associations" to the Village Board?
If and when the Investigation Report is released, perhaps the public will be able to determine for themselves whether or not the "approach" to the investigation was predetermined to "clear" Davel of wrongdoing, and also whether or not the report actually does so.
Bottom Line
It does not appear that any of the key concerns raised at the March 9 meeting were actually settled at the special March 12 meeting. I voted against all of it for what I thought were obvious reasons.
Why would the scope of work be kept from the public?
Who would have given Joling the authority to create this scope of work or to change it, as it appears he has done? Was it just another "executive decision" on his part?
I guess I should explain that the investigation was purportedly to look into Davel's behavior, but it seems that also at issue is the question as to why we even needed to spend "$20,000" for a relatively small matter that I believe could have been easily resolved at Village Hall. This question was the bigger issue in my mind, than Davel's alleged misbehavior.
When something like this makes no sense, I think it is often because we are looking at it from the wrong perspective. From a reasonable, honest point of view, it seems to make no sense to hold a high priced investigation for a minor infraction of telling improper stories in mixed company. But as pure speculation - from the point of view of a possible pre-planned weaponization of the investigation to achieve personal aims such as possible retaliation against honest employees, then in my opinion everything seems to fit into place.
In my opinion, the investigation realistically and logically should never have been conducted. Given the fact that it was actually conducted, I think it should have been concluded on March 30th when the "no wrongdoing" determination in the investigator's initial report was provided to the Village Board in late April.
It seems to me that the report should have been released to the public at that time; before the election. However, being a very incomplete, preliminary draft, I think after seeing it, it would leave more questions with the public than answers.
After the March 30th "no wrongdoing" conclusion, a third question seems to arise among some observers as to why and how this investigation dramatically changed course and turned on Mr. Wegner.
Joling appears to Bear Accountability for the Cost
I believe that Dan Joling himself bears responsibility for allegedly initiating the tremendous cost which was no longer $20,000, but $40,000 (and rising?) for a so-called investigation that he has yet to explain a valid reason for. This issue seems to create a conflict of interest in Joling even being involved in this. His alleged wrongdoing is worse that anything Davel was accused of.
I think it should be apparent that due to this alleged accountability hanging over his head, he may have had a clear stake in the outcome, and a possible motive to re-direct the investigation possibly to divert attention away from his alleged role in creating this costly situation, and toward Trustee Sorensen as a scapegoat who apparently did nothing but privately bring a simple matter to Joling's attention. (See my other post "Money for Nothing".)
That brings us to a side issue as to why Kelly Coyle and Jessica Stowell seem to have been so dutifully making widespread unfounded accusations against Sorensen in social media. These appear to be in service to the Davel/Joling "organization" and ultimately, I believe very likely to be in their own political interests. In my opinion the seemingly suspicious $26,000 annual "pay raise" confirmed to have been given to Trustee Kelly Coyle's wife Kim Coyle reportedly for future unknown work duties yet to be determined, cannot help but to create doubts in my mind as to their or "the organization's" credibility.
Aside from blaming Sandi Sorensen, the allegedly Joling-created "scope" appears to me to have also allowed for throwing other employees like Wegner under the bus. If so, then for what reason? Diversion and distraction? Retaliation? Maybe a purge of anyone who did not give Davel a glowing evaluation review in January(such as Peter Wegner, Jennifer Poyer, or Theresa Obrien)? Again, I am speculating, but only because the "official story" appears to make no rational sense.
It seems clear to me that this entire investigation was Joling's doing, and I believe with disregard for taxpayer expense. In my opinion, in seems very likely that this investigation was initiated for reasons other than the stated one.
In the March 30 meeting minutes, we see that the Board approved a press release which was again claimed to be written by Joling, but that document is not in the packet or attached to the minutes, which I think is another anomaly.
After weeks of being inexplicably kept in the dark, the Kronenwetter public finally found out on March 31 that the investigation was about Administrator James Davel all along, but there still appeared to be public confusion as to whether it was a complaint, a claim, or only an "allegation".
If we go by the news reports, we see that:
The Shawano Daily Helper News media responds to the release and reports that
"Village of Kronenwetter Administrator James Davel, has been cleared of wrongdoing following a workplace complaint in Kronenwetter."
They go on to say -
"Davel previously served in Shawano County as Administrative Coordinator, where he faced criticism and controversy tied to workplace conduct concerns raised by some county officials. No additional details about the Kronenwetter complaint have been released, but village leaders say they are ready to move forward and focus on serving the community."
https://www.tchdailynews.com/2026/04/07/93570/
We see from the news report that this apparently is not Davel's first rodeo dealing with complaints against himself.
James Davel has apparently had numerous complaints against him at his previous job in Shawano. I found that he also appears to have a history of using his own complaints as weapons against those who inquire into his performance. He even "filed" (what I will call) a childish, petty complaint against me on February 26th. I don't know what his purpose was, but I think it is a perfect example of a weak character and a victim mentality. Again, I am neither lawyer nor psychologist. These are just my observations and opinion.
A transcript of a hearing, and other information from people in Shawano leads me to believe that in effect, if a complaint will serve to intimidate, retaliate, or distract his critics, he'll use it, and if he needs to manufacture a reason for the complaint, he allegedly will do that too. An article summarizing one of his complaints is here:
https://www.newmedia-wi.com/committee-wrangles-over-ethics-accusations
The article reports in part:
"In Davel’s complaint, Hammett is accused of three ethics code violations — an accusation related to a closed session request, allegedly profiting from using the words “Shawano County Supervisor” on his business cards and dispersing confidential personnel files to unauthorized people without the consent of the employee.
Hammett’s attorney, John Healy, refuted all of the chargers, noting the first accusation didn’t even cite a provision of the ethics code it allegedly violated.
As for the second claim, the attorney said Davel presented no proof of Hammett profiting from the business card wording. He said the appearance of the words does not constitute a profit.
Finally, as relating to the third accusation, Healy said the files were not confidential just because they involved employees, and they were released with the consent of the person in the files".
In other words, it appears that a complaint as a tactic, reportedly seems to be his defense of choice. I think his complaint against me and how this investigation has apparently been spun around, tends to support the characterization that Shawano sources have claimed.
His reputation and work history at Shawano will be covered more comprehensively in upcoming posts.
Shawano complaints are apparently where his relationship with von Briesen Law Firm came in the first time.
It turns out that apparently there are a number of news articles to be found along these lines, as well as employee complaints at Shawano.
The Board was never informed of these numerous complaints against Davel before we hired him "pending a background check". Incredible to me, is that, Kronenwetter Police Department did the background check and reported to the Board NO ISSUES.
In a separate post I will go into information that seems to be readily discoverable and that you would think Police Chief Terry McHugh would have found regarding Mr, Davel's alleged previous pattern of activity, and I believe should have reported to the Board. It has even been reported that one or more people from Shawano told the KPD caller flat out - "I would not hire him."
All of this calls to mind one of my thumb rules as trustee- "In local government, nothing happens for no reason."
Putting this Matter Behind Us
The VOK press release says :
"The Village is looking forward to putting this matter behind it so it can continue to focus on improving the community and addressing its taxpayers’ interests.”
In my opinion, that press release was not exactly truthful in what it said there, because a month later on April 30, rather than putting anything behind us, we see yet another closed session which again appears to provide the same vague, inadequate notice on the agenda as to the nature of the business to be conducted:
"...to-wit review specific personnel matter and address next steps arising out of same."
This is explain in my articles "Why I filed My Open Meetings Complaint", and the other "My Open Meetings Complaint" that is the actual copy of what was sent.
In the meeting minutes we find out 2 weeks later what that business actually was. The April 30 minutes read:
"Motion by Lesniak/Myszka to terminate the employment of the Community Development Director for just cause."
So, if we are to understand this right - by March 30 we had an apparently completed investigation but unfinished report to address "specific concerns" about Administrator Davel, which Trustee Myszka expressed on March 12 as a worst case scenario cost of $20,000. My very rough estimates at that time, was that the costs were at or slightly below that amount.
Along with that report we had an official Village press release approved March 30 stating a desire of "putting this matter behind us", leading the public to believe the matter was ended and within estimated cost.
However, this apparently settled, optimistic situation somehow suddenly elevated catastrophically, in my opinion, into firing department head Peter Wegner, who was the one person with the work ethic, loyalty, and knowledge most critical to the press release stated goal of "improving the community and addressing taxpayer interests". This is the position that is primarily responsible for "growth" and development in the Village, and they decapitated it.
All told, the legal fees involved in this investigation after allegedly "going after" and firing Wegner came at a total cost to the Village estimated to be at north of $40,000 and I won't be surprised if it hits $50K before it is all done; not Myszka's expected $20K "worst case scenario" expected when the Board first approved the contracts on March 12.
The March 30 minutes show that the three lawyers (Bitar, Curtis, Heiden) were present at this meeting ($1000 per hour total cost). Two, and perhaps all three were involved with the original investigation into Davel. By this I believe we can conclude that Wegner's firing was tied to the investigation of Davel. We won't know for sure until the full report comes out.
It is my firm opinion that Joling originally initiated this investigation with a pre-determined plan to whitewash over the alleged minor incident of improper storytelling by his friend Davel.
If you are wondering why the report is taking so long to be released, perhaps it is due to Joling apparent disdain for open government. He seems to have a documented history of concealing misconduct/wrongdoings of his cohorts from the public.
See "The Investigation Part 2" and the Daily Herald article https://www.wausaudailyherald.com/story/opinion/2015/02/18/kronenwetter-police-officer-andrew-zortman-discipline-records/23634441/)
In this case, it appears that the minor nature of the storytelling did not realistically even need whitewashing or concealment to begin with since there apparently was not even a "complaint".
It becomes apparent to me that the likely purpose of Joling's $40K expenditure was to manufacture a reason to fire Wegner "with cause", even though "investigations" like this are NEVER supposed to be used for this purpose. (See "The Investigation Part 2")
I have opined and complained several times, especially in the past 8 months about "weak leadership" and a resulting situation where "rules do not seem to matter in Kronenwetter". See "Why I filed My Open Meetings Complaint"
In a nutshell, (and this is merely my conclusions and opinion) I believe that when Joling engaged von Briesen for this project without the Board's knowledge, there was already a purpose in mind that was not what the Board or public was led to believe.
Based on my previous experience with von Breisen's 2024 report, this alleged "reason" to fire Wegner did not need to be legitimate, but only made to appear so. As I see it - The Village paid for an "official investigation" into a "nothingburger" claim against Joling's friend Davel, which then came to "find out" and rehash facts about an incident that was already known and dealt with weeks before the investigation was ever considered. Facts that I'll allege were then trumped up, and perhaps embellished with a few critical yet unverified accusations to effectively vilify Wegner and to justify the "with cause" firing.
It appears that lawyers who are paid and directed to make something out of nothing can generally pretty well do so. I think we see that all the time in both criminal and civil cases.
The question arises as to how does firing Mr Wegner tie in to a previous investigation into Davel's behavior, which in turn was apparently not reasonably necessary to begin with? I hope I am not repeating this point too much
Wisconsin is an "at will" state. Employers do not need a reason to terminate anyone's employment. So if Davel and Joling happened to have had it in for Wegner, I believe that the current Board as it stands would have almost certainly have followed instructions and gone along with that termination without spending $40,000 to justify it. They only needed 5 votes.
Wegner or any other self-confident, competent employee would likely resign if asked to do so. He apparently was not asked, nor was he allowed to defend himself before being fired.
However, while anyone can be fired "at will" without a legal issue, I believe that if it was proven at some later date that anyone went out of their way to manufacture "just cause" which in turn would tend to blackball him from future employment, that situation would not be "at will" but an entirely different breed of cat. Such an action would seem to indicate an element of bad faith, ill will, and an apparent intent to punish.
As I have explained briefly, and will do so more thoroughly in the next post - an investigation like this appears to carry little to no weight as evidence, and it appears that they are only of limited value as a recommendation, and for certain particular things like policy or operational changes. The reason it is said that these investigations CANNOT be used as a basis to defame or to fire or discipline someone, is because they are based on unverified, hearsay and not under oath, which I believe is what we can expect this current investigation to have been based on.
Judging from an apparent lack of judgment and trustworthiness, my opinion is that Davel and Joling have had a complete disregard for taxpayer money when it comes to getting what is expedient, and what they personally want. $40,000 may not be much in military circles, but I believe it is an unacceptable amount to waste in this Village. (Actually, I think even $40.00 wasted should be unacceptable)
Once the full investigation summary is available, if ever, you can use your own judgement as to whether or not you think anyone may have used this investigation for their own personal purposes to the detriment of high quality employees which in turn seems to be against the Village's best interests.
If my observations are correct, I think this whole idea of an unnecessary investigation was ill-conceived and dirty thing for them to do. I think they may have set the Village up for legal liability to boot, but that's just me.
I cannot find one good word to say about a docile Village Board made up of adults who I believe should have had the objectivity and moral or practical sense restrain personal politics from damaging Village interests.
The Board has the authority to fire Davel and remove Joling. As a liability concern alone, in my opinion this is exactly what should be done.
Comments
Post a Comment