Ethics Board — Green Bay, WI
Date: 2022-02-03
Time: 17:00

AGENDA OF THE ETHICS BOARD
 THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2022, 5:00 PM
 Virtual Meeting. Public may join via Zoom.


A. Zoom Meeting Instructions.

 1. This item contains Zoom information, instructions, and a link to the Virtual Comment Form.

B. Roll Call.

 1. William Vande Castle, Chair; Aaron Weinschenk, Vice Chair; Alder Bill Galvin; Cheryl
 Renier-Wigg; Said Hassan; Janet Hathaway

C. Approval of the Agenda.

 1. Approval of the Agenda for the February 3, 2022 Ethics Board meeting

D. Approval of Minutes.

 1. Approval of the minutes from the December 14, 2021 Ethics Board Meeting.

E. Regular Business.

 1. Discussion with possible deliberation and action on the following topics related to the Ethics
 Complaint filed by Kimber Rollin against Mayor Eric Genrich under the City of Green Bay
 Code of Conduct for Elected Officials:

 1. Recusal issues.
 2. Jurisdictional issues.
 3. Other matters and future scheduling.


 The Board may convene in closed session pursuant to Section 19.85(1)(a), Wis. Stats., for purposes of deliberating
 concerning a case which was the subject of any judicial or quasi-judicial trial or hearing before that governmental body. The
 Board will thereafter reconvene in open session pursuant to Section 19.85(2), Wis. Stats., to take action on items discussed
 in closed session, if appropriate, and to consider the remainder of the agenda.

F. Adjournment.


Agenda of the Ethics Board
February 3, 2022
Page 1
 1) THIS MEETING IS RECORDED: THE VIDEO OF THIS MEETING AND MINUTES ARE AVAILABLE ONLINE
 AT www.greenbaywi.gov
 2) ACCESSIBILITY: Any person wishing to attend who requires special accommodation because of a disability,
 should contact the City Safety Manager at 920-448-3125 at least 48 hours before the scheduled meeting time so
 that arrangements can be made.
 3) QUORUM: Please take notice that a majority or quorum of the Common Council will attend this Ethics Board
 meeting and will constitute a meeting of the Common Council for purposes of discussion and information
 gathering relative to this agenda.
 4) REPRESENTATION: The party requesting the communication, or their representative, should be present at this
 meeting.




Agenda of the Ethics Board
February 3, 2022
Page 2

AGENDA OF THE ETHICS BOARD
 THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2022, 5:00 PM
 Virtual Meeting. Public may join via Zoom.


A. Zoom Meeting Instructions.

 1. This item contains Zoom information, instructions, and a link to the Virtual Comment Form.

B. Roll Call.

 1. William Vande Castle, Chair; Aaron Weinschenk, Vice Chair; Alder Bill Galvin; Cheryl
 Renier-Wigg; Said Hassan; Janet Hathaway

C. Approval of the Agenda.

 1. Approval of the Agenda for the February 3, 2022 Ethics Board meeting

D. Approval of Minutes.

 1. Approval of the minutes from the December 14, 2021 Ethics Board Meeting.

E. Regular Business.

 1. Discussion with possible deliberation and action on the following topics related to the Ethics
 Complaint filed by Kimber Rollin against Mayor Eric Genrich under the City of Green Bay
 Code of Conduct for Elected Officials:

 1. Recusal issues.
 2. Jurisdictional issues.
 3. Other matters and future scheduling.


 The Board may convene in closed session pursuant to Section 19.85(1)(a), Wis. Stats., for purposes of deliberating
 concerning a case which was the subject of any judicial or quasi-judicial trial or hearing before that governmental body. The
 Board will thereafter reconvene in open session pursuant to Section 19.85(2), Wis. Stats., to take action on items discussed
 in closed session, if appropriate, and to consider the remainder of the agenda.

F. Adjournment.


Agenda of the Ethics Board
February 3, 2022
Page 1
 1) THIS MEETING IS RECORDED: THE VIDEO OF THIS MEETING AND MINUTES ARE AVAILABLE ONLINE
 AT www.greenbaywi.gov
 2) ACCESSIBILITY: Any person wishing to attend who requires special accommodation because of a disability,
 should contact the City Safety Manager at 920-448-3125 at least 48 hours before the scheduled meeting time so
 that arrangements can be made.
 3) QUORUM: Please take notice that a majority or quorum of the Common Council will attend this Ethics Board
 meeting and will constitute a meeting of the Common Council for purposes of discussion and information
 gathering relative to this agenda.
 4) REPRESENTATION: The party requesting the communication, or their representative, should be present at this
 meeting.




Agenda of the Ethics Board
February 3, 2022
Page 2
Virtual Meeting Instructions
Ethics Board 2-3-2022
Zoom Meeting Information


  Join Zoom Meeting
  https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88539089659?pwd=cERTdll6SFhMaEJlVDlBcXJuMVlmUT09

  Meeting ID: 885 3908 9659
  Passcode: 929926

  One tap mobile
  +19292056099,,88539089659#,,,,*929926# US (New York)
  +13017158592,,88539089659#,,,,*929926# US (Washington DC)

  Dial by your location
 +1 929 205 6099 US (New York)
 +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC)
 +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
 +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
 +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
 +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
  Meeting ID: 885 3908 9659
  Passcode: 929926
  Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kxbQ7KMBN
Public Comments
  If you wish to speak at this public meeting or leave a comment, please fill out the online
  Comment Form prior to the meeting.

Additional Information
  1. Wisconsin Open Meetings Law still applies
 a. Persons interested in speaking to an item must state their name and address for
 the minutes.
 b. Committee/Commission/Board members will still follow Roberts Rules of Order
 Newly Revised 12th edition.
  2. Please log into the Zoom meeting at least 10 minutes before the meeting begins to
 ensure a proper connection and that your technology is working.
 a. If you are a Board Member, please log into CivicClerk with a computer, laptop, or
 tablet device.
  3. Once you are in the meeting please mute yourself.
 a. You may unmute yourself when you are called upon to speak.
  4. Waiting room
 a. When you call in or connect via web or Zoom app, you will be placed in a
 “waiting room.”
 b. The meeting host will then admit you to the meeting, and mute you upon
 entrance (you will still be able to hear and or otherwise observe the meeting).
  5. Registering
 a. The host may ask you to register for the meeting. A registration link will be sent to
 you along with the invite. You’ll receive another email confirming that you’re
 registered for the meeting.
 b. If you’re using a phone, your registration will be tied to an email.
  6. Raising your hand
 a. Committee/Commission/Board members—you can either use CivicClerk and
 request to speak or you can also utilize the “raise your hand” tool in the Zoom
 platform (you’d need to use a computer or tablet) to let the host know you would
 like to speak. You can also un-mute yourself and start speaking.
 b. Persons with items on the agenda or other interested parties —you can also utilize
 the “raise your hand” tool on the Zoom platform via computer or mobile device.
 You will be allowed to speak once the committee, commission, or board has
 moved to “open the floor for interested parties to speak.” Once discussion on
 your agenda item has concluded, the host will mute you, unless the committee
 opens the floor again.
  7. What devices should I use?
 a. Smart phone (please see more detailed instructions on page 3)
 b. Land line
 c. Tablet— in advance of the meeting, please download the Zoom Meeting app by
 using either the Apple Store or the Play Store. You will be asked to input your
 name, to identify you for the meeting.
 d. Computer— you can access the meeting through a web browser by clicking on
 the meeting link, or through the Zoom Meeting app. If using the app, please
 download it in advance of the meeting. You will be asked to input your name, to
 identify yourself for the meeting.
 e. For tablet and computer users--if you download the app you may be asked to
 verify your email.
  8. Zoom etiquette
 a. Muting yourself when you’re not speaking will prevent your background noise from
 interfering with others’ ability to listen to and participate in the meeting.
 b. If you’re using a telephone, please identify yourself with your phone number and
 state your name and address before you speak. Zoom meeting hosts can see
 only your telephone number and will ask you to identify yourself.
  9. Closed session
 a. Persons in the Zoom meeting will be put into a waiting room while the
 committee/commission/board meets in Closed Session. Participants will be
 admitted back into the Zoom meeting once the committee reconvenes in Open
 Session.
 b. Persons watching a Common Council meeting live on YouTube will see a gray
 screen with the City logo during closed session.
  10. Persons interested in attending anonymously or listening to the meeting may call in by
 dialing *67 followed by the phone number in the Zoom Meeting Information box.

Calling into the Zoom meeting using a smartphone
  1. Dial the phone number listed at the beginning of this document.
  2. When prompted, enter the Meeting ID number followed by #
  3. Once you are in the meeting, notify the meeting host that you are in and state your
 name.
  4. If you do not wish to speak, please make sure your phone is on Mute
 a. If you’re using a smartphone, look at your screen and click the Mute button
 Report to the
 Ethics Board
 of the City of Green Bay


 MEETING DATE PREPARED BY
 February 3, 2022

AGENDA ITEM # E.1
Discussion with possible deliberation and action on the following topics related to the Ethics Complaint filed
by Kimber Rollin against Mayor Eric Genrich under the City of Green Bay Code of Conduct for Elected
Officials:

 1. Recusal issues.
 2. Jurisdictional issues.
 3. Other matters and future scheduling.


The Board may convene in closed session pursuant to Section 19.85(1)(a), Wis. Stats., for purposes of deliberating concerning a case
which was the subject of any judicial or quasi-judicial trial or hearing before that governmental body. The Board will thereafter
reconvene in open session pursuant to Section 19.85(2), Wis. Stats., to take action on items discussed in closed session, if
appropriate, and to consider the remainder of the agenda.

BACKGROUND


RECOMMENDATION


FISCAL IMPACT


ATTACHMENTS
1. Complaint - Rollin v Genrich
2. Lenz letter w jurisdictional arguments
3. Rollin Response to Jurisdictional and Recusal Issues
4. Genrich Reply Letter
5. Genrich Reply Exhibit




 100 North Jefferson Street, Room 608, Green Bay, Wisconsin 54301-5026
 (p) 920.448.3400 (f) 920.448.3426  greenbaywi.gov
December 9, 2021

City of Green Bay Ethics Board
c/o Attorney Michael May
Boardman & Clark LLP
1 South Pinckney Street, Suite 410
PO Box 927
Madison, WI 53701-0927

 Re: Rollin Code of Conduct Complaint

To the City of Green Bay Ethics Board,

On behalf of Mayor Genrich, thank you for giving our client an opportunity to address the jurisdictional
defects in Kimber Rollin’s Ethics Complaint (the “Complaint”), dated November 4, 2021.

The 2020 General Election was conducted to the highest standards governing elections in Wisconsin.
Mayor Genrich is proud of the city staff and election officials who worked to ensure that citizens in
Green Bay were able to exercise their right to vote. Mayor Genrich, city departments, and staff have
continued to be open and transparent, in accordance with Wisconsin law, about how the 2020 General
Election was administered. Every court that has reviewed the matter has affirmed that Wisconsin
administered the 2020 General Election in accordance with state and federal law. 1 Most recently, the
Wisconsin Elections Commission issued its decision in Carlstedt, et al. v. Wolfe, in which Mayor Genrich
was also named as a respondent, finding no probable cause that anyone violated any law or committed
any abuse of discretion related to grant funding the City received so it could run a safe and inclusive
election. Mayor Genrich absolutely denies that, at any time, he failed to live up to the “highest standard
of ethics” as described in the City of Green Bay Code of Conduct (the “Code”). The Complaint is based on
blatant, disproved falsehoods and an incorrect understanding of the law.

The Complaint also presents a number of jurisdictional issues which require dismissal: (1) The
Complaint is untimely; (2) The Complaint fails to follow the procedures set forth in the Code; (3) The
Complaint is comprised of allegations that fall outside the Code and which have already been
conclusively and repeatedly litigated.

 1 See, e.g., Trump v. Wis. Elections Comm’n, 506 F. Supp. 3d 620 (E.D. Wis.), aff’d, 983 F.3d 919 (7th Cir.

2020), cert. denied, 141 S.Ct. 1516 (U.S. 2021); Feehan v. Wis. Elections Comm’n, 506 F. Supp. 3d 596 (E.D. Wis.
2020), petitions for extraordinary relief denied, No. 20-859 (U.S. Mar. 1, 2021), vacated on remand after appeal
dismissed as moot, No. 20-cv-1771-PP, ECF No. 95 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 16, 2021); Wis. Voters Alliance v. Pence, 514 F.
Supp. 3d 117 (D.D.C. 2021); Trump v. Biden, 2020 WI 91, 394 Wis. 2d 629; Wis. Voters Alliance v. Wis. Elections
Comm’n, No. 2020AP1930-OA (Wis. Dec. 4, 2020); Trump v. Evers, No. 2020AP1971-OA (Wis. Dec. 3, 2020).
First, the Complaint is not timely. The Code provides, “A complaint under the Code must be filed no later
than one year from the date of discovery of the alleged violation.” City of Green Bay Code of Conduct, §
8.B. This is analogous to a statute of limitations in civil or criminal law. In Wisconsin, failure to file a
complaint within the applicable statute of limitations deprives the body of jurisdiction over the matter.
Hester v. Williams, 117 Wis. 2d 634, 641, 345 N.W.2d 426, 429 (1984) (Court loses subject matter
expiration after the expiration of a civil statute of limitations); State v. Muentner, 138 Wis. 2d 374, 384,
406 N.W.2d 415, 420 (1987) (Court loses personal jurisdiction over a defendant after the expiration of
the statute of limitations). Rollin’s November 4, 2021 Complaint contains no factual allegations
regarding activity which occurred in the year prior to Rollin submitting it to the clerk. The first
paragraph of the Complaint is devoted to allegations of activities that occurred in June and July of 2021.
The second and third paragraphs all pertain to allegations of activities on the date of the 2020 General
Election – November 3, 2020 – at Central Count in Green Bay. That was one year and one day prior to
Rollin’s submitting the Complaint.

The Complaint contains two references to November 4: (1) That Mayor Genrich was present at Central
Count and (2) that Mayor Genrich “allowed Michael Spitzer Rubinstein to return to Central Count and
resume his position running Central Count.” (Complaint, p. 2). To be clear, this is wildly inaccurate. A
member of the City Clerk’s staff was Chief Inspector at Central Count. Regardless, Central Count was
completed at 4:00 am on November 4, 2020. The ballots were returned to City Hall at approximately
4:40 am. Mr. Spitzer Rubinstein actually left Central Count, where had been observing, several hours
earlier, around 1:00 am. The Complaint does not contain a time stamp, but Green Bay City Hall generally
does not open to the public until 8:00 am2. Even assuming that Rollin submitted the Complaint
immediately at 8:00, that was more than a year after any of the alleged violations occurred.

Rollin also cannot claim that she did not discover the alleged violations until later. Again, under the
analogous court decisions analyzing statutes of limitations in Wisconsin, a person can only rely on this
rule if they exercised “reasonable diligence.” Jacobs v. Nor–Lake, Inc., 217 Wis. 2d 625, 634, 579 N.W.2d
254 (Ct. App. 1998). The Code encourages anyone who wishes to file a complaint to do so as soon as they
obtain relevant information. That did not happen here, to put it mildly. The allegations in the Complaint
center on activities which occurred in public and were the subject of contemporaneous media reports 3.


2 City Hall opens at 7:00 am on election days.
3 Mary Spicuzza, Wisconsin's Five Largest Cities Awarded $6.3 Million In Effort To Make Elections Safer Amid Coronavirus

Pandemic, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, July 6, 2020, available
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2020/07/06/wisconsins-five-largest-cities-awarded-6-3-million-effort-
make-elections-safer-amid-coronavirus-pand/5382546002/?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot (last visited December 9, 2021);
Katrina Nickell, Green Bay Receives $1 Million Grant For Elections, Fox11 News, July 6, 2020, available at
https://fox11online.com/news/election/green-bay-receives-1-million-grant-for-elections?src=link (last visited December 9,
2021).
The CTCL grants were unanimously approved at a July 21, 2020 public meeting of the City Council. They
were also the subject of pre-election litigation in federal court. Wis. Voters Alliance v. City of Racine, No.
20-C-1487 (E.D. Wis. October 14, 2020).

As required by law, Central Count was open for public observation until it completed its work. Wis. Stat. §
7.41. There were, in fact, many observers present. The entire process was also live-streamed on
Youtube4. This was perhaps the most-watched election in history.

Because the allegations are untimely, this Board lacks jurisdiction over the Complaint must dismiss the
Complaint without further proceeding.

Second, the Complaint does not meet the basic requirements set forth in the Code. The Code requires that:

 Attached to the complaint the person making the complaint shall provide all documents or other
 materials in the complainant’s possession that are relevant to the allegation, a list of all documents
 or other materials relevant to the allegation that are available to the complainant but not in the
 complainant’s possession, and a list of all other documents or other materials relevant to the
 allegation but unavailable to the complainant, including the location of the documents if known, and
 a list of witnesses, what they may know, and information to contact those witnesses.

City of Green Bay Code of Conduct, § 8.B. The Complaint does none of these things. It includes no effort to
attach, describe, or identify any document beyond the City Attorney’s April 21, 2021 Memorandum. That
memorandum does not support but contravenes the allegations contained the Complaint. The Complaint
does not contain any contact information or identifying information for potential witnesses, though
Rollin requested two hours to present evidence and additional time for rebuttal. It does not identify or
attach the “numerous emails, testimony from poll workers and documents” that Rollin apparently
gathered. To the extent that Rollin sought to base the Complaint on information and belief, she was
obliged to identify her sources. City of Green Bay Code of Conduct, § 8.B. She did not.

The Complaint is deficient on its face and does not follow the rules set forth in the Code for a complainant
who wishes to proceed to an evidentiary hearing. It should be dismissed.

Third, the Complaint does not describe a violation of a “requirement, prohibition, or guideline”
contained in the Code. City of Green Bay Code of Conduct, § 8.A. Rather, it is a clear attempt to relitigate
baseless allegations that the 2020 General Election was unlawful. The Complaint references only one
section of the Code – Section I – which generally describes the City’s commitment to the Code and


4 Casey Nelson, Green Bay to Live Steam Ballot Countiing Process, wncy.com, October 29, 2020, available at

https://wncy.com/2020/10/29/green-bay-to-live-stream-ballot-counting-process/ (last visited December 9, 2021).
preserving ethical behavior among elected officials. The Complaint does not describe any specific
requirement, prohibition, or guideline, other than a general allegation that Mayor Genrich failed to act
ethically. (Complaint, p. 2). The Code contains many actual prohibitions and provisions, such as a rule
prohibiting Council members from soliciting political support from City staff. City of Green Bay Code of
Conduct, § 3.D. The Complaint, on the other hand, is much more specific about other laws that Rollin
believes may have been violated: Wisconsin State Statutes Chapter 7 and sections 5.86, 5.87, and 946.12,
“among others.”

Chapter 5 and 7 of the statutes are, under Wiscosin law, enforced in the first instance by the Wisconsin
Elections Commission. Wis. Stat. § 5.05. Section 946.12 is a criminal statute, enforceable by a district
attorney or the Attorney General. None of the laws fall within the ambit of the City Code of Conduct. The
Wisconsin Elections Commission, which is the proper entity to hear such a complaint, just issued its
decision in Carlstedt, et al. v. Wolfe, Case No. EL 21-24, finding that there was no probable cause to find
that anyone, including Mayor Genrich, violated the law or committed an abuse of discretion related to the
CTCL grants. The Commission decision (which is enclosed for the Board’s convenience) is just the latest
decision in the long run of pre- and post-election litigation over Wisconsin’s November 2020 election,
including the cases cited in note 1, above. These issues have been heard and decided in other arenas. This
Board is not the proper forum for rewarmed allegations already rejected by state courts, federal courts,
and the Wisconsin Elections Commission.

Because the Complaint seeks to adjudicate issues outside the Code, and because its allegations related to
those issues have been exhaustively litigated and repeatedly found baseless, it should be dismissed.

On behalf of Mayor Genrich, we look forward to appearing before the Board on December 14. If we can
provide any additional information to the Board before that time, please contact me at
dlenz@lawforward.org or at 608-556-9120.

Thank you

Electronically signed by Daniel S. Lenz
Daniel S. Lenz
Staff Counsel
Law Forward, Inc.

CC: Kimber Rollin
 Stafford Rosenbaum LLP
January 28, 2022

Via email
City of Green Bay Ethics Board
c/o Attorney Michael May
Boardman & Clark LLP
1 South Pinckney Street, Suite 410
PO Box 927
Madison, WI 53701-0927

 Re: Rollin Code of Conduct Complaint

To the City of Green Bay Ethics Board,

On behalf of Mayor Genrich, thank you for giving our client an opportunity to provide this reply in
support of the jurisdicational arguments raised in our December 9, 2021 letter. As explained below,
Complainant Kimber Rollin’s (“Rollin”) Response to those arguments, submitted on January 18, 2022,
failed to address the jurisdictional defects that doom her original Complaint. Because those fatal defects
persist, the Complaint should be dismissed.

To be clear, not only is Rollin’s Complaint deficient under the City of Green Bay Code of Conduct (the
“Code”), it is also based on blatant falshehoods and borderline slanderous accusations. Thanks to the
dedication and work of countless city employees, poll workers, and volunteers, the 2020 General
Election was administed in full compliance with the law and in accordance with the ethical principles
applicable to the Mayor and all city officials.

Apart from the many courts and administrative agencies which have unanimously rejected the
allegations rehashed in Rollin’s Complaint, on May 4, 2021, the Common Council adopted a resolution
expressing full confidence in the City’s administration of the August and November 2020 Elections. That
resolution noted that decisions about the elections were made publicly and approved by the Common
Council, and it rejected allegations of impropriety. Similarly, the City Attorney prepared an exhaustive
report1 for the Common Council, finding “no issues affecting the integrity of the election.” Under intense
scrutiny and in the midst of a pandemic, the City of Green Bay fulfilled its obligation to the people who
live and vote in this community. While the jurisdictional problems with Rollin’s Complaint require
dismissal, the Mayor nonetheless wishes to reiterate his pride in how the City conducted the 2020
General Election.



1 Available at https://greenbaywi.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6657
 1. The Complaint is Not Timely

Rollin does not attempt to argue that she filed her Complaint within a year of the alleged events. Rather,
Rollin claims that some of her Complaint2 should nonetheless be allowed because she did not “discover”
the alleged violations until later. Rollin and Mayor Genrich agree that the Code’s timeliness rule is best
analogized to Wisconsin’s “discovery rule.” (Rollin Resp., pp. 2-3) (internal citations omitted). That’s
where Rollin’s argument falls apart, however, as she neither demonstrates any reasonable diligence nor
responds to the arguments raised by Mayor Genrich.

As Rollin points out in her Response, a party can rely on the discovery rule only if they have exercised
reasonable diligence. (Rollin Resp., p. 3). A party seeking to rely on the discovery rule bears the burden
of demonstrating that, “the delay in their discovery of the claim was reasonable.” Christ v. Exxon Mobil
Corp., 2015 WI 58, ¶66, 362 Wis. 2d 668, 866 N.W.2d 602. Parties “may not close their eyes to means of
information reasonably accessible to them and must in good faith apply their attention to those
particulars which may be inferred to be within their reach.” Spitler v. Dean, 148 Wis. 2d 630, 638, 436
N.W.2d 308 (1989).

In the Response, Rollin asserts that she discovered the facts alleged in the Complaint on or after March
12, 2021 – the date that the City of Green Bay published its responses to election-related open records
requests on its website. (Rollin Resp., pp. 3-4). That is insufficient to show that Rollin exercised any
diligence, let alone the degree of diligence required by Wisconsin law. Despite this being one the most
closely-watched elections in recent history, and despite the existence of pre-election litigation and media
reports, Rollin does not describe any efforts she undertook to find more information, other than to
passively wait for the City of Green Bay to provide documents to her. Despite arguing that reasonable
diligence is a “question of fact,” Rollin made no showing of what she did to meet that standard – for
example, by requesting documents, making inquiries, or reading news reports - and therefore has not
met her burden.

Even if the Board were willing to engage with Rollin’s reasonable-diligence argument, it fails on its face.
Having abandoned her claims regarding pre-election activity, Rollin’s Response largely discusses
allegations surrounding activity on election day, November 3, 2020. The facts Rollin cites, however,
underscore that her Complaint was not timely. Rollin recites second-hand accounts of what allegedly
occurred at Central Count on November 3, 2020. (Rollin Resp., pp. 3-5). It is not the case that this
information was outside Rollin’s grasp until March 12, 2021. As required by law, and as confirmed by
the Observer Log, Central Count was open for observation on election day. Wis. Stat. § 7.41. Even if
Rollin was not willing or able to appear as an observer at Central Count, the City of Green Bay
livestreamed the entire proceeding. Similarly, information regarding Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein was

2 Rollin makes no effort to argue that the portions of the Complaint alleging events that occurred in June and July of 2021 were

timely.
available long before November 3, 2020. In the City Attorney’s April 21, 2021 Memorandum, City
Attorney Chavez pointed out that the National Vote at Home Institute began offering best-practice
assistance in Wisconsin in the late spring of 2020. Mr. Spitzer-Rubenstein began offering support to the
City of Green Bay in mid-August. Mr. Spitzer-Rubenstein maintains a public LinkedIn profile that
identifies him as a resident of New York3.

Mayor Genrich addressed many of these facts – that Central Count was open to the public; that the
activities there were livestreamed; that many of the allegations raised in Rollin’s Complaint were the
subject of pre-election litigation and media reports – in his December 9, 2021 letter brief. Ms. Rollin
chose not to respond to those facts, which amounts to a concession. Charolais Breeding Ranches, Ltd. v.
FPC Sec. Corp., 90 Wis. 2d 97, 109, 279 N.W.2d 493 (Ct. App. 1979). In any event, the fact that the whole
proceeding was public is fatal to Rollin’s reasonable-diligence argument. Reasonable diligence is absent
“when another method of investigation probably would have discovered the defendants' identity
sooner.” Jacobs v. Nor-Lake, Inc., 217 Wis. 2d 625, 635, 579 N.W.2d 254 (Ct. App. 1998). Rollin had every
opportunity to observe Central Count, which was run by an employee of the City Clerk and comported in
every way with the legal and ethical requirements for election administration in Wisconsin and in the
City of Green Bay. Rollin chose not to do so, and then she waited too long to file this Complaint, in
violation of the procedure set forth in the City of Green Bay Code of Conduct. City of Green Bay Code of
Conduct, § 8.B. It should be dismissed as untimely.

 2. Rollin’s Complaint Does Not Allege a Violation of the Code

The Code unambiguously requires that a Complaint include the following:

 (1) The complainant’s name, address and contact information;
 (2) The name and position of the City official who is the subject of the complaint;
 (3) The nature of the alleged violation, including the specific provision of the Code allegedly
 violated; and
 (4) A statement of the facts constituting the alleged violation and the dates on which, or period of
 time during which, the alleged violation occurred.

City of Green Bay Code of Conduct, § 8.A (emphasis added). Rollin does not seem to dispute that her
November 4 Complaint did not meet this requirement. Instead, her Response generally references two
different sections of the Code – Sections 3 and 4 – which Rollin did not reference or cite in the Complaint.
Apart from being even more untimely, these new, unsworn allegations provide no information to the
Board about the nature of Rollin’s complaint. Rollin again fails to identify the specific provision of the
Code allegedly violated or what facts she believes support those assertions. Instead, she describes
Sections 3 and 4 in generalities, followed by a list of factual misstatements. Both Sections 3 and 4 contain

3 https://www.linkedin.com/in/mspitzerrubenstein/
actual provisions regarding ethical conduct in the City of Green Bay. City of Green Bay Code of Conduct,
§§ 3.A – 3.D; 4.A – 4.D (i.e., provisions requiring elected officials to refer to staff by their title followed by
last name in public meetings; prohibiting elected officials from attempting to unethically influence
purchasing decisions; and requiring elected officials to be fair and equitable in allocating public hearing
time). Apart from being baseless, Rollin’s new allegations are also unsworn, untimely, and do not follow
the procedure required by the Code.

This appears to be an attempt to fix the major problem with the Complaint – it is an effort to relitigate
before this Board various theories about the 2020 General Election that have already been debunked
elsewhere. Rollin again cites Chapter 7 of the Wisconsin Statutes, which is outside the Code and is
instead administered by the Wisconsin Elections Commission. (Rollin Resp., p. 6).

Finally, a significant number of the new factual allegations in Rollin’s Response involve Mr. Spitzer-
Rubenstein. (Rollin Resp., pp. 3-6). Mr. Spitzer-Rubenstein is not and has never been an elected official
subject to the Code. City of Green Bay Code of Conduct, § 8.A.

 3. Rollin’s Complaint Did Not Meet the Requirements of Section 8.B of the Code

Rollin simply did not respond to the Mayor’s argument that her Complaint fails to meet the
requirements of Section 8.B of the Code because it includes no information identifying documents
and/or witnesses relevant to the allegations. Here, too, Rollin’s failure to respond constitutes a
concession. Charolais Breeding, 90 Wis. 2d at 109.

Rollin’s Response attaches and references a number of publicly available documents and affidavits. If
Rollin sought to rely on these documents, the Code required her to attach them to, or at minimum to
identify them in, her Complaint. City of Green Bay Code of Conduct, § 8.A. Moreover, the information
Rollin has now provided does nothing to support her allegations The affidavit of Andrea Johnson does
not mention Mayor Genrich at all, and it confirms that an employee of the City Clerk ran Central Count.
(Johnson Aff., ¶ 26). The affidavit of Elizabeth Rankin and the declaration of Andrew Kloster similarly
have little to do with Mayor Genrich’s conduct, and neither does anything to support the allegations
contained in the Complaint. Even if these documents were credible (and they are not), they do nothing to
cure the original deficiency or avoid the necessity for dismissal.

 4. Carlstedt et al. v. Wisconsin Elections Commission

Rollin states, correctly, that on January 6, 2022, after Mayor Genrich’s December 9, 2021 letter to the
Board, several individuals filed in the Circuit Court for Brown County an appeal from the decision of the
Wisconsin Elections Commission decision in Carlstedt et al. v. Wolfe et al. That matter remains pending
before the Circuit Court.
The Wisconsin Elections Commission decision, which is the subject of the appeal and referenced in Mayor
Genrich’s December 9 letter, found no probable cause to believe that any respondent, including Mayor
Genrich, violated the law or committed an abuse of discretion in connection with the City’s receipt or use
of grants during the 2020 General Election. The decision also noted that there was a prior complaint filed
against Mayor Genrich in 2020, which was also dismissed for lack of probable cause.

 5. Requests for Recusal

As part of her Response, Rollin has requested that Board members Cheryl A. Renier-Wigg and Alder Bill
Galvin be recused from this matter, and she seems to reserve the possibility of requesting further
recusals.

Mayor Genrich has not requested the recusal of any member, and he defers to the decisions of the Board
and its members. The Mayor denies without qualification Rollin’s accusations that he has or would
improperly influence the Board or its members.

On behalf of Mayor Genrich, we look forward to appearing before the Board in February. If we can
provide any additional information to the Board before that time, please contact me at
dlenz@lawforward.org or at 608-556-9120.

Thank you

Electronically signed by Daniel S. Lenz
Daniel S. Lenz
Staff Counsel
Law Forward, Inc.

CC: Kimber Rollin
 Stafford Rosenbaum LLP
 Direct line: 608-252-9326
 Email: jpa@dewittllp.com
December 8, 2021

VIA EMAIL: kaardal@mklaw.com
Erick G. Kaardal, Esq.
Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A.
150 South Fifth Street, Suite 3100
Minneapolis, MN 55402

RE: In the Matter of Carlstedt, et al. v. Wolfe
 Case No. EL 21-24

Dear Mr. Kaardal:

As you know, the law firm of DeWitt LLP (“DeWitt”) is retained as special counsel for the
Wisconsin Elections Commission (“Commission”) with respect to the above-referenced matter.
This letter is in response to the Complaint, dated April 8, 2021, which you submitted to the
Commission on behalf of your clients, Richard Carlstedt, Sandra Duckett, James Fitzgerald,
Thomas Sladek, and Lark Wartenberg (collectively, the “Complainants”).

 Procedural History

The Complaint, brought pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 5.06, is filed against Meagan Wolfe,
Administrator of the Commission; Eric Genrich, Mayor of the City of Green Bay; Celestine
Jeffreys, the former Chief of Staff for the Green Bay Mayor and current Clerk for the City of Green
Bay; and Kris Teske, the former Clerk for the City of Green Bay. Complainants accompanied the
Complaint with an Appendix of nearly 400 pages.

By email to all parties dated May 15, 2021, DeWitt established a deadline of June 15, 2021 for
Respondents to respond to the Complaint. On June 15, 2021, Respondents Genrich and Jeffreys
filed a joint Answer (“Answer”) and supporting Affidavit of Vanessa R. Chavez, Respondent
Teske filed a response, the City Attorney for the City of Green filed a separate Motion to Dismiss
Respondent Teske, and Respondent Wolfe filed both a Response and a Motion to Dismiss All
Claims Against Her, along with a supporting brief.

By email dated June 23, 2021, DeWitt established a deadline of July 28, 2021 for Complainants to
reply. On July 28, 2021, Complainants filed a single Memorandum of Law and Appendix in the
above-referenced matter and four others (Case Nos. EL 21-29, 21-30, 21-31, and 21-33).
Respondents Genrich and Jeffreys objected to the combined Memorandum of Law and Appendix
by letter dated August 9, 2021. By email dated August 12, 2021, DeWitt notified all parties that
Complainants’ combined Memorandum of Law and Appendix were not accepted and were to be
considered stricken from the record in this matter. DeWitt permitted Complainants to file a
separate reply for this matter by August 19, 2021.
In the Matter of Carlstedt, et al. v. Wolfe
December 8, 2021
Page 2

On August 19, 2021, Complainants filed a separate Reply in the above-referenced matter, along
with a lengthy Appendix of 1077 pages. Respondents Genrich and Jeffreys again objected to the
Reply by letter dated August 24, 2021, arguing that the Reply incorporated new facts and issues
not raised in the initial Complaint. By email dated August 30, 2021, DeWitt granted Respondents
the opportunity to file a sur-reply brief no later than September 13, 2021, which deadline DeWitt
later extended to September 27, 2021 by email dated September 9, 2021. Respondents Genrich
and Jeffreys filed a sur-reply brief on September 27, 2021. Also on September 27, 2021,
Respondent Wolfe filed a reply brief in support of her motion to dismiss.

The Commission has reviewed the above-identified Complaint; Respondents’ various responses,
answers, and motions; Complainants’ Reply; and Respondents’ various sur-reply and reply briefs.
The Commission provides the following analysis and decision pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 5.06 and
the Delegation of Authority adopted by the Commission in 2018 and most recently amended on
February 27, 2020.

In short, the Commission finds that Complainants did not show probable cause to believe that a
violation of law or abuse of discretion occurred with regard to the claims asserted in the Complaint.

 Complainants’ Allegations

The Complaint states that Complainants are all Wisconsin electors residing in Green Bay,
Wisconsin. Complaint, ¶¶ 1-5. No respondent has provided any evidence to contest
Complainants’ residency.

Complainants allege that, beginning in May and June 2020, “the City of Green Bay adopted private
corporation conditions on the election process affecting state and federal elections.” Complaint,
p. 2. Specifically, Complainants object to the City of Green Bay’s acceptance of private grants
provided by the Center for Tech and Civic Life (“CTCL”), a private non-profit organization
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Complaint, ¶ 18. The Complaint alleges that the CTCL grant
money was issued pursuant to a grant application referred to as the “Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan”
(“WSVP”). Complaint, ¶¶ 25, 28. The Complaint alleges that CTCL money was accepted by the
City of Green Bay, the City of Racine, the City of Kenosha, the City of Milwaukee, and the City
of Madison. Complaint, ¶¶ 25-26, 28. The Complaint refers to these five municipalities as the
“WI-5” or “Wisconsin Five.” Complaint, ¶ 32.

By accepting the CTCL grant money and working with CTCL representatives, Complainants
allege that “Green Bay failed to comply with state laws, including obtaining from the Commission
a prior determination of the legality of the private corporate conditions in the election process, and
failed to comply with the U.S. Constitution’s Elections and Electors Clauses which guarantee the
state Legislature the exclusive role in approving Wisconsin’s legal conditions relating to federal
elections.” Complaint, p. 3. See also Complaint, ¶¶ 102-108. Complainants argue that the
acceptance of the private grant funds led to “the ubiquitous involvement of private corporations in
the Wisconsin 5 cities’ election administration prior to, during and after the election,” for which
the City of Green Bay, Complainants assert, had no legal authority. Reply, pp. 3-5.
In the Matter of Carlstedt, et al. v. Wolfe
December 8, 2021
Page 3

Complainants also argue that the acceptance of the CTCL grant money by the “Wisconsin Five”
“affected [Complainants] as a demographic group.” Complaint, ¶ 46 (“[W]ith the added private
conditions on Green Bay’s election process, the Green Bay Complainants were within a
jurisdictional boundary that affected them as a demographic group.”). See also Complaint ¶ 47
(“[B]y the Wisconsin Five cities contracting with CTCL and allied private corporations, the
Wisconsin Five cities chose to favor the Wisconsin Five’s demographic groups of urban voters
over all other voters in the State of Wisconsin.”). In their reply, Complainants went further with
this assertion, arguing that “[t]he Wisconsin 5 cities’ WSVP provisions violate the Equal
Protection Clause because it contains contract provisions picking and choosing among groups of
similarly situated voters for improved in-person and absentee voting access.” Reply, p. 4.

With respect to Respondent Wolfe, the Complaint alleges that “WEC Administrator Meagan
Wolfe … has supported the Wisconsin Five cities’ claimed prerogative to adopt private corporate
conditions on federal elections without approval by Congress, the state legislature and the
Commission.” Complaint, ¶ 100. The Complaint generally cites testimony Respondent Wolfe
gave on March 31, 2021 before the General Assembly’s Campaigns and Elections Committee
(although Complainants do not provide any specific quotations from such testimony). In their
Reply, Complainants take the position that Respondent Wolfe’s “testimony confirms an admission
of issuing an unwarranted advisory opinion on a disputed claims when the Commission itself has
that sole authority.” Reply, p. 87.

The Complaint seeks six essential forms of relief:

 Complainants first request that the Commission “investigate the circumstances and factual
 allegations asserted in this Complaint regarding the legality of Green Bay’s acts and actions
 juxtaposed against state and federal election laws to ascertain whether those election laws
 were violated.” Complaint, pp. 4, 31.

 Complainants also ask that the Commission “issue an order requiring the Administrator,
 City of Green Bay and its City Clerk to conform their conduct to Wisconsin Statutes and
 the Election and Electors Clauses, restrain themselves from taking any action inconsistent
 with Wisconsin Statutes and the Election and Electors Clauses and require them to correct
 their actions and decisions inconsistent with Wisconsin Statutes and the Election and
 Electors Clauses—including prohibiting the placement of private corporate conditions on
 state and federal elections and the involvement of private corporation and their employees
 in election administration.” Complaint, p. 32.

 Complainants request that the “Commission … issue an order declaring that Green Bay’s
 private conditions on federal elections and engagement of private corporations and their
 employees in election administration violated state law and federal law.” Complaint, p. 32.
 See also Complaint, p. 4.

 Complainants argue that the Commission should “reiterate that the Administrator may not
 render a decision without the approval of the Commission related to the legality of any
 agreement between private corporate entities and municipalities related to imposing private
In the Matter of Carlstedt, et al. v. Wolfe
December 8, 2021
Page 4

 corporate conditions on its elections or related to private corporations and their employees
 being engaged in the administration of election laws.” Complaint, pp. 32-33, 4.

 Complainants ask that the Commission consider “direct[ing] to the proper local or state
 authorities” “any further prosecutorial investigation.” Complaint, pp. 33, 4.

 “Finally, if the Commission determines that election laws were violated or that the law is
 unclear to provide the Commission itself with the ability to determine the legalities of
 private corporate conditions directly or indirectly affecting the election process and
 administration,” Complainants ask that “the Commission … make recommendations to the
 State Legislature for changes to state election laws to ensure the future integrity of the
 election process.” Complaint, pp. 4-5, 33.

 Respondents’ Asserted Defenses to Complaint

None of Respondents dispute the essential fact that the City of Green Bay accepted and received
the CTCL grant money.

Respondents Genrich and Jeffreys assert several defenses to the Complaint, including the
following:

 “Complainants fail to point to any law which prohibits the City’s acceptance of outside
 funds in order to provide a safer voting experience for its electorate, or even any law they
 claim was violated.” Answer, p. 2. Respondents Genrich and Jeffreys argue that “[t]he
 Legislature has acknowledged that current law includes no such provision [prohibiting
 municipalities from using private grant funds] by its ongoing attempts to enact such a law.”
 Answer, p. 2 (citing 2021 Wis. S.B. 207 and 2021 Wis. A.B. 173).

 “[T]he CTCL grants were issued to municipalities without regard to the partisan make-up
 of their electorates. In fact, the City was one of 218 municipalities in Wisconsin to receive
 grant funds from CTCL.” Answer, p. 3. Complainants do not contest this fact, although,
 in their reply, they cite reports from two non-profit organizations contending that “large
 cities” received the majority of CTCL funds. See Reply, pp. 7-9.

 “The Complaint is not timely.” Answer, p. 4. See also Answer, pp. 5-14.

 The Complaint “does not set forth facts establishing probable cause to believe that a
 violation of law has occurred.” Answer p. 4. See also Answer, pp. 14-16.

 “Complainants seek to have the Commission do administratively that which is the sole
 purview of the legislature: craft new election law.” Answer, p. 4. See also Answer, pp.
 22-23; Sur-Reply, p. 10 (“Complainants[’] … true goal … is to have the Commission go
 beyond its legislatively-created authority to investigate election law violations, and instead
 create a policy that will apply to future elections. The Commission is an administrative,
In the Matter of Carlstedt, et al. v. Wolfe
December 8, 2021
Page 5

 not legislative, body. The appropriate forum for Complainants’ requested policy changes
 in therefore the legislature, not the Commission.”).

The City Attorney for the City of Green Bay further argues that Respondents Genrich, Jeffreys,
and Teske are not proper parties to the Complaint. This argument is presented as follows: “[A]ll
of Complainants’ legal arguments center around the acceptance of the CTCL grant funds and
approval of how those funds were to be used. Neither the Mayor, his Chief of Staff, nor the City
Clerk, in any of their professional capacities, had authority to accept the grant. The Common
Council took that action. The named Respondents are not synonymous with the entire City
government; they have specific roles within it, and those roles do not include authority to accept
the CTCL grant funds.” Answer, p. 15. See also Motion to Dismiss Respondent Teske.

In her Response to the Complaint, Respondent Wolfe admits that she gave legislative hearing
testimony before the General Assembly’s Campaigns and Elections Committee on
March 31, 2021. Response, p. 51. However, Respondent Wolfe asserts several defenses to the
Complaint, including the following:

 Respondent Wolfe argues that the mere act of testifying before a legislative committee
 cannot be unlawful. Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss, p. 9 (citing Wis. Stat.
 § 13.35(1)).

 Respondent Wolfe argues that her “legislative testimony on March 31, 2021 cannot
 possibly have contributed to any illegality in the conduct of the 2020 Presidential election,
 which had already taken place more than three months earlier.” Brief in Support of Motion
 to Dismiss, p. 10 n.3.

 Respondent Wolfe alleges that, in her legislative hearing testimony, she declined to
 comment on the lawfulness of the municipalities’ actions, stating: “I cannot offer my
 opinion or speculation on actions of individual municipalities. … It would be outside of
 my statutory or delegated authority to determine if a municipality has acted lawfully.”
 Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss, p. 10 n.3. Complainants did not contest the accuracy
 of this quotation.

 Respondent Wolfe alleges that she “did not make any determinations as to (1) the legality
 of actions or communications by municipal officials related to municipal acceptance or use
 of private grant funds; or (2) any relations between municipals officials and outside
 consultants.” Response, p. 52.

 Respondent Wolfe denies “that she has engaged in, supported, or endorsed any activities
 contrary to federal law, state law, or directives of the Commission.” Response, p. 56. She
 asserts that, despite Complainants’ allegations that she “publicly supported” the decision
 to accept grant funding (Complaint, p. 2 and ¶ 100), Complainants failed to back their
 assertions with actual facts: “[T]he Complaints do not identify any actual actions through
 which she purportedly provided such public support, other than legislative committee
 testimony that she gave almost five months after the 2020 election had taken place, and
In the Matter of Carlstedt, et al. v. Wolfe
December 8, 2021
Page 6

 even longer after the municipalities had received and used the funds in question. Nor do
 they allege any facts concerning any non-public actions by the Administrator.” Reply Brief
 in Support of Motion to Dismiss, p. 3.

 Commission Authority and Role in Resolving Complaints Under Wis. Stat. § 5.06
The Commission’s role in resolving complaints filed under Wis. Stat. § 5.06 is to determine whether
an election official acted contrary to applicable election laws or abused their discretion in
administering applicable election laws. See Wis. Stat. § 5.06(1) (“Whenever any elector of a
jurisdiction or district served by an election official believes that a decision or action of the official or
the failure of the official to act … is contrary to law, or the official has abused the discretion vested
in him or her by law …, the elector may file a written sworn complaint with the commission….”).

The Commission has the inherent, general, and specific authority to consider the submissions of the
parties to a complaint and summarily decide the issues raised. See Wis. Stat. § 5.06(6) (“The
commission may, after such investigation as it deems appropriate, summarily decide the matter before
it….”).

Here, the essential fact underlying all of Complainants’ allegations – the City of Green Bay’s
acceptance of CTCL grant funds – is undisputed. As described below, the Commission concludes
that this essential fact fails to give rise to probable cause to find that Respondents committed a
violation of law or abuse of discretion. Therefore, the Commission issues this letter, which serves as
the Commission’s final decision regarding the issues raised in the Complaint.

 Commission Findings

A. There Is No Probable Cause To Find That Respondents Committed A Violation Of
 Law Or An Abuse Of Discretion.

Under Wis. Stat. § 5.06(1), a “complaint shall set forth such facts as are within the knowledge of
the complainant to show probable cause to believe that a violation of law or abuse of discretion
has occurred or will occur.” Probable cause is defined in Wis. Admin. Code EL § 20.02(4) to
mean “the facts and reasonable inferences that together are sufficient to justify a reasonable,
prudent person, acting with caution, to believe that the matter asserted is probably true.”
“Information which may establish probable cause includes allegations that set forth which persons
are involved; what those persons are alleged to have done; where the activity is believed to have
occurred; when the activity is alleged to have occurred and who are the witnesses to the events.”
Wis. Admin. Code EL § 20.03(3).

Complainants, therefore, have the obligation to set forth sufficient facts to show probable cause to
believe that Respondents Genrich, Jeffreys, and Teske committed a violation of law or abuse of
discretion as a result of the City of Green Bay’s acceptance of CTCL grant money, which allegedly
resulted in the adoption of “private corporation conditions on the election process” and the
“involvement of private corporations in … election administration.”
In the Matter of Carlstedt, et al. v. Wolfe
December 8, 2021
Page 7

Complainants also have the obligation to set forth sufficient facts to show probable cause to believe
that Respondent Wolfe committed a violation of law or abuse of discretion as a result of allegedly
supporting “the Wisconsin Five cities’ claimed prerogative to adopt private corporate conditions.”

The Commission concludes that Complainants have not set forth sufficient facts to show probable
cause as required under Wis. Stat. § 5.06(1), for the reasons discussed below.

 i. The Acceptance of Private Grant Money, With Or Without Conditions And
 Consultant Involvement, Is Not Prohibited By Any Law The Commission
 Administers.

This is not the first complaint the Commission has received related to the CTCL grant money. On
August 28, 2020, another complaint was filed in Case No. 20-18 asserting that several respondents
(including Eric Genrich and Kris Teske, who are Respondents in this action) acted contrary to law
and/or abused their discretion as a result of acceptance of the CTCL money. The Commission
concluded, in part, that the complaint did not state probable cause because “the complaint does not
allege any violations of election law that the Commission has authority over to enforce or
investigate.”

The Commission has “the responsibility for the administration of chs. 5 to 10 and 12 and other laws
relating to elections and election campaigns, other than laws relating to campaign financing.” Wis.
Stat. § 5.05(1). See also Wis. Stat. § 5.05(2w). A complaint under Wis. Stat. § 5.06(1) must therefore
assert a violation of one of these chapters of the Wisconsin Statutes, or “other laws relating to elections
and election campaigns.”

The Complaint in this matter cites Wis. Stat. § 7.15(1), the Elections Clause of the United States
Constitution, and the Electors Clause of the United States Constitution as the basis for
Complainants’ action. In their Reply, Complainants also referenced the Equal Protection Clause.

Respondents argue that none of these statutory or constitutional provisions explicitly prohibit the
acceptance of private grant monies or the use of outside consultants. Respondents are correct.

Wis. Stat. § 7.15(1) states that municipal clerks have “charge and supervision of elections and
registration in [each] municipality.” The municipal clerk “shall perform” certain duties specified in
subsections (a) through (k) of the statute, as well as “any others which may be necessary to properly
conduct elections or registration.” Wis. Stat. § 7.15(1). There is no language in section 7.15(1) that
prohibits municipal clerks from using private grant money or working with outside consultants in the
performance of their duties.

The Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution states as follows:

 The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall
 be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by
 Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

U.S. Const., art. I, § 4, cl. 1 (cited at Complaint, ¶ 13).
In the Matter of Carlstedt, et al. v. Wolfe
December 8, 2021
Page 8


The Electors Clause of the U.S. Constitution provides:

 Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number
 of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State
 may be entitled in the Congress.

U.S. Const., art. II, § 1, cl. 2 (cited at Complaint, ¶ 14).

Complainants argue that the Elections and Electors Clauses “provide no power to municipal
governments to adopt private corporate conditions on federal elections or to introduce private
corporations and their employees into federal election administration.” Complaint, ¶ 15.
However, Complainants do not show that either the Elections Clause or the Electors Clause of the
U.S. Constitution prohibit the adoption of private corporate conditions or the introduction of
private corporation employees into the election process.

As Respondents Genrich and Jeffreys note in their Response, two bills introduced in March 2021
demonstrate the absence, in existing law, of any prohibition on the acceptance of private grant
money or the use of outside consultants. 2021 Senate Bill 207 and 2021 Assembly Bill 173 would
prohibit any official from “apply[ing] for or accept[ing] any donation or grant of private resources”
(including “moneys, equipment, materials, or personnel provided by any individual or
nongovernmental entity”) “for purposes of election administration.” The bill would also prohibit
the appointment of any poll worker who is an employee of an “issue advocacy group.” This
language is not currently in any Wisconsin statute; nor was it in the lead up to the November 2020
election.

Furthermore, a number of courts around the country have remarked upon whether the
U.S. Constitution or federal election law prohibits the activities to which Complainants are
objecting in this action. These courts have not found such prohibitions in the U.S. Constitution or
federal laws.

For example, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin previously
concluded that a group of plaintiffs (represented by the same attorney as is currently representing
Complainants in this matter) failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of a
claim based upon similar allegations. In Wisconsin Voters Alliance v. City of Racine, No. 20-C-
1487, 2020 WL 6129510 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 14, 2020), the plaintiffs alleged that various cities
(including the City of Green Bay) were prohibited from accepting and using private federal
election grants by, among other things, the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The court
declined to grant a temporary restraining order, stating:

 Plaintiffs have presented at most a policy argument for prohibiting municipalities from
 accepting funds from private parties to help pay the increased costs of conducting safe and
 efficient elections. The risk of skewing an election by providing additional private funding
 for conducting the election in certain areas of the State may be real. The record before the
 Court, however, does not provide the support needed for the Court to make such a
 determination, especially in light of the fact that over 100 additional Wisconsin
In the Matter of Carlstedt, et al. v. Wolfe
December 8, 2021
Page 9

 municipalities received grants as well. Plaintiffs argue that the receipt of private funds for
 public elections also gives an appearance of impropriety. This may be true, as well. These
 are all matters that may merit a legislative response but the Court finds nothing in the
 statutes Plaintiffs cite, either directly or indirectly, that can be fairly construed as
 prohibiting the defendant Cities from accepting funds from CTCL. Absent such a
 prohibition, the Court lacks the authority to enjoin them from accepting such assistance.

2020 WL 6129510, at *2, appeal dismissed sub nom. Wisconsin Voters All. v. City of Racine, No.
20-3002, 2020 WL 9254456 (7th Cir. Nov. 6, 2020) (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted).

Other courts have likewise concluded that no language in the U.S. Constitution or other election-
related laws prohibits municipalities from accepting private grant money. See Election Integrity
Fund v. City of Lansing, No. 1:20-CV-950, 2020 WL 6605985, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 2, 2020)
(“Plaintiffs’ complaint and motion allege that the Cities’ receipt of grants from CTCL violates the
Constitution, the Help America Vote Act, 52 U.S.C. § 20901, et seq., and the National Voters
Registration Act, 52 U.S.C. § 20501, et seq. But Plaintiffs never identify language in any of those
laws that explicitly prohibits cities from accepting private grants to administer elections. On the
Court's review, no such explicit prohibition exists.”) (denying motion for temporary restraining
order); Iowa Voter All. v. Black Hawk Cty., No. C20-2078-LTS, 2020 WL 6151559, at *3-4 (N.D.
Iowa Oct. 20, 2020) (“Plaintiffs have not provided any authority, nor have I found any, suggesting
that the Elections Clause imposes specific limits or restrictions as to how a federal election must
be funded. … There may be valid policy reasons to restrict or regulate the use of private grants to
fund elections. However, it is for Congress and/or the Iowa Legislature, not the judicial branch, to
make those policy judgments.”); Georgia Voter All. v. Fulton Cty., 499 F. Supp. 3d 1250, 1255
(N.D. Ga. 2020) (“Fulton County's acceptance of private funds, standing alone, does not impede
Georgia's duty to prescribe the time, place, and manner of elections, and Plaintiffs cite no authority
to the contrary.”).

The Commission is persuaded by the case law cited above. Complainants have failed to identify
any existing state or federal law prohibiting the acceptance of the CTCL grant money or work with
outside consultants. Multiple federal courts have failed to find that existing law prohibits such
activities, and the Commission likewise does not find such a prohibition to exist.

Unable to cite an explicit prohibition in existing law, Complainants attempt to save their claims
with a different argument. Citing Trump v. Wisconsin Elections Commission (“Trump v. WEC”),
983 F.3d 919, 927 (7th Cir. 2020), Complainants argue that Respondents violated the Electors
Clause by committing a “diversion of … election law authority” when they accepted the CTCL
grant money. See Complaint, ¶¶ 106-107. However, this citation works against Complainants,
not for them.

The Trump v. WEC case concerned contested guidance issued by the Commission prior to the
election. In its decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit examined the
scope of the Electors Clause. “By its terms,” the court noted, “the Clause could be read as
addressing only the manner of appointing electors and thus nothing about the law that governs the
administration of an election (polling place operations, voting procedures, vote tallying, and the
like).” 983 F.3d at 926. The court acknowledged, however, that the Electors Clause has been
In the Matter of Carlstedt, et al. v. Wolfe
December 8, 2021
Page 10

applied more broadly in some instances to “encompass[] acts necessarily antecedent and subsidiary
to the method for appointing electors—in short, Wisconsin's conduct of its general election.” Id.

As examples of the Electors Clause being applied broadly, the court cited both Bush v. Gore, 531
U.S. 98 (2000) and Carson v. Simon, 978 F.3d 1051 (8th Cir. 2020). In those two cases, courts
found violations of the Electors Clause where state actors invaded the province of the legislature
without being granted such authority by the legislature.

In Bush v. Gore, for example, three Justices were critical of a departure from the legislative scheme
put in place by the Florida legislature, finding that it violated “a respect for the constitutionally
prescribed role of state legislatures.” 531 U.S. at 115 (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring) (emphasis
original). In Carson, the Eighth Circuit concluded that the Minnesota Secretary of State likely
violated the Electors Clause by adding a week to the deadline for receipt of absentee ballots. The
court remarked that “only the Minnesota Legislature, and not the Secretary, has plenary authority
to establish the manner of conducting the presidential election in Minnesota. … Thus, the
Secretary's attempt to re-write the laws governing the deadlines for mail-in ballots in the 2020
Minnesota presidential election is invalid.” 978 F.3d at 1060.

This line of authority does not support Complainants’ position because it is distinguishable from
the circumstances now before the Commission. The Seventh Circuit explains the distinction in
Trump v. WEC. The court remarked that – unlike in Bush v. Gore or Carson – the Commission
had taken actions “under color of authority expressly granted to it by the Legislature.” 983 F.3d
at 927. Accordingly, “even on a broad reading of the Electors clause,” the court could not find
that the Commission acted unlawfully. Id. The “authority expressly granted to [The Commission]
by the Legislature … is not diminished by allegations that the Commission erred in its exercise.”
Id.

Here, as in Trump v. WEC, the acceptance and use of CTCL funds was done “under color of
authority expressly granted … by the Legislature” for the charge and supervision of elections under
Wis. Stat. § 7.15(1). Even if there were errors in the exercise of that authority, those errors do not
diminish the authority and do not give rise to a violation of the Electors Clause.

Finally, Complainants attempt to assert a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. However,
courts around the country considering similar claims have cast aspersions on the argument that
acceptance of CTCL money results in a violation of equal protection law. A federal court in
Minnesota, for example, rejected that argument as follows:

 The City's actions in applying for and accepting the CTCL grant and using the grant
 money to improve all manners of voting in Minneapolis in the 2020 election affect all
 Minneapolis voters equally. All individual Plaintiffs are Minneapolis voters. Plaintiffs
 fail to explain how they will be uniquely affected by Minneapolis's actions. They assert
 that, because Minneapolis voters are statistically more likely to be progressive,
 Minneapolis's actions enhancing voting in general favor progressive voters and thereby
 suppress Plaintiffs’ votes. However, as Minneapolis residents, Plaintiffs, themselves,
 are equal recipients of Minneapolis's actions to make voting safer during the
 pandemic. The City's grant-funded expenditures will make it easier for the individual
In the Matter of Carlstedt, et al. v. Wolfe
December 8, 2021
Page 11

 Plaintiffs to vote safely for the candidates of their choosing and to have those ballots
 processed promptly, no matter which method of casting a ballot they choose. Grant money
 will be used to assist with mail-in voting; voting by absentee ballots via a secure drop box;
 voting in person at early-voting sites; voting in-person on Election Day; and voter
 education to assist voters in choosing how to vote.

Minnesota Voters All. v. City of Minneapolis, No. CV 20-2049 (MJD/TNL), 2020 WL 6119937,
at *7 (D. Minn. Oct. 16, 2020) (emphasis added).

Once again, the Commission finds this case law persuasive. Although use of the CTCL grant
money in Green Bay may have resulted in benefit to Green Bay voters over those outside of Green
Bay, and although voters within Green Bay may have the tendency to favor a particular political
party over another, that does not constitute an equal protection violation. See Texas Voters All. v.
Dallas Cty., 495 F. Supp. 3d 441, 469 (E.D. Tex. 2020) (“Ultimately, Plaintiffs’ complain that
people with different political views will lawfully exercise their fundamental right to vote. That is
not a harm. That is democracy.”). This is particularly true where other municipalities were free to
seek the same grant money as did the City of Green Bay. In fact, it is undisputed that over 200
municipalities in Wisconsin received such funding.

In an attempt to bolster their equal protection argument in their Reply, Complainants point to
language in the WSVP to argue that the CTCL grant money was used to disproportionately benefit
certain voters from within the City of Green Bay, to the disadvantage of others. However, the
WSVP was, as Complainants state, merely the grant application. Complainants provide no facts
showing that the CTCL grant money was, in fact, used to disadvantage certain segments of the
electorate over others. Absent such facts, Complainants fail to raise probable cause of a potential
equal protection violation. As the Eastern District of Wisconsin stated when dismissing the
Wisconsin Voters Alliance suit:

 Plaintiffs have offered only a political argument for prohibiting municipalities from
 accepting money from private entities to assist in the funding of elections for public offices.
 They do not challenge any specific expenditure of the money; only its source. They make
 no argument that the municipalities that received the funds used them in an unlawful way
 to favor partisan manner. Their brief is bereft of any legal argument that would support the
 kind of relief they seek.

Wisconsin Voters All. v. City of Racine, No. 20-C-1487, 2021 WL 179166, at *3 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 19,
2021).

In the absence of existing state or federal law prohibiting the acceptance of private grant money or
the use of outside consultants, the Commission cannot find a violation of law or abuse of discretion
resulting from the CTCL grant money in the City of Green Bay. To do so would be to essentially
create new election law, which is the job of the legislature, not the Commission.

Complainants urge the Commission to act notwithstanding the absence of explicit legal authority,
asserting that “the Commission is not impotent” and has been provided by the legislature “with an
arsenal of weapons to exercise its powers and duties.” Reply, p. 48. Specifically, Complainants cite
the Commission’s statutory authority to administer laws, investigate, take testimony, bring civil
In the Matter of Carlstedt, et al. v. Wolfe
December 8, 2021
Page 12

actions, and sue for injunctive relief. Id. This is all true, but Complainants do not and cannot argue
that the Commission has the authority to create law. That is undeniably the province of the legislature.

For all of the above reasons, the Commission finds that there is no probable cause to believe that
the acceptance of CTCL grant money was itself or resulted in any violation of law or abuse of
discretion.

 ii. There Is No Probable Cause To Find A Violation Or Abuse Of Discretion By
 Respondent Wolfe.

Complainants also fail to state facts sufficient to raise probable cause to believe that Respondent
Wolfe committed a violation of law or abuse of discretion, for multiple reasons.

First, although Complainants assert that Respondent Wolfe supported the City of Green Bay’s
decision to accept the CTCL grant funding, Complainants fail to identify any specific action or
statement on the part of Respondent Wolfe in which she allegedly provided such support. The
Commission does not know with whom Respondent Wolfe allegedly communicated, what
Respondent Wolfe allegedly did, what Respondent Wolfe allegedly stated, or any of the context for
such details. Without such information, the Commission finds that “a reasonable, prudent person,
acting with caution” could not find that Respondent Wolfe violated the law or abused her discretion.
See Wis. Admin. Code EL § 20.02(4).

Second, the Commission rejects Complainants’ argument (asserted for the first time in their Reply)
that Respondent Wolfe issued an unauthorized advisory opinion. Again, Complainants fail to state
any actual facts underlying that assertion. Advisory opinions are governed by clear statutory
procedures set forth in Wis. Stat. § 5.05(6a)(a). Such opinions must be requested “in writing,
electronically, or by telephone” – and there is no allegation that such a request was made. Such
opinions must be “written or electronic” – and there is no allegation that Respondent Wolfe issued
any physical or electronic writing. Advisory opinions, “[t]o have legal force and effect,” must
“include a citation to each statute or other law and each case or common law authority upon which
the opinion is based” – and there is no allegation that Respondent Wolfe ever provided such citations.
Again, given Complainants’ allegations, the Commission finds that “a reasonable, prudent person,
acting with caution” could not find that Respondent Wolfe issued any unauthorized advisory opinions.

 iii. The Commission Need Not Determine The Remaining Issues Raised By
 Respondents.

In light of its conclusion that there is no probable cause to find that the acceptance of the CTCL
grant money violated election law or constituted an abuse of discretion, the Commission need not
address Respondents’ other defenses, including those concerning timeliness and whether the
Mayor, Chief of Staff, and former City Clerk are even proper parties to an action that relates to
grant money accepted by the Common Council of the City of Green Bay.
In the Matter of Carlstedt, et al. v. Wolfe
December 8, 2021
Page 13

 Commission Decision

Based upon the above review and analysis, the Commission finds that the Complaint does not raise
probable cause to believe that a violation of law or abuse of discretion has occurred. All claims are
hereby dismissed. The Commission will not conduct its own investigation of the circumstances
and factual allegations asserted in the Complaint and will not issue an order with the declarations
Complainants have requested.

The Commission notes that Complainants also asked that the Commission direct “any further
prosecutorial investigation … to the proper local or state authorities” and “make recommendations
to the State Legislature for changes to state election laws.” Complaint, p. 33. The Commission
will not provide either of these forms of relief, both because Complainants failed to establish
probable cause and because they are not available forms of relief under Wis. Stat. § 5.06.

A party filing a complainant under Wis. Stat. § 5.06 may only request – and the Commission may
only order – that officials be required to conform their conduct to the law, be restrained from taking
action inconsistent with the law, or be required to correct any action or decision inconsistent with the
law or any abuse of their discretion. See Wis. Stat. § 5.06(1) and (6). Referring matters for
prosecution and making recommendation to the legislature are not options for relief under
section 5.06.

 Right to Appeal – Circuit Court

This letter constitutes the Commission’s resolution of this complaint. Wis. Stat. § 5.06(2).
Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 5.06(8), any aggrieved party may appeal this decision to circuit court no
later than 30 days after the issuance of this decision.

If any of the parties should have questions about this letter or the Commission’s decision, please
feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

COMMISSION



By: Jon P. Axelrod
and Deborah C. Meiners
Special Counsel

JPA:sd

cc: Commission Members
 Vanessa R. Chavez, Esq.
 Lindsay J. Mather, Esq.
 Thomas C. Bellavia, Esq.
In the Matter of Carlstedt, et al. v. Wolfe
December 8, 2021
Page 14

 Steven C. Kilpatrick, Esq.
 Ms. Kris Teske

MINUTES OF THE ETHICS BOARD
 THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2022, 5:00 PM
 Virtual Meeting. Public may join via Zoom.


 A. ZOOM MEETING INSTRUCTIONS.

1. This item contains Zoom information, instructions, and a link to the Virtual Comment Form.

 B. ROLL CALL.

1. William Vande Castle, Chair; Aaron Weinschenk, Vice Chair; Alder Bill Galvin; Cheryl Renier-
Wigg; Said Hassan; Janet Hathaway
Present: Bill Galvin, William VandeCastle, Cheryl Renier-Wigg, Aaron Weinschenk, Janet Hathaway

 C. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.

1. Approval of the Agenda for the February 3, 2022 Ethics Board meeting
Moved by Ald. Bill Galvin, seconded by Aaron Weinschenk to Approve.
Motion Passed.
Yes- Bill Galvin, William VandeCastle, Cheryl Renier-Wigg, Aaron Weinschenk, Janet Hathaway, No-
None, Abstain- None.

 D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.

1. Approval of the minutes from the December 14, 2021 Ethics Board Meeting.
Moved by Board Member William VandeCastle, seconded by Ald. Bill Galvin to Hold.
Motion Passed.
Yes- Bill Galvin, William VandeCastle, Cheryl Renier-Wigg, Aaron Weinschenk, Janet Hathaway, No-
None, Abstain- None.

 E. REGULAR BUSINESS.
1. Discussion with possible deliberation and action on the following topics related to the Ethics
Complaint filed by Kimber Rollin against Mayor Eric Genrich under the City of Green Bay Code of
Conduct for Elected Officials:

 1. Recusal issues.
 2. Jurisdictional issues.
 3. Other matters and future scheduling.


The Board may convene in closed session pursuant to Section 19.85(1)(a), Wis. Stats., for purposes of deliberating concerning a case
which was the subject of any judicial or quasi-judicial trial or hearing before that governmental body. The Board will thereafter
reconvene in open session pursuant to Section 19.85(2), Wis. Stats., to take action on items discussed in closed session, if appropriate,
and to consider the remainder of the agenda.

Parties provide statements on recusal issues. Board Member Cheryl Renier-Wigg states that she is
able to remain impartial and will not recuse herself. Alder Bill Galvin states that he is able to remain
impartial and will not recuse himself.

Parties provide statements on jurisdictional issues.

Moved by Board Member William VandeCastle, seconded by Aaron Weinschenk to enter closed
session.
Motion Passed.
Yes- Bill Galvin, William VandeCastle, Cheryl Renier-Wigg, Aaron Weinschenk, Janet Hathaway, No-
None, Abstain- None.

Moved by Staff Cheryl Renier-Wigg, seconded by Ald. Bill Galvin to return to regular session.
Motion Passed.
Yes- Bill Galvin, William VandeCastle, Cheryl Renier-Wigg, Aaron Weinschenk, Janet Hathaway, No-
None, Abstain- None.

Moved by Board Member William VandeCastle, seconded by Janet Hathaway to have Attorney May
proceed as directed in closed session.
Motion Passed.
Yes- None, No- None, Abstain- None.

 F. ADJOURNMENT.
 VERBATIM MINUTES


[Verbatim minutes are not available for the first portion of the Board meeting.]


- [Attorney Lenz] The preamble section one of the Green Bay ethics code and our initial complaint,
and then again, in her response now bringing forward allegations under sections three and four, that
those, you know, for reasons I've discussed, I don't think we really need to even address those. But
similarly she doesn't identify specific provisions, which is what the code requires for a complaint,
merely recites what's in there. There are a lot of specific provisions in the Green Bay code of ethics.
This board certainly knows that better than I ever will. None of those are addressed in Ms. Rollin's
complaint. This is more of a general grievance or an elections complaint much of which has nothing to
do with the mayor of Green Bay and has to do with a private individual who's not an elected official.
The second reason that we believe the complaint is not in conformance with the code and therefore
doesn't convey jurisdiction is that it's untimely. Ms. Rollin's response does not dispute that her
complaint was filed outside the one year after all of these events allegedly took place, but more
importantly, more than one year after the election, but she rather relies on the discovery rule. We
made the analogy and Ms. Rollin made the analogy to discovery rule under in the civil laws and the
criminal laws in the state of Wisconsin and the body of law that's developed around that that
Wisconsin does recognize a discovery rule that you have a certain amount of time after you discover
the wrongdoing or the violation to bring forward a complaint. But what Ms. Rollin did not do in her
response and cannot do is demonstrate in any way that she was diligent in trying to uncover what had
happened. And the reason she can't is that all of the events that Ms Rollin's described, you know, the
election, because many of the events she described really didn't happen, but the election took place in
public. It was by law, by practice in the city of Green Bay, by practice in the media, was a very public
event. There was no reason that a reasonably diligent or even partially diligent person who was
interested in what was happening could not have viewed what was happening in real time. Ms. Rollin's
complaints in the complaint, at least about election grant funding were subject to litigation long before
the election, much of which was reported in newspapers. This were not secret events. This is not like
a stray voltage case where the, you know, you don't find out about the damage to the livestock until
years later and have to uncover what happened. All of this happened on YouTube in public. Ms. Rollin,
like many others had every right to go to central count and observe what was going on that day. And
in fact, in her response, she attaches the observer log that identifies about 38 people who did attend
central count and who did observe what was happening that day. So, all of that is by way of saying that
Ms. Rollin cannot demonstrate that she was reasonably diligent, rather she relies on when the city of
Green Bay, more or less delivered documents to her. And then the final reason that the complaint
doesn't conform with the requirements of the code is that it contains no evidentiary information,
which is required by the code. Ms. Rollin's in her initial complaint did not identify a single document
that she relies upon. Did not identify witnesses, did not identify the basis of her beliefs. The only
document she references in the complaint is the findings of the city attorney from April of 2021, which
directly contradict many of the all allegations in her complaint. She left the board and the respondent
with no way of knowing what the basis of these allegations were beyond what she was saying and that's
a violation of what's set forth in the code, what's required for complaints. Again, now in response, Ms.
Rollin's has attempted to attach various affidavits and some other documents, frankly, none of which
support the allegations, but leaving aside, those were unsworn attachments to a later document.
They're not part of the complaint. They don't confer jurisdiction. They don't cure what was wrong in
the first place. So I'll kind of conclude with this, you know, from the beginning, from the date of the
election to today's date, these similar complaints, similar allegations that are contained here have been
part of the public narrative. Unfortunately, they've been sought, you know, they've been part of
litigation that the city's responded to other parties have responded to much of which again was subject
to considerable press. They don't belong before this body, they've been disproven. The city ran a
successful legal election in November of 2020. That fact has been proven again and again and again, and
Ms. Rollin's complaint is so lacking on its face that there's no need for the board to reconsider any of
those facts. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Mr. Galvin you're muted, I'm sorry. I'm
sorry, I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, you're muted.


- I'm sorry. Any questions from any of the board members? Nope, all right, hearing none then I'll turn
the floor over to Ms. Rollin, and Ms. Rollin part of this is really limited to the jurisdictional issues that
were raised by the mayor's responses. So it's not really into the substance of the complaint, but really
the jurisdictional issues. So in your response, kind of confine yourself to those responses and not get
into the necessarily the facts of your complaint. So the floor is yours.


- [Kimber] I don't know if I can comply with that, but, okay. So my name is Kimber Rollin. I have a
prepared statement here and I'm going to read it. I'm a resident of the city of Green Bay, Wisconsin. I
am not an attorney. I am just an ordinary citizen who filed the complaint as best I could. I filed a very
straightforward two page complaint against Mayor Genrich on November 4th, 2021. I stated that
Mayor Genrich has violated the city of Green Bay, Wisconsin code of conduct for elected officials. I'm
not an attorney. In my complaint, I also reserve the right to amend and add to it. I added a number of
affidavits and documents in my response that verify the facts that I stated in my complaint. Attorney
Lenz in his 28th, 2020 reply stated that my complaint is based on blatant falsehoods and borderline
slanderous accusations. I am insulted by that. My complaint is based on facts, supported by affidavits,
emails, news articles, and other documents. This is why we need a public hearing. The facts need to be
presented, and questions need to be answered in an open meeting for everyone to hear. I believe in
open meetings and for the public to be informed. Attorney Lenz's statement in the mayor's January
28th, 2022 reply, in my opinion, fails to give all the facts regarding the May 4th, 2021 council meeting. I
looked up the wording for the council's resolution and the resolution was that the August and
November, 2020 elections administered by the city of Green Bay were properly executed in an
accurate, safe, and secure manner and reject claims to the contrary. The resolution passed with six yes
votes and five alders abstaining and one no vote. Attorney Lenz fails to mention that the council went
into closed session for over 40 minutes and that the vote was close. Yes, the vote was six to one with
five alders abstaining, hardly full confidence. It is my understanding that Attorney Lenz in law forward
represent Mayor Genrich and the city of Green Bay pro bono. Now I'm going to focus on the ethics
complaint. I believe it was filed on time for the following reasons. In the spring of 2020 I discovered
that a man from New York ran the Green Bay central count and was significantly involved in the
election in Green Bay. I discovered this after listening to testimony at the state elections meeting on
March 10th, 2021. This is my testimony. How would I have ever known on November 3rd and
November 4th that this man from New York had that much authority at our central count.
Furthermore, the central count livestream was not recorded and therefore cannot be reviewed. It is
my understanding that the observer log was not open for observation on election day and was only
provided later because of a FOYA request. After listening to Sandy Juno testify before the elections
committee in spring of 2021, I learned that a man from Brooklyn, New York was at central count in
Green Bay telling poll workers what to do, that this new Yorker was ordering people around, that he
was working with and handling ballots, that the New York man was checking people and his poll
workers and observers, that this New York man designed the layout of central count and that he had
keys to the storage area where the voting machines were stored at the KI Center, that this New York
man was in the area where the voting machines were the Sunday and Monday prior to the election by
himself and that he had a special internet connection installed at central count, that the New York man
was provided a badge identifying him as representing the city of Green Bay as the election official.
Finally, in the spring of 2021, I learned that numerous people stated that this New York man was in
charge of central count for the Green Bay for Green Bay, and that he appeared to be running the
central count. The observer log shows that the man from New York identified as Michael Spitzer-
Rubenstein was signed into central count as an observer. This observer log also shows that he did not
sign in as an observant until after 11:00 PM on November 3rd, 2020. Mr. Rubinstein was not a poll
worker. He was not a resident of the state of Wisconsin. I think in order to administer central count
and tell poll workers what to do that he should have been at least a resident of state. I am not a
lawyer, but I think that Wisconsin statue state that the clerk is to run the central count, not a man
from New York. Over 31,891 absentee votes were counted at the KI Center. I questioned the fact
that a man from New York managed the central count for the election on November 3rd and fourth,
2020. A man from New York should not have been allowed to be one of the head people for the
central count of our city and have that much control and access to our central count. It is wrong. The
code of conduct for election officials for the city of Green Bay says that a complaint under the code
must be filed no later than one year from the date of discovery of the alleged violation. I discovered
this in the spring of 2021, that is my testimony. In researching the news articles for this response, the
first article I found was written by Hailey B Miller on November 13, 2020, 10 days after the election.
After reading some more articles on this matter, I believe that the public man from New York running
central count until after the FOYA requests were answered in January, February of 2021, I filed this
complaint within one year from the date of discovery of the alleged violation. I was not present at
central count. A livestream video of central count is discussed in the mayor's response took in my
complaint. The letter from Attorney Lenz, there is no recording of the livestream, if there is one, I
would like to review it. I was told that the city failed to preserve the livestream video. It would be nice
to have that so we could see what really happened. The livestream video would answer a lot of
question if the cameras were pointed in the right direction. I will have to present a witness as to what
they saw Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein and Mayor Genrich doing at central count. I could attach a
written transcript of the testimony before the elections commission, but I do not have that. So I
thought I could put witnesses on to tell firsthand what they saw, Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein and Mayor
Genrich doing at central count. Those people who I would ask to testify would be Sandy Juno,
Attorney Hamari, Chad Winegar, Elizabeth Rankin, Andrea Johnson, Attorney Cluster and Rex
Cotageli, Matt Razor, and Poly Razor. I believe all of these people would testify that they saw or had
documentation that Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein from New York City was one, telling poll workers
what to do, two, handling ballots, three, administering central count, four, setting up central count,
five, working in central count restricted area that Sunday and Monday before the election, six, designed
and setup the layout of central count, seven, set up a secure hidden internet line, eight, set up and used
a computer near the ballot county machines within the central count processing area. Nine, Michael
Spitzer-Rubenstein was provided a badge identifying himself as representative of the city of Green Bay
as an election official, 10, most importantly is that Mayor Genrich was present at central count and
was talking to an observing Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein. Mayor Genrich was aware of what was
occurring at central count. Attorney Lenz letter says that Mayor Genrich absolutely denies my
complaint. If the person charge appears and denies the complaint, the ethics code says that both the
complainant and the person charged may produce witnesses, cross examine witnesses and be
represented by counsel. I am requesting the opportunity to present witnesses. I would also like
additional time to find an attorney to help me. Again, I am not an attorney. In my opinion, Mayor
Genrich failed to maintain the utmost standards, a personal integrity, trustfulness, honesty and fairness
in carrying out his public duties for the November 3rd election. He allowed a man from New York to
administer the central count in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Mayor Genrich failed to comply with the
election laws by allowing a non-resident to act as a poll worker and act as head of Green Bay central
count. This is a violation of the requirements of a number of the Wisconsin state statutes. The city
clerk is to be in charge of the elections. Mayor Genrich used his position authority to allow Michael
Spitzer-Rubenstein to run central count work as poll worker and represent himself as a city employee.
Mayor Genrich allowed a non-resident to work at and control.


- Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me Mr. May.
- [Kimber] Mayor Genrich's actions have put the legitimacy.


- Point of order.


- [Kimber] Central count and integrity of the city of Green Bay into question. The city of Green Bay
and the media and books regarding the handle of the election. Mayor Greenwich has failed.


- Mr. Chairman, this is going way, way, way past what the question was as a jurisdictional issue.
Obviously Ms. Rollin has a prepared statement and we're asking for her to answer about the
jurisdictional issue. I mean, she's had so much information here, I can't follow what she's saying
anymore.


- [Kimber] This is being recorded correctly, correct? This is being recorded?


- Yes, but Ms. Rollin We're not here to make an opening statement in your case or we're not here to
present testimony or evidence. We're here to address the jurisdictional issues that were raised by the
mayor's response. I think you've covered most of it, but I'll give you an opportunity to just circle back
and make sure you've covered everything, but we're not here to provide testimony or opinions. Our
issue here is really the jurisdictional issues that were raised in the mayor's response and that's what
the purpose of tonight's meeting is. So if you wanna respond to that, that's fine, but not to make an
opening statement for your case. That's not what we're here for.


- [Kimber] May I finish the last page of my letter?


- If you can attune it to the jurisdictional responses, yes. But again, like I said, you prepared a letter, but
this is not an opening statement in your case, you've repeated a number of things that are factual issues
that would be addressed in a legal proceeding if it got that far, but we're here to address whether or
not it even gets to that point and that's the issue that needs to be focused on here tonight. So the
mayor has raised several jurisdictional issues and we're looking for your responses to those, not an
opening statement or not testimony. I think you've addressed the issue of timeliness. I don't know that
I've heard anything about addressing the issues raised by the mayor in of the sufficiency of the
complaint, if you wanna address those by all means do so. Do you have a response to the mayor's
issue regarding the substance of your complaint.


- [Kimber] I'm not sure that at this time I understand the question good enough.


- Attorney May I'm at an issue here of whether I start giving legal advice as to what the requirements
are. I think maybe I would turn it over to you for any guidance that we should deal with on this.


- Again, I don't think either you or I or the board ought to be advising her on how to bring her case. I
think that's an issue for her. As a practical matter, if there's one page left for her to read and that's all
she has, you might consider whether to just let her finish up, and then we could move on, and even
though it may not be directly relevant to the issues in front of the board, she would at least have had
her day in front of the board.


- All right, right, and again, I have no problem with that, I just wanna make sure that we're focused on
responding to all the jurisdictional issues that were raised. And from what I've heard and recall hearing,
there's a couple of the things that I don't know have been responded to, but all right, Ms. Rollin, we
note the objection from Alder Galvin and the concerns that I've raised, but go ahead and finish your
last page.


- [Kimber] Okay, thank you for the time. Okay, so finally, I do not have the affidavits that I attached to
my response when I filed this ethics complaint, I did not have the affidavits that I attached to the, my
response when I filed the ethics complaint, the affidavits attached to my response show that Mayor
Genrich was present at central count on November 3rd and November 4th. Attorney Lenz incorrectly
states in the January 28th reply that the affidavit of Andrea Johnson does not mention Mayor Genrich
at all. I would like to point out that the affidavit of Andrea Johnson states on page two, number 21, the
following, I notice that the mayor was present during the morning and evenings, sometimes talking
with Mr. Spitzer-Rubenstein, Attorney Lenz has misstated the facts regarding this affidavit. Attorney
Lenz has stated a blatant falsehood. Attorney Lenz goes on to state that these sworn affidavits are not
credible. I am sure that Attorney Cluster, Elizabeth Rankin and Andrea Johnson believe that their
sworn affidavits are truthful and very credible, but the truthfulness and credibility issue is one for the
fact finder determined during testimony. I believe that I have one year from March 12th, 2021 to file
this ethics complaint. That is the date that the FOYA responses were made public. I discovered this
matter in the spring of 2021, therefore the time period for filing has not yet run and I asked that I
would be allowed to mend the complaint or refile it and attach all of the documents that support the
facts that I have stated in my complaint. And if required restate the specific parts of the code of ethics
that were violated. I am also able to provide affidavits and documentation to support each and every
statement that I have made in my complaint. Mayor Genrich should appear before this committee and
explain his conduct. Mayor Genrich should appear and answer all questions regarding the role that
Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein played at Green Bays central count on election. I support the city of Green
Bay staff, entirely, I do. I love this city, but not a man from New York. I believe that any appearance of
impropriety regarding the November 3rd, 2020 election is unacceptable. I believe that everyone's vote
must count. I believe in election integrity and justice for all in this situation. Thank you.


- All right, I think from a procedural standpoint, we would give Attorney Lenz an opportunity to
respond to what was related if he chooses to do so. Attorney Lenz.


- [Attorney Lenz] Thank you, Mr. Chair, I'll be very brief. I appreciate the opportunity. First, I'll direct
a, well, maybe I'll leave that to the end. So I wanna focus first on what we did not hear from Ms. Rollin.
We did not hear responses or as to the two of the deficiencies pointed out in the complaint that it did
not contain any evidentiary basis and that it did not specify a provision of the code, those appeared to
be uncontested and we knew that to a certain extent from the written response as well. I think leaving
aside the timeliness issue that sufficient cause for the board to find that there's no jurisdiction here.
The complaint simply does not meet the requirements of the code. I respect that Ms. Rollin is not an
attorney, but she was clearly able to review the code to find out that the complaint had to be sworn
and had to include her address. They're not particularly difficult provisions. So I think that's enough,
but just addressing a few more items, Ms. Rollin asked as part of her argument on timeliness, how
would I have known, how would I have known what was happening at central count, central count was
public. She, you know, it was available to her. There was a live stream. I appreciate that it wasn't
recorded, but that's not really the point. The point is that it was accessible to everybody across the
country, across the world. If you were interested in what's happening in central count, it was available.
And I think without, and I completely agree that we're not here to discuss facts, but what we did hear
in terms of the allegations that are of interest to Ms. Rollin is that they're not allegations under the
Green Bay code of ethics. They appear to be allegations at best under Wisconsin election law. Many of
them appear to be directed at any elected official, but at another individual. And again, I don't think this
board should find it as jurisdiction to further proceed on that type of complaint. So I do have one
question similar to the question that the chair raised at the beginning in a response to a point that Ms.
Rollin made. My copy of the affidavit of Andrea Johnson goes from paragraph 11 to paragraph 23 and
does not appear to contain the allegations she discussed. If I had an in incomplete copy, I apologize. I
certainly did not mean to misrepresent any documents. The copy I have does not include the language
that she discussed. I did just wanna address that because it was out there. And so I'll leave with this,
you know, we've heard a number of reasons why this complaint must be dismissed, why the board
should take no further proceedings in this matter. I don't want to disguise the fact that the mayor
however, is proud of how the election was run, is proud of city staff, is proud of particularly the
members of the clerk's office who ran this election, who ran central count, who did an amazing job
under really difficult circumstances. And, you know, this election was important and it was conducted
in accordance with the law is because it was so important and because it's so important to give the
voters of the city of Green Bay their voice, and that's what happened here and I don't want that to be
lost. So again, I'm more than happy to answer any questions the board may have, but I'll leave it there.
Thank you.


- All right. Any questions from any member of the board to either Ms. Rollin or Attorney Lenz? All
right, hearing none, then our next item on the agenda if I get back to the right page here is any sort of
any other matters that need to be addressed, other matters in future scheduling. Having heard from
both sides here, in addition to their filings and the information that they've provided tonight, obviously
we were at a point where a decision, some decisions need to be made on these issues before we
proceed to the, proceed to the next step in this process. Normally in these situations, we would
adjourn in for discussion with legal counsel as to how we proceed next, and then don't know that any
decisions would necessarily be made tonight, but we would then come back into open session to at
least address where we are with those discussions from closed session. So, unless there is any other
issues that need to be addressed, at this point, I would propose that we adjourn into closed session
under section 19.85 sub one, sub A that's provided in the agenda and for deliberating concerning the
issues that were presented this evening. Attorney May any comments on your side of this?


- Not at this time.


- Okay, so I would make the motion to adjourn into close session, is there a second and go through
the process.


- I'll second, I'll second, Aaron.


- All right, Aaron has a second. So let me just read the statement that put into the record that the
board may convene in closed session pursuant to section 19.85 sub one, sub A of Wisconsin statutes
for the purpose of deliberating concerning the case which was the subject of any judicial or quasi
judicial trial or hearing before that governmental body. The board will thereafter reconvene in open
session pursuant to 19.8, section 19.85 sub two of the Wisconsin statutes to take action on items
discussed in closed session, if appropriate, and to consider the remainder of the agenda. Just note for
the record that the only other item on the agenda would be adjournment. So we have a motion and a
second, Attorney Mather would you take a roll call vote on this as to approval of the, or action on this
motion?


- You bet, Alder Galvin?


- Yes.


- Chair VandeCastle?


- Yes.


- Ms. Renier-Wigg?


- Yes.


- Mr. Weinschenk?


- Yes.


- Ms. Hathaway?


- Yes.


- All right, so we got a motion and a second, and a role call to approve going into closed session to
discuss this matter further, and it's been approved. So we will adjourn then into closed session. And
Attorney Mather, will you put us into the appropriate room here to allow us to do that?


- You bet, just bear with me in just a moment, thanks.


- Certainly.


- Go ahead.


- All right, thank you. We are, I guess, technically still in closed session, but we are finished with our
discussions and we are ready to reconvene an open session. So is there a motion to leave closed
session?


- Make a motion to leave closed session.
- And is there a second?


- Second.


- All right, we have a motion and a second. Attorney Mather, do you want us to take this by roll call or
just by voice vote?


- Just a voice vote is fine.


- Yeah, that's what I thought. All right, so all in favor of returning to open session, please signify by
saying aye?


- [Multiple Board Members] Aye.


- Any opposed? Motion carries, so we are now back in open session. So let me give a recitation of
where we are here. We've had a discussion concerning the issues that were raised, both the
jurisdictional and some of the procedural issues that were raised by the parties in open session before
we went into closed session. We've had an extensive discussion and back and forth on this and what
we have done is directed Attorney May to put into writing our findings of fact conclusions of law and
decision that we will review and then return with a decision based on those findings. So procedurally,
what we're going to do is adjourn this meeting tonight, or wait until Attorney May submits to us the,
his draft of the findings of fact conclusions law and judgment for us to review, we will meet again in the
future after we receive those documents. We'll start off in that meeting, going back into closed session
to review attorney May's proposed draft to make sure it's consistent with our discussions from this
evening, and then we will come out of open session at that meeting and deliver our decision with the
findings of fact and the conclusions. But we want, because of the legal issues that were involved here,
we want Attorney May to provide us with the direction in how to respond to those. So that's the
course of action that we've decided upon from our closed session discussion. Any comments from the
board? Hearing none, I then think we're right for a motion to adjourn.


- I think, sorry just to interject, I think we've previously had like a motion to proceed as directed or
for the attorney to proceed as directed in closed session just so we have like a decisive action item on
this.


- That's correct.


- All right, So I will make the motion that Attorney May proceed as directed in the closed session and
that we move forward on that basis. Is there a second?


- I'll second.


- All right, thank you, Janet. All in favor of, or any further discussion regarding the motion? Hearing
none, all in favor of the motion to direct Attorney May to proceed with our discussions based on our
discussion closed session, signify by saying aye.


- [Multiple Board Members In Unison] Aye.


- Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries. Now, is there a motion to adjourn? We have a motion,
is there a second?


- I'll second.


- All right, we have motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye.


- [Multiple Board Members In Unison] Aye.


- Very good, we are adjourned. Thank you everyone. We will be back in touch once we have Attorney
May's draft and then we will be back in touch with everybody to schedule the next motion or the next
meeting of the ethics board. Thank you all very much, and good evening.


- And just a reminder to the ethics board members, we do have a meeting next Thursday same time,
same place.


- Yes.


- Thank you all.


- All right, very good, thank you.


- Thank you for your time.