Why I Filed the Open Meetings Complaint

 

I'll give you the bottom line up front. The premise of this article is to show the reader that extensive evidence indicates:

•  The numerous closed session meetings held by the Village Board in the past 6 months have been unlawfully held, in violation of Open Meeting Laws  
• This has allegedly been done deliberately to conceal among other activities, a very questionable division of money to certain favored employees.  
•  This money came as an alleged result of dirty dealings by Administrator Davel, President Joling, and members of the Village Board in targeting and firing an employee in an unjustified and  malicious manner; thereby ripping off his accrued benefits. 
•  The budgeted unspent wages of this person were divvied up as spoils in a closed session without public knowledge.
• This article describes just one puzzle piece of of an alleged much larger pattern of corruption at the Village Hall since Joling and Davel "took over" Village government.
•    This corruption seems to center around Mr. Joling's crafted $40,000 "third party investigation" which extended an illusion and excuse of "confidentiality" as cover to protect Mr. Davel's alleged wrongdoings supposedly being investigated, and to conceal the above-mentioned targeting of an employee that Mr Joling and Davel wanted gone.    

   Other pieces to the larger Village picture will be posted as separate articles. Today, we are looking at the open meetings violations.

Background to the Open Meetings Complaint

Mr Joling was appointed village president just a short while before James Davel showed up for his first day on the job. Almost ever since then I noticed that they did many things with a disregard for Village ordinances, policy, state statutes or other legal requirements.

During the Milestone sand pit appeal for example, Joling appeared to carry the ball for Milestone to make sure they got their permit and multi-million dollar asset, while Davel sat on the sidelines more like a proverbial waterboy. This was probably because he was still in a 90 day probationary employment period, and trying to behave himself.

There is plenty of reason for me to believe they both participated in subverting the appeal process in favor of Milestone, and against the interests of the Village and certain residents in particular.

Mr Joling wanted me to write up a summary of legal cases that supported a denial of the sand pit permit. He insisted on it. I delivered to him and the Board a 17 page report documenting the rules of appeal, Wisconsin statutes and numerous high court decisions relevant to the sand pit appeal. He ignored it. (see separate post on the sand pit)

Later in that appeal process, Joling wanted me to write up another report detailing all the illegalities in the procedure that I felt he was conducting and that I had been complaining about, so we could send it to the Village Attorney for his legal opinion. I wrote up a 10 page memorandum to the Village Attorney Bitar, raising numerous detailed issues of wrongdoing and alleged illegalities. The Board voted unanimously to have the attorney address those issues in detail with a legal opinion regardless of cost.

The lawyer was apparently instructed otherwise, by either Joling or Davel, who was now past his 90 day review, hired full time, and no longer the waterboy lying low as he appeared to earlier but instead became a more aggressive player working toward getting the Milestone sand pit permitted as I call it "by hook or by crook".

Bottom line is that Bitar responded with a letter that effectively sidestepped his obligation to answer the points and questions and his reply acted, in my view, against basic rule of law and contrary to the best interest of the Village.

  Another example is when late in 2025 after a CLIPP committee meeting, Joling asked if I could rewrite the Village nuisance ordinance. I agreed and rewrote it in a way that complied with higher court rulings and definitions. This happened to disqualify about 80% of the ordinance which did not fit the legal definition of a nuisance. Joling didn't like it, so the ordinance remains unchanged to this day.

There you have three examples of wasting my time to, in good faith, provide facts to help Mr Joling, and even Davel get a little up-to-speed on how things are supposed to be run in an honest open government. Neither of them apparently had any intention of putting this information to good use.

There are other examples that I could relate, but the point is that I am done casting my pearls before swine. I do not believe that either Joling or Davel are interested in following any rules but those they make up on their own.

   Police Chief McHugh has publicly stated that he will not deal with complaints against public officials like Joling and Davel. I know for a fact that he has torpedoed very valid citizen complaints in the past.

    The laws that regulate government are the most important and Constitutionally-relevant laws that a free society has. They were put in place long ago for our protection. It is not reasonable to think that unethical officials are going to impose enforcement upon themselves when they abuse their positions. The bottom line here is that with an ineffective or even complicit Village Board in place, there is no accountability for wrongdoing whatsoever.  It goes without saying that it is our responsibility as the public to see to it that the government is kept in line.

So what options are left to try to correct a dysfunctional government? All we, as individual citizens can do is to try to get an adult into the room by filing complaints at a higher level like with the District Attorney.

    Whether he acts on anything or not, I cannot say, but it is our obligation to try. 

The obvious place for me to start is with Joling/Davel's numerous Open Meeting violations regarding nearly all of these closed sessions that they have been conducting in the past few months. Nearly every agenda notice that has been posted for closed sessions appear to be intentionally vague and do not comply with the letter or spirit of Wisconsin Statutes Declaration of Policy:

19.81(1) In recognition of the fact that a representative government of the American type is dependent upon an informed electorate, it is declared to be the policy of this state that the public is entitled to the fullest and most complete information regarding the affairs of government as is compatible with the conduct of governmental business.

(2) To implement and ensure the public policy herein expressed, all meetings of all state and local governmental bodies shall be publicly held in places reasonably accessible to members of the public and shall be open to all citizens at all times unless otherwise expressly provided by law.

(3) In conformance with article IV, section 10, of the constitution, which states that the doors of each house shall remain open, except when the public welfare requires secrecy,it is declared to be the intent of the legislature to comply to the fullest extent with this subchapter. 

(4) This subchapter shall be liberally construed to achieve the purposes set forth in this section, and the rule that penal statutes must be strictly construed shall be limited to the enforcement of forfeitures and shall not otherwise apply to actions brought under this subchapter or to the interpretations thereof.

Wis. Stat. § 19.84(2) states:

Every public notice of a meeting of a governmental body shall set forth the time, date, place and subject matter of the meeting, including that intended for consideration at any contemplated closed session, in such form as is reasonably likely to apprise members of the public and the news media thereof.

The May 11, 2026 Village Board meeting. As detailed below, the agenda notice for the closed session for that meeting failed to meet the legal specificity requirements mandated by statute and controlling Wisconsin Supreme Court precedent, rendering the actions taken a a result of that closed session void and subject to enforcement.

The problem is not just in this one meeting. It appears that Admin Davel and Pres Joling have made it a habit to do their deeds under the cover of illegitimate closed session meetings, based on insufficient notice on the published agenda. There are a half dozen other such meetings that should be prosecuted as well.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has defined guidelines for public notices of closed session meetings and it is not rocket science for Joling or even Davel to understand.

 A basic rule of thumb is that if you the public cannot discern what the meeting is actually about, then it is in violation of the Open Meetings Law. 

The Reasonableness Standard for Agenda Specificity

The controlling standard for evaluating the sufficiency of meeting notice is set forth in State ex rel. Buswell v. Tomah Area School District, 2007 WI 71, 301 Wis. 2d 178, 732 N.W.2d 804 (Wis. 2007). The Wisconsin Supreme Court here explicitly announced a new reasonableness standard: a meeting notice must be "reasonably specific under the circumstances of the case" and contain "such detail as will reasonably inform the public of the specific items to be considered."

The Court stated:

"We note, too, that § 19.81(1) states that the open meetings law is based on the premise that "representative government [depends] upon an informed electorate." We observe that government functions best when it is open and when people have information about its operations. It is not, however, merely a matter of enhancing the functions of government. Rather, the government must be accountable to the governed. It must be accountable to the people who underwrite government finances and provide its legitimacy. Having access to information about the workings of government undercuts arguments of subterfuge and ultimately promotes public trust and confidence. Moreover, as this court determined in Badke, the notice requirement gives the public information about the business to be conducted that will alert them to the importance of the meeting, so that they can make an informed decision whether to attend. Badke, 173 Wis. 2d at 573-74 and 577-78.", 301 Wis. 2d 178, (Jun 13, 2007)

They go on to state:

"Notice of closed sessions must contain enough information for the public to discern whether the subject matter is authorized for closed session under § 19.85(1)."

The Court identified the following factors to determine whether notice is sufficiently specific:

1. The burden of providing more detailed notice;

2. Whether the subject is of particular public interest;

3. Whether the action is non-routine and the public would be unlikely to anticipate it.

The Court specifically held that "novel issues may require more specific notice" because they "are more likely to catch the public unaware." and explicitly rejected the use of generic agenda descriptions such as "new business," "old business," "licenses," or "contracts" standing alone as insufficient notice as a matter of law. This includes vague terms like "employee pay increases" and "concerns" about employment issues.

This standard has been consistently applied by Wisconsin's Department of Justice, which advises that governmental bodies must provide notice describing "specific matters about which members of the body anticipate discussion" — including any closed sessions and the reasons therefor. See DOJ Open Meetings Law Compliance Guide (March 2025).

Closed Session Exemptions Are Narrowly Construed — Wis. Stat. § 19.85(1)(c)

Wis. Stat. § 19.85(1)(c) permits a governmental body to convene in closed session for "consideration of employment, promotion, compensation or performance evaluation data of any public employee over which the governmental body has jurisdiction or exercises responsibility." This exemption is strictly and narrowly construed; any doubt as to whether an exemption applies must be resolved in favor of openness. See Wis. Stat. § 19.83(1); DOJ Compliance Guide.

Critically, § 19.85(1)(c) applies only to specific, identified employees — not to generalized compensation policy discussions affecting entire departments or positions. Moreover, a one-time "stipend" of a type not reasonably described as a routine compensation adjustment is not self-evidently within the scope of the § 19.85(1)(c) exemption and would require specific public notice describing the nature of that action.

   In  this case, I am addressing with the May 11 meeting, which seems to me like the most aggressive, obvious violation.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The May 11, 2026 Village of Kronenwetter Village Board meeting agenda listed the following under Item 9:

"CLOSED SESSION Consideration of motion to convene into closed session pursuant to Wis. Stat. 19.85 (1)(c) for consideration of employment, promotion, compensation or performance evaluation data of any public employee over which the governmental body has jurisdiction or exercises responsibility – to wit staff's annual evaluation and/or pay increases."

After reading that, ask yourself what you envision that meeting to be about. To me it sounds like someone is having an annual evaluation, and a pay raise is being discussed. Right off the bat, the fact that it does not specify who it is, causes this notice be non-compliant with the open meetings requirements, according to the Buswell Court.

There apparently was an evaluation and a pay raise determined in that closed session. However, as yet another example of the Joling/Davel school of crooked semantics, there was much more business conducted at that meeting that was of an entirely different nature, and which the Village Board obviously did not want the public to know about. 

Shady Switcheroo - Upon coming out of closed session, Trustee Aaron Myszka made the motion "to approve the pay raises as directed by the Board", which was seconded by Trustee Stowell.

 President Joling inexplicably reworded the motion, saying "accept the recommendations by the board and direct the administrator to move on same" before taking the vote, which was approved 4-0 with President Joling and Trustee Coyle abstaining. 

 Here we see that Joling substituted a substantially new motion, overriding Myszka's original moved and seconded motion. This strange action by Joling itself appears to be telling of dishonest, pre-determined intent, and disregard for legality or Robert's Rules of Order. Joling did not bother to get a second to his new, significantly different motion. Yet, not a peep of objection or clarification came from the Board about it. They just voted in favor of it.

 It is Joling's motion, not Myszka's , which is what is reflected in the approved minutes.

 Trustee Coyle made it a point to state for the record that he had recused himself from part of the closed session.

 My follow up emails - After the meeting, on May 14 and 15, 2026, through emails with Coyle, Joling, and Clerk Poyer I was told that the following specific items of business were directed and decided in the closed session - none of which was adequately disclosed to the public in the agenda notice, and thus kept secret from public awareness:

4. Police Lieutenant pay raise. An annual pay increase was approved for Police Lieutenant Smart, who was not identified by name or position on the agenda.

5. Village Treasurer stipend of $5,000. A one-time stipend of $5,000 was approved for the Village Treasurer for extra hours worked. The Treasurer was not identified on the agenda, and the nature of a "stipend" for hours already worked is arguable altogether.

6. Three employees — additional compensation of approximately $26,000 per year each. A pay increase of $1,000 per pay period (approximately $26,000 annually) was approved for three employees — two salaried and one hourly union worker (Kim Coyle, wife of Trustee Kelly Coyle) — for "additional duties" that were neither specified in the agenda nor publicly disclosed. The recipients were not named or identified on the agenda. The action again, appears to be outside the scope of the § 19.85(1)(c) exemption.

  The funding for the compensation described in item (3) above is reported to have come from the budget line item of a recently terminated department head Peter Wegner. This raises a reasonable inference that this compensation arrangement for two of the recipients may have been pre-arranged as spoils for their cooperation in creating "cause" to fire Wegner.

This questionable activity further underscores the novelty of this subject matter and the public interest in open deliberation about how and why these employees were getting this $26,000 annual "pay increase".

This money is reportedly already being distributed at $1000 per pay period (every two weeks) to the three employees, and according to administrator Davel, there has yet to be any additional duties assigned to justify this mysterious financial windfall. 

   Also, Wegner's position required specific knowledge and experience which none of these three people even come close to possessing. 

In other words - "We'll give you the money now, and figure out why we're doing it later."

I am not familiar with Teamster Union rules, but Ihave been told that the fact that union member Kim Coyle received this payoff not granted to the other union members, creates a potential problem for the Village.

This entire extremely shady "conspiracy" for lack of a better term, is reportedly the same kind of financial shenanigans that Mr. Davel was called on the carpet for at his previous position at Shawano. Mr Joling has also been described as having "a colorful history". The question is - where are your elected representatives in questioning this $78,000 giveaway, and actually looking out for taxpayer interests?

ALLEGED VIOLATIONS

Aside from the above-mentioned alleged cronyism, let's get back to the open meetings law violations that is the subject of this post.

A. Violation of Wis. Stat. § 19.84(2) — Insufficient Agenda Notice

The agenda notice for the May 11, 2026 closed session violated Wis. Stat. § 19.84(2) and the Buswell reasonableness standard in the following specific respects:

7. Lieutenant Smart was not identified. A specific named employee's annual pay increase is not a matter the public would anticipate from language referencing only "staff's annual evaluation and/or pay increases." Under Buswell, the particular public interest in an officer's compensation required greater specificity in the notice.

8. The Village Treasurer John Jacobs and the $5,000 stipend were not identified. A one-time stipend for hours claimed to already have been worked is non-routine and of particular public interest - precisely the type of "novel" action that the Buswell Court holds as required for specific notice. For example, was there any evidence, such as time cards to show this additional work? Why did they feel the need for secrecy on this issue?

   Neither the recipient nor the nature of the action was disclosed to the public.

9. The three recipients of the $26,000 annual compensation increases were unnamed, and the action was non-routine. An extraordinary pay increase of approximately $26,000 annually for unspecified "additional duties" funded from a terminated employee's salary line is not a standard "annual pay increase", nor did it have anything to do with merit.

   This is precisely the kind of non-routine, high-public-interest action that Buswell requires to be specifically disclosed. The complete omission of the recipients' identities and the very questionable nature of the action deprived the public of any opportunity to attend, participate in public comment, or scrutinize the decision. 

Potential Violation of Wis. Stat. § 19.85(1)(c) — Actions Outside the Scope of the Closed Session Exemption

The approval of a $5,000 "stipend" for claimed hours already worked by the Village Treasurer may not fall within the § 19.85(1)(c) exemption, which is limited to "consideration of employment, promotion, compensation or performance evaluation data." A retroactive payment for past services rendered is qualitatively different from prospective compensation decisions about a "pay raise".

Because § 19.85 exemptions "must be interpreted strictly and narrowly," any doubt as to whether the stipend falls within the exemption must be resolved in favor of open session. See DOJ Compliance Guide; Wis. Stat. § 19.83(1).

Similarly, the approval of substantial pay increases for unnamed employees for unspecified "additional duties" is not a routine compensation matter. If the Board directed the administrator to allocate these funds without having identified the employees and duties in a manner that allowed for lawful closed-session consideration, the action was further outside the scope of the exemption.

ENFORCEMENT ACTION

If the DA decides to prosecute these violations, he may seek civil forfeitures against each member of the Village Board who participated in the unlawful closed session action. Up to $500.00, which the Village does not cover.

I would also hope he seeks to have the Court void the actions taken in the closed session regarding the items identified above, including the pay raise for Lieutenant Smart, the $5,000 Treasurer stipend, and the $26,000 annual increases to the three unnamed employees. Smart's pay raise would need to be properly re-approved. The other actions would have to be redone above the table in open session as well.

If the DA declines or otherwise fails to commence an enforcement action within 20 days of receiving my verified complaint, a private person can pursue enforcement on behalf of the State and upon prevailing in court, should be recompensed for legal fees.

The Buswell Court said:

"Section 19.81(4) requires that the provisions of the open meetings law be liberally construed to advance the law's purposes. This court has interpreted that requirement to merit awarding attorney fees to the prevailing relator where doing so advances the purposes of the open meetings law. Hodge v. Town of Turtle Lake, 180 Wis. 2d at 78. Such is the case here. Awarding attorney fees to Buswell will provide an incentive to others to protect the public's right to open meetings and to deter governmental bodies from skirting the open meetings law. Accordingly, we remand the case to the circuit court to determine the appropriate award.",

This article shows only one instance of the arguably subversive, underhanded pattern of behavior of Mr Joling and Mr. Davel have established as the "new normal" in Kronenwetter, and which the Village Board seems to be comfortable with. They both have a history of disgraceful activity in their previous positions, and I think their habits will lead to disaster to the Village for which you, the taxpayer will be left paying the cost.