The Investigation Part 2 update, A dive into how these "third-party, outside investigations work."

1/q 

 Be sure to check out my other posts!

           

The "Investigation" Part 2

In the previous post on this site "The 'Investigation' Part 1" we looked at some introductory information regarding facts and events relating to President Joling's "third-party investigation", such as:

• The current $40,000 "third-party investigation" had no apparent legitimate basis.

• There was no "complaint" involved at all, other than some kind of phantom, fictionalized one apparently imagined by President Joling.

• Joling  appears to have initiated the process of an investigation into a non-existent "complaint" without informing or consulting the Village Board, as required by Village Policy.

• To the extent of addressing Administrator Davel's behavior, Joling apparently ignored the policy of procedures directed in the Employee Handbook and Village Policy HR-009, intended to quickly resolve such matters.

• Dan Joling seems to have had a huge conflict of interest in having anything to do with directing the course of the investigation.

• The closed session meetings from February to June appear to have been consistently in violation of the Wisconsin Open meetings law. Theyseem to have prioritized secrecy over open government public's right to be fully informed.

• Von Briesen & Roper appears to also have had a conflict of interest in being involved with the investigation of Davel, since Davel had worked with von Briesen at Shawano less than a year earlier in his allegedly retaliatory complaints against elected officials there.

• This investigation which the Board approved to look into Davel's behavior, appears to have been suddenly and inexplicably redirected to target another employee, Peter Wegner.

• Both the scope of the investigation, and the abrupt change in scope were apparently directed by Dan Joling, since there is no record of the Village Board voting to approve either the scope or the supposed change in scope.

In Part 2 will present for your consideration the following:

• The Village Policy on human resource conflict resolution was apparently ignored by Pres. Joling.

• Third-party investigations appear to provide no due process protection, and are said to have little value for the purposes of discipline or termination.

• Investigator's findings can not or should not be used on their own to determine credibility or alleged facts.

• Established Village Policy seems to have been designed to meet due process standards. Following that policy likely would have incurred a far lower cost. Potentially, almost nothing.

• The scope of work worded by Joling seems to have virtually guaranteed that Davel would be cleared.

• Credibility of witnesses appears to have been determined by a double-standard.

• The single legitimate "allegation" (Davel telling improper stories) was not shown to be false, but only "unsubstantiated". I have yet to see or hear of a clear statement from Davel actually denying that he told the bawdy story as described.

• The law firms' terms of agreement seem to  basically acknowledge that the results of the investigation are outcome-based according to client "guidance".

• The "labor counsel" law firm had worked closely with Mr. Davel, the original subject of the investigation in the past 1-2 years. This appears to create a conflict of interest potentially in his favor.

• Davel appears to have had substantial contact with witnesses before the investigation began, and under what I would call suspicious circumstances.

• There appears to be no valid reason given to switch the investigation's direction from looking into Davel's behavior, to targeting Wegner.

• This switch targeting Wegner appears to have cost up to an additional $20,000.

• The investigation appears to have been pre-planned to produce an outcome not originally considered or approved by the Board, or included in any known "scope of duties"

The Kronenwetter Employee Handbook is the first go-to source for information on how to resolve employee disputes and issues like this. The first thing it directs, is a discussion between the parties to try to resolve the matter.

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

See pages 8, 45, 48, 64-67

Incredibly, this obvious solution was apparently not even attempted in this case. Had such common sense been used, I believe that this particular matter could very likely have been settled right there and then.

If for some reason the issue could not be resolved with a discussion, then Village Policy HR-009 (pages 64-67 in the link above) has a very straightforward process on how to select a qualified hearing officer who would then hold a hearing to take sworn testimony, cross-examination, and evidence from both sides. Then the hearing officer would make a determination based on that verified information. This is very much like a regular court bench trial.

This seems to be an efficient and fair process intended to be concluded in just a few weeks and is very cost-effective.

Mr. Joling apparently chose to not have a discussion, and to not follow that prescribed Village policy. Instead it looks like he took it upon himself to initiate a very expensive "third-party investigation" without consulting the Village Board. This kind of investigation process which has just taken place in Kronenwetter has none of the due process features that HR-009 requires.

• No sworn testimony.

• No cross-examination.

• One-sided evidence only.

• No notice of termination

• No opportunity at all for Wegner to present a defense or rebuttal to accusations that he was "blindsided" with.

After Trustee Sandi Sorensen privately asked President Dan Joling to look into Administrator James Davel's allegedly bawdy storytelling, Joling reportedly went directly to Davel.

I believe that this is the genesis of the idea to use a third-party investigation against Wegner, rather than to resolve the immediate issue. This looks similar to what Davel had reportedly done to his critics in Shawano.

This alleged, possible motive may also explain why Joling appeared so determined to conduct this investigation in spite of the fact that there was no complaint and no apparent, objectively rational reason to do so.

In my post "The Investigation Part 1, we looked at information indicating that Community Development Director Peter Wegner was fired "with cause", apparently based on results and/or legal advice in the April 2026 von Briesen/HJC investigation report.

This should be concerning to everyone because according to my research as a layman (I am happily not a lawyer) these investigations do not carry the weight or credibility for such heavy-handed action.

The Nature of Third party Investigations

   I think that everyone involved should understand that a private "investigation" is not at all like a police investigation or courtroom evidence.

From a legal perspective - the final report produced by a village-hired investigator, based on interviews of several employees where no one is sworn and there are no established rules of evidence, has limited persuasive value. The report should not be treated as determinative of guilt or misconduct. Instead, its findings are subject to testing and must be supplemented by sworn testimony or other admissible evidence in a subsequent process.

The investigation report can serve as background information or prima facie basis only, but not a substitute for proper evidence and a due-process hearing.

Firing Wegner "with cause" based on a hearsay-based investigation report seems pretty irresponsible to me from a liability point of view. Doing so without allowing a defense or rebuttal of any kind to be presented, seems obviously heavy-handed and unjust, not to mention about as un-American as it gets.

To my knowledge, this investigation, just like the previous 2024 von Briesen Report, provided no new verified facts that we did not already know before Joling engaged von Briesen for this project.

Village Policy GEN-001 requires that before incurring costs of consultants, we are to seek the information in-house, among employees, records, or from elected officials.

Joling apparently did nothing like this.

From a legal or evidentiary standpoint the report and conclusions of one of these "third-party investigations" should at best be treated as one piece of evidence among others; not as the sole basis for discipline or termination.

At minimum, due process requires a meaningful opportunity to be heard and to test the evidence before action is taken. This includes a process akin to a fair hearing where the employee can challenge the findings and submit evidence in rebuttal. This seems to all be basic "Constitutional Rights 101"; something from American "Social Studies class" that I literally learned in third grade.

None of this seems to have been allowed in the current case, but this is exactly what HR-009 would have provided for.

In practice, this should have translated to pre-termination notice and an opportunity for a response, and then a more complete evidentiary process if termination is pursued, rather than reliance on an untested report.

The practical implication in Wisconsin is that if a village relies solely on an unsworn investigative report with no evidence rules or testing, the decision to discipline (or terminate) an employee would risk running afoul of due-process principles emphasized by the higher courts. In other words, I believe it could expose the Village to a lawsuit having a good chance of success.

According to my own untrained research, it seems that the village could or should have instead done any or all of the following:

• Used the report as background, then required sworn or otherwise admissible testimony to establish facts to give the employee a meaningful opportunity to cross- examine witnesses and present evidence in rebuttal.

• Ensured that there is an evidentiary basis for any credibility determinations; the Village Board should not rely solely on the investigator’s opinion or conclusions about credibility.

• Provided notice and an opportunity to be heard, with a process adequate to protect the employee’s property interest in employment, consistent with Loudermill principles and related due- process standards.

• Reserve the final assessments of the credibility of supporting witnesses for the administrative law judge, (such as the "hearing officer" stipulated in HR-009) before whom an opportunity for complete cross-examination of opposing witnesses must be provided.

• In short, credibility determinations belong to a real, qualified factfinder at a formal proceeding, not to the investigative firm, and due-process protections require testing of the information through cross examination and a reasoned, independent assessment of credibility.

Based on these apparent, fundamental deficiencies, it appears to me that what the Village got for $40,000 appears to be basically nothing of value; basically a hit piece.

Contrary to the above mentioned requirements of Constitutionally compliant due process, the Village paid $40,000 for an end product that I believe by its very nature falls far short of of due process standards because in reality it was likely never intended to serve the purpose that it was allegedly eventually used for.

That is not the investigators fault or von Briesen's fault. This kind of investigation has its purposes, but establishing "just cause" on its own for termination purposes does not appear to be one of them.

If the Village had wanted a lawful, due process hearing to present verified and tested evidence, then I'm sure that either law firm would have provided someone to serve as the hearing officer required in HR-009 and we would have had a whole different ball game. But that is not the ball that Joling got rolling.

In the kinds of investigations like we just went through, there apparently are no set rules of evidence, nor is there any sworn testimony (replaced instead by "interviews"). It appears to all be just words (perhaps cherry-picked or out of context) and conclusions (arbitrary or otherwise) regardless of whether or not any of it is true, false, objective or subjective. The investigator in this case appears to have assumed the role of sole arbiter as to who or what is "credible" or not, and potentially based on subjective reasoning. This is exactly what also happened in the 2024 report.

Apparently, information may be minimized or magnified at the investigator's discretion and judgement, or perhaps the client's direction. Witness information can be disregarded as "non-credible" or "out-of-scope" to the investigation, while other out-of-scope subject matter may be brought "into scope" and pursued as directed by the "client" (in this case Joling).

These all appear to be discretionary actions, commonly known as the "spin" that the client may require. Even an objective investigator is bound by the quality (or lack thereof) of witness accounts and evidence. There is no oath to cause dishonest people to tell the truth, and thus no penalty for dishonesty.

There are only two "village officials" in Kronenwetter with the authority to contact and/or direct investigating lawyers - President Dan Joling and Administrator James Davel.

Consider the fact that by their privilege of direct access to the lawyers, these two Village officials are in a position to control the information, the narrative, the playbook, and the results of this investigation. The investigating firms seem to be quite open and forthright about this kind of situation. Informing the Village Board about Joling's various discussions with the lawyers appears to have  been optional, and in my experience, unlikely.

What we effectively end up with is something like a complainant (such as Joling, or in the past report clerk LaBarge) with a stake in the outcome, who appear to also act as the client, and who seem to have a degree of control over that outcome potentially providing selected evidence, selected interviewees, selected questions and an expressed goal.

In other words - as I believe the previous (2024) "von Briesen Report" has amply demonstrated - if there is a desired outcome, the investigating firm appears willing to do their best to deliver it, because that is what they are paid and directed to do.

The Bottom Line

The end result of Joling/Davel's actions, is that in their alleged zeal to sack Wegner "with cause", Joling and the Board spent $40,000 on an investigation of questionable value because the process followed NONE of the above mentioned requirements necessary for due process.  

   The goal apparently was to buy an investigation report that, whether credible or not, appears to have been intended to lend credulity to false or hyped accusations that I believe would not hold up for 5 minutes if a proper a due process cross examination or rebuttal would have been allowed.

Wisconsin is an "at will" state where employees can be terminated without reason. The Courts and common sense tells us that termination "with cause" requires a bona-fide reason because it involves possible harm to the terminated employee's reputation and ability to find work. That reason should be verified by a hearing and due process to establish exactly what that "cause" is.

In other words, Joling and the Board spent $40,000 on an investigation that revealed no new substantiated information that was not generally known previously. On the negative side, it seems to have produced  a handful of unverified, untested, infammatory and potentially damaging allegations apparently accepted at face value, and which if published I believe may expose the village to litigation more than anything else.

If anyone was bent on honestly firing Wegner "with cause" then they should have followed the HR-009 hearing process which provides exactly what the courts call for in order for the Village Board to provide true, verified facts to prove their "just cause"; not just say it. This is exactly what Village Policy instructs should have been done in the first place.

What actual benefit did the Village Taxpayers get for the $40,000 spent? Maybe someone can tell me. Maybe I'm missing the something.

Lawyers

The lawyers seem to have been forthright about what they do. It is up to us to simply read and understand what they are telling us.

Regarding von Briesen & Roper (VB&R) and their working partner HJC - I have not seen where either law firm ever stated that seeking truth, fairness, objectivity or justice was the end goal of their services in this case, and I see no evidence to show that any of this was what the client (Village) demanded .

The VB&R engagement letter states:

"SCOPE OF SERVICES You asked us to represent the Village in connection with labor and personnel matters.

RESPONSIBILITIES In reliance upon information and guidance provided by you, we will provide legal counsel and assistance in accordance with this letter, keep you reasonably informed of progress and developments, and respond to your inquiries."

That bold part above is not hard to understand. It is clear that the client controls the information, and the "guidance" tells the lawyer what the client wants accomplished. 

This understanding seems to correspond to what the Wisconsin Supreme Court has set in their rules for lawyer conduct (referred to as SCR 20).

SCR 20:1.2 Scope of representation and allocation of authority between lawyer and client states this:

"...a lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation and, as required by SCR 20:1.4, shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued."

Joling appears to have "consulted" extensively with both law firms, apparently providing the "information" and "guidance" mentioned above; and establishing the "scope" and "approach" to the investigation, and anything else he decided on.

The Village Board had no say in any of that, other than to vote to have VB&R to "commence investigation and select an investigator regarding a claim involving a personnel matter", then later approve the contracts.

The HJC engagement letter likewise states a scope of work:

"You have asked me to represent the Village by serving as an Independent Investigator relating to various personnel concerns within the Village. The scope of services may be broadened upon mutual agreement of both parties. From time to time, I may open a different “matter” internally, which you will see embodied by submission of a separate billing statement."

There appears to be nothing other than regular billing in this case, so it looks like there was no "mutual agreement" to change the scope or open up a new investigation. So, how did the investigative guns suddenly pivot from Davel on to Wegner?

Investigator Curtis is also forthright when he says:

"Throughout the interview process, Counsel provided updates regarding the ongoing nature and scope of the interviews to the Village Board President, who provided relevant documentation for purposes of initiating the interviews."

I think it goes without saying, that whoever determines what is "relevant" determines the nature of the questions which in turn determines the outcome. Just speculating here.

Case in point- Trustee Sandi Sorensen had a thick folder of documentation to present at the interview as alleged evidence of Davel's general lack of character and credibility. That information was apparently dismissed and determined to not be relevant to an investigation into Davel's behavior.

Curtis also appears to have dismissed the testimony of two credible witnesses who confirmed hearing Davel's improper story, simply because one of them initially gave an incorrect time frame of exactly when he heard the story, but then later clarified and corrected himself.

On the other hand, unrelated information against Wegner and provided to Curtis on the side as unrelated information, suddenly took priority even though Curtis admits it was "not directly related to the scope of the investigation". I don't think it was related, and if it was considered at all should have been a "new investigation", as per the terms of the agreement letter. But then, like everything else here, that's just my opinion.

Interestingly, witnesses all presented the off-point information to Curtis after Wegner's interview. Curtis then apparently never circled back to Wegner for him to see or respond to this new information and allegation/accusations. This newly introduced, off-point information then appears to have become the catalyst used to unofficially create an unidentified "scope of investigation" apparently intended to target and terminate Wegner "with cause".

According to his March 16 email Curtis stated that the scope of the investigation was intended to include but not limited to:

"The truth or falsity of the allegations involving the Village Administrator and staff members and involves the VA making sexually inappropriate comments to those staff members and thereby making them feel uncomfortable;"

This scope does not come near meeting the bar of "Harassment" and particularly "sexual harassment" as defined in the Employee Handbook, page 8, and which is the only basis that requires the cost or trouble of a third party investigation. Anything less would not have justified this extreme measure. Nor does that scope appear to fairly describe the incident that Sorensen asked Joling to look into.

I am not aware of anyone ever saying that Davel made "sexually inappropriate comments to staff", so this "scope" as defined by Joling seems to have put forth weak, strawman parameters that I believe virtually guaranteed that Davel would not be found to have done, while avoiding the actual issue.

Making inappropriate comments to someone seems to me to be much different than saying something in their presence, just as the original concern.  Any inappropriate or bawdy stories that did NOT make those present feel uncomfortable apparently would not count. "Sexually inappropriate" and "Uncomfortable" seem to be strong terms, it appears that virtually no one, not even Wegner and Poyer who apparently heard the tattoo story were necessarily made "uncomfortable", but they still felt it was inappropriate and that was the issue that Sorensen brought to Joling.

I believe that with honest, competent, responsible handling, the storytelling issue should have been a matter quickly resolved with a simple discussion and reminder of proper workplace behavior, and investigator Curtis says almost exactly that in his initial report.

   The Village Board was informed of a single scope of work as confirmed by Curtis. To broaden that scope should have required a "mutual agreement of both parties". By that, we must assume that "both parties" refers to "the Village Board and HJC", not "Davel & Joling". 

   To my knowledge, no issue of broadening or changing the scope of the investigation ever came before the Village Board for approval.

Much later, when the initial report came out, we saw that the scope of the investigation had indeed been significantly changed without Board knowledge. However, neither one of the additions seems to have been worth pursuing,nor dp they appear to have anything to do with firing or making life miserable for quality employees.

 The original scope had these two added to it:

• "If the allegations are determined to be false, the original source of the allegations and the motivation behind the allegations."

• "The individuals involved in releasing information and innuendo about the investigation and allegations to the public, despite the investigation not yet commencing and the matter having only been discussed in closed session to date."

   I see no evidence that the "allegations" were actually "determined to be false" by the initial report. 

   " Unsubstantiated" is the term used, and I believe has a whole different meaning than "determined to be false" does. We apparently don't even have a clear denial from Davel  saying that he never told the story. So in my opinion, the witnesses' assertion of hearing the story was nowhere near being shown to be "false".

   The third scope seems to me to be just plain nonsense or grasping at straws. I had reported leaks to von Briesen twice as they occurred, which Joling seems to have gotten irate at me about. It looked to me like Joling himself was the source of a widely cc'd email revealing allegedly "confidential" information. Perhaps this scope was added to provide for as-needed blame-throwing distractions. I can only guess here.

   As a public figure "under investigation", I am not so sure that Davel's name or nature of the investigation should have been concealed from the public to begin with. But again, that's just my opinion.

In any case, neither of these additional scopes seem to have anything to do with Wegner. Yet, that is the direction that Curtis suddenly pursued and billed the Village for. Why?

 Mr. Curtis appears to have broadened the investigation without broadening the scope at some point. He states in item (v) of his introduction:

"While not directly related to the scope of the investigation (memorialized in an email authored by the Village Board President and included below), during the course of the investigation extremely troubling revelations were uncovered regarding the conduct of a Village employee..."

Curtis' use of the term "revelation" instead of "allegation" seems meant to convey an element of certainty which indicates to me that he was not neutral in his choice of words here. What were they, and exactly how were they "uncovered"?

The Board never voted to pay for "additional review" or to take any new "action". The fact that Curtis apparently gave so much attention to something that he himself said is "not directly related to the scope" (out of scope) indicates to me that he was directed to do so within this investigation. Who but Joling could have given that  go-ahead to pursue an entirely new subject matter?

As trustee, it was plain for me to see that once the Board approved the contracts with von Briesen and HJC, the Board was left out of any further decisions, and the direction of the investigation simply was shifted without Board knowledge or consent. 

   It is apparent to me that Joling took full though illegitimate control of the direction right from the beginning; allegedly treating this as his own private investigation, for his own personal campaign to target an employee that Joling had been disparaging and grousing against for weeks if not months.

For clarity to the reader, when I mention "Joling" in relation to this investigation, in my mind I consider him and Davel to be consistent co-operators in this operation, as it appears to me that they have been in everything else since November. The Village Administrator has a duty of care to provide competent advise for the Village's best interests. I believe that we can reasonably expect that Joling had been consistently consulting with Davel throughout this entire time period, regardless of the quality of the advice.

   I think any normal "investigation" would have automatically put Davel on administrative leave immediately. Not so, in this case.

Davel appears to have been left with plenty of opportunity for contact with employee witnesses before the interviews took place, both in person at the office and/or remotely during his "work from home" status. I don't believe that is normal for an investigation like this.

For example, Davel was reportedly observed taking two employees to the privacy of downstairs Village Hall several times on February 27, the day after the investigation was announced. Why? I don't know, but it was apparently considered unusual enough that a witness reportedly remarked on it.

Interestingly, weeks later both of these employees were secretly (closed session without proper notice to the public, and extremely vague motion in open session ) set up with a $1000 per pay period "bonus" (for lack of a better term), for additional duties which have not been determined.  See my June 21 post "Money for Nothing". 

Joling appears to me to have simply functioned as Davel's protector and willing agent throughout the pendancy of this case. More on this relationship coming up in Part 3 of this series of articles on "The Investigation".

In my opinion, Joling appears to have had a HUGE conflict of interest in how this investigation turned out. I believe that his allegedly unauthorized actions that inexplicably initiated this investigation are reason to consider him to be a "person of interest" with ulterior motives, which in turn would invoke his own personal interest of avoiding accountability for the tremendous unnecessary cost of the investigation. Hence, clearing his friend Davel and allegedly seeking a way to blame Sorensen.

Don't forget that Joling was a police chief, then a private investigator. It seems likely that he would be no stranger to how these things work and thus how outcomes might be managed. Davel likewise has a reported history at Shawano of allegedly using taxpayer funds to pursue questionable complaints against his critics, who had to pay for their own defense.

Law Firms Involved

As I related in Part 1 - I questioned the use of a law firm that has shown itself to be biased in its findings and conclusions in a previous report. Particularly when we know that they have had a prior working relationship with Davel that may interfere with objectivity.

VB&R apparently worked directly with Mr Davel very recently in 2025, with his complaints against two Shawano County supervisors.

Those supervisors had apparently been looking for answers regarding his alleged involvement in an unauthorized transfer of $1 million dollars to another account, and the alleged unauthorized spending of $600,000 out of that account.

Davel's complaints against those supervisors were perceived by many as retaliation for their inquiries into his activities. These inquiries reportedly also included looking into a number of employee complaints against Davel that were apparently ignored or unresolved, it is claimed, due to the HR director being subordinate to his direction. Intimidation, threats, and bullying have been the allegations reported among those complaints.

   A list of other employees reportedly resigned under Davel's watch, without bothering to file complaints.  One news article reports six upper level employees quitting in four months, which I believe dwarfs Kronenwetter's record.

Regarding law firms - To my knowledge, in order to avoid a perception of possible bias, favoritism, or possible conflict of interest under SCR20:1.7 and 1.9, it appears to be a matter of good practice for a law firm to decline involvement with a case resolving "a claim involving a personnel matter", when that personnel matter centered around the possible misconduct of someone (like Davel) who, as administrative coordinator for Shawano County, worked directly with that law firm on a very recent case.

I am not aware of anyone ever disclosing that relationship to the Kronenwetter Village Board. This potential conflict would seem to carry over to HJC Law firm as well, since they work closely with VB&R.

The motion by the Village at the February 26 meeting was "to authorize labor council [VB&R] to commence investigation and select an investigator regarding a claim...".

Since von Briesen selected HJC as investigator, it appears to indicate an ongoing compatible working relationship.

What is also interesting is that at that same meeting the Board voted on a motion "to continue to retain Von Briesen & Roper as labor council". How could they "continue" to retain a law firm that they did not even have a contract with until the vote on March 12?

Apparently, Joling retained that law firm without Board authorization on or around February 19 and seems to already have had legal costs sunk into the process before involving the Board. This appears to have basically committed the Board to follow through with a course of action that Joling had already started.

In summary,

I think this whole process was a shame, a sham, and yet another embarrassment to the Village.

It seems clear to me that while Wegner could have been fired by the Board at any time, certain people went through the extravagant trouble and expense of this investigation to simply to create a simulation or imitation of due process which in turn was used as an excuse to fire Mr. Wegner "with cause", along with all the alleged and potentialy mean-spirited and unjust harm to him that it implies.

As a bonus, the report seems to have had the unjust intent to somehow blame Sandra Sorensen as scapegoat for "causing" the investigation, in spite of all of her documentation to the contrary.

Falsely imputing ill-intent to Sorensen would be something that was done to me as well in the 2024 von Briesen report. The conclusion in this report that Sorensen "brought the matter to the Board" appears to me to have no factual basis, as it flies in the face reality. There seems to be no dispute over the fact that Sorensen quietly brought her concerns to Joling only, and in private.

 The facts appear to show that it was Dan Joling on his own who inexplicably contacted lawyers, then he and Trustee Stowell interviewed witnesses Wegner and Poyer who confirmed the storytelling, but adamantly denied any intentions for a complaint of any kind. Yet, Joling still persisted by calling a special meeting with the intent of pursuing an investigation for something that had no complaint, and barely even a violation to deal with. 

Investigator Curtis states:

"In addition, the way in which the allegation was communicated to the Village Board raise serious concerns as to the motivation behind the allegation". 

   I tend to agree 100% with that statement if it is applied to how Joling  seems to have handled this. However, it appears to me that Curtis turns the situation on its head and the way he presents it makes it look like this statement is directed toward Sorensen, which in turn the context magically seems to imply a reason to doubt Wegner's credibility. 

I believe that any false accusation along these lines maintained by Joling or certain other Board members against Sorensen serves only to reveal the false accusers' questionable character, and to distract attention away from Joling's apparent animosity toward Wegner, and away from his own alleged accountability as the driver of this absurd expense right from the beginning.