Ethics Board — Green Bay, WI
Date: 2020-10-07
Time: 17:00

AGENDA OF THE ETHICS BOARD
 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2020, 5:00 PM
 Virtual Meeting. Public may attend via Zoom.


A. Zoom Meeting Information.
 1. This item contains documents which provide call in information and instructions for the
 Zoom Meeting.
B. Roll Call.
 1. William Vande Castle, Chair; Alder Bill Galvin; Branka Bakovic; Chari Graham; Cheryl
 Renier-Wigg; Aaron Weinschenk
C. Approval of the Agenda.
 1. Approval of the Agenda for Wednesday, October 7, 2020.
D. Approval of Minutes.
 1. Approval of the Minutes from the September 1, 2020 Ethics Board Meeting.
E. Regular Business.
 1. Hearing on the following Motions filed in the matter of the Ethics Complaint against Alder
 John Vander Leest, filed by Mr. Tarl Knight, under the City of Green Bay Code of Conduct
 for Elected Officials:
 - Motion to Specify Plaintiff's Claim with Particularity and Clarity filed by Alder Vander
 Leest on August 31, 2020
 - Motion to Suppress filed by Mr. Knight on September 18, 2020
 - Motion to Dismiss filed by Alder Vander Leest on September 18, 2020
 - Motion to Suppress filed by Mr. Knight on October 2, 2020




Agenda of the Ethics Board
October 7, 2020
Page 1
 2. Deliberations and action on the Motions filed in the matter of the Ethics Complaint against
 Alder John Vander Leest, filed by Mr. Tarl Knight, under the City of Green Bay Code of
 Conduct for Elected Officials.

 The Board may convene in closed session pursuant to Sections 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 governing 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.




 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
October 7, 2020
Page 2

AGENDA OF THE ETHICS BOARD
 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2020, 5:00 PM
 Virtual Meeting. Public may attend via Zoom.


A. Zoom Meeting Information.
 1. This item contains documents which provide call in information and instructions for the
 Zoom Meeting.
B. Roll Call.
 1. William Vande Castle, Chair; Alder Bill Galvin; Branka Bakovic; Chari Graham; Cheryl
 Renier-Wigg; Aaron Weinschenk
C. Approval of the Agenda.
 1. Approval of the Agenda for Wednesday, October 7, 2020.
D. Approval of Minutes.
 1. Approval of the Minutes from the September 1, 2020 Ethics Board Meeting.
E. Regular Business.
 1. Hearing on the following Motions filed in the matter of the Ethics Complaint against Alder
 John Vander Leest, filed by Mr. Tarl Knight, under the City of Green Bay Code of Conduct
 for Elected Officials:
 - Motion to Specify Plaintiff's Claim with Particularity and Clarity filed by Alder Vander
 Leest on August 31, 2020
 - Motion to Suppress filed by Mr. Knight on September 18, 2020
 - Motion to Dismiss filed by Alder Vander Leest on September 18, 2020
 - Motion to Suppress filed by Mr. Knight on October 2, 2020




Agenda of the Ethics Board
October 7, 2020
Page 1
 2. Deliberations and action on the Motions filed in the matter of the Ethics Complaint against
 Alder John Vander Leest, filed by Mr. Tarl Knight, under the City of Green Bay Code of
 Conduct for Elected Officials.

 The Board may convene in closed session pursuant to Sections 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 governing 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.




 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
October 7, 2020
Page 2
Virtual Meeting Instructions
Ethics Board 10-7-20
Zoom Meeting Information

 Join Zoom Meeting
 https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86379879818?pwd=S1VUY2ljQzltaDRTSDFnMkM3UE5MZz09
 Meeting ID: 863 7987 9818
 Passcode: 963728

 One tap mobile
 +13126266799,,86379879818#,,,,,,0#,,963728# US (Chicago)
 +19292056099,,86379879818#,,,,,,0#,,963728# US (New York)

 Dial by your location
 +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
 +1 929 205 6099 US (New York)
 +1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown)
 +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
 +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
 +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
 Meeting ID: 863 7987 9818
 Passcode: 963728
 Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kbhc5xMl5v




 1 Zoom Meeting Instructions for Members and Persons Attending Meetings—City of Green Bay
Additional Information
1. Wisconsin Open Meetings Law still applies
 a. Persons interested in speaking to an item must give their name and address
 b. Committee/Commission/Board members will still follow Roberts Rules of Order
2. All zoom meetings will have a password in the instructions. Please enter when prompted.
3. Please log into the Zoom meeting 10 minutes before the meeting starts to ensure proper technology is working.
 a. If you are a Board Member, please log into CivicClerk with a computer, laptop, or tablet device.
4. Once you are in the meeting please mute yourselves.
 a. You may unmute yourself when you are called upon to speak.
5. Waiting room
 a. When you call in, all callers/participants will be placed in a “waiting room.”
 b. Persons on the agenda will be admitted to the meeting, and then once the item is concluded, the host
 will permanently mute you from the meeting (you can still hear the meeting).
6. Using Zoom with a tablet or computer
 a. Tablet—you will be asked to sign in. Download the app either with the Apple Store or the Play Store
 b. Computer—you will be asked to sign in. You may download the app or click on the link to open Zoom in
 your browser.
7. 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 still be tied to an email.
8. Raising your hand
 a. Committee members—you can either use CivicClerk and request to speak or you can “raise your hand”
 in the zoom meeting (you’d need to use a computer or tablet) to let the host know you’d like to speak.
 You can also un-mute yourselves and start speaking.
 b. Persons on the agenda—you can “raise your hand” but you’d need to use a computer. You will be
 allowed to speak, per Wisconsin Open Meetings Rules, once the committee has “opened the floor for
 interested parties to speak.” Once the committee is finished with your agenda item, the host will mute
 you permanently, unless the committee opens the floor again.
9. What devices should I use?
 a. Smart phone (please see more detailed instructions on page 3)
 b. Land line
 c. Tablet—well in advance of the meeting, please download the Zoom Meeting app before you join a
 meeting by using either the Apple Store or the Play Store. You will be asked to input your name, thus
 identifying you for the meeting. You’ll also be asked to verify your email.
 d. Computer—well in advance of the meeting, please download the Zoom Meeting app, but you can also
 click on a link to open the Zoom Meeting in your browser. You will be asked to input your name, thus
 identifying you for the meeting.
 e. For tablet and computer users--if you download the app you will be asked to verify your email.
10. Zoom etiquette
 a. Muting yourselves when you’re not talking 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 name before you
 speak. Zoom meeting hosts can see only your telephone number and will ask you to identify yourselves.
11. Closed session
 a. Persons in the Zoom meeting will be put into a waiting room while the committee meets in Closed
 Session. Participants will be admitted back into the Zoom meeting once the committee reconvenes in
 Open Session.
 b. Persons watching live on YouTube will see a gray screen with the City logo during closed session.
12. Persons interested in attending anonymously or listening to the meeting may call in by dialing *67 followed by
 the phone number above.
 2 Zoom Meeting Instructions for Members and Persons Attending Meetings—City of Green Bay
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 #
 a. If you’re using a smartphone, you can access the keypad by clicking “Keypad” on your screen




3. Once you are in the meeting, notify the meeting host that you are in and state your name.
4. If you do not need to talk, please make sure your phone is on Mute
 a. If you’re using a smartphone, look at your screen and click the Mute button




 b. If you’re using a computer, you should see a Mute button in the Zoom application




 3 Zoom Meeting Instructions for Members and Persons Attending Meetings—City of Green Bay
 Report to the
 Ethics Board
 of the City of Green Bay


 MEETING DATE PREPARED BY
 October 7, 2020

AGENDA ITEM # C.1
Approval of the Agenda for Wednesday, October 7, 2020.

BACKGROUND



RECOMMENDATION



FISCAL IMPACT



ATTACHMENTS
None




 100 North Jefferson Street, Room 608, Green Bay, Wisconsin 54301-5026
 (p) 920.448.3400 (f) 920.448.3426 greenbaywi.gov
 Report to the
 Ethics Board
 of the City of Green Bay


 MEETING DATE PREPARED BY
 October 7, 2020

AGENDA ITEM # D.1
Approval of the Minutes from the September 1, 2020 Ethics Board Meeting.

BACKGROUND



RECOMMENDATION



FISCAL IMPACT



ATTACHMENTS
None




 100 North Jefferson Street, Room 608, Green Bay, Wisconsin 54301-5026
 (p) 920.448.3400 (f) 920.448.3426 greenbaywi.gov
 Report to the
 Ethics Board
 of the City of Green Bay


 MEETING DATE PREPARED BY
 October 7, 2020

AGENDA ITEM # E.1
Hearing on the following Motions filed in the matter of the Ethics Complaint against Alder John Vander
Leest, filed by Mr. Tarl Knight, under the City of Green Bay Code of Conduct for Elected Officials:
- Motion to Specify Plaintiff's Claim with Particularity and Clarity filed by Alder Vander Leest on August 31,
2020
- Motion to Suppress filed by Mr. Knight on September 18, 2020
- Motion to Dismiss filed by Alder Vander Leest on September 18, 2020
- Motion to Suppress filed by Mr. Knight on October 2, 2020

BACKGROUND



RECOMMENDATION



FISCAL IMPACT



ATTACHMENTS
1. Scheduling Order 9-4-20
2. VANDERLEEST - Witness and Exhibit List
3. VANDERLEEST - DDDDfacebook- Vanderleest exhibit (14277060)
4. VANDERLEEST - vandmots11XX copy copy
5. VANDERLEEST - VANBFWWWW QQQ
6. VANDERLEEST - rhon
7. VANDERLEEST - vandspecificityNNNNNN
8. KNIGHT - Knight vs. Vanderleest Argument Brief
9. KNIGHT - List of Witnesses and Diagrams
10. KNIGHT - List of Witnesses to Subpoena
11. KNIGHT - Motion to Suppress
12. KNIGHT - Motion to Suppress Motion to Dismiss
13. VANDERLEEST - VANDSTATEMENT
14. VANDERLEEST - weryimage0TTTTTTQQQQ
15. VANDERLEEST - WISCONSIN ETHICS COMMISSION AA
16. KNIGHT - Knight vs. Vanderleest Argument Brief
17. VANDERLEEST - Davison case is not binding precedent here
18. VANDERLEEST - SEC230
19. VANDERLEEST - Vanderbrief1111XX


 100 North Jefferson Street, Room 608, Green Bay, Wisconsin 54301-5026
 (p) 920.448.3400 (f) 920.448.3426 greenbaywi.gov
20. VANDERLEEST - legal argumentX R
21. VANDERLEEST - motionsvanderleest###^^^^^
22. KNIGHT - ethics-evidence-blocked
23. KNIGHT - ethics-evidence-blocked2
24. KNIGHT - ethics-evidence-campaign-page
25. Tarl Knight v. John VanderLeest - Complaint




page 2 of 2
 Sheet1

 09/10/20

John Vanderleest
Witness and Trial List

By: Atty. Rob Miller

Witnesses

John Vanderleest




Exhibits

Everything previously
filed

Chris Wery Affidavit

Georgetown Law Center
article

Statement from GB
School Bd member on
death threats and
social media training to be
 obtained




 Page 1
 Before the City of Green Bay
 Ethics Board

________________________________________________

Tarl Knight, Complainant

vs.

John S. Vanderleest, City Council Member, Respondent

_________________________________________________

The respondent, by his counsel, Robert J. Miller moves for a dismissal of the
charges based upon the following individual bases :


1. The charges regarding the social media section of the Ethics Code should be dismissed because
there is no applicable cases barring the respondent from deleting or restrictng access to
his website. He has complied with all applicable requirements. Further, the Ethics code does not
appear to cover the use of social media.

2. The charge regarding violation of the public meeting section (section 4 of the Code of Ethics
should be dismissed because the operation of a website or facebook page is not a public meeting.
“Public meeting” has clear definitions in routine parlance, in legal terms, and in the the Wisconsin
statutes.

Moreover, the Ethics Board by applying the public meeting standard would essentially be re-writing the
ordinance well beyond the plain meaning of its terms. The Ethics board has not been delegated the
power to enact new ethics rules.

3. Section 230 of the Communication Decency (previously cited in documents) preempts any action
by state and local government against the sponsor/manager of a web site. The actions of policing a
website’s content fall within this area. The action should be dismissed on this basis.

4. Vanderleest arguably followed the current advice of the Wisconsin Ethics Board. This board
ostensibly grants Wisconsin officials the right to manage facebook posts. He should not be be
punished while in compliance with the guidance of the Wisconsin Ethics Board.


5. Vanderleest and his colleagues were given no instruction on the use of social media. The Ethics
Board moves to impose guidelines retroactively and recast ethics guidelines (public meeting
definitions) after the fact. This is a separate basis for dismissal.


6. The City of Green Bay Personnel Policy cited in the complaint would not be applicable to an
Alderman. In any event, the policy outlines that each City of Green Bay site is solely owned by the
City. The section requiring compliance with all applicable social media rules ( 24.3) has no
applicability to a personal/campaign website produced by a city council member.
7. The legislative action creating the Ethics Board neither adopted nor promulgated procedural and
evidentiary rules for its proceedings. Therefore, the proceedings have no constitutional validity and are
violative of basic due process ( Wisconsin and U.S. Constitutions).

8. The application of these rules in the midst of a political campaign creates one set of rules for the
incumbent and another for the challenger. The action should be dismissed because of its violation of
the constitutional requirements for equal protection of the laws ( Wisconsin and U.S. Constitutions).


Dated this 18th of September 2020

Robert J. Miller
_______________________
Robert J. Miller
Attorney for Alderman Vanderleest
227 S. Van Buren St.
Green Bay, WI 54301
Before the Ethics Board of Green Bay

Tarl Knight,Complainant


vs.


John S. Vanderleest, Respondent

_______________________________________________________________________________
BRIEF SUPPORTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS


I. The charge regarding violation of the public meeting (section 4 of the code of ethics) should
be dismissed because the operation of a website or Facebook page is not a “public meeting” in
the context of the Code of Ethics. It has a clear definition in routine parlance, in legal terms, in
the Wisconsin statutes, and in the city of Green Bay ordinances


A. We have a specifc defiiiioi of public meeiiig ii Wiscoisii via ihe
opei meeiiigs law: Ii is ihe coiveiiig of members of a goverimeiial body for ihe purpose of
exercisiig respoisibiliiies auihoriiy power or duiies delegaied io or vesied ii ihe body.
Seciioi 19.82 (2) Wiscoisii Siaiuies.


The caselaw further illuminates the statute by stating that a meeting contemplates at least
two members per the statute,Plourde vs. Horner, et.al, Court of Appeals,2006 WI App 147 at
paragraph 14:

 In other words, we require the public to be granted access to discussions
 among governmental body members so that the public can be informed
 of the debate and decision-making process that occurs between the
 body’s membership. But it would be absurd, if not impossible, to require an
 open meeting notice whenever a body of one would set out to contemplate
 a pending issue. We do not believe the legislature intended to
 require public soliloquies by single-member governmental bodies.


If the term “public meeting” is not limited to its defnition and clear meaning, then
what limits a complainant from including anything as a “public meeting?”
A chance meeting on the street, or in a store, or at a place of worship suddenly
becomes a public meeting where the offcial is subbect to the rules of the ethics code.
At that point, what portion of a public offcial’s life is not subbect to the code?

B. The plaii meaiiig of “ public meeiiig” does ioi iiclude Facebook
exchaiges.

Wisconsin courts have held that the statutory interpretation “begins
with the language of the statute. If the language is plain we ordinarily stop the
inquiry,”Bruno vs. Milwaukee County 2003 WI 28 at paragraph 8.

There is no ambiguity in the common understanding of public meetings.
We have defnitions in the Wisconsin statutes and in Green Bay’s ordinances.

Importantly, the understanding of a statute or ordinance does not
involve a search for ambiguity where there is none: “This is not to say that interpretation will
always be straightforward and easy --bust that we should not make it gratuitously roundabout
and complex,”Antonin Scalia and Bryan Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal
Texts (2012) at p. 70.

C. The rule of leiiiy ii ihe iiierpreiaiioi of ordiiaices/siaiuies works agaiisi ihe expaisioi of ihe
meaiiig of “public meeiiig io iiclude facebook exchaiges.

The rule of lenity has been defned as follow: “Ambiguity in a statute defning a crime or
imposing a penalty should be resolve in the defendant’s favor,” Antonin Scalia and Bryan
Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (2012) at p. 296.

The rationale for this rule is that it is the legislature, not the budiciary
that shall impose the penalty:

 The rule that penal laws are to be construed strictly is founded on the
 tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals and on the plain principle
 that the power of punishment is vested in the legislative not the budicial
 department. It is the legislature not the court which is to fnd a crime and
 ordain it's punishment, United States vs. Wiltberger, 18
 U.S. (5 Wheat) 76 at p. 95 (1820)

This rationale argues for the standard meaning of “public meeting.”
A punitive ordinance, once drafted, does not grow to encapsulate new conduct.
Rather, it is strictly construed per its meaning to protect the rights
of the defendant.

As the Supreme Court stated in United State vs. CIO, 335 U.S. 106 at 142 (1948) ,when the
state seeks to punish, it must do so with a clarion prior warning and clarity:


 The conduct proscribed must be defned specifcally so that the person
 or persons affected remain secure and unrestrained in the rights to engage
 in activities not encompassed by the legislation. Blurred signposts to criminality
 will not suffce to create it.

In this instance, the council members have been not offered training in appropriate internet
conduct ( see affdavit of Council Member Chris Wery). The Council is considering
mandatory internet social media training months after Vanderleest has been charged with an
ethics violation ( see communication of Alderperson Dorff, appended). It is as if the city
withholds guidance on social media use until a council member is ensnared by a potential
ethical trap.
D. The aciioi of ihe Ciiy of Greei Bay via a coisiiiueii body (ihe Eihics Board) declariig ihai
iiieriei aid facebook exchaiges are “public meeiiigs” will subjeci ihe ciiy io ihousaids of opei
meeiiigs law violaiiois.

If the city now believes its internet and facebook exchanges are “public meetings.” There are
presumably thousands of open meetings violations as the city failed to properly notice those
meetings.

The potential fnancial ramifcation of this transmutation of “public meeting” could be
enormous.




II. The Ethics board is not empowered to legislate by re-writing city ordinances.

The complaint references a city personnel policy on the subbect of social media, etc.
If the Council wished to expand that policy to the City Council it would have been a very
easy step to do so. It chose not to include social media conduct.

The legislative power of the City of Green Bay is vested in its City Council. It is not vested in
a an unelected regulatory board—the Ethics Board. The City Council did not delegate to the
Ethics Board the right to legislate. The arrogation of this power by the Board
to itself is, at a minimum, obbectionable.

It is situation directly out of Alice in Wonderland for the Ethics Boardto re-write, re-cast, and
transmute an ordinance, and then fnd a member in violation of the newly-minted ordinance
and/or interpretation.



III. Section e3 of the Communications Decency Act pre-empts any state or local action
which is contrary to the act. The act is appended.

The relevant section is this:

3)State law
Noihiig ii ihis seciioi shall be coisirued io preveii aiy Siaie from eiforciig aiy Siaie law ihai is
coisisieii wiih ihis seciioi. No cause of aciioi may be broughi aid io liabiliiy may be imposed uider
aiy Siaie or local law ihai is iicoisisieii wiih ihis seciioi.

The act of evading the statute”s mandates is not achieved by calling obbectionable conduct by
another name. Punishing people for responsible policing of internet sites is banned by the
act.
IV. There is no violation of any controlling rule of law

The action of policing website or facebook content does not violate any case which
is controlling precedent in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

 Ironically, real public meetings have the restriction of content and access that the complainant
condemns when exhibited on the internet. Section 2.06 (11) of the city’s ordinances provides
as follows:

 Righis of oihers io address ihe couicil: No persoi oiher ihai q member of ihe
 shall address ihe couicil uiless ihe rules are suspeided ,excepi uider ihe order of
 busiiess for ihai purpose.

A member of the public does not have a blanket right to address the council or its committees.
His time may be limited or elminated entirely. This is not viewed as violation of the ethics
code.

Moreover, the public does not have a constitutional right to have a public offcial listen to
them, Morgan vs. Bevin, 298 F. Supp 3d 1003 (E.D. Ky. 2018) at 1011.

 There is “no constitutional right as members of the public to a government
 audience for their policy views.” Minn. State Bd. for Cmty. Colleges v. Knight,
 465 U.S. 271, 286 (1984). Governor Bevin is under no obligation to listen to
 Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs have no Constitutional right to be heard in this
 precise manner. “Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court's case law
 interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition
 require government policymakers to listen or respond to individuals'
 communications on public issues.” Id. at 285. Governor Bevin
 has chosen to effectively, “ignore” those on Facebook he deems are not
 following the line of conversations he has decided to start on Facebook.
 Smith v. Ark. State Highway Emp., Local 1315, 441 U.S. 463, 466 (1979) (holding,
 in part, “the First Amendment does not impose any affrmative obligation
 on the government to listen [or] to respond.”) Governor Bevin’s Twitter
 and Facebook accounts


It would be farfetched to sanction a public offcial for refusing to take a phone call, failing to
open and read a letter, or refusing to meet with a member of the public. However, that is the
direction that this enforcement action leads.

Quite the opposite is true regarding policing an internet/facebook site. The Wisconsin Ethics
Board appears to approve of state offcials managing facebook pages. In addition, the court in
Morgan vs. Bevin approved conduct similar to that of Mr. Vanderleest.


V. Complainants motion to suppress has no application to this proceeding.


 A motion to suppress is classically fled to suppress evidence in a criminal proceeding
where the government has violated the defendant’s rights.
 It underlines the lack of rules in this proceeding. There appear to be virtually no
procedural or evidentiary rules. At the very least, there are no written rules that were given
to the litigants at the outset of this proceeding.

 If Mr. Knight seeks to police and edit the evidence that the Ethics board hears, then
it is manifest that the same control needs to be present in the management of website and
facebook content.



VI. Conclusion


A public offcial should not have to engage in a scavenger hunt to determine the applicable
ethical guidelines and when they apply. The offcial, when subbect to an ethics proceeding,
should not have to guess at the procedural rules and evidentiary standards.

Both situations are present in this proceeding. No one would reasonably believe that the
operation of a facebook site is a “public meeting” accordingly to the terms of the ethics code

To change the meaning of terms after the fact and conclude that conduct is obbectionable is as
lawless as it is astonishing.

Brown County has already dismissed a complaint by Mr. Knight. The City of Green Bay
should do likewise.


Respectfully submitted by:

s/ R. Miller
_______________________
Attorney R. J. Miller
Attorney for Council Member John Vanderleests
September 25, 2020
7 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening
of offensive material
U.S. Code


(a)FindingsThe Congress finds the following:
(1)The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to
individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and
informational resources to our citizens.
(2)These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as
the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.
(3)The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political
discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
(4)The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans,
with a minimum of government regulation.
(5)Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational,
cultural, and entertainment services.
(b)PolicyIt is the policy of the United States—
(1)to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and
other interactive media;
(2)to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other
interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
(3)to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information
is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer
services;
(4)to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies
that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online
material; and
(5)to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity,
stalking, and harassment by means of computer.
(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of
any information provided by another information content provider.
(2)Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account
of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the
provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or
otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical
means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
(d)Obligations of interactive computer service
A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer
for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider,
notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or
filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material
that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information
identifying, current providers of such protections.


(e)Effect on other laws
(1)No effect on criminal law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title,
chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any
other Federal criminal statute.


(2)No effect on intellectual property law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.


(3)State law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is
consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under
any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.


(4)No effect on communications privacy law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.
(5)No effect on sex trafficking lawNothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be
construed to impair or limit—
(A)any claim in a civil action brought under section 1595 of title 18, if the conduct underlying the
claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 of that title;
(B)any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge
would constitute a violation of section 1591 of title 18; or
(C)any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge
would constitute a violation of section 2421A of title 18, and promotion or facilitation of prostitution is
illegal in the jurisdiction where the defendant’s promotion or facilitation of prostitution was targeted.
(f)DefinitionsAs used in this section:
(1)Internet
The term “Internet” means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal
interoperable packet switched data networks.


(2)Interactive computer service
The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software
provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including
specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or
services offered by libraries or educational institutions.


(3)Information content provider
The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in
part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other
interactive computer service.


(4)Access software providerThe term “access software provider” means a provider of software
(including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:
(A)filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
(B)pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or
(C)transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.
(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title II, § 230, as added Pub. L. 104–104, title V, § 509, Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat.
137; amended Pub. L. 105–277, div. C, title XIV, § 1404(a), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–739; Pub. L.
115–164, § 4(a), Apr. 11, 2018, 132 Stat. 1254.)
U.S. Code Toolbox
Late Communicaton 9-592020
To the mayor’s ofce:
Due to concerns from citiens regarding recent social media comments made and
actons ta"en,  by city elected ofcials,  and my belief that members of city council
may not be well informed as to current best practce regarding social media,  I am
requestng a mandatory training for all alders and other elected ofcials,  possibly
held during a city council meetng,  clearly delineatng what is and is not
appropriate use of social media by an elected ofciala


Alder Dorf District -
Council Meetng 9-5920
 Before the Ethics Board
 of the City of Green Bay
_________________________________________________________________

Tarl Knight, Complainant


vs.


John S. Vanderleest
Respondent

________________________________________________________________________
MOTION TO SPECIFY PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM WITH PARTICULARITY AND CLARITY
_________________________________________________________________________


The respondent, by his attorney, Robert J. Miller moves as follows:


1. That the plaintiff be required to state, in writing, with particularity and clarity how Davison vs.
Randall (17-2002), a 4th Circuit Court of Appeals case, binds and requires an alderman in Green Bay,
Wisconsin to conform with its dictates. More simply stated, the plaintiff should explain why and how
the Davison case applies to Green Bay, Wisconsin and the City Council’s Code of Ethics.



Dated this 31st day of August 2020

 Robert J. Miller
__________________________
Robert J. Miller
Attorney for Alderman J. Vanderleest
227 S. Van Buren St.
Green Bay, WI 54301
920 853 6455
TARL KNIGHT
Complainant

vs.

JOHN S. VANDERLEEST
Respondent
____________________________________________________________________________

 ARGUMENT

 The formal complaint which I, the Complainant, filed against the Respondent accuses the
Respondent of having continuously blocked well-meaning constituents’ and taxpayers’ social
media accounts, as well as deleting relevant posts and comments posted by them to their local
representative’s official government social media account, which has been declared a “public
forum” by several prominent federal First Amendment cases. Such material as has been blocked
and/or deleted by the Respondent was concerning serious, community-related issues (such as
opinions and suggestions relating to proposed taxes, proposed construction projects, and
proposed alternative parking methods), and had not contained any amount of profanity or
insulting material, all of which the aggrieved parties will corroborate and a particular instance of
which has already been submitted.

 Regarding the issue of standing, Section 8 of the City of Green Bay Code of Conduct
clearly states “any person” may file a formal complaint provided they satisfy the listed
conditions:

 Any person who believes a [sic] Elected official, in his/her official capacity, has violated
 a requirement, prohibition, or guideline set out herein may file a sworn complaint with
 the City Clerk identifying (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 facts constituting the alleged violation and the dates on
 which, or period of time during which, the alleged violation occurred.

 The formal complaint concerns the Complainant as well as any taxpaying members of the
community. The material at issue will be further specified by the aggrieved parties if afforded the
opportunity. Until the respective parties are permitted to testify further as to the content of the
deleted posts and comments, the Respondent’s strawman argument of the material at issue
containing illicit or injurious statements, and so permitting deletion, are yet completely
invalidated.
 The conduct at issue, blocking and/or deleting citizens’ well-meaning, relevant posts and
comments regarding city issues, clearly violates the basic standards set by the City of Green
Bay’s Code of Conduct for public officials and their government social media accounts, which
have been declared to be public forums by multiple federal First Amendment cases, such as
Knight First Amendment Institute vs. Trump​ (2019) and ​Davison vs. Randall​ (2019).

 Only last year, federal courts affirmed public officials’ social media accounts to indeed
constitute public forums, citing ​Davison vs. Randall​ (2019):

 “Public officials may not retaliate against speech they dislike by suppressing expression
 on social media... The suppression of critical commentary regarding elected officials is
 the quintessential form of viewpoint discrumination against which the First Amendment
 guards.”

 Further, citing ​Knight First Amendment Institute vs. Trump​ (2019):

 “[T]he First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media
 account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise open
 online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees.”

 Section 1 of the City of Green Bay Code of Conduct states:

 [M]embers of the Common Council and Mayor shall maintain the utmost standards of
 personal integrity, trustfulness, honesty, and fairness in carrying out their public duties,
 avoid any improprieties in their roles as public servants, comply with all applicable laws,
 and never use their City position or authority improperly or for personal gain.

 Section 4 of the City of Green Bay Code of Conduct states:

 No signs of partiality, prejudice, or disrespect should be evident on the part of individual
 Council members toward an individual participating in a public forum. Every effort
 should be made to be fair and impartial in listening to public testimony. The Council
 members are expected to demonstrate, both publicly and privately, their honesty and
 integrity, and to be an example of appropriate and ethical conduct. All Council members
 should convey to the public their respect and appreciation for the public’s participation,
 input, and opinions.
 The Complainant maintains the actions of the Respondent have constituted habitually
suppressive behaviour, which automatically and categorically violates the City of Green Bay’s
Code of Conduct, and similar actions by public officials violating the First Amendment have
been criticised by multiple federal authorities throughout the years. The formal complaint filed
against the Respondent holds merit, and the Complainant urges for any aggrieved parties
outlined by the formal complaint to have the opportunity to testify as proof.

Thank you,




Tarl Knight
TARL KNIGHT
Complainant

vs.

JOHN S. VANDERLEEST
Respondent
____________________________________________________________________________

 LIST OF WITNESSES

Mark Zahn, 1100 Chantel Street, Green Bay, WI 54304, was blocked August of 2017.
Abbey Vizelka, 1009 Chantel Street, Green Bay, WI 54304, was blocked April of 2020.
Bethe Lane, 1841 7th Street, Green Bay, WI 54304, had numerous posts and comments deleted
between 2016-2020.
Jon Schultz, 1755 Chateau Drive, Green Bay, WI 54304, had numerous posts and comments
deleted between 2016-2020 and was blocked April of 2020.
Jennifer Jacobson Carew, 1696 Forest Glen Drive, Green Bay, WI 54304, was blocked June of
2017.
Wendy Coriell, currently of 407 Arbutus Avenue #307, Oconto, WI 54153, was blocked April of
2020.
John A. Vanderleest, 1616 9th Street, Green Bay, WI 54304, has been alleged to have managed
and curated the “Green Bay City Council – John S. Vander Leest” social media account as a
proxy for Alderman John S. Vanderleest.

Sincerely,




Tarl Knight




(Attachments)
 Conversation between Jon Schultz and the “Green Bay City Council – John S. Vander Leest”
social media account about numerous deleted comments/posts, dated 10 April 2020. Note how
 the account has been labelled by Facebook as an official “Politician” account, not a “Political
 Campaign” account.
  Comment/post by Wendy Coriell, posted to the “Green Bay City Council – John S. Vander
Leest” social media account, and statement about deletion of said comment/post made by Wendy
 Coriell, 21 April 2020.
Comment/post by Mark Zahn, posted to the “Green Bay City Council – John S. Vander Leest”
social media account, and statement about deletion of said comment/post made by Mark Zahn,
 dated 16 August 2017.
 Statements about deletion of comments/posts and about having been blocked, made by
 (clockwise) Bethe Lane, Jon Schultz, Wendy Coriell, Jennifer Jacobson Carew, and Abbey
 Vizelka, respectively, 23 April 2020.

Diagram showing the difference between available features while having been blocked by the
“Green Bay City Council – John S. Vander Leest” social media account and while not having
 been blocked, 23 April 2020.
Diagram showing clear similarities between numerous postings made by John A. Vanderleest’s
“Brown County Clerk of Courts” social media account and John S. Vanderleest’s “Green Bay
 City Council – John S. Vander Leest” social media account, May 2018-March 2020.
TARL KNIGHT
Complainant

vs.

JOHN S. VANDERLEEST
Respondent
____________________________________________________________________________

 LIST OF WITNESSES TO BE SUBPOENAED

Mark Zahn
Abbey Vizelka
Bethe Lane
Jon Schultz
Jennifer Jacobson Carew
John A. Vanderleest

Sincerely,




Tarl Knight
TARL KNIGHT
Complainant

vs.

JOHN S. VANDERLEEST
Respondent
____________________________________________________________________________

 MOTION TO SUPPRESS

 I, the Complainant, am requesting a motion to strike the affidavit signed by Green Bay
Area School Board member Rhonda Sitnikau and submitted by the Respondent 13 September
2020. Ms. Sitnikau has not been listed as a potential witness by the Respondent, nor as an
aggrieved party by the Complainant. Although I am familiar with Ms. Sitnikau and am
particularly sensitive to Ms. Sitnikau’s situation, its relevance to the material at issue is unclear
and completely unrelated to the original formal complaint and its claims against the Respondent.
 Further, I have since corresponded with Ms. Sitnikau, who was clearly unfamiliar with
the case and how the Respondent plans to connect the affidavit to the material at issue.

Thank you,




Tarl Knight
TARL KNIGHT
Complainant

vs.

JOHN S. VANDERLEEST
Respondent
____________________________________________________________________________

 MOTION TO SUPPRESS

 I, the Complainant, am requesting a motion to strike the Respondent’s motion to dismiss,
signed and filed 18 September 2020. The Respondent’s motion is not pertinent to the sections of
the City of Green Bay’s own Code of Conduct which were cited by the original formal
complaint. Its sections regarding the City of Green Bay’s Personnel Policy, social media
instruction for public officials, and the remainder of its content are still not pertinent to the City
of Green Bay’s Code of Conduct which was cited by the original formal complaint.

Thank you,




Tarl Knight
WISCONSIN ETHICS COMMISSION ADVICE:

First Document: Explaining purpose and advice to local governments ( from their web site)

Second Document: Table indicating that legislator and staff can “manage” facebook posts

Third Document: Complete document containing advice on social media use

Fourth Document: Additional advice on social media use


We find almost no restrictions on public officals use of social media except insofar as it restricts
the use of public money for some activities.
8/20/2020 Ethics Requests for Advice




e of Wisconsin
hics Commission




Requests for Advice
Requesting advice from the Wisconsin Ethics
Commission
Any individual, either personally or on behalf of an organization or governmental body, may request of
the Ethics Commission an advisory opinion regarding the propriety under the ethics, lobbying, or
campaign finance laws of any matter to which the person is or may become a party. Any appointing
officer, with the consent of a prospective appointee, may request of the Ethics Commission an advisory
opinion regarding the propriety of any matter to which the prospective appointee is or may become a
party.


Conﬁdentiality
Written requests for advice and the Commission's replies are confidential unless made public by the
requestor. No member or employee of the Ethics Commission may make public the identity of anyone
requesting an advisory opinion or of persons mentioned in an opinion. Periodically, the Commission
publishes summaries of its opinions after making sufficient alterations to prevent the identification of the
requestor and persons mentioned in the opinions.


How to request an advisory opinion
A request for an advisory opinion of the Commission may be made in writing or electronically. The
request should state each question upon which an opinion is desired, present all relevant facts, be as
specific as possible, identify the names of all parties that are pertinent to the question, and include
references to pertinent law known to the requestor. Requests should be submitted to the Commission
Administrator or addressed generally to the Commission. Please see the Contact Us
(/Pages/AboutUs/ContactUs.aspx)page for current contact information.

A request posed by an attorney-at-law on a client's behalf should also set forth: a tentative conclusion
upon each question presented, the reasoning upon which that conclusion is based, and all relevant
statutory provisions, case law, opinions of the Attorney General, prior opinions of the Ethics
Commission, and other authorities, whether or not they support the tentative conclusion concerning the
questions presented.


https://ethics.wi.gov/Pages/Resources/RequestAdvice.aspx 1/3
8/20/2020 Ethics Requests for Advice

A request requiring the resolution of questions of fact should not be submitted because the Ethics
Commission cannot resolve factual issues in an opinion. A local public official may request an advisory
opinion relating to the code of ethics for local government officials, Wis. Stat. § 19.59, from the attorney
for the official's local unit of government. A local government attorney may seek advice from the Ethics
Commission.


Requesting opinions - County, municipal and other local
government attorneys
Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 19.59(6), a county corporation counsel, an attorney for a local governmental
unit, or a state-wide association of local governmental units may ask the Wisconsin Ethics Commission
to issue an opinion concerning the interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 19.59, the Code of Ethics for local
government officials, employees and candidates. Written requests for advice are confidential. No
member or employee of the Ethics Commission may make public the identity of anyone requesting an
advisory opinion or of persons mentioned in an opinion. Periodically, the Commission publishes
summaries of its opinions after making sufficient alterations to prevent the identification of the
requestor and persons mentioned in the opinions. The Statutes do not authorize the Commission to
issue an opinion to an official or representative of a local government other than the local government's
legal counsel.

A request from a county corporation counsel, an attorney for a local governmental unit, or a state-wide
association of local governmental units should:

 State on whose behalf the opinion is requested.
 State each question upon which an opinion is desired.
 State all of the facts giving rise to each question presented.
 Set forth a tentative conclusion upon each question presented and the reasoning upon which that
 conclusion is based.
 Set forth and analyze all relevant statutory provisions, case law, prior opinions of the Ethics
 Commission, and the authorities whether or not they support the tentative conclusion concerning
 the questions presented.

A request requiring the resolution of questions of fact should not be submitted because the Ethics
Commission has no authority to decide questions of fact. The Ethics Commission does not issue
opinions on whether past conduct has violated the law. Although the foregoing criteria are subject to
exception when the circumstances warrant, a request which does not meet these criteria may be
returned and the requestor asked to resubmit the request in an appropriate form.


Advisory Opinion Request Process
Upon receipt of a valid opinion request, staff will confirm receipt with the person making the advisory
opinion request. Staff will then prepare an analysis of the request and document relevant statutes, case
law and constitutional law. For formal opinion requests, staff will also confirm with the requestor
whether or not they wish to request a public hearing on the matter. Upon completion of the analysis of
the request, staff will contact the Commission to schedule the opinion request for the next available
Commission meeting. At the Commission's discretion, a special Commission meeting may be schedule to



https://ethics.wi.gov/Pages/Resources/RequestAdvice.aspx 2/3
8/20/2020 Ethics Requests for Advice

address the request if the requestor can demonstrate the need for such urgency. Requestors may also
wish to consider an informal advisory opinion for urgent matters. Please see the section below for
additional information about informal advisory opinion requests.


Informal Advisory Opinions
At its March 7, 2017 meeting the Ethics Commission delegated the authority to issue informal advisory
opinions. A copy of the adopted policy and the delegation of authority is available here:  Ethics
Commission Policy - Delegation of Authority for Informal Advisory Opinions.pdf
(/Resources/EthicsCommissionPolicy-DelegationOfAuthorityForInformalAdvisoryOpinions.pdf). As
required by Wisconsin Statutes, the Commission shall review each informal advisory opinion at its next
scheduled meeting.


Evidence of intent to comply with law
It is prima facie evidence of intent to comply with the Ethics Code for State Public Officials (subch. III,
ch. 19, Wisconsin Statutes) and the lobbying law (subch. III, ch. 13, Wisconsin Statutes) when a person
refers a matter to the Ethics Commission and abides by the Commission's advisory opinion, if the
material facts are as stated in the opinion request. Wis. Stat. § 19.46(2).
 Wisconsin.gov (https://www.wisconsin.gov)
 Campaign Finance Information System (CFIS) (https://cfis.wi.gov)
 
 Eye on Lobbying (https://lobbying.wi.gov) Financial Disclosure (https://sei.wi.gov/) (https://twitter.com/
 Contact Us (/Pages/AboutUs/ContactUs.aspx)

 Copyright © State of Wisconsin All Rights Reserved




https://ethics.wi.gov/Pages/Resources/RequestAdvice.aspx 3/3
TABLE AT PAGE 8
 2020 ETH 01
  CAMPAIGN FINANCE & ETHICS – 50-PIECE RULE AND MIXED-USE SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS


You are a legislative staff person. You have asked for an advisory opinion regarding the use of
official legislative social media accounts and legislative office budgets for various types of
communications when under the restrictions of WIS. STAT. § 11.1205 (“the 50-piece rule”).

Summary:

It is the opinion of the Commission that legislators and legislative staff may use official legislative
social media accounts and legislative office budgets as described below.

Analysis:

 A. Wisconsin’s 50-Piece Rule

The questions in this section primarily require the application of WIS. STAT. § 11.1205:

11.1205 Use of government materials by candidates.
 (1)
 (a) Except as provided in sub. (2), no person elected to state or local office who becomes
 a candidate for national, state, or local office may use public funds for the cost of
 materials or distribution for 50 or more pieces of substantially identical material
 distributed after:
 1. In the case of a candidate who is nominated by nomination papers, the first day
 authorized by law for circulation of nomination papers as a candidate.
 2. In the case of a candidate who is nominated at a primary election by write-in
 votes, the day the board of canvassers issues its determination that the person
 is nominated.
 3. In the case of a candidate who is nominated at a caucus, the date of the caucus.
 4. In the case of any other candidate who is nominated solely by filing a
 declaration of candidacy, the first day of the month preceding the month which
 includes the last day for filing the declaration.
 (b) This subsection applies until after the date of the election or after the date of the primary
 election if the person appears as a candidate on a primary election ballot and is not
 nominated at the primary election.
 (2) This section does not apply to use of public funds for the costs of the following:
 (a) Answers to communications of constituents.
 (b) Actions taken by a state or local government administrative officer pursuant to a
 specific law, ordinance or resolution which authorizes or directs the actions to be taken.
 (c) Communications between members of the legislature regarding the legislative or
 deliberative process while the legislature is in session.
 (d) Communications not exceeding 500 pieces by members of the legislature relating
 solely to the subject matter of a special session or extraordinary session, made during
 the period between the date that the session is called or scheduled and 14 days after
 adjournment of the session.
 1. Does one Facebook/Twitter post count as sending out one item regardless of how
 many individuals view or share it?

Wisconsin law prohibits individuals elected to state or local office who become candidates for
national, state, or local office from using public funds for the cost of materials or distribution of
50 or more pieces of substantially identical material distributed during a campaign period (“the
50-piece rule”), except as specifically permitted. WIS. STAT. § 11.1205.

Over the course of 2018 and 2019, the Commission has taken several steps to clarify the
appropriate uses of social media by public officials and explain the application of the 50-piece rule
to social media communications. See 2018 ETH 03, Guidelines ETH-1251 and ETH-1253. In 2018
ETH 03, the Commission formally analyzed WIS. STAT. § 11.1205 and considered how to count
instances of electronic communication under the 50-piece rule. In that opinion, the Commission
held that electronic communications where the sender actively selects recipients would be counted
as a single “piece” per recipient (e.g., emails, text messages, or direct messages); however,
electronic communications that were published in a singular form, but could be read by multiple
individuals (e.g., a website page, Facebook post, or tweet) would only be counted as a single piece.
2018 ETH 03. This remains true regardless of the number of times the page, post, or tweet is
viewed.

However, 2018 ETH 03 is silent as to the question of how a recipient’s share of a communication
with others should be counted under the 50-piece rule. The statute is similarly silent. See WIS.
STAT. § 11.1205. For example, if a legislator who is up for election uses a state computer system
during the campaign period to send a single individual an email and that person independently
decides to forward that email to 50-plus others, would that be a violation of the 50-piece rule?
What if the sender asks the original recipient to forward it and the recipient sends it to 50 plus
others, would that be a violation of the 50-piece rule? The answer to these questions require an
interpretation the language of WIS. STAT. § 11.1205.

The purpose of statutory interpretation is to determine what the statute means so that it may be
given its full, proper, and intended effect. State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cty., 2004
WI 58, ¶44. Statutory interpretation begins with the language of the statute. Id. at ¶45. Statutory
language is given its common, ordinary, and accepted meaning. Id. Statutory language should also
be interpreted in the context in which it is used; not in isolation, but as part of a whole; in relation
to the language of surrounding or closely-related statutes; and reasonably, to avoid absurd or
unreasonable results. Id. at ¶46. If the meaning of the statute is plain, the inquiry ordinarily ends
there. Id. at ¶45. However, a literal reading of a statute may be rejected if it would lead to an absurd
or unreasonable result that does not reflect the legislature’s intent. State v. Jennings, 2003 WI 10,
¶11. Additionally, statutory interpretations that render provisions meaningless should be avoided.
Belding v. Demoulin, 2014 WI 8, ¶17.

While the 50-piece rule is codified in Chapter 11, the campaign finance laws, the 50-piece rule is
more akin to the prohibitions of subchapter III of Chapter 13 or Chapter 19 in that it regulates
conduct by current officeholders and seeks to prohibit abuses of office. In these contexts, there are
long-standing interpretations that an official cannot do indirectly what he or she is prohibited from
doing directly, even where the statute is silent as to indirect applications. See e.g., 2003 Eth Bd 11,
¶3; 2001 Wis Eth Bd 02, ¶7. As these other prohibitions are similar in nature to the prohibition of
the 50-piece rule, the Commission believes a similarly inclusive interpretation would be
appropriate when interpreting the prohibition here. However, reading WIS. STAT. § 11.1205 to
include every email forward, Facebook share or Twitter retweet of an original communication
would likely produce an absurd result where the sender has no knowledge or control over the
republication including how many times the message is shared subsequent to the initial
communication.

To avoid counting every instance of an initial recipient subsequently sharing a communication
while still prohibiting circumvention of the restrictions of the 50-piece rule by employing another,
the Commission again will look to the original sender’s intentions and adopt an objective test
where only the republications intended by the original sender will be counted. Accordingly, where
the sender requests or intends for an initial recipient(s) to share the original communication with
others, the Commission would then count the republications by the initial recipient(s) done at the
request of the original sender as if they were done by the original sender.

 2. Can elected officials use office funds to take out a legislative ad in a local
 newspaper while under the “50-piece rule”?

For each of the remaining 50-piece rule questions, it is important to note that the Ethics
Commission can only speak to the laws it administers (Chapter 11, subchapter III of Chapter 13,
and subchapter III of Chapter 19). The Commission generally has no authority over the use of
legislative office funds. It is the understanding of the Commission that questions regarding the
distribution of materials by legislators at government expense should be directed to either the
Senate or Assembly Chief Clerk as appropriate. However, as you have asked specifically if these
uses of funds would be permitted under the 50-piece rule, the Commission will answer your
questions with caveat that when contemplating a use of legislative office funds, you should first
seek an answer from the Chief Clerk’s Office as to whether a specific expenditure is an appropriate
use of state resources and consistent with the policies of the Legislature.

As explained in response to the first question, the 50-piece rule prohibits the use of public funds
for the cost of materials or distribution for 50 or more pieces of substantially identical material
during a campaign period. WIS. STAT. § 11.1205. This is true regardless of whether the sender is
communicating a legislative or campaign message. See WIS. STAT. § 11.1205, 2018 ETH 03.
Additionally, the selection of recipients is only a factor in counting the number of pieces for
electronic communications. 2018 ETH 03. In this situation, while the elected official may only be
sending one piece (i.e., the proposed ad) to the newspaper, it is clear that by paying the newspaper
to publish the advertisement, the elected official would be using public funds to pay for the
newspaper’s subsequent production and distribution of the ad in each newspaper that is to be
printed. Assuming the newspaper prints 50 or more copies, this practice would likely run afoul of
the 50-piece rule when done during the campaign period. This conclusion is consistent with an
informal opinion of the Elections Board in 1996, which held that “because public money would
be used to purchase the distribution of more than 49 pieces of identical material (the ad in the
newspaper), and because publication is deemed to fall within the statutory language, ‘the cost of
materials or distribution,’ the post-June 1 publication would be proscribed by s. 11.33, Stats.”
 3. Can elected officials use office funds to place a legislative radio ad while under the
 “50-piece rule?”
 a) Are members restricted to 49 spots per ad?

The 50-piece rule only applies to the cost of materials or distribution for 50 or more pieces of
substantially identical material. WIS. STAT. § 11.1205. A radio ad is a single audio recording
broadcast on a specific radio frequency that can be received by any listener with a radio tuned to
that frequency within range of the transmitter. 1 This singularity of material makes radio broadcasts
more akin to a bulletin board or billboard, which are similarly platforms for a single message to
be received by a large number of individuals. As such, the Commission believes that the 50-piece
rule would not prohibit elected officials from using office funds to place legislative radio ads
during a campaign period. However, to address the follow-up question, if subject to the 50-piece
rule, an elected official is still limited to no more than 49 pieces of substantially identical material,
so any single radio ad could not be played more than 49 times during the campaign period without
running afoul of the statute.

 4. Can an elected official use office funds to mail a legislative newsletter to a Postal
 patron route or “Every Door Direct Mail” list while under the “50-piece rule”? (see
 USPS postal patron map attached)

Similar to the response to Question #2, it is important to note that the 50-piece rule prohibits a
candidate from using public funds for the cost of materials or distribution for 50 or more pieces of
substantially identical material during a campaign period. WIS. STAT. § 11.1205. A USPS Postal
Patron mailing, also known as Every Door Direct Mail, delivers a copy of the submitted piece to
every mailbox within a certain area or route. Again, the selection of recipients is only a factor in
counting the number of pieces for electronic communications per 2018 ETH 03. In this situation
the elected official is still using public funds for the cost of materials or distribution for 50 or more
pieces of substantially identical material (i.e., each piece of direct mail). The fact that the sender
is not selecting the recipients is not a consideration in physical communications like legislative
newsletters. As such, the Commission believes such a use of office funds would be prohibited
under WIS. STAT. § 11.1205 if done by a covered official during the campaign period.

Additionally, the Commission would note an opinion issued by the Elections Board, 1976 Wis El
Bd 16 (withdrawn December 6, 2016) that spoke to the practice of sending out legislative
newsletters during the campaign period. While this opinion has been withdrawn by the
Commission due to its references to laws that have since been repealed and recreated, this opinion
considered the use of legislative office accounts to send out legislative newsletters under the prior
iteration of the 50-piece rule and while it was not the central holding of the opinion, the Board did
state that since distribution of 100 or more newsletters during the campaign period would be
prohibited, distribution prior to the campaign period would presumably be allowed. While the
language of the 50-piece rule has changed between 1976 and 2019 (notably moving the maximum
number of pieces allowed from 99 to 49), the Commission believes this opinion demonstrates that
the prior practice was for legislative offices to be restricted from such expenditures during the

1
  Many radio stations simulcast their broadcasts to the Internet. Consistent with 2018 ETH 03 we believe the
simulcast, if known to and intended by the sender, would count as one additional piece.
campaign period and we see no evidence that in the various changes to the 50-piece rule over years
the Legislature intended any different conclusion.

 5. Can elected officials use office funds to promote their account, boost a post or take
 out legislative ads on social media platforms including Facebook, Twitter, and
 Youtube while under the “50-piece rule”?
 a) If so, how targeted can these be?
 1) Can you target an ad to individuals only within your Legislative
 District?
 2) Can you target an ad to individuals based on other criteria? (Individuals
 within a certain radius of an event? Individuals who follow other social
 media pages? Individuals that meet certain demographic criteria? ... see
 attached photos FBad1 and FBad2 for example of potential targeting)

 6. Example #1:
 a) We hold regular monthly listening sessions around the district throughout
 the year
 b) For each listening session, we send out a news release, post the event on our
 website and create a Facebook event.
 1) Once under the 50-piece rule, we send press releases to fewer than 50
 email addresses.
 c) If we are allowed to continue promoting these events on Facebook using
 office funds, those posts can reach hundreds or thousands of local residents.
 1) For example, one Facebook ad for a local listening session during the
 budget process, using $250 from our office account, reached 8,996
 residents in the [legislative district] and resulted in 170 rsvp’s for that
 listening session.
 2) See attached FBlisteningsession and FBlisteningsession2 graphics for
 an example of what those ads generally look like.
 d) Can we continue to use office funds to promote these listening sessions?

 7. Example #2:
 a) We generally research policies and draft legislation in the summer and fall
 months of even numbered years.
 b) We will be rolling out a list of legislative priorities later this year and
 asking the public to weigh in on the list of policies that they’d like the
 legislature to focus on and prepare for.
 c) Can we promote a post soliciting feedback from the public on legislative
 priorities?
 1) i.e. “I’m working to ensure every family has access to quality health
 care, strong schools, safe roads and clean drinking water. Let me know
 what issues you’d like the state legislature to focus on.”
 d) Can we promote a post that provides information to residents on relevant
 and timely legislative issue?
 1) i.e. “As children head back to school, many communities are struggling
 with teacher shortages, outdated facilities and a lack of state funding.
 Visit [legislative website link] to learn more about what’s being done
 to address these issues.”

In order to answer these questions, a brief review of how the Commission understands these social
media platforms to work at present is necessary as technology is constantly evolving. Facebook,
Twitter, and YouTube each have “feeds” which show content to the user. A feed is created by the
platform via an algorithm and largely consists of content that the user has either indicated they
wish to see by liking, following, or subscribing to the content producer or by the platform placing
the content in the user’s feed due to other factors (e.g., demographics of the user, similarity to other
content the user has viewed, etc.) It is important to note that a user does not see every piece of
content from every content producer they like, follow, or subscribe to unless the user goes to that
specific content producer’s page on the platform. A content producer who wishes to expand the
number of users who see the producer’s content in their user “feed” can choose to pay the platform
to place their content in more users’ feeds.

There are multiple ways a content producer can expand their reach on social media platforms. On
Facebook in particular, a content producer can choose to “boost” a post. A boost is essentially an
advertisement consisting of the chosen post. After selecting a post to boost, the content producer
can choose their audience through the following options (see FBad1):

 • People you choose through targeting
 o Targeting options are extensive and include criteria like location, age,
 education, financial status, interests, behaviors, political affiliation, etc.
 • People who like your Page
 • People who like your Page and their friends
 • People in your local area

After defining the intended audience, the content producer is then asked to set a duration for the
ad and the total budget (see FBad2). Depending on the budget, Facebook estimates the number of
users who will be reached per day and attempts to divide the total budget evenly across the entire
duration of the ad. Facebook also permits content producers to create custom audiences from
custom lists of phone numbers, email addresses, website cookies, etc.; although it is the
understanding of the Commission that Facebook will not allow either targeting options or custom
audiences that would narrow the potential audience for an ad to less than 50.

If the content producer would like to get more users to like their page (and thereby gain more
viewers of their content via posts, instead of via paid advertising), another option is to “promote”
the content producer’s page. Promoting is essentially creating an advertisement for the content
producer’s page as a whole instead of just a particular post. These ads can then be tailored to a
particular audience similar to selecting the audience for a boosted post and have similar duration
and budget options.

The final option on Facebook is to simply place a traditional paid advertisement. These ads are not
placed in the user’s feed between posts, but instead are located in a static position elsewhere on
the screen. Traditional ads have the same options for audience selection, duration, and budget.
You ask if elected officials can use their office accounts for these types of advertising (boosted
posts, promoted pages, and traditional paid advertisements) on social media when under the 50-
piece rule. Again, by its terms, the 50-piece rule prohibits officials from using public funds for the
cost of materials or distribution of 50 or more pieces of substantially identical material during a
campaign period. WIS. STAT. § 11.1205. Consistent with the Commission’s prior advice in 2018
ETH 03, the Commission believes an official could continue to include a notice of a listening
session on their legislative website, create a Facebook event, create a Facebook post about the
session, and send a news release regarding the event out to up to 49 recipients when under the
restrictions of the 50-piece rule. However, using legislative office funds to further promote those
sessions via paid advertisement (boosted post, promoted page, or traditional paid advertisement)
on social media during the campaign period, would be limited by the 50-piece rule as the official
is paying to distribute substantially identical material multiple times. As such, a covered official
may be able to boost a post or promote a page during the campaign period, but only to no more
than 49 people, which may not be technically possible on the social media platforms described. 2

 B. Mixed Use Accounts

 1. Can legislative staff manage and post content on “mixed use” social media accounts
 used by elected officials?

In 2012, the Government Accountability Board (“GAB”) issued an informal advisory opinion on
the use of social media by legislators and described its recommendations for best practices to avoid
potential campaign finance and ethics violations. This letter was approved by the Government
Accountability Board at its March 20, 2012 meeting. In this letter, the GAB advised that because
state resources would be used to create and maintain official legislator social media pages, those
pages may not be used for campaign or personal purposes.

Later in 2012, the Chief Clerks of the Legislature followed up their initial request with further
questions on the permissible uses of social media by legislators and their staff. On October 11,
2012, the Director and General Counsel of the GAB issued a letter which reiterated the earlier
guidance approved by the GAB and expanded into the topic of “mixed-use” sites such as a
legislator’s personal or campaign social media sites. The relevant advice is excerpted below:

 With respect to the use of state staff and resources to create and post materials to the web
 or other social media pages that contain a mix of legislative and personal materials,
 including business and campaign materials, our advice is:

 1. State resources should not be used to create a website or Facebook page that will
 be used for mixed purposes.
 2. Subject to paragraph 3, a legislator may post any type of content at any time to a
 website, Facebook page or other social media.



2
  If the social media ad is substantially identical to either the notice on the legislative website, Facebook post,
Facebook event, or news release, those instances of substantially identical communication are combined with the
instances of the social media ad when tallying the 49 pieces allowable under the rule.
 3. A legislator should not use state resources, such as a state computer, to post non-
 legislative content to a website, Facebook page, or other social media other than
 purely personal (not campaign or business) content.
 4. Legislative staff may post legislative content to a mixed-use website, Facebook
 page, or other social media at any time, even if using state resources, but not to a
 campaign website, campaign Facebook page, or other forms of campaign social
 media. However, legislative staff should do this only with respect to materials that
 are distributed more broadly to the press and public.
 5. Legislative staff may post personal, business, or campaign content to a mixed-use
 website, Facebook page, or other social media only on personal time and without
 using state resources,
 6. Although a mixed-use website may contain a link to the legislator’s official state
 webpage, a state webpage should not be linked to a mixed-use website, Facebook
 page, or other social media.

See the below table that was included in the GAB letter to illustrate permissible and impermissible
activities:




It is the understanding of this Commission that paragraphs 1-5 of the above GAB advice was
further adopted by the Chief Clerks and incorporated into their respective chambers’ policy
manuals for legislative staff. On June 21, 2018, the Ethics Commission re-iterated this advice in a
letter to the Chief Clerks of the Legislature with the clarification that paragraph 2 only applied to
posts to mixed-use websites/accounts and that official legislative social media accounts should
only be used for official governmental purposes. A legislator’s use of an official legislative social
media account for campaign or business purposes, even when not using a state computer or on
state time, could be a violation of WIS. STAT. § 19.45 (2) and (5).

Consistent with that prior advice, the Commission again advises that legislative staff may only
post and manage legislative content on a mixed-use website or social media account while on state
time and may only post such materials to a mixed-use website or account that are distributed more
broadly to the press and public. Legislative staff may only post personal, business, or campaign
content to a mixed-use website or social media account on personal time and without the use of
state resources.

 2. Can elected officials with a “mixed use” social media account promote their
 account, boost a post or take out ads on Facebook/Twitter using office funds?

Reviewing the above table summarizing the advice provided by the Government Accountability
Board and reaffirmed and further clarified by the Commission, it is clear that no person is
authorized to use state resources to post campaign or business material. This is consistent with the
general public purpose doctrine established by the courts in State ex rel. Thompson v. Giessel, 265
Wis. 207 (1953). This doctrine holds that expenditures of public money have to be made for a
public purpose. However, the Commission does not make the determination of whether a given
expenditure is for a public purpose. The proper way for such an issue to be decided is by way of a
taxpayer civil action against the spending authority, which the courts would adjudicate, not this
Commission.

It would logically follow that if legislative staff on state time can use state resources to post
legislative content to a mixed-use social media account, state resources could also be used to boost
or take out ads for such legislative posts on the mixed-use social media account. However, as
legislative staff are only permitted to post such legislative content to a mixed-use social media
account when the content is more broadly distributed to the media and the public, paying to boost
or take out an ad for a post on a mixed-use social media account would not appear to be consistent
with the original advice as it appears to contemplate that the post to the mixed-use account would
be secondary to the original broader communication to the public and the media. Furthermore, as
a general question as to the proper use of legislative resources, this is also a question that cannot
be answered by the Ethics Commission alone and should also be directed to the Chief Clerk’s
Office.

Finally, because paid promotion of a mixed-use account as a whole could potentially benefit the
official, their immediate family, or organizations with which the official is associated via the other
content contained within and disseminated by that mixed-use social media account (i.e., business,
campaign, etc.), the Commission advises against officials using state resources to promote mixed-
use social media accounts as it could be a potential violation of WIS. STAT. § 19.45(2). This issue
is further complicated by the potential for an official to later take a mixed-use account with them
when they leave their public position, potentially retaining an asset of substantial value that was
maintained or potentially even enhanced in value through the use of public resources.
 From:
 To: Carlton, Daniel - ETHICS
 Subject: RE: Social Media Guidance
 Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 10:20:20 AM
 Attachments: image001.png
 image002.png
 image003.png
 FBad1.png
 FBad2.png
 USPSpostalpatron.png


 Hi Dan,

 Thanks for sitting down last week to talk more about our request. At this time, I’d like to
 clarify that our request is for an informal opinion. Below are a list of questions that we would
 like guidance on:

 50 piece rule questions

        Does one Facebook/Twitter post count as sending out one item regardless of how many
 individuals view or share it?

 Can elected officials use office funds to take out a legislative ad in a local newspaper while
        

 under the “50 piece rule?”

        Can elected officials use office funds to place a legislative radio ad while under the “50 piece
 rule?”

 o   Are members restricted to 49 spots per ad?

 Can an elected official use office funds to mail a legislative newsletter to a Postal patron route
        

 or “Every Door Direct Mail” list while under the “50 piece rule?”

 o   (see USPS postal patron map attached)

        Can elected officials use office funds to promote their account, boost a post or take out
 legislative ads on social media platforms including Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube while
 under the “50 piece rule?”

 o   If so, how targeted can these be?

 § Can you target an ad to individuals only within your Legislative District?

 § Can you target an ad to individuals based on other criteria? (Individuals
 within a certain radius of an event? Individuals who follow other social
 media pages? Individuals that meet certain demographic criteria? ... see
 attached photos FBad1 and FBad2 for example of potential targeting)

         Example #1:

 o   We hold regular monthly listening sessions around the district throughout the
 year
 o   For each listening session, we send out a news release, post the event on our
 website and create a Facebook event.

 § Once under the 50 piece rule, we send press releases to fewer than 50
 email addresses.

 o   If we are allowed to continue promoting these events on Facebook using office
 funds, those posts can reach hundreds or thousands of local residents.

 § For example, one Facebook ad for a local listening session during the
 budget process, using $250 from our office account, reached 8,996
 residents in the District and resulted in 170 rsvp’s for that
 listening session.

 § See attached FBlisteningsession and FBlisteningsession2 graphics for an
 example of what those ads generally look like.

 o   Can we continue to use office funds to promote these listening sessions?

         Example #2:

 o   We generally research policies and draft legislation in the summer and fall
 months of even numbered years.

 o   We will be rolling out a list of legislative priorities later this year and asking the
 public to weigh in on the list of policies that they’d like the legislature to focus
 on and prepare for.

 o   Can we promote a post soliciting feedback from the public on legislative
 priorities?

 § i.e. “I’m working to ensure every family has access to quality health care,
 strong schools, safe roads and clean drinking water. Let me know what
 issues you’d like the state legislature to focus on.”

 o   Can we promote a post that provides information to residents on relevant and
 timely legislative issue?

 § i.e. “As children head back to school, many communities are struggling
 with teacher shortages, outdated facilities and a lack of state funding.
 Visit to learn more about what’s being
 done to address these issues.”




 “Mixed Use” accounts (social media accounts containing a mix of legislative and
 campaign content)
 Can legislative staff manage and post legislative content on “mixed use” social media
 accounts used by elected officials?
 Can elected officials with a “mixed use” social media account promote their account,
From: Carlton, Daniel - ETHICS <Daniel.Carlton@wisconsin.gov>
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 12:16 PM
To: ; ETH Ethics <ethics@wisconsin.gov>
Cc:
Subject: RE: Social Media Guidance

Good afternoon,

This email is to acknowledge receipt of your opinion request. As you are probably aware, the
Commission is meeting on Tuesday, August 20, 2019. As we are within a few business days, we will
not be able to prepare the opinion you requested in time for this meeting. The next regularly
scheduled meeting of the Wisconsin Ethics Commission is December 3, 2019. A formal opinion can
definitely be prepared and deliberated by the Commission at that meeting.

After the Commission’s meeting on Tuesday, we will begin working on this request. I anticipate that
we will be requesting some additional information from you at that point. Until then, should you
have any questions or need anything further, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Dan



Daniel A. Carlton, Jr.
Administrator

Wisconsin Ethics Commission
Campaign Finance | Lobbying | Ethics
https://ethics.wi.gov | (608) 266-8123| Twitter: @EthicsWi

This email may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure
under applicable law. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the
sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format.




From:
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 12:01 PM
To: ETH Ethics <ethics@wisconsin.gov>
Cc: Carlton, Daniel - ETHICS <Daniel.Carlton@wisconsin.gov>;

Subject: Social Media Guidance

Hello,

I would like to request a formal opinion from the ethics commission regarding the use of
 Wisconsin Ethics Commission
 For persons elected to state or local office who become a
 candidate for national, state, or local office
 Social Media Use by Officials
GENERAL GUIDANCE

The Code of Ethics for State Public Officials prohibits the use of an official’s public position for private
benefit. WIS. STAT. § 19.45(2). As such, it is important for an official to be able to distinguish between a
public purpose and a private purpose when considering the use of public resources. To avoid the
appearance of misuse of public resources a public official should include some indication of whether a
social media account is for their official position or is a campaign, business, or personal account in the
profile, summary, or other description of the account.

Best Practices for Official Social Media Accounts

Official social media accounts are the most restricted. Officials should limit use of their official social
media accounts to information related to an official’s position, duties, and issues with a public purpose.

Examples of acceptable communications from an official social media account:

• Posts discussing how the state could address an issue through state laws or actions;
• General legislative activity like information about bills that the official has sponsored or co-sponsored;
• State budget information;
• Sharing newsletters from the official’s office;
• Publicizing public events;
• Public service announcements and;
• Endorsements and messages of support when justified by having a state purpose. For example: “I
 support [candidate or organization] and their work to address [state policy issue] in Wisconsin.”

Examples of communications that should NOT come from an official social media account:

• Solicitation of campaign contributions;
• Promotion of campaign-related events;
• Photos of campaign-related branding and events such as T-shirts, signs, or banners; and
• Any content that is strictly personal or commercial such as promoting the official’s personally owned
 business or a business with which the official is associated.
See WIS. STAT. §§ 11.1208(2)(a), 19.42(2), 19.45(2).




 This is a guide. For authoritative information consult Wisconsin Statutes.
 Prepared by the Wisconsin Ethics Commission. 101 East Wilson Street, Suite 127, Madison, WI 53703, (608) 266-8123
 Website: http://ethics.wi.gov Revised April 2019. ETH-1253
Best Practices for Campaign and Personal Social Media Accounts

A campaign may use a campaign social media account for all Personal
communications allowable for an official account, in addition to
campaign-related activities including solicitation of contributions.
Campaign social media accounts should not be used for strictly Campaign
personal or commercial purposes. See WIS. STAT. § 11.1208(2)(a).

A personal account may contain both official and campaign-related
information.
 Official

Please see the diagram to the right for an illustration of acceptable
uses by type of account.

USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA ON “STATE TIME”

Elected officials will often switch between official and campaign activities throughout the day because an
elected official is simultaneously an official and a candidate. WIS. STAT. § 11.0101(1). However, to avoid
the appearance of misuse of public resources an elected official is advised not to create campaign-related
social media communications or content while performing their official duties (i.e., while participating in
an event in their official capacity – e.g., an event listed on their official calendar, a floor session, or
committee hearing). WIS. STAT. § 19.45(2). Also, no person may enter or remain in any state building,
office, or room for the purpose of requesting or collecting a contribution; therefore, elected officials should
take special care as to the content of their social media communications while in a state building. WIS.
STAT. § 11.1207(4).

An elected official is also advised to not use campaign committee resources for strictly personal benefit,
or for commercial purposes. WIS. STAT. §§ 11.1208(2)(a), 19.45(2), 19.42(2). For example, the candidate
should not use a campaign social media account or campaign website to advertise for a personal business.

50-PIECE RULE APPLICATION TO SOCIAL MEDIA

The “50-Piece Rule” prohibits the use of public funds for the distribution of 50 or more pieces of
substantially identical material by a covered person during a specified time period. WIS. STAT. § 11.1205
The language of the “50-Piece Rule” does not distinguish between electronic pieces and printed pieces.
Electronic communications almost always result in multiple copies being created even when sent to a
single recipient. This is due to the nature of the technical systems that enable electronic communications.
When calculating the number of pieces distributed under the “50-Piece Rule” the Commission will only
count those instances of electronic communication intended by the sender. See 2018 ETH 03.

If a message is actively communicated to individually addressed recipients (e.g., via email, instant
messages, or direct messages), each individual recipient is considered a single piece under the “50-Piece
Rule.” However, a passive message such as a website, Facebook post, or tweet, where the sender has no
direct control over the audience of his or her message, is only counted as a single piece under the “50-
Piece Rule.”
TARL KNIGHT
Complainant

vs.

JOHN S. VANDERLEEST
Respondent
____________________________________________________________________________

 ARGUMENT

 The formal complaint which I, the Complainant, filed against the Respondent accuses the
Respondent of having continuously blocked well-meaning constituents’ and taxpayers’ social
media accounts, as well as deleting relevant posts and comments posted by them to their local
representative’s official government social media account, which has been declared a “public
forum” by several prominent federal First Amendment cases. Such material as has been blocked
and/or deleted by the Respondent was concerning serious, community-related issues (such as
opinions and suggestions relating to proposed taxes, proposed construction projects, and
proposed alternative parking methods), and had not contained any amount of profanity or
insulting material, all of which the aggrieved parties will corroborate and a particular instance of
which has already been submitted.

 Regarding the issue of standing, Section 8 of the City of Green Bay Code of Conduct
clearly states “any person” may file a formal complaint provided they satisfy the listed
conditions:

 Any person who believes a [sic] Elected official, in his/her official capacity, has violated
 a requirement, prohibition, or guideline set out herein may file a sworn complaint with
 the City Clerk identifying (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 facts constituting the alleged violation and the dates on
 which, or period of time during which, the alleged violation occurred.

 The formal complaint concerns the Complainant as well as any taxpaying members of the
community. The material at issue will be further specified by the aggrieved parties if afforded the
opportunity. Until the respective parties are permitted to testify further as to the content of the
deleted posts and comments, the Respondent’s strawman argument of the material at issue
containing illicit or injurious statements, and so permitting deletion, are yet completely
invalidated.
 The conduct at issue, blocking and/or deleting citizens’ well-meaning, relevant posts and
comments regarding city issues, clearly violates the basic standards set by the City of Green
Bay’s Code of Conduct for public officials and their government social media accounts, which
have been declared to be public forums by multiple federal First Amendment cases, such as
Knight First Amendment Institute vs. Trump​ (2019) and ​Davison vs. Randall​ (2019).

 Only last year, federal courts affirmed public officials’ social media accounts to indeed
constitute public forums, citing ​Davison vs. Randall​ (2019):

 “Public officials may not retaliate against speech they dislike by suppressing expression
 on social media... The suppression of critical commentary regarding elected officials is
 the quintessential form of viewpoint discrumination against which the First Amendment
 guards.”

 Further, citing ​Knight First Amendment Institute vs. Trump​ (2019):

 “[T]he First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media
 account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise open
 online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees.”

 Section 1 of the City of Green Bay Code of Conduct states:

 [M]embers of the Common Council and Mayor shall maintain the utmost standards of
 personal integrity, trustfulness, honesty, and fairness in carrying out their public duties,
 avoid any improprieties in their roles as public servants, comply with all applicable laws,
 and never use their City position or authority improperly or for personal gain.

 Section 4 of the City of Green Bay Code of Conduct states:

 No signs of partiality, prejudice, or disrespect should be evident on the part of individual
 Council members toward an individual participating in a public forum. Every effort
 should be made to be fair and impartial in listening to public testimony. The Council
 members are expected to demonstrate, both publicly and privately, their honesty and
 integrity, and to be an example of appropriate and ethical conduct. All Council members
 should convey to the public their respect and appreciation for the public’s participation,
 input, and opinions.
 The Complainant maintains the actions of the Respondent have constituted habitually
suppressive behaviour, which automatically and categorically violates the City of Green Bay’s
Code of Conduct, and similar actions by public officials violating the First Amendment have
been criticised by multiple federal authorities throughout the years. The formal complaint filed
against the Respondent holds merit, and the Complainant urges for any aggrieved parties
outlined by the formal complaint to have the opportunity to testify as proof.

Thank you,




Tarl Knight
DAVISON VS. RANDALL , NO. 17-2002 (4TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS), is not binding
prececdent in the Eastern District of Wisconsin

Davison was issued on 1/19/2019 in final form.
8/14/2020 Circuit Map.ai -- Page 1




https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/US_Court_of_Appeals_and_District_Court_map.svg 1/1
 PUBLISHED

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
 FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


 No. 17-2002


BRIAN DAVISON,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

PHYLLIS RANDALL, In her official and individual capacity,

 Defendant - Appellant,

 and

LOUDOUN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, In their official and
individual capacities; LEO ROGERS, In his official capacity; TONY
BUFFINGTON, In his official capacity; RON MEYER, In his official capacity;
GEARY HIGGINS, In his official capacity,

 Defendants.

------------------------------

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS OF VIRGINIA, INC.;
INTERNATIONAL MUNICIPAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION; VIRGINIA
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES; VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE,

 Amici Supporting Appellant,

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION; ACLU OF VIRGINIA; ACLU OF
MARYLAND; ACLU OF NORTH CAROLINA; ACLU OF SOUTH
CAROLINA; ACLU OF WEST VIRGINIA,

 Amici Supporting Appellee.
 No. 17-2003


BRIAN C. DAVISON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

PHYLLIS RANDALL, In her official and individual capacity; LOUDOUN
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, In their official and individual
capacities,

 Defendants - Appellees,

 and

LEO ROGERS, In his official capacity; TONY BUFFINGTON, In his official
capacity; RON MEYER, In his official capacity; GEARY HIGGINS, In his
official capacity,

 Defendants.


Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-00932-JCC-IDD)


Argued: September 26, 2018 Decided: January 7, 2019
 Amended: January 9, 2019


Before KEENAN, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Wynn wrote the opinion, in which Judge Keenan
and Judge Harris concurred. Judge Keenan wrote a separate concurring opinion.


ARGUED: Scott E. Gant, BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Leo
P. Rogers, LOUDON COUNTY ATTORNEY, Leesburg, Virginia, for Appellant/Cross-


 2
 WHICH COURT IS BINDING? 1
 Binding vs. Persuasive Cases

 © 2017 The Writing Center at GULC. All rights reserved.


 You have found the perfect case: the facts are similar to yours and the law is on point.
But does the court before which you are practicing (or, in law school, the jurisdiction to which
you have been assigned) have to follow the case? Stare decisis is the common law principle that
requires courts to follow precedents set by other courts. Under stare decisis, courts are obliged
to follow some precedents, but not others. Because of the many layers of our federal system, it
can be difficult to figure out which decisions bind a given court. This handout is designed to
help you determine which decisions are mandatory and which are persuasive on the court before
which you are practicing.

 Binding versus Persuasive Authority: What’s the Difference?
 • Binding authority, also referred to as mandatory authority, refers to cases, statutes, or
 regulations that a court must follow because they bind the court.
 • Persuasive authority refers to cases, statutes, or regulations that the court may follow but
 does not have to follow.

 To get started, ask yourself two questions:
 1) Are the legal issues in your case governed by state or federal law? and
 2) Which court are you in?
 Once you know the answers to these questions, you are well on your way to determining
whether a decision is mandatory or persuasive.

Step 1: Are the Legal Issues in Your Case Governed by Federal or State Law?

 First, a lawyer needs to know the facts and issues of the case. Facts such as where the
events took place, where the home(s) of the parties are, and where the parties conduct most of
their business frame the legal issues. In other words, identifying key facts will help you to
determine what law governs the legal issues in your case.

 The hypothetical case below illustrates how you might analyze a particular set of facts to
identify whether the legal issues are governed by state or federal law. The first step is to identify
the facts and brainstorm all the possible legal issues raised by those facts.



1 By Robyn Painter and Kate Mayer. Revised in 2017 by Kate Mathews.


 1
Hypothetical Case: Pick-Pocketing in Virginia

 Facts Possible Legal Issues
 • You are shopping in a grocery store in • Is pick-pocketing a crime in Virginia? If so,
 Virginia when a little old woman in line at under what law?
 the checkout starts screaming that she’s • Did the police have probable cause to arrest
 been pick-pocketed. you based on the identification of the old
 • The police arrive on the scene, and the woman?
 woman identifies you as someone who • How reliable was the old lady’s
 suspiciously brushed against her. identification?
 • The police arrest you and throw you in jail. • How long can the police hold you?
 • Later, the police interrogate you without • Were any of your Constitutional rights
 first informing you of your right to have a violated during the police’s arrest and
 lawyer present. interrogation of you?
 • If you are found guilty, can the little old lady
 also sue you in civil court for infliction of
 emotional distress or another tort?

 After you have brainstormed all the possible legal issues the facts raise, determine
whether the legal issues are governed by federal or state law. In any given case, there may be
both federal and state issues. America operates on a system of dual sovereignty: the fifty states
and the federal government all retain their own sovereignty. Because each state is a sovereign,
each state sets its own laws and has its own Constitution. In addition, the United States federal
government makes laws and has a Constitution.

 When determining whether a legal issue is governed by federal or state law, keep in mind
that some areas of the law, such as criminal and environmental law, are governed by both state
and federal laws. Generally, the principle of preemption means that a legitimate federal action
supersedes a state law in certain cases. Although a full discussion of preemption is beyond the
scope of this handout, you should be aware of some basic principles. Federal law preempts state
law when the two laws conflict, when Congress expressly or implicitly says so, or when federal
laws are so pervasive that they occupy the entire field of law.


Hypothetical Case: Pick-Pocketing in Virginia

 There is no preemption issue in your case because there is no conflict between state and
federal law such that federal law would override Virginia state law. Specifically, there is no
federal law prohibition against pick-pocketing that could conflict with Virginia’s local pick-
pocketing law. So, two sets of laws potentially govern.




 2
 Federal Issues State Issues
 • Your Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment • Virginia’s or the town’s local pick- pocketing
 rights were triggered once you were statute will lay out the elements of and
 arrested—these rights are governed by punishment for the offense; the court’s
 federal law, i.e., the U.S. Constitution.2 decision in your case will also be informed by
 state cases about pick-pocketing.
 • Your arrest might also implicate Virginia’s
 state Constitution—state Constitutions must
 provide at least as many rights as the Federal
 Constitution, but can also entitle you to
 broader protections.

 In sum, your case involves legal issues governed by both state and federal law.

Step 2: Which Court Are You In?

 Next, determine which court you are in, which is a two-part inquiry.

 (1) First, ask yourself whether you are in federal or state court.

 Dual sovereignty means that each sovereign has its own court system: the
 states each have courts and the United States has courts, which are called
 federal courts. Federal courts are located throughout the United States.

 (2) Second, ask yourself whether you are in a trial court, an intermediate appellate court,
 or a supreme court.

 Most American court systems—whether they are federal or state—have a
 similar structure, consisting of trial courts, intermediate appellate courts, and
 the highest court in the jurisdiction, usually supreme courts. In the federal
 court system, the trial courts are called United States District Courts. There
 are twelve federal courts of appeals that each cover a geographical region
 called a circuit and are, accordingly, called the United States Court of Appeals
 for the [insert number] Circuit or Circuit Courts. 3 States vary in the names
 they give to their courts, but regardless of the nomenclature, the structure is
 the same. 4




2 Usually, there are state cases adopting Federal Courts’ interpretation of the Constitution. If this is so, you should cite your state
case. Be careful, though, to check and see if there are any new federal decisions governing basic Constitutional rights
surrounding your case.
3 Additionally, there is a thirteenth federal appellate court called the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which unlike the

regional Circuit Courts of Appeal, has nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals in only certain types of cases including cases
involving patent laws and cases appealed from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the U.S. Court of International Trade.
4 In some states, such as New York and Maryland, the highest court in the state is actually called the Court of Appeals.




 3
Hypothetical Case: Pick-Pocketing in Virginia

 In your case, the local police arrested you. These police were acting under the authority
of the Virginia state or local statute against pick-pocketing. Thus, at this point, you are in a
Virginia state trial court. Realize, though, that even though you are in a state court, the federal
Constitutional issues you identified in step 1 can still be heard by that court.

 If you lose at trial and need to appeal, that appeal will go to Virginia’s intermediate
appellate court, and then to Virginia’s highest court, the Virginia Supreme Court. Only if you
lose at the state’s highest court and believe that the state law violates the U.S. Constitution can
you appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 If you had been arrested by the FBI or for a federal offense, then you could be tried in
federal district court, perhaps in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. If
the case were appealed, it would go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, then to
the U.S. Supreme Court.

 In sum, at this point, your case is in a state trial court for the purpose of determining
whether a particular case is binding or persuasive.


NOW YOU ARE READY! Is the case you have found binding or persuasive?

 Now that you have found a case on point, some general principles will help you to figure
out whether a law is binding or persuasive. Use your answers to the above questions to apply
these principles to your case.

 First, higher courts bind lower courts within their particular state or circuit. With the
exception of the U.S. Supreme Court, courts of appeals and state courts do not bind courts
outside the state or circuit in which they are located. That is, a federal Supreme Court decision is
binding on all lower federal courts, both circuit courts of appeals and district courts. A federal
circuit decision is binding on all federal district courts within its circuit, but not federal courts in
other circuits. For example, a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit binds
the U.S. district courts within the Ninth Circuit, but not federal courts in any other circuit.
However, a district court or trial court decision would not bind higher courts. A decision by a
state’s highest court is binding on all appeals courts and trial courts in that state, but not on state
courts in other states, and usually, a state court of appeals’ decision binds state trial courts in that
state. 5

 Second, with the exception of the U.S. Supreme Court, federal courts bind only other
federal courts, not state courts. Thus, a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, a federal court, is binding on federal district courts within the boundaries of the Ninth

5 Although some states have appellate courts that bind all lower courts in the state, others have regional districts or circuits and a

state appellate court may bind only lower courts within its geographic district or circuit. Therefore, be sure to research the
structure of the courts in your particular state. http://www.law.georgetown.edu/w-p-content/upload/2018/07/Matthew-Schaffer-
FederalLawFederalCourtsandBindingandPersuasiveAuthority.pdf


 4
Circuit. It is not binding on California state courts, even though California is geographically
within the Ninth Circuit. Similarly, state courts bind only other state courts within the state.
A decision of the California Supreme Court would thus bind other California state courts, not
state courts in any other state. However, sometimes a federal court must apply a state’s law. In
that case, the state’s interpretation of that law is binding on the federal court. Therefore, a
California Supreme Court decision on a matter of California law would bind federal courts on
that state law issue. Similarly, state courts must sometimes decide issues of federal law, but they
are not bound by federal courts except the U.S. Supreme Court. A decision of the U.S. Supreme
Court, a federal court, is binding on state courts when it decides an issue of federal law, such as
Constitutional interpretation.

Hypothetical Case: Pick-Pocketing in Virginia

 Federal Issues State Issues
 • The Constitutional issues are federal. The • The Virginia state trial court in which your
 state trial court is thus bound by the U.S. case will be heard is bound by Virginia
 Supreme Court’s decisions about the courts of appeal and by the Virginia
 Constitutional issues in your case. Supreme Court on all state issues. Because
 • Any decisions from other federal courts the pick-pocketing law is a state law issue,
 other than the U.S. Supreme Court are the state’s courts of appeals and state
 persuasive authority on the federal law supreme court decisions will bind the state
 issues. trial court you are in.
 • Note that if you had been accused of a • All other court decisions are persuasive
 federal offense, you probably would have authority on the state law issue—that is,
 appeared in a federal district court, which decisions from all federal courts, other
 would have been bound by the court of states’ state courts, and other state trial
 appeals for your circuit (i.e., the Fourth courts in the same state.
 Circuit), and the U.S. Supreme Court on all
 federal issues.




 Applying this analysis from the outset will help you to be a smarter, faster researcher and
to narrow down the body of case law at which you are looking. Knowing what the court is
bound to follow will help you to write more effective memos, motions, and briefs.

 For a more detailed discussion of binding and persuasive authority at the federal level,
see the Writing Center’s handout, “Federal Law, Federal Courts, and Binding and Persuasive
Authority.” Also, for a discussion about using persuasive authority in your legal writing, see the
following handout: “When and How to use Secondary Sources and Persuasive Authority to
Research and Write Legal Documents.”

The table below displays the above principles in another form. Use your answers from Steps 1
and 2—whether the issue is state or federal and which court you are in—to find the box in the



 5
left hand column that applies to your case. Then, read across that row to find out which courts
bind you and which courts are only persuasive to you.




 6
  1) State or Federal Issue? Binding Authority Persuasive Authority
  2) Which court are you in?
  State issue in state trial court That state’s state appeals court All federal courts
 That state’s highest court Other states’ state courts
 Other state trial courts in the same state
  State issue in state appeals court That state’s highest court All federal courts
 Other states’ state courts
 State trial courts in the same state
 Other state courts of appeals in the same
 state
  State issue in state’s highest court N/A That state’s highest court *
 State trial courts in the same state
 State courts of appeals in the same state
 Other states’ state courts
 All federal courts
  State issue in federal district court Interpretations from the state’s All federal courts
 highest court Other state courts

  State issue in federal circuit court Interpretations from the state’s All federal courts
 highest court Other state courts
  State issue in U.S. Supreme Court Interpretations from the state’s All federal courts
 highest court Other state courts
  Federal issue in state trial court U.S. Supreme Court All federal district courts
 That state’s court of appeals All federal circuit courts
 That state’s highest court State courts
  Federal issue in state appeals court U.S. Supreme Court All federal district courts
 That state’s highest court All federal circuit courts
 State courts
  Federal issue in state’s highest U.S. Supreme Court All federal district courts
  court All federal circuit courts
 State courts
  Federal issue in federal district U.S. Supreme Court Other federal circuit courts
  court Federal circuit court in the circuit Federal district courts
 where the district court is All state courts
  Federal issue in federal circuit court U.S. Supreme Court That federal circuit court *
 Other federal circuit courts
 Other federal district courts
 All state courts
  Federal issue in U.S. Supreme N/A U.S. Supreme Court *
  Court All federal circuit courts
 All federal district courts
 All state courts




* Technically, courts of the same level do not bind each other. Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court may overturn its prior decisions,
though it has adopted different practices of stare decisis for its constitutional precedents and its precedents interpreting federal
statutes. For a discussion of stare decisis practices of the U.S. Supreme Court, see Amy Coney Barrett, Statutory Stare Decisis in
the Courts of Appeals, 73 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 2 (2005). Further, although federal circuit courts technically do not bind
themselves, nearly every circuit court has adopted a strong rule of stare decisis, or “law of the circuit” rule, under which the
holding of a published decision by a three-judge panel of the circuit binds subsequent panels. Joseph W. Mead, Stare Decisis in
the Inferior Courts of the United States, 12 NEV. L. J. 787, 794–95 (2012). Therefore, in practice, a published circuit court
opinion is generally binding on that court. Id. However, “law of the circuit” rules vary slightly by circuit. Id. at 797.




 7
7 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening
of offensive material
U.S. Code


(a)FindingsThe Congress finds the following:
(1)The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to
individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and
informational resources to our citizens.
(2)These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as
the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.
(3)The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political
discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
(4)The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans,
with a minimum of government regulation.
(5)Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational,
cultural, and entertainment services.
(b)PolicyIt is the policy of the United States—
(1)to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and
other interactive media;
(2)to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other
interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
(3)to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information
is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer
services;
(4)to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies
that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online
material; and
(5)to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity,
stalking, and harassment by means of computer.
(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of
any information provided by another information content provider.
(2)Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account
of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the
provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or
otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical
means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
(d)Obligations of interactive computer service
A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer
for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider,
notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or
filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material
that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information
identifying, current providers of such protections.


(e)Effect on other laws
(1)No effect on criminal law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title,
chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any
other Federal criminal statute.


(2)No effect on intellectual property law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.


(3)State law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is
consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under
any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.


(4)No effect on communications privacy law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.
(5)No effect on sex trafficking lawNothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be
construed to impair or limit—
(A)any claim in a civil action brought under section 1595 of title 18, if the conduct underlying the
claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 of that title;
(B)any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge
would constitute a violation of section 1591 of title 18; or
(C)any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge
would constitute a violation of section 2421A of title 18, and promotion or facilitation of prostitution is
illegal in the jurisdiction where the defendant’s promotion or facilitation of prostitution was targeted.
(f)DefinitionsAs used in this section:
(1)Internet
The term “Internet” means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal
interoperable packet switched data networks.


(2)Interactive computer service
The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software
provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including
specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or
services offered by libraries or educational institutions.


(3)Information content provider
The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in
part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other
interactive computer service.


(4)Access software providerThe term “access software provider” means a provider of software
(including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:
(A)filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
(B)pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or
(C)transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.
(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title II, § 230, as added Pub. L. 104–104, title V, § 509, Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat.
137; amended Pub. L. 105–277, div. C, title XIV, § 1404(a), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–739; Pub. L.
115–164, § 4(a), Apr. 11, 2018, 132 Stat. 1254.)
U.S. Code Toolbox
 Before the Ethics Board of the City of Green Bay


 TARL KNIGHT,

 Complainant,

 vs.

 JOHN S. VANDERLEEST,

 Respondent.


 ARGUMENT

 The Ethics Complaint lodged by the Complainant, a former candidate for City

Council, against the Respondent accuses the Respondent of having blocked social media

posts made by other individuals on a social media account used by the Respondent for

governmental purposes. Such material as has been blocked was on the ground that the

posts contained offensive and insulting material. None of the material at issue directly

concerned the Complainant.

 The Respondent submits that his actions constitute neither misconduct nor

unethical behavior, as similar actions by public officials have been upheld by multiple

courts. The Respondent exercised his discretion as a public official in good faith and in a

manner that was objectively reasonable. The Ethics Complaint filed against him has no

merit.

 Section 1 of the City of Green Bay Code of Conduct states, in part, that


 1
August 3, 2020
Robert J. Miller, Atty.
Page 2


 [M]embers of the Common Council and Mayor shall maintain the utmost
 standards of personal integrity, trustfulness, honesty, and fairness in
 carrying out their public duties, avoid any improprieties in their roles as
 public servants, comply with all applicable laws, and never use their City
 position or authority improperly or for personal gain.

City of Green Bay, Wisconsin Conduct of Conduct § 1.

 The conduct at issue here, blocking or deleting offensive and insulting posts on a

social media account used for a governmental purpose, does not violate any of the above-

mentioned general standards. The only specific category in the Code of Conduct that

conceivably could apply here is Section 4, on elected officials' conduct toward the public.

Nothing in that section, which primarily deals with public meetings, applies to the use of

social media.

 Nor is the conduct in question in violation of the requirement in the City's social

media policy that use of social media adhere to applicable federal, state, and local laws.

 The federal Communications Decency Act provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

 No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held
 liable on account of—

 (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict
 access to or availability of material that the provider or user
 considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively
 violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not
 such material is constitutionally protected[.]

47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(2).

 There is an abundance of case law in which courts have upheld similar actions by

public officials and/or have declined to impose liability on the officials.
August 3, 2020
Robert J. Miller, Atty.
Page 3


 In Morgan v. Bevin, 298 F. Supp. 3d 1003 (E.D. Ky. 2018),a civil rights action for

the alleged violation of the First Amendment, citizens whose accounts were blocked by

the Governor of Kentucky on social media websites failed to show that the public interest

would be served by issuing an injunction. Thus, a preliminary injunction preventing the

Governor from blocking anyone in the future and restoring the citizens' accounts and

accounts of other similarly situated individuals was not warranted. In addition, the

Governor's use of privately owned social media websites was personal speech because he

was speaking on his own behalf. The First Amendment did not apply, and the Governor's

accounts were privately owned channels of communication that were not converted to

public property by their use by a public official. Id. at 1010-11.

 In McKercher v. Morrison, No. 18CV1054 JM(BLM), 2019 WL 1098935 (S.D.

Cal. Mar. 8, 2019), the court dismissed an action alleging that a mayor blocked the

plaintiff from accessing the mayor's personal Facebook website in retaliation for, among

other things, criticizing him as an elected official. The mayor had qualified immunity

from such a lawsuit. Significantly, such immunity applies to officials who have a

reasonable, even if mistaken, belief about the facts or about what the law requires in any

given situation. Id. at *3.

 In Price v. City of New York, No. 15 CIV. 5871 (KPF), 2018 WL 3117507

(S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2018), the court granted qualified immunity to city officials in an

action brought by a citizen whose posts on social media had been blocked. Accord
August 3, 2020
Robert J. Miller, Atty.
Page 4


Tanner v. Ziegenhorn, No. 4:17-CV-780-DPM, 2019 WL 2344094, at *1 (E.D. Ark. May

31, 2019) ("The Court assumes, for purposes of Kennedy and Chapman's motion to

dismiss, that these deletions [from the State Police Facebook account] infringed Tanner's

free speech rights. The guiding law, though, wasn't clear enough then to subject Kennedy

and Chapman to suit. State actors are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violate

clearly established law."); Davison v. Rose, No. 1:16CV0540 (AJT/IDD), 2017 WL

3251293, at *10 (E.D. Va. July 28, 2017) ("Here, the law is less than settled as to whether

the Plaintiff had a right to post on a Facebook page maintained by a public official and

that this right was violated when those postings were removed or when Plaintiff was

prevented from posting his comments. . . . It is not clear as a legal matter whether the

Facebook pages at issue in this litigation can be said to constitute either type of public

forum. In any event, it cannot be said that such a First Amendment right was a 'clearly

established' right, 'of which a reasonable person would have known.' These Individual

Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity for the actions they took against

Plaintiff with respect to their Facebook pages."); Davison v. Plowman, 247 F. Supp. 3d

767, headnote 12 (E.D. Va. 2017) ("It would not have been apparent to a reasonable

government official that excluding county resident from limited public forum, a county

commonwealth's attorney's social media page, after resident repeatedly disregarded the

forum's rules, would violate the First Amendment, and thus county commonwealth's

attorney was entitled to qualified immunity from resident's § 1983 action with respect to
August 3, 2020
Robert J. Miller, Atty.
Page 5


attorney's decision to block resident from further posting on the county commonwealth's

attorney's social media page[.]"), aff'd, 715 F. App'x 298 (4th Cir. 2018) (unpublished

opinion); Hunt v. Bd. of Regents Univ. of N.M., 338 F. Supp. 3d 1251 (D.N.M. 2018)

(even assuming that university official violated medical student's First Amendment right

to post on social networking website by subjecting him to corrective action after his

inflammatory post was found to constitute unprofessional conduct in violation of

university's social media policy, student's right was not "clearly established" when the

discipline was imposed, and so chair was entitled to qualified immunity), aff'd, 792 F.

App'x 595 (10th Cir. 2019) (unpublished opinion); Wagschal v. Skoufis, No. 19 CIV. 2393

(CM), 2020 WL 1033873 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2020) (state legislator was entitled to

qualified immunity from liability in private citizen's § 1983 action alleging that legislator

violated his First Amendment rights by blocking him from social media pages); Novak v.

City of Parma, 932 F.3d 421 (6th Cir. 2019) (police officers were entitled to qualified

immunity from liability in action alleging that officers violated social media page

creator's First Amendment rights by seeking to have social media platform remove

comments).

 The Respondent does not dispute that there are some reported cases in which

public officials have been found to have violated the First Amendment rights of persons

or groups by blocking access to social media, but he submits that such cases differ

significantly from this case. For example, in One Wisconsin Now v. Kremer, 354 F. Supp.
August 3, 2020
Robert J. Miller, Atty.
Page 6


3d 940 (W.D. Wis. 2019), state legislators violated the First Amendment by blocking a

liberal advocacy group from the legislators' respective accounts on an online social media

platform where, as is not the case here, the legislators blocked only a select number of

accounts and articulated no specific reason for blocking the group. Unlike anything in the

instant case, the defendants in Kremer blocked the plaintiff because of its prior speech or

identity and even indicated, either directly or indirectly, that they did not approve of the

plaintiff's political perspective. Id. at 956.

 There is a well-established presumption in the law that public officers, in

performing their official duties, have complied with all statutory requirements, and such

presumption applies to acts of official boards and legislative bodies as well as to the acts

of individual officers. Bohn v. Sauk Cty., 268 Wis. 213, 67 N.W.2d 288 (1954); State ex

rel. Richey v. Neenah Police & Fire Comm'n, 48 Wis. 2d 575, 180 N.W.2d 743 (1970).

 Members of a city's governing council, in particular, are presumed to have acted

regularly and lawfully. Town of Medary v. City of La Crosse, 88 Wis. 2d 101, 277 N.W.2d

310 (Ct. App. 1979). The actions of the Respondent, as alleged in the Ethics Complaint,

were entirely reasonable and lawful. At the very least, such actions are far short of what is

required to overcome the presumption of good faith and legality.
August 3, 2020
Robert J. Miller, Atty.
Page 7




 Respectfully submitted,
 Robert J. Miller
 _____________________
 Robert J. Miller, Attorney
 SB No. 1018487
 227 South Van Buren Street
 Green Bay, WI 54301
 Telephone: (920) 853 6455

 Email: robmiller227@gmail.com

 Attorney for Respondent John S. Vanderleest
 Before the Ethics Board
 of the City of Green Bay

_________________________________________________________________

Tarl Knight, Complainant


vs.


John S. Vanderleest
Respondent

______________________________________________________________

ARGUMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I. The grant of right to counsel in section 8 (d) (3) connotes the rights for effective
counsel.

 The grant of a right to counsel is illusory unless counsel has a right to
adequately prepare the defense. We have not allowed “trial by ambush” in the American courts for
over 100 years.

 The respondent is requesting a suspension of the proceedings so that he can
depose the complainants. This is especially necessary as the complaint as presently constituted
has nothing from the actual parties.

 In Goldberg vs. Kelly,397 U.S.254 1970 at paragraph 17, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed
this issue:

 Certain principles have remained relatively immutable in our jurisprudence.
 One of these is that where governmental action seriously injures an individual,
 and the reasonableness of the action depends on fact fndings, the evidence
 used to prove the Government's case must be disclosed to the individual so
 that he has an opportunity to show that it is untrue. While this is important in
 the case of documentary evidence, it is even more important where the
 evidence consists of the testimony of individuals whose memory might be
 faulty or who, in fact, might be perjurers or persons motivated by malice,
 vindictiveness, intolerance, prejudice, or jealousy. We have formalized
 these protections in the requirements of confrontation and cross-examination.
 They have ancient roots. They fnd expression in the Sixth Amendment * * *.
 This Court has been zealous to protect these rights from erosion. It has spoken out
 not only in criminal cases, * * * but also in all types of cases where administrative * * *
 actions were under scrutiny.'
II. The right to call witnesses and cross-examine witnesses is meaningless without the
right to compel the witnesses to appear.


 A. Part of the effectiveness of the right to counsel is the presentation of testimony. This right
is an empty one if an individual with valuable testimony cannot be compelled to appear. Again, this
issue was discussed in the Goldberg case, at paragraph 19.

 'The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did
 not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel.' Powell v. Alabama,
 287 U.S. 45, 68—69, 53 S.Ct. 55, 64, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932). We do not
 say that counsel must be provided at the pre-termination hearing, but
 only that the recipient must be allowed to retain an attorney if he so
 desires. Counsel can help delineate the issues, present the factual
 contentions in an orderly manner, conduct cross-examination,
 and generally safeguard the interests of the recipient.


 B. The Wisconsin Municipal Administrative Procedure Act ( Chapter 68 of the Wisconsin
Statutes) may have applicability here. At the very least, section 68.11 of theWisconsin Statutes accords
counsel the right to subpoena witnesses/records in a proceeding under the section.



III. The Communications Decency Action (appended) permits the deletion
of objectionable content and the federal government has pre-empted the area.

 A. 47 U.S.Code 230 (c) (2) permits the removal of objectionable content. Among the
elevated political discourse which is sought to be preserved by the petitioner is the
following:


1. I reliably informed that one post called the respondent a “schmuck.”
 This is Yiddish for penis.

2. Another post according to my information, denigrated my client’s business and his integrity.
3. Yet another post called my client a criminal.


B. 47 U.S. Code 230 (e)(3) highlighted in purple) indicates that any state or local action contrary to
this is prohibited. The federal government has pre-empted the area.
IV. Considerations for Ethics Board-- The action of policing content is a legal thicket surrounded
by constitutional quicksand.

 Second-guessing the deletion of posts, etc on the web could mushroom into a full-time
occupation for this board.


 Ultimately, limiting council members abilities to superintend their sites will have them
appear to ratify, endorse, and sponsor the reprehensible content. It will have the government
compelling speech, which is, in itself a constitutional violation. Moreover, the adoption and support of
this repulsive content is an ethics violation.

 Thus council members, such as my client, are damned to ethics code violations if they
delete the content and damned to ethics violations if they do not.



Respectfully submitted by:
  Robert J. Miller
____________________
Robert J. Miller
Attorney for the Respondent—John Vanderleest
227 S. Van Buren St.
Green Bay, WI 54301
SB NO. 1018487
 Cornell Law School Search Cornell



  Support Us! Search 

 Follow
ABOUT LII GET THE LAW LAWYER DIRECTORY LEGAL ENCYCLOPEDIA HELP OUT



 LII > U.S. Code > Title 47. TELECOMMUNICATIONS > Chapter 5. WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION > Subchapter II. COMMON CARRIERS
  > Part I. Common Carrier Regulation > Section 230. Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material




 47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private
  U.S. Code Toolbox
 blocking and screening of offensive material Law about... Articles from Wex
 Table of Popular Names
 U.S. Code Notes Parallel Table of Authorities
 How current is this?
 prev | next

 1.8K 617
 (a) FINDINGS The Congress finds the following:

 (1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to
 individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and
 informational resources to our citizens.

 (2) These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as
 well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.

 (3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of
 political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for
 intellectual activity.

 (4) The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all
 Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.

 (5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational,
 cultural, and entertainment services.


 (b) POLICY It is the policy of the United States—

 (1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer
 services and other interactive media;

 (2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and
 other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation; The Safe Care Promise
 Learn how you can visit us safely.
 (3) to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what
 information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other Advocate Aurora Health Learn More
 interactive computer services;

 (4) to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering SPONSORED LISTINGS

 technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or
 inappropriate online material; and Kirk B. Obear
 (920) 335-8957
 (5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in Sheboygan, WI
 obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer. Criminal Law, DUI & DWI, Cannabis…



 (c) PROTECTION FOR “GOOD SAMARITAN” BLOCKING AND SCREENING OF OFFENSIVE MATERIAL PREMIUM


 (1) TREATMENT OF PUBLISHER OR SPEAKER Website Email Pro!le
 No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker
 of any information provided by another information content provider.
 John Foscato
 (2) CIVIL LIABILITY No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on (920) 432-8801
 Green Bay, WI
 account of—
 Bankruptcy

 (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material
 that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, PREMIUM

 harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally
 Website Email Pro!le
 protected; or

 (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others Genelle Johnson
 the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
 (920) 944-6392
 Appleton, WI
 (d) OBLIGATIONS OF INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICE Divorce, Family Law

 A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a
 customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by PREMIUM


 the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, Website Email Pro!le
 software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting
 access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with
 access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.


 (e) EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS

 (1) NO EFFECT ON CRIMINAL LAW
 Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this
 title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title
 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.


 (2) NO EFFECT ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
 Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual
 property.


 (3) STATE LAW
 Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that
 is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed
 under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.


 (4) NO EFFECT ON COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY LAW
 Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications
 Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.


 (5) NO EFFECT ON SEX TRAFFICKING LAW Nothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall
 be construed to impair or limit—

 (A) any claim in a civil action brought under section 1595 of title 18, if the conduct underlying
 the claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 of that title;

 (B) any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the
 charge would constitute a violation of section 1591 of title 18; or

 (C) any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the
 charge would constitute a violation of section 2421A of title 18, and promotion or facilitation of
 prostitution is illegal in the jurisdiction where the defendant’s promotion or facilitation of
 prostitution was targeted.


 (f) DEFINITIONS As used in this section:

 (1) INTERNET
 The term “Internet” means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal
 interoperable packet switched data networks.


 (2) INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICE
 The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access
 software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer
 server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such
 systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.


 (3) INFORMATION CONTENT PROVIDER
 The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole
 or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any
 other interactive computer service.


 (4) ACCESS SOFTWARE PROVIDER The term “access software provider” means a provider of software
 (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:

 (A) filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;

 (B) pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or

 (C) transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or
 translate content.


 (June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title II, §​230, as added Pub. L. 104–104, title V, §​509, Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat.
 137; amended Pub. L. 105–277, div. C, title XIV, §​1404(a), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–739; Pub. L.
 115–164, §​4(a), Apr. 11, 2018, 132 Stat. 1254.)




 Police say everyone should carry this new
 OPEN
 safety device that protects against attackers.




 ACCESSIBILITY ABOUT LII CONTACT US ADVERTISE HERE HELP TERMS OF USE PRIVACY
 Before the Ethics Board
 of the City of Green Bay

_________________________________________________________________

Tarl Knight, Complainant


vs.


John S. Vanderleest
Respondent

______________________________________________________________
MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The respondent, by his counsel, Robert J. Miller, moves for an order
granting a postponement of the hearing as he has been in the case for
approximately 3 business days. This is an inadequate time to prepare for the hearing.



Dated this 20th day of July 2020


 Robert J. Miller
_________________________
Robert J. Miller
Attorney for the Respondent
227 S. Van Buren St.
Green Bay, WI 54301
SB No 1018487
Phone 920 432 1900
 Before the Ethics Board
 of the City of Green Bay

_________________________________________________________________

Tarl Knight, Complainant


vs.


John S. Vanderleest
Respondent

______________________________________________________________
MOTION FOR COMPLAINTS FROM THE ALLEGED AGGRIEVED PARTIES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The respondent, by his attorney, Robert J. Miller, states as follows

1. Upon information and belief, no posts of Mr. Knight have been blocked or deleted
by the respondent.

2. Mr. Knight may not have standing to complain and may not have any personal
(first-hand) knowledge of the facts.

3. The respondent is entitled to a complete outline of the complainants allegations
before proceeding.

4. Mr. Knight suggests that “several are available to provide proof of having been blocked”
He attached a list of parties.

5. Respondent’s counsel is unclear whether he has the right to subpoena their testimony at a
deposition or even at a hearing.

6. Respondent’s counsel is unable to cross-examine pieces of paper or even compel testimony
from the actual aggrieved parties.

Dated this 20th day of July 2020
 Robert J. Miller
__________________
Robert J. Miller
Attorney for the Respondent
227 S. Van Buren St.
Green Bay, WI 54301
SB No 1018487
Phone 920 432 1900
 CI
 TIZENSBLOCKEDORDELETEDBYMR.VANDERLEEST




 HOW TO TELLI
 FYOUHAVEBEENBLOCKEDONFACEBOOK




 Facebookoff
 ersa“ TownHall”featurethatshowsy ou
 yourel
 ectedoff
 ici
 alsbasedony  ours t
 reetaddress.
 Youthenhavetheabi l
 it
 ytofoll
 owt hos eoff
 ici
 als’
 pages
 andgetthei
 rmaili
 ngaddr ess,emai landphone#.

 Whenbl ockedbyAl der
 manVanderLees  t(shownat
 l
 eft
 ),noopt i
 ontofoll
 owthepageex  i
 sts,preventi
 ng
 youfrom gett
 ingnewc ont
 entfr
 om theal dermani n
 yournewsf eed,andbarri
 ngyouf r
 om interacti
 ngwith
Onthepage,no“li
 ke”buttonwill
 bepr esentt
 ofoll
 ow
 t
 hec onversati
 onthathappensthere.
t
hepage,andno“ l
 ike”or“comment ”but
 tonswil
 l
beavai
 l
 able,cut
 ti
 ngof fal
 lint
 eract
 ionwit
 ht hepage.
ALDERMANVANDERLEESTBLOCKSMARKZAHN(
 AUG ‘
 17)
 InAugustof2017,Al dermanVanderLeestpost  edalink
 toanar ti
 cl
 eaboutt  he“ wheelt ax”t
 hatthecitywas
 debat i
 ngatthet ime.Heof  feredhisstanceonthemat ter
 andt henconcludedbyaski ng“ Whatdoyout hi
 nk?”Thi sis
 clearl
 yanel ectedof fi
 cialseekingpubliccommentonaci  ty
 i
 ssue.Iof f
 eredmyi  nputont  hemat t
 erasavocalsuppor  t
 er
 ofthewheelt ax.Ihaveknownpeopl ewhohavebeen
 devastatedbyspeci  alassessment soft ensoft
 housandsof
 doll
 ars.Event houghIknewhewoul dn’tagreewithmy
 stance,Iexpect edhi mt oatleastconsidermyopi ni
 on.




 Shor tl
 yafterhi
 sr ebuttal,andbef oreIhadachancet o
 continuethedebat e,Al dermanVanderLeestbl ockedme
 fr
 om par t
 icipat
 inginhi sFacebookpagewi thno
 explanati
 onorwar  ningwhat  soever-abant  hatcontinued
 wellinto2020.Thi sprevent edmef  rom posti
 ng,
 comment ingand“  l
 iki
 ng”hi spost s,andalsopr eventedme
 fr
 om seeinghi scont entinmyr  egularnewsf eed.
 CLAI
 M THATPAGEI
 SA“CAMPAI
 GNPAGE”




POSTSARCHI
 VED:ht
 tps:
 //
 greenbay1
 1th.
 or 2020/
 g/ 04/
 alder
 man-
 vander
 -l
 eest
 -cl
 ai  ci
 ms- t
 y-f
 acebook-
 page-
 is-
 for
 - gn-
 campai as-
 excuse-
 to-
 block-
 cit
 izen-
 comment
 s/




 CAMPAI
 GN 25POSTS
 POSTS (22%)




 NON-
 90POSTS
 CAMPAI
 GN
 (78%)
 POSTS
 Report to the
 Ethics Board
 of the City of Green Bay


 MEETING DATE PREPARED BY
 October 7, 2020

AGENDA ITEM # E.2
Deliberations and action on the Motions filed in the matter of the Ethics Complaint against Alder John
Vander Leest, filed by Mr. Tarl Knight, under the City of Green Bay Code of Conduct for Elected Officials.

The Board may convene in closed session pursuant to Sections 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 governing 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
None




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

MINUTES OF THE ETHICS BOARD
 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2020, 5:00 PM
 Virtual Meeting. Public may attend via Zoom.


 A. ZOOM MEETING INFORMATION.



1. This item contains documents which provide call in information and instructions for the Zoom
Meeting.




 B. ROLL CALL.



1. William Vande Castle, Chair; Alder Bill Galvin; Branka Bakovic; Chari Graham; Cheryl Renier-
Wigg; Aaron Weinschenk
Present: Bill Galvin, William VandeCastle, Aaron Weinschenk, Cheryl Renier-Wigg, Excused: Chari
Graham



 C. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.



1. Approval of the Agenda for Wednesday, October 7, 2020.
Moved by Ald. Bill Galvin, seconded by Staff Cheryl Renier-Wigg to approve. Motion carried.
Yes- Bill Galvin, William VandeCastle, Cheryl Renier-Wigg, Aaron Weinschenk, No- None, Abstain-
None
 D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.



1. Approval of the Minutes from the September 1, 2020 Ethics Board Meeting.
Moved by Staff Cheryl Renier-Wigg, seconded by Aaron Weinschenk to approve. Motion carried.
Yes- Bill Galvin, William VandeCastle, Cheryl Renier-Wigg, Aaron Weinschenk, No- None, Abstain-
None



 E. REGULAR BUSINESS.



1. Hearing on the following Motions filed in the matter of the Ethics Complaint against Alder John
Vander Leest, filed by Mr. Tarl Knight, under the City of Green Bay Code of Conduct for Elected
Officials:
- Motion to Specify Plaintiff's Claim with Particularity and Clarity filed by Alder Vander Leest on
August 31, 2020
- Motion to Suppress filed by Mr. Knight on September 18, 2020
- Motion to Dismiss filed by Alder Vander Leest on September 18, 2020
- Motion to Suppress filed by Mr. Knight on October 2, 2020




2. Deliberations and action on the Motions filed in the matter of the Ethics Complaint against Alder
John Vander Leest, filed by Mr. Tarl Knight, under the City of Green Bay Code of Conduct for
Elected Officials.

The Board may convene in closed session pursuant to Sections 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 governing 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.

Moved by Ald. Bill Galvin, seconded by Chair William VandeCastle to go into closed session. Motion
carried.
Yes- Bill Galvin, William VandeCastle, Cheryl Renier-Wigg, Aaron Weinschenk, No- None, Abstain-
 None

Moved by Board Member Cheryl Renier-Wigg, seconded by Board Member Aaron Weinschenk, to
return to open session. Motion carried.
Yes- Bill Galvin, William VandeCastle, Cheryl Renier-Wigg, Aaron Weinschenk, No- None, Abstain-
 None
 F. ADJOURNMENT.

Moved by Aaron Weinschenk, seconded by Staff Cheryl Renier-Wigg to adjourn. Motion carried.
Yes- Bill Galvin, William VandeCastle, Cheryl Renier-Wigg, Aaron Weinschenk, No- None, Abstain-
None



 VERBATIM MINUTES

- And we're good.

- All right, very good. So, a little after five on October 7th, I would call to order the meeting of the City of
Green Bay Ethics Board. I believe that there is roll call taken electronically here, so we'll move to... And it does
appear that we have a quorum so that we can proceed. So we'll move to item C. That's approval of the
agenda. Is there a motion to approve the agenda for the Wednesday, October 7th, 2020 Ethics Board meeting?

- Motion to approve. Second.

- We have a motion and a second. Any additions or corrections to the agenda? Hearing none. agenda signify by
saying, "Aye."

- [All] Aye.

- Any opposed? Motion carries. Moving on to item D, approval of the minutes. We have in our packet, the set
of minutes from the September 1st, 2020 Ethics Board meeting. Are there any additions or corrections?
Hearing none. Is there a motion to approve?

- Motion to approve.

- Motion.

- I have motion. Is there a second?

- I'll second.

- There's a motion and a second. Again, last call. Any additions or corrections? Hearing none. All in favor of
approval of the minutes from the September 1st, 2020 Ethics Board meeting signify by saying "Aye."

- [All] Aye.

- Any opposed?

- [Rob] So, you called in and what was the problem?

- All right, doesn't sound like there are any opposed, so that motion carries. Minutes from the September 1st
meeting are approved. Moving on to regular business. Do we know if we have Alder VanderLeest connected
yet?

- Looks like Rob's still working on that.
- May I interject? He told me that he can watch things or whatever, but he can't hear. You want me to have
him try calling in again? What's the pleasure of the participants?

- We can certainly try calling in again.

- Okay, I'll call him and you can go forward. I'll have him call in again. Okay.

- Rob, you might want to have him check the thing at the bottom left, where it goes through all this-

- Oh, the ?

- That thing. I think he's not catching that.

- Okay, I'll go to try again.

- Lindsay, I have somebody in the waiting room.

- Yep, I'm on it.

- Okey-doke.

- Thank you.

- [Rob] Yeah, John, why don't you call in again and make sure you push the start audio and start video?
Something like that.

- [Rob] Yeah.

- [Rob] And has it worked?

- Yeah, okay.

- Mr. Conley, he's got those buttons pushed. Has he been muted? Is that possible?

- He's not muted.

- He just shows up as--

- Is not...

- --not having audio.

- Mr. VandeCastle?

- Yes.

- One thing that you have to do, it's almost before you get to that part with the microphone and the video, is
when it goes in it says "Connect with computer audio." You have to press that, and then you get to this
screen. So, he may have forgotten to press that.

- Ah.

- That's before you get to--
- Did you hear Alderperson Dorff?

- [John] .

- I can say it again.

- Excuse me. Might I interject and ask Alderperson Dorff to repeat that and I'll put my phone near the
computer. Okay? If that's okay? Is that okay?

- Sure. Yes, go ahead.

- Okay.

- So, John, you almost have to go back out and then when you first get admitted in it will give you a choice of
"Connect with computer audio" or "Connect with iPhone audio". You have to press "Connect with computer
audio". And then, again, when you get into it, you have to connect to the audio and the video. So, you have to
actually start out all over again. That could be it.

- He indicated he will try it again. Thank you, Alderperson Dorff.

-.

- Are we all connected? Alder Vanderleest, can you hear us?

- It looks like we still don't have audio for him.

- How about connection by phone? Is there a way to do that?

- Yeah, we should probably just have him dial in on the audio. Just have them call that phone number and enter
the meeting ID, and he should be able to participate fully without video.

- [Rob] Why don't you just dial in on a phone and listen? How about that?

- [Rob] It's 312

- [John] .

- [Rob] 312

- [John] 312

- [Rob] Just a minute. 312-626... 312-626-6799

- [Rob] Or just try this. 312-626-6799

- [John] .

- [Rob] 626-6799 I think you need them. If you get to that point, I'll give you meeting ID and the password.

- [Rob] 312

- [John] 312
- [Rob] 626

- [John] 626

- [Rob] 6799

- [Rob] Okay.

- [John] This is Alder Vanderleest calling in.

- We're good We can hear you.

- [John] Okay. I'll keep my tablet going. At least I'll be able to hear what's going on in the meeting. Thank you.

- Very good, very good. All right. So, getting back on our , procedural aspects of the meeting, we're now ready
to move on to regular business. Item number one, we are scheduled tonight for a hearing on a number of
motions that have been filed in this matter that is the ethics complaint against the Alder John Vanderleest as
filed by Mr.Tarl Knight, under the City of Green Bay code of conduct for elected officials. You should have all
received packets of documents from... I believe they would have come through the packet with the agenda for
tonight's meeting. There are number of motions that were filed by the parties. Some that were filed before our
last meeting when a scheduling order was put in place and a number of them that were filed after that
scheduling order was put in place. The first one, Mr. Conley, correct me if I'm in error here, but the first one...
First motion filed was that by Attorney Miller, for specificity. That one looks like it was filed back in...
Sometime in late August, if I'm not mistaken. And it appears--

- That's August, 31st.

- And it appears that there was a response filed by that. So, is there... I would turn this over to Mr. Miller and
Mr. Knight. Is there anything further that we need to address with respect to that motion?

- This is Rob Miller. May I speak for a minute?

- Yes, please.

- My understanding at this point is that we're proceeding with the alleged as a violation of the public meeting
section of the code of ethics. And, if that's the understanding, no further clarification is necessary.

- Very good. Mr. Knight, anything to add to that?

- No, I don't have anything extra to add other than--

- All right. Very good. And, just from my reading of it I would assume... It was my impression that that was the
case but the motion was filed, so it needed to be addressed. So then... It's like the next motion that was filed
under the scheduling orders were; A Motion to Dismiss, that was filed by Mr. Miller. And a... I'm sorry. And at
the same time, there was a Motion to Suppress, filed by Mr. Knight. So both of those, looks like they came in
on September 18th. So... Mr. Conley, do you have an idea of which one came in first? We'll go in order of
which ones they came in.

- They came in pretty much at the same time. The Motion to Suppress was based on some evidence in affidavit
that was filed by Mr. Miller, and the Motion to Dismiss was an overall motion to dismiss the complaint.

- And so then, the first one would be Mr. Knight's motion to suppress?
- Probably makes some sense to address that first.

- Right. So, Mr. Knight--

- fine with me, by the way. I'm agreeable with that.

- Okay.

- I'm sorry, Mr. Bill, you're agreeable to what?

- To his proceeding first with his motions.

- Oh, okay. Very good. So, Mr. Knight, we will address your Motion to Suppress first. I know you have two of
them. It looks like another one was filed in October, but we'll deal with the September, 18th one first. So, the
floor is yours. You can address anything that you would like to the board regarding that motion.

- Thank you. So, filed by Attorney Miller was an affidavit. And that was assigned or written... Assigned at least,
by Rhonda , who's a member of the Green Valley area school board, as is addressed in the affidavit. I had a
conversation with Ms. about these hearings and about the issue here. And, she was clearly unfamiliar with the
case. With the whole situation. She had talked about a number of personal instances, which are addressed in
your affidavit, that she had been harassed on social media. But when I had explained to her the situation here
with the formal complaint, in that, a number of people in the community had been blocked and their
comments and posts and been deleted, she didn't understand the significance or the to the relevance to the
case. And, she was concerned further that she wasn't sure how this affected the case. Because, had she known
what the entire situation was about would not have come out to sign this affidavit. She has suggested that she's
willing to come on and to clarify her on the things that are being addressed in the formal complaint. And that
she's very pro-freedom of speech. She, as a member of the school board, has many times allowed people to
speak even when their voices were disagreed over her own opinions. And she has communicated to me that
she's willing to come here to communicate about the policy of the school board, in order to help to educate
this board and any aldermen in the City Council, as to what she believes with the school board and other
parties would be ethical. And, I know she would see that people could be heard. Especially on social media. So,
I guess my Motion to Suppress here is that I'm not familiar... Although I'm sensitive to his situation, I'm not
familiar with how it's relevant to this situation. And furthermore, I haven't communicated with her personally.
But it's clear that she's unfamiliar with it. And, I think she was a little bit upset that she didn't understand how
she was being... in what context this was being used and whether she was maybe being framed to be
supportive of the respondent. When in fact, her beliefs might align more with the complaint.

- So basically, it sounds like that's... You're saying . I don't know why .

- Sorry. I should have been just more clear and succinct and simple than that. Yeah. I don't understand how
this is clear, and I think that the person who signed the affidavit is unsure how it's relevant as well. It's a little
confusing to me as to what this has to do with anything.

- Thank you. Anything further on this issue?

- No, not on this issue.

- Mr. Miller--

- Alder Galvin has lost his connection, to tell you that.

- Yeah, I noticed he wasn't there.
- Yeah. He's trying to get back in. He just texted me.

- All right. So let's hold the phone, Alder Galvin gets back connected so that we have a quorum.

- Quorum, yeah.

- [Woman] Hi, this is . Calling on...

- He's trying to text me something. I'll let you know when it comes through.

- Thank you for your assistance here.

- I need help. Come on, Bill. He's getting a message that his internet is down. Can I send him the phone
instructions? Yes, I will. But, I will mute myself so I don't sound silly.

- All right.

- -- That's an interesting sound, isn't it? He said his internet said it's coming back up again. I said, "Stay on the
phone with me." And then that sound came up. So, he didn't. So, we'll see. There he is. And there he is.

- All right, he's back.

- You're muted, Alder Galvin.

- It's probably a good thing I was muted. I said some things I shouldn't have about my internet and my phone
connection. I think I live just about underneath the tower that never works very well. So, thank you.

- All right, very good. So, just for the record. We took a brief pause here as one of our members, Alder
Galvin, lost his internet connection to our Zoom meeting here. So, he is back online and attending the
meeting, so we will continue. Alder Galvin, is there anything that you missed from Mr. Knight in his
presentation on his Motion to Suppress?

- I hate to say this, yes. I think I checked out about the time he was saying he had talked to Ms. , and that she
had related that she had a couple instances happen to her over the internet. I think on social media, but then,
that's when I got locked out.

- Okay. Would you like Mr. Knight to readdress those issues for you?

- If he could, just briefly. I mean, I don't want to make everyone go through that whole thing again--

- That's fine.

- --however long it was. But, I really appreciate that.

- I'll try to make it brief.

- Thank you.

- Actually, I've spoken with Ms. and I'm familiar with this situation, but I'm just unsure of the relevance of this
affidavit to this case. It's... And furthermore, it seems like it... I don't know if bad faith is the correct term or
not but Ms. wasn't familiar with this entire formal complaint. The situation. The basis of it. And had she known,
she communicated to me that she probably would not have not cooperated with something. And furthermore,
she is staunchly... pro-allowing the community to speak and not deleting their comments. And, as a member of
the school board is entrusted with a number of different stipulations that allow her and other members of that
body to do so. So, she would come out and in support of this complaint. And if it's applicable, I would love to
call the ring when the time is right to do that. But that's my Motion to Suppress. It's not relevant and I think it
might've been in bad faith. But, that's it.

- Okay, thank you. So next, we were about to give Attorney Miller a chance to respond. So, Attorney Miller,
the floor is yours.

- Thank you. Well, with regard to the affidavit, I spoke with Ms. at some length. Explained exactly what the
situation was, just for informational purposes. Thereafter, I called her again and asked her if she would be
willing to sign an affidavit outlining her experiences with death threats via voicemail and social media, with
which she has received. And in fact, she has a injunction against the individual who's made these death threats.
The exact relevance is that I've cited section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. And, I am a big
proponent of First Amendment rights, the ability to speak. But I think when people are making death threats to
anyone and most especially, a public official, that needs to be policed and addressed. And, the ability to do so is
contained in that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. And my view is that the ability to police
and delete posts is absolutely inherent in reasonable and decent discussions and I would further add that my
material from the Wisconsin Ethics Bard... The people that supervise ethics for the state legislators and advise
local attorneys on this, indicates that state legislators have the ability to police and manage Facebook posts. So,
it's entirely consistent with my defense that public officials need the ability to police and manage their posts so
they're not put in a position of endorsing repugnant postings on their social media items on the internet. So,
it's relevant. It's... Ms. was well aware of What's going on. I talked to her multiple times. I had to solicit the
affidavit. I don't know where Mr. Knight is coming from with that recitation but it stands as it is. And, I guess
it's a matter of debate if we get to that point.

- Mr. Miller, a question. I'm not sure I heard you correctly. Did you say with this particular person that there is
a restraining order or a injunction or something?

- Yes. Against the person that made the death threats on social media and voicemails. So, she has every reason
to be supportive of the ability to police and manage Facebook posts , and that's where this is coming from.
And I've outlined the-- The section 230 of the communications decency act, which permits people who have
cited that as preempting local laws to the contrary.

- All right. All right. Any board members have any questions for either party? Yes, Cheryl.

- All of the information that I've read so far, were there death threats involved with the social media? I'm
talking about with this here?

- I mean, do I need to address it?

- Yeah.

- Yeah. Whoever.

- No death threats. My understanding is that there were names of... inappropriate names utilized and also,
there was some disparaging of Mr. Vanderleest's business and his integrity. Those are the types of things that
were present here. As well as just things that were off topic.

- Mr. Knight.

- When you address that none of the material which I have come across have been supplied with... Which
makes up the basis of the has any evidence or proof of anyone threatening anything or making any sort of bad
faith or rude or inappropriate Everything has been quite succinct with the business of the office of aldermen.
city issues and address those ones as well included as exhibits. And also, Ms. has also not any of the posts
which were made. And she has allowed all of the posts and comments on her professional even though there
is an injunction. She's even allowed those to remain. That's how staunchly she supports freedom of speech.
Though, I'm not sure why you... I'm not sure what's going on.

- Okay. Any further questions from the board?

- I have a question.

- Go ahead .

- I guess I'm wondering if Attorney Miller is saying that based on what has happened to Ms. , you think that just
the VanderLeest deleting comments that he doesn't agree with on his Facebook page?

- That's the argument.

- And so, because what she does... You think if it's good for her to do it or it's because she got threatened?

- No, no. That's just an example. The basis of deleting posts is section 230 of the Communication Decency Act
and the Wisconsin Ethics Board, with regard to policing and managing Facebook .

- Okay. So, it's just an example of what happened?

- That's just an example.

- Okay.

- Yes. I'm not suggesting that... The fact that it occurs makes it important.

- Okay.

- That's simply the basis for its relevance. And we've got a lot of real world examples that are occurring daily
on Twitter and in Facebook in the like of death threats. So, that was the one that I had access to. I had access
to a specific individual but that's common knowledge to anybody that's reading the news.

- Okay. I guess a follow up comment I had to that and... Mr. Conley, if I'm out of the line shut me down right
away. But, I seem to recall in the recent past politicians on state level, in Wisconsin, who were reprimanded or
they were at some kind of hearings because they were deleting Facebook posts and comments from followers
and they were reprimanded or... They got in some kind of trouble for doing that. So I'm just wondering, how
this... You draw this conclusion but on paper and seen on media, where it's the opposite of what you're
claiming here.

- And may I respond to that?

- Yes.

- There are cases all over the place. There's a case that I cite in my brief. The Governor of Kentucky did
basically, exactly what Mr. Vanderleest has alleged to have done and he was upheld. His actions were upheld by
the district court in Kentucky. So, my point is, not that... Or my point is, that it's an area of flux according to
some judges. There are diametrically opposing decisions in this area and in that circumstance, it's not clear
which path to follow. And I'm suggesting to you that there are divergent paths and it's unclear what is
appropriate at this point. Is that responsive?
- Yeah, that makes sense. All right, thank you.

- Any further question from any of the board numbers regarding the Motion to Suppress? All right. Hearing
none. I think the next motion up then is Mr.... Excuse me, Attorney Miller's Motion to Dismiss. So, Attorney
Miller, I will give you the floor to address your motion.

- Okay. I'm going to just hit the highlights because I did file a five-page brief that went into these points in
substantial detail. So, I'm gonna start off at the most remote level and then hone in on the specifics as to why
this should be dismissed. First of all, I want to go over a couple of general considerations here that I think have
to be kept in mind. And they're pretty simple ones. When we seek to punish somebody, either via criminal
actions or Ethics Board's actions or somewhere in between, we state the conduct expected in clear
unmistakable terms. When we write a statute or ordinance it should be very clear. The courts apply the rule
of stare decisis. So, we apply previous precedents so we have people know what to expect. In this case, if
we're going to the aspect of public meetings, this is a complete surprise to anybody as is to the meaning of
public meetings. And also, just from the standpoint of the relevant cases which I addressed with the exchange
with Alderman Galvin. And also, there's a certain idea of Sometimes we talk about it in stark terms of the ex
post facto laws. We don't charge you with driving through an intersection improperly and put up the stop sign
the next day. So, here we have... At the outset of this, we have cases from the Second and Fourth Circuit
Courts of Appeals that really have no application to this jurisdiction. And that's one of the themes that runs
through this proceeding. We also have a conduct that really... appropriately wasn't within the scope of, I
believe, the ordinance. The public meeting section. And finally, we have the complainant citing social media
sections of the personnel policy that simply wouldn't be applicable to City Council members. So, that's where
we start. At this point, we have boiled it down to the public meeting section. We are looking at Mr.
VanderLeest's conduct as a violative of a public meeting. And, I go over that aspect in some detail. We have
definitions of a public meeting in Wisconsin, and I'm citing section 1982 of the Wisconsin statutes. It's basically,
"The convening of members of a body to conduct a business." And, I further cite a case that states that "We
don't have one-person public meetings in Wisconsin." It's very plain, and in fact that's the Canon of
Construction that I'm citing here or utilizing. We look at the plain meaning of the term when we're trying to
interpret an ordinance or a statute. The plain meaning of public meeting would not include exchanges on a
Facebook site or a Twitter feed. And in fact, if we expand or push or contort the meaning of public meeting to
something else, what wouldn't it include? I indicate, wouldn't it expand to meeting... to a chance meeting on
the street? Or in a store? Or in a place of worship? What wouldn't be subject to this ethics code if the public
meetings limitations are eliminated. And, I also note that.... that we don't look for ambiguity in trying to
understand what an ordinance means. I believe that public meeting is perfectly clear. I've given you some
definitions and I cited a couple of cases indicating... And some authorities to the extent that we're...
Interpreting us in ordinance is not a search for ambiguity. And I think, a reasonable English speaker would
understand what a public meeting is very easily. And if there are any doubts, one goes to Wisconsin statutes
or even the city's codes of ordinances. A public meeting in Wisconsin, by the City of Green Bay is always
noticed for the press. We have no notice for open meetings law purposes or for any exchanges on Facebook.
And in fact, I just suggest that if we start transmuting public meetings to be Facebook exchanges, the City of
Green Bay is going to be violating the open meetings law multiple times a day. The other Canon that I look at
in trying to interpret what a public meeting is, is the will of lenity, well, or leniency. Basically, the idea is that
the defendant is given the benefit of the doubt very simply. We're seeking to punish. The defendant is being
given the benefit of doubt. We utilize that in the "Beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in our criminal cases.
And, when we utilize that to look at this ordinance, we would keep it at its current meaning or contract it. We
don't expand it to encapsulate new vistas of public meetings that were not contemplated by the City Council.
And I use a quote by the United States Supreme court. And I'll repeat that here. And I quote, "The conduct
proscribed must be defined specifically, so that the person or persons affected will remain secure and
unrestrained in the rights to engage in activities not encompassed by the legislation. Blurred signposts to
criminality will not suffice to create it." Now, obviously there's no criminality here but the same theories apply.
And, it's very strange to me that my client would be thought to have read the advance sheets of the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals or the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Or even, now would be contemplating that a
Facebook exchange or interchanges in the course of a campaign, is a public meeting. For the purposes of the
ethics code. And I might note here in one of the basis of the motions to dismiss, is that it creates two sets of
individuals. The individuals that are running for public office to stay incumbent, are under the strictures of this
code of ethics as it stands or as it's interpreted. Whereas, the challengers can do whatever they want. Which
seems to be profoundly unfair. I guess, one of the very important aspects of this interpretation in my brief, is
that the Ethics Board is not empowered to by rewriting city ordinances. The city's personnel policy is not
relevant to the aldermen and the legislative power of the City of Green Bay was not vested in its Ethics Board.
The City Council did not delegate to the Ethics Board, the right to legislate. It passed a specific set of
ordinances with regard to what is contained or what is subject to the Ethics Board. It did not specifically
incorporate social media. It could have. It obviously spoke with regard to the actions of its other employees.
But it chose not to. So, for the Ethics Board to expand this ordinance beyond the normal definition of a public
meeting, is essentially to rewrite a city ordinance. I also addressed the sections 230 of the Communications
Decency Act, which preempts any state from enforcing... Or state, or local government from enforcing
anything that's contrary to it's dictates. And one of the things that is granted under the Communications
Decency Act is the ability to manage and delete posts. I guess the other point here is that there's really no
violation of any controlling law whatsoever. And this is probably surprising. But, the jurisdictions of the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals have no application here. We are sitting in
the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and they have not spoken on this. At least in the Eastern district. In the
Western district, that's . But, there is no control and precedent in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and that's
true of state law, as well. So, for someone to figure out what's appropriate or inappropriate would be very
difficult. As I've told you before, there are conflicting opinions on this. And, I cite Morgan versus Bevin from
the Eastern District Court of Kentucky, which approved the basic . And, importantly here, the court said that,
there's no constitutional right for a person to be heard. Nothing in the First Amendment indicates that a
member of the public has a right for the representative of the government to listen to him. So, this is exactly
analogous to someone ripping up a letter or reading a letter or ripping up, failing to take a phone call. Turning
away from a discussion because they want it to end. This is exactly what's done every day by public officials.
Granted. Maybe, you think that it would be better. Maybe it would be better if every constituent was heard
out to the end. But in our public meetings, we control access to the floor. We can control time. We eliminate
people's right to speak. Sometimes we deny their right to speak entirely. So, this... What happens on Facebook
or Twitter is exactly the way that we conduct public meetings. We control access and there is no
constitutional right to be heard. In fact, a legislative body can legislate without hearing from any member of the
public at all. Now, I guess the overriding concern here... is that the ethics standards need to be clearer. They
need to be clearly understandable and they need to be made available to the people that are supposed to
comply with this. I indicate that it should not be a scavenger hunt or a guess as to what the public officials
should do with regard to the compliance with the ethics code. There's no way that... I mean, I don't know how
many of you are familiar with the Second Circuit or Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals cases or the Western
district cases. But, I knew very little about this and certainly I would not have been able to give an opinion on
the applicability to the City of Green Bay's aldermen. And... I think it's important here to measure the standard
that Mr. VanderLeest is being held to. He is apparently being told that he must understand in advance what a
public meeting is. And that it's been transmuted from a regular public meeting at City Hall or via Zoom, to
virtually anything. That, he should review at his peril the decisions of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Even though they have no applicability here. And, what of the city
attorney's office here? It's interesting that they never warned Mr. VanderLeest about the... Or any Alderman
about the conduct of websites. In this case, the website was a campaign website. And I would submit to you
that the reason that the city attorney's office failed to warn, is that much... As I said before, we have conflicting
cases. It's in a state of flux and it's really unknown. There is no controlling precedent. So, Mr. VanderLeest is
being held to a much higher standard than anyone else, even as on one line of cases is perfectly acceptable. So,
let me just summarize the Motion to Dismiss. I think I've hired... I've argued about our... I mentioned most of
them. I mean, the advice of the Wisconsin Ethics Board, which I've submitted in a previous filing, seems to be
perfectly consistent with his conduct. That state legislators have the right to manage a post. That was the last
posting that I could find on the Ethics Board website, which I produced in full. I guess the other aspect of this is
the idea that one has to speak with clarity. If you want people to comply with ethic's standards, it has to be
clear in advance. Not changing the definition of public meetings after the conduct has occurred. And that's
what I would is occurring here. It's not an ex post facto law in the literal meaning of that, it's changing the
definition of the term after the conduct has occurred. So, for all the reasons I've cited in my brief, in my
motions, I think this action should be dismissed. If we are interested in solving the problem, it seems to me the
problems should be solved via communication to the City Council, to specifically outline what members of the
City Council should do or should not do on social media. To the best of my knowledge that has not been
done. There has been a submission by Alderperson Dorff to ask to us... to have the city attorney's office offer
some training. I think that's a very positive step. But, putting heads on posts such as this proceeding to punish
Mr. VanderLeest, the problem needs to be solved by clear, unequivocal standards of conduct posted in
advance of the conduct taking place. And at that point, these problems will not arise. And, I'm in favor of
solving the problem as opposed to punishment for the sake of punishment. Thank you. And I would appreciate
if this matter was dismissed.

- Thank you, Mr. Miller. Mr. Knight, any response to Mr. Miller's argument?

- Yeah,

- Mr. Knight, just hold on. Could you turn up your volume somehow? I'm having a hard time hearing you.

- So, what I'll do is I'll come close to the computer and I'll speak a little bit louder so you can hear me.

- However you want to do it is fine.

- If I may, Mr. Chairman. If I may. Lindsay, if you could allow me to share. I'd like to make sure that we clarify
some of the arguments because there's some things in the motion that I don't think were discussed that I think
are important for the board and when they deliberate. And I want to make sure the board understands the
basis of Mr. Miller's argument. So--

- You're still a co-host so you should still be able to share your screen.

- Okay. It wasn't allowing me to before. Okay. Code of conduct

- Are these what you're pulling up? Okay. Very good. That's in our packet as well, I think, but go ahead.

- Okay. Can you folks... Where am I on the... For some reason, I'm blind to it.

- It starts... You've got section four of the code of conduct pulled up.

- Perfect. And, I want to make this clear to everybody because this is exactly what Mr. Miller was arguing
about. And I want to make sure that Tarl responds to this, because I do think this is an important issue. The
provision of the code that Mr. Knight quoted is this provision. He quoted it starting "No signs of partiality,
prejudice or disrespect, should be evident on the part of an individual council member toward an individual
participating in a public efforts should be made". And then he went through the rest of the statute. Excuse me.
The rule. What Mr. Miller is pointing out in his argument, and I'm in the position he appears to be taking, is
that this should only apply in public meetings. Mr. Miller, am I correct in that interpretation and trying to clarify
this for the board?

- That's I understand to be the plain meaning of .

- Okay, very good. Now, I'll probably have some questions about this after Mr. Knight has a chance to address
it. But, I just wanted to make that clear to the board. That, that's where he's coming from. That, that's where
Mr. Miller was coming from. I also would like to talk about a couple other issues that I think are important,
that are in Mr. Miller's motion that were not discussed at this point in time. Let's see here. Let me find the
right motion. I've got to go to the share. Okay. Let me share something else here if I can find it in time here.
Okay. Got to find your motion here, Rob. I'm not sure where I have it. Is that Mr. Ma... Which motion do I
have up there? That's the motion--

- Motion to Suppress.

- No, that's not the one I want to share.

- These --

- What I'm trying to find is Mr. Miller's motion that actually sets up. I can find it on my screen but I can't seem
to find it here.

- You can address those as Mr. Knight goes through his presentation.

- Yeah. I was kind of hoping we could look at those so that Mr. Knight could .

- Right.

- [Lindsay] I can find it if you would like.

- Why don't you do that for me? And then put it up. In the meantime, Tarl can start addressing this first issue.

- [Lindsay] Is it the brief supporting the Motion to Dismiss?

- No. What I think is important is the Motion to Dismiss. It's shorter, easier for to understand. And I think we
can walk through that a little quicker.

- [Lindsay] Okay.

- You just said a one and a half page document?

- Right. Right, it's a shorter document, easier to go through.

- It's got eight stipulations on it.

- Hey, Mr. Knight make sure your .

- All right. Now is a very good time for me to continue upon.

- Well, one thing I just wanted to clarify with Mr. Miller. I noticed that Mr. Miller also believes that the charge
regarding social media section should be dismissed. You didn't touch on that very much, Mr. Miller. Can you
clarify that portion of your motion before Mr.--

- Well, my understanding is that the social media section refers to, and correct me if I'm wrong, is the
personnel policy of the city. And it would not be applicable to a City Council member. Is that the case?

- That's one of the things we would be deliberating on and discussing.

- Okay. Is my understanding correct? Or that is a personnel... When I saw it on the internet, it said "personnel
policy" or something like that.

- I believe it is one of the personnel policies.
- And, my understanding and... If I'm not supposed to ask the question, Mr. Conley, you tell me, but my
understanding is that the council members would not be subject to the personnel policy of the City of Green
Bay. Is that correct? Or--

- Well, that's going to be your position and we will discuss it.

- Okay.

- I understand what you're saying. That they're not employees. That they're not subject to .

- Right, yeah.

- Okay. The second thing... The public meeting argument we've already covered, it's a 230 decency. What's the
next issue? If you could... Number four. I think you did cover the rest of them. Those were the two that I
wanted to make sure we're covered. I believe. Okay. But, those are the issues. That pretty much sets out...
This document pretty much sets out the motion that Mr. Miller has made. That, Mr. Knight, you probably want
to respond to those issues for the board.

- Yeah,

- Can I ask a question for clarification?

- Mh hmm. At this point. Or do I need to wait?

- No, go ahead.

- No.

- So, I guess I'd like to know if the social media site we're talking about was a campaign site or not a campaign
site.

- --

- 'Cause I think, Attorney Miller, you had mentioned it was a campaign site. And I think some of the things I
saw looked like an aldermanic site, not like a campaign-related site. I'd like clarification on what the site was.
The social media It started... If I may, this is Rob Miller. It started as a campaign site. It was put forward as a
campaign site in his first campaign, which he lost. And he just couldn't continue that. And, most of the
postings... At least, my understanding is that many of the postings that are in dispute here were occurring in
the course of the campaign for his election. So, he considered it a campaign site. And I documents indicating
that he put that he was a politician. And there's obviously, a mixture of materials for a sitting Alderman to tell
people what he's accomplished and why he should be reelected. So--

- So, he doesn't have two sites other words? He doesn't have two sites

- No, no. He doesn't--

- Just has one site. Okay.

- No, he doesn't have two sites and I might further clarify. It's not owned and operated by the City of Green
Bay which distinguishes itself from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals case. So, he...

- Thank you.
- This position, it's a campaign website and we'll leave it at that. Thank you.

- Aaron.

- [Aaron] I have one question. This is Aaron. Can everybody hear me?

- Yes, yes.

- Okay. In the section on public meetings, it uses the word forum. Do we... Is the interpretation that forum is
just a synonym for meeting? And then also, it describes how people should conduct themselves publicly and
privately. That, if a meeting is public then there's sort of a disconnect there. Right? So is that section... Is that
section saying that in private communications during public meetings, like, if I lean over to another Alderman
and say something, I have to be respectful and honest and have integrity? Or is that sentence talking about my
conduct outside of the council chambers? I guess, I could read that paragraph in a couple of different ways.
Forum doesn't necessarily mean meeting. Conduct conducted privately could be conduct conducted when I'm
not officially sitting in a City Council meeting.

- Do you want me to respond?

- I mean, you had spent a lot of time talking about the definition of meeting.

- Right.

- And so, I'm wondering if your interpretation of forum is that it's a meeting?

- Yeah. The heading says public meetings is describing a public meeting, in addition, further down and the code
of ethics, it's going through conduct outside of public meetings. So, I am interpreting that the common... My
interpretation, I think that it's a reasonable one, is that public meetings... When it says a heading of public
meetings, it's referring to public meetings. We have specific definitions in the Wisconsin statutes and the
Green Bay city code of ordinances. I think it means what it says and public forum is just a variation on the term
public meeting. So, given that we have a demarcation between public meetings, that heading and the next one
outside of public meetings, I think it's a distinction. And I think that it makes some sense. I think one can
reasonably expect a public official to have a welcoming and decent demeanor when people are speaking to you
as a incumbent City Council member in a public meeting. That might not be the case if you're engaged in a
private internet exchange during a campaign. I see a substantial distinction between the demeanor that one can
reasonably expect at a public meeting when people are offering their viewpoints, and you're an incumbent
official, versus outside of that setting.

- What do you think the... What's your interpretation of what the private conduct... Public and private
conduct? I mean, if public meetings are public, what's the private part about?

- I think the private conduct... I don't have that section in front of me, so I'm going to have to wing this. But, I
think it's --

- I think we can put it up so you can look at it real quick.

- Okay, okay. That would be great. My recollection here is that it's referring to City Council members
representing that they speak for the City Council, when they really can't speak for the City Council. Or making
misrepresentations to members of the public as to what they can do or what the viewpoints of the City
Council is.

- All right.
- is set up now.

- I think we have to go down further. Okay--

- So, City Council members are... Or council members are expected to demonstrate both publicly and
privately their honesty and integrity and to be an example of appropriate and ethical conduct. How does
privately apply... My thought is that that is intended to be a more general statement.

- It can't be private conduct if it's in a public meeting, otherwise it makes no sense.

- No, certainly it can. Certainly, it can be private conduct. I mean, as between alderpeople or between the
other people in the room.

- Okay.

- Any further questions?

- I understand your point. I mean, your viewpoint is a reasonable one. I don't think there's only one reading
there. And I think when it's talking about... Well, I think there's more than one reading. That's the reading that
I see there. Mr. Conley, if you can scroll down further, you'll see-- I'll try. Let me see if I can make it work. Is it
scrolling?

- Yeah.

- Yes.

- Oh, okay. Okay then, I am seeing what your--

- It says "Outside Public Meetings".

- Yeah, if you go down further. Conduct with other board members, Elected official... Enforcing. No, I must've
zipped by it. Okay. Outside public meetings. Is that what you're talking about?

- Yes. Make no promise on behalf of the City Council or... That's... That's an addition. So, it's making a clear
distinction as to what's happening. But... From my standpoint, I've been a public official and heck, I've had paper
airplanes thrown at me at a public meeting. I would say that that conduct... And presumably, it wasn't seen by
everybody. I don't know. I mean, you could definitely have outrageous conduct that may well be only known to
some of the individuals that are members of the body. So, I don't see that my interpretation is ruled out in any
event. I think there's multiple interpretations of what public meeting is. Suggest that, if you want to sanction
somebody, it should be clearly find what the ambit of public meeting is. And, I would submit that regardless of
what reading one has that a Facebook exchange doesn't fit within that.

- Okay, thanks for the clarity. Just wanted to follow up on those things.

- All right. So, Mr. Knight, you've heard some vigorous discussion. Here are various points that were raised by
Attorney Miller in his brief. I'd like you to respond to those and make your... or provide us with your position
on that Motion to Dismiss and the points that were made. So, hopefully there's some clarification here from
this recent discussion as to what those points are. And I will turn the floor over to you, just again, remember
to speak loudly so we can all hear you. Go ahead.

- Thank you, Mr. VandeCastle. Before I go on, I want to make sure that Alderman Galvin is still in the chat.

- Mr. Knight, we're having a hard time hearing you again.
- Before I continue, I just want to be sure that Alderman Galvin is in the chat, because .

- There he is again.

- Okay. Well, you know, I don't want to have to go through the whole thing again.

- I'm sorry. My wife was to me, so I had to out. She'd kill me if I put her on , so...

- All right. Well, I want to begin by talking about section four of the code of conduct, that we just went over.
And, as it was brought up . There's the terminology "public forum" used there. Not just public meeting. And, in
a number of different places in the formal complaint and as has been brought up by Mr. Miller. I have cited a
number of cases, which are federal cases and although they don't reach as far as our federal district here, they
do in both of those cases. Knight First Amendment Institute versus Trump, in 2019 and Davison versus
Randall, in 2019. Both refer to public official social media accounts as public forums. And, although Mr. Miller
has gone on to discount those cases, because they don't extend to this district, he still continues to cite the
case. Which which supports his cause. So, I think that there's a double standard there. And I think there is a
precedent set, anyway, at the federal level for what can happen at state and local levels for public forums
constituting social media accounts and... What is social media? Particularly Facebook, which is the social media
brand that we're talking about here. Where these offenses were committed. The places where people gather,
they're not physical locations but they are virtual locations where people can gather virtually. And there are
forums there. Online forums. I mean, that's a term that's referred to when we're talking about things like
Reddit and Tumblr and Facebook. They're public forums. And, this is where the public can gather and
communicate and be open about debate and about policy and about their opinions. And in no place on any of
these pages, particularly... Although, a number of offenses have occurred, resulting in people being blocked in
private communication with that page. Most of these offenses are happening publicly. Where, they're made
public. They're happening in public. Anyone with or without an account can go onto the internet and can
engage in these communications that are occurring with groups of people. None of these are singular. They're
all groups of people communicating. And a number of places on this social media account, constituents and
other people in the city are asked for their opinion. He's asking for their input. And so, they're doing that. And
they're not doing it in a private way, of a private correspondence on email or in message or on the phone.
They're doing it in a public place. So, I think it constitutes a public forum and I think that there are federal and
state examples of that, to back that up. So, I don't subscribe to agree with that. That this isn't a public meeting
or a public forum, even if it's not called to action. Public input was asked for and it was expressed in a public
place where people can engage in a public conversation. And, I think if we're going to discount that in the 21st
century, then we ought to take a look at language and exactly what's going on here with the falling behind in
the 20th century. Because in 20 years social media's being used. And all of these people cited in this complaint
are hardworking, tax-paying people, who have jobs and families. And this is their way of communicating with
their aldermen in a public way. This is their way of doing that. Secondly, I wanted to talk about the page itself.
Because, the matter is kind of being tossed around, depending on the status of the page being a public official
account or a campaign account. I've included in exhibit two to everyone here, all of the campaign posts and
non-campaign posts, which have been posted on this public page. There are 115 posts that were made, as of
the creation of this page, as of April 10th, 2020. Which is when this compilation of posts was made. Now,
there's no definition of what a campaign post is versus an official city post. But... It was my delineation that the
vast majority of these posts do not contain campaigning material. And a wide majority of them... 78% of them,
were posted not during election cycles. In between the time when an a campaign person or an elected official,
hopeful, has to file for candidacy versus when the election occurs. So, there's a small window there, of the
number of months, and it's 78% of these posts. 90 of 115 were posted, not during that time frame. I don't
think that those constitute his campaign post because of that. And because that's almost 80% of the posts
made on this page, I would argue this is not a page that is being used for campaign purposes. Not only that, but
Facebook has a rigorous third party confirmation... process, which they can confirm the status of an office, so
that not everyone can just create a Facebook page claiming that they are a public official. Facebook has the
ability, and they do go ahead and confirm with local sources or state sources. Or sometimes federal sources.
Whether those are election campaign submission documents, or whether they're a matter of public record.
Whether you are indeed running for office and for what district. And they confirm all of that before you can
go public with this information. And, they also confirm whether you've been elected or not. So, they know
what they're doing there, and they have Alderman VanderLeest's page confirmed it to be a politician site. This
is not political campaign site. There are two different terminologies that they use to differentiate between the
two. There's a political campaign and there is a politician, which means that you are a confirmed politician.
Which means this is no longer a campaign site. This is now a public forum for you to be able to discuss city or
state or federal issues that correspond with your office and the office that you've sworn into. And so, almost
80% of these are not ambulated and Facebook doesn't confirm that this is a campaign page at all. In fact, just
the opposite. This is a confirmed political public official page. So, any time that it's been brought up that... And
actually, just further one more point on this is you have to have a public... I'm sorry. You have to have a
personal campaign... I'm sorry. You have to have a personal Facebook page in order to run a public , whether
it's a campaign page or a political campaign page. And, Alderman VanderLeest, to my knowledge does not have
one of those. He does not have a personal Facebook page. So, I'm wondering if he doesn't, and if evidence can
be supplied to if that's true, then I'll believe that. But, as far as I know, talking to a number of sources, he does
not have his own personal Facebook page. Which means he cannot own or operate this public page. So, I'm
wondering who is running the site? Because it's not him. And if it's not him then someone else is involved here,
who might also be at fault or someone else is partially responsible. And Mr. VanderLeest is therefore
responsible for allowing them to make these changes and delete people. And, I brought that up in a number of
different exhibits that I've submitted, but I don't think that this is just one person. So, in any case, I want to
continue on... In the code of conduct, in section four, as has been brought up now, by Mr. Conley and Mr.
Weinschenk, I've sectioned off a number of different sentences that, whether you agree with the public forum
or whether you don't agree with the public forum stance... And I hope you do. Because I do believe this is a
modern public forum as has been declared by these federal cases. These federal judges. "No signs of partiality,
prejudice or disrespect should be evident on the part of individual council members, toward an individual
participating in a public forum. And besides that, all council members should convey to the public, their respect
and appreciation for the public's participation, input and opinions". Now, on this page, those things were asked
for. All of the communication that has occurred. And if there's evidence of people being rude or inappropriate
or slandering him or giving him death threats, I've not seen any of those. I've not seen a single bit of evidence
supplied for that argument. I haven't. All of these things are honest people asking about Colburn pool. Asking
about their street. Asking about taxes and the wheel tax. These are people who want to know. Because they
have busy lives and this is their way of communicating. And I wonder if, when their input and opinions are
asked for and they supply them, when they're not agreed by the Alderman, why are they then deleted? Does
that match the code of conduct's section, which States that "Council members should convey their public...
their respect and appreciation for the participation, input and opinions." I'm not sure why he's asking if they're
just going to be deleted. It's confusing to me and it's... This isn't a silly quarrel or a vendetta or something.
These are people, who for a number of years have felt and have expressed many, many times on social media,
in other public forums and in person. And have written to me and expressed to me when I visited their homes
and I had no knowledge of this. They didn't have to bring it up with me but they were that concerned about...
They felt that their participation, input and opinions were not appreciated and were not respected. In fact, just
the opposite. They were removed. And they were met with combative communication and a rebuttal. And
they have no chance then, in order to communicate that, because they're blocked from the page. They have no
chance to continue that conversation. A number of these people also separately... also cannot communicate
with the aldermen by phone. And a number of people are concerned that they're not given any attention,
because they openly supported another candidate. So, there are a number of issues here with whether you
believe that the internet constitutes the public forum. If it's just kept in a general sense. Anyway. There is
partiality, prejudice and disrespect evident here. On the behalf of this individual council member and all of
these people feel very strongly that they're not being appreciated and just the opposite. So, I wanted to bring
that up again because that's the basis of this. Whether you talk about federal cases or local cases. These are
local people and they feel like they're being shut out. And they're being told to be quiet. And, they're just
asking questions a lot of the time. But... There are a number of different ways where the aldermen can have a
campaign site and a public official site. A number of very prominent, famous, world-renowned politicians use
this tactic. Including, Bernie Sanders, the Senator from Vermont, who was the City of Burlington Mayor, and
then a Congressman, and then a Senator. And then, in both bids for the presidency of the United States, had a
campaign site for the new office he was running for as well as maintaining his public official site for the office
that he had maintained at the time. And on one, he could communicate any number of things and monitor that.
And dispose of things that were inappropriate. And on the other, as he was running for president, but
remained a Senator on the Senator page, that was a confirmed politician account. And so, he had to maintain
all the quorum and all of the rules according to the First Amendment rights and everything. Mike Gallagher, is a
local congressman to the United States House of Representatives. He represents the eighth district of
Wisconsin and he has both the campaign site, which is still active and still public on Facebook, as well as his
official declared and confirmed congressional Facebook account. So, when you're running for office, there are
no special rules that give an incumbent less of an advantage, I would argue, over the new incoming challenger.
In fact, I would argue the opposite. Because, the incumbent has two opportunities then. One, in order to
dictate whatever communication they would like and to delete and to erase and remove whatever on their
campaign page. But also, to still have their confirmed current office page, which they have to abide by with the
First Amendment. But they have two opportunities there. And, there are a number of politicians that
amalgamate those into one, and then just decide to kind of merge those two. And the basis of people that
follow each page. But people sometimes keep them separately, such as Senator Bernie Sanders and
Congressman Mike Gallagher. And there are, I mean, hundreds and thousands of people across the globe who
take this approach. This isn't some trick. That's not why . This is something, with anyone who's familiar with
social media, you can see what I'm talking about is true. And, this is a workaround in a way that the people at
the federal level find that this works. So, there's not an argument here. I would argue that that would enable
someone to... to remove people's expression when they're asking honest questions about the city. About the
County. About their community and their neighborhood. They feel like they're being shut out. That their
participation, input and opinions are not appreciated. In fact, just the opposite. And there are quite a few
combative examples that you can find in the exhibits, where they've addressed it in private. Not in a public
place first. But, we try to be decent and address it privately with the aldermen over private message. And...
Simply, we were shot back with the "I can delete whatever I'd like to" kind of thing. And that's not the kind of
discourse that should be happening here. That's not at all what officials should be doing. And I just... I can't
stand by that sort of behavior, which is why I decided to take this up on behalf of these people. Furthermore,
all of the posts that I've submitted as exhibits, that I can provide as proof that these people did, in fact, post
things and comment things that were deleted. Although, there are dozens that can't be proven, because they
were just deleted. And so, there's no way to be able to prove that those things even existed in the first place.
There are still a number of exhibits which I have submitted that prove that things were posted and deleted.
Because, these people started to catch on that their things were being deleted and so, started having to
screenshot their conversations with their aldermen, ahead of time. Because they weren't sure whether or not
it would survive the next day. And that's just ridiculous that someone would have to go to that length in order
to communicate with their aldermen. But they did that anyway. And, none of these exhibits or examples occur
within a campaign period. They all occur outside of campaign time and the campaign yet. So, none of these are
campaign issues. The account is not campaign related. Or if it is, a very minority amount of those posts. And,
these are city issues and they talk about the city and they talk about local affairs that they have concerns over.
And so, my next point that I want to bring up here is, if that's not grounds for meeting the social media policy
then I'm not sure I understand the point of the social media policy. Because, if Alderman VanderLeest is being
paid through the city by tax-payer dollars and whether or not he comes... I mean, that constitutes being an
employee of the city or not, I'm not sure. Honestly, I don't know the logistics of that or the specifics. But...
But, city... Social media has to adhere to federal state and local laws. That would mean that it has to adhere to
any number of laws that were freedom of expression upheld. And, it would include open records
requirements. Any content that's maintained in a social media format that is related to city business is
supposed to be public record. And that's stated in the social media policy. So, if a majority of this page that is
city related, that has been dictated by Facebook to be... Which is a rigorous standard that they apply for
themselves. If this does indeed regard city business and if by a confirmed public official, who is an employee of
the city or is employed by the city or employed by the people city. Or whatever the case is. Then I why the
contents wouldn't have to be managed or stored or retrieved with applicable laws. And, why it wouldn't have
to be maintained in the same format that other city business, which is posted on the city-ran accounts, would
they If he's an extension of the government there, then that I'm not sure why that won't apply. That's my
argument on that. I guess I just kind of want to cool it down here and come to a close, 'cause I've been talking
for a long, long time. But... This is an elected official, who I'm sure does good work. And I'm not doing this for
any sort of vendetta or whatever the case is. This is real people in the community who stepped forward when
they did not have to. And it should not have had to. Because, there are many people who are not accounted
for in this complaint, who did not want to step forward but still had this . This is a wide spread issue and it may
be in a number of other districts, I'm not sure. But, if this is an issue that's being faced and it needs to be
addressed, particularly in this district. There are dozens of people who have faced this issue. They're being
silenced. There's no communication occurring, which allows them to connect or correspond in a public way
with their aldermen, besides going to the meetings. And we all know that's not always an option. Especially
when they occur in person. And people have busy schedules and families and jobs. So, how is someone like this
held accountable when they're not acting in an ethical way? And, I'm not an attorney. And I'm not a law
professional, so I don't know all of the specifics that we're going through here today. And I can't agree to all of
those bits. But, I can say as a lay person who is attracted to helping people in the community and that has
inspired me to do this. Is this ethical behavior? And, is it ethical by the standard of the code of conduct, which
is supplied online and is visible to anyone who wants to run for office or is currently in office? This isn't
something you have to look for. Or you have to scavenge for. This isn't hidden anywhere. I'm a member of the
public. I'm private citizen and I found this very, very easily. And it would probably even be asked for, at the
Mayor's office or anywhere. I'm sure that it may even be provided to city officials when they're sworn in. I'm
not really sure, 'cause I haven't been sworn in. But, I think that this is something that's easy to find. And if you
can find this and if you're going to apply for this job and if you're going to promise to do this job and swear to
do this job in an ethical way, which all of the City Council people have, then you should know what you're
signing up for. And I think it's not difficult to check your behavior, online or in person. According to these
standards, are you being ethical? Are you being respectful and appreciative of the public's participation, input
and opinions? In a personal public forum, on the internet in a public forum, in any communication with anyone
at a professional level. Whether it's public or private. And, I don't see that happening here. And, this is the only
thing that I could really do in order to try and remedy some of these symptoms. But this is a larger issue so I
can only apply it to this one issue with the social media. I would ask that you take a look at the code of
conduct and a number of the arguments that are made here and try and think ethically as possible, as I know
you all do. There's a lot of involved and a lot of legal stuff that I'm sure applies and... But, this is my argument
and I hope that you'll consider it because these people have no other course of action and no other way in
order to be heard when they're being silenced like this. So, that that's my counter and, of course, I can answer
questions.

- Thank you, Mr. Knight. I've had the privilege, I would say, to serve on this Ethics Board for more than 20
years. So, that kind of dates the board itself. It was... The Ethics Board was created, to my knowledge, decades
ago. And, it was originally charged with dealing with the city's code of ethics. And that code of ethics is based
on the statutory code of ethics for local elected officials. About a decade ago, maybe. Maybe a little less. The
city in its infinite wisdom, City Council decided to create a code of conduct for the elected officials. So, with
the code of ethics, we have a lot of statutory and attorney general opinions and other guidance to guide us on
what we're supposed to do with that. Unfortunately, with the code of conduct, we do not have that advantage.
The code of conduct was a pure creature of the City Council. They created it. They edited it. They monitored
it and they established it. And unfortunately, it gives us as a board, very limited authority. Very limited
jurisdiction. And so, we are limited to essentially what's on the paper that we've all looked at. The code of
conduct. And so, Mr. Knight, I ask you to address this as we've noted and as was pulled up by Mr. Conley, that
section four is divided into two sections. Public meetings and non-public meetings. And, the section that you
quoted accurately is under the heading of public meetings. I understand your analysis and the work you've
done was spot on here in terms of, what is a public forum when it comes to social media? But... I'd like you to
address how the definition of a public meeting gets expanded under this code to include a public forum outside
of a schedule-noticed called public meeting that we are all familiar with. City Council meetings. Committee
meetings. This meeting. They're all published, they're all noticed and scheduled and all those good things and
they're published in the paper. So, how does this public forum concept that's under public meetings, get
expanded outside of the public meeting heading of the code of conduct? That's my question. How does that...
How are we... What authority do we have as a board that definition? No question that it says public forum.
But the issue is that it's under the heading of a public meeting when there's another heading for how officials
are supposed to act outside of a public meeting. So, if you can address that for us that might be helpful.

- Sure. Well, I would first point out that under section four, it doesn't give a definition of what constitutes a
public meeting. That, there's nowhere there that says, "This is the strict definition of what a public meeting is
and what constitutes that." And so, I think that maybe it's open to interpretation. I think that a public meeting
would, in the most general sense, be a gathering of people or a meeting of constituents in public, and that the
internet is a public place. It's not private. And, there are sections of the internet which are private, but in this
case, we're talking about a very public place where people can meet. There are message boards. There are
online chats. There are public forum pages such as Facebook. And that's... That is, although... Like you've
mentioned, that's an internet public meeting. A public forum, I would say that there isn't... There's no definition
here of what exactly the public meeting has to be. And, I know that there are public meetings that are called
officially by the city where people are. Like in this case, they conduct themselves within the matter of Robert's
rules of order and everything is very professionally laid out and ahead of time with the schedule. But in this
case, it doesn't address those. It just says "in public meetings" and "conduct towards the public". So, I think that
this certainly addresses the conduct toward public people in public when people are meeting in public. And, I
don't know that there is a definition here that says "in a material or physical manifestation of a meeting" or "an
internet meeting". So discounting one could be just as easy as discounting the other.

- Mr. Knight, I understand that point. If you look at what Mr. Conley has pulled up here, it's section four. And
under the heading of public meetings, the phrase of "No sign of partiality, prejudice or disrespect, they should
be evident." That's sort of preamble to the public meetings sections.

- Okay.

- But when you get into the subsections A, B, C and then D, it does seem to talk about a public meeting as
would come under the definition of a public meeting that Attorney Miller addressed. That being a statutory
meeting that constitutes a public meeting. So, it talks about speaking in front of the council. It talks about the
Mayor allocating time to people to speak. And, it talks about a number of other things that appear to suggest
that this public meeting component is in fact, even though it's not defined, as you said, incorrectly noted. The
public meeting isn't defined. It seems to point us, as the board, in the direction of what we all know as a classic
statutory public meeting. So, again, the phrase "public forum", I understand how that applies and how the
Federal Courts of appeals have addressed that in both ways. But again... appears on this sheet of paper in front
of us, section four of the code of conduct. So, again, anything you can add? I'd like you, if you could, to address
how this whole section, not just the one line pulled out of the preamble, but how this all pulls together from
your perspective of how does a public forum on an internet site come up under a public meeting, as it appears
to be reflected in this document?

- Well, I would say that it's not just a line, it's the entire preamble that I'm referencing almost, besides the first
sentence. But that's just as applicable. And, it doesn't state... Like, I haven't expressly... utilized any of those A,
B, C or D stipulations under the preamble. But if the preamble is there then that must be able to communicate
something of its own importance. And so, I think that I'm citing the preamble in a general sense. I understand
that I'm not citing any of the specific A through D stipulations under that. And those go on to directly
communicate a definition of public meeting as a public hearing which is held. Wherein, someone would speak
in front of the council in a physical sense or even like this, virtually. Which occurs. Which is certainly utilized
as the internet as well. 'Cause this is not a physical meeting. So, I think that already have cross-over there and
that's probably a good example. And I think that either way. And, I know what you're asking me is something
very specific from these sections, but there isn't something from these spare sections that I decided to use,
because I don't think that there's anything here that adequately, in A through D, adequately expresses this
situation. And I don't think that it negates the seriousness of the situation or that it occurred, I think that it's
addressed most easily and in a very broad sense. It's addressed by the preamble and almost everything in the
preamble correlates to this case. And so... I think that's the best answer I can give to that. Is, there is a section
of this document that appreciates the situation. Although, it's in a general sense. It's flexible. But, it still does
that job. And it's in this document. And so, I think it should be held with as much seriousness as any of the
very specific definitions later on. Just because it's not given its own definition in a section E or F, under this
section four, I think that it's still a situation that has occurred and can be counted under the definition or the
lack of definition in the preamble.

- All right. Board members, any of you have any questions for Mr. Knight? I do intend to give Attorney Miller a
chance to respond but before we leave that, do you have any questions for Mr. Knight?

- , I actually have a question for anyone who can answer. When was the code of conduct drafted? What year?
Do we know? Roughly?

- I would say, roughly five years ago.

- Five years ago. Okay.

- There were many iterations of this before it got approved. The last draft, the one that we have before us,
was prepared by city attorney, Jim Miller. So that might give us a time frame done.

- Certainly, it was drafted during the time period that Facebook was around, I guess was my question. So,
social media existed when this was drafted?

- Yes. Yes.

- Okay. Thank you.

- I started Ethics when I was elected five years ago and I believe the current copies that we have now were in
place before I was elected.

- Right.

- Definitely, for at least five years.

- This is , I just looked it up and it looks like it was... We saved it as approved in September of 2015.

- So it's six years ago. Okay.

- Any further questions from any other board member? All right. Mr. Miller, any response to... or a rebuttal to-
-

- Yes.

- First off, I think Mr. Knight has very eloquently pointed out a problem. And... I think, as I stated in my opening
remarks, the problem is not going to be solved by punishing Mr. VanderLeest. On the contrary, I think the
problem needs to be solved via communication to the City Council to clarify this with specificity, as to what
city council members may or may not do on social media. And this ambiguity difficulty and understanding
what's expected has exacerbated the problems here because know enough, assuming he or she is able to do it
to preserve the exchanges with no expectation that his or her deletions or restrictions are gonna be reviewed
by the ethics panel. With the heads up or with a for a warning. That, the ethics panel is going to review your
conduct on Facebook. Then, we would have a complete record, at least for prudent City Council members. A
complete record of what's going on, as opposed to the recitations of only, perhaps, half of this. Or whatever's
preserved at this point. So, we have a very incomplete record because of the ambiguity and nebulousness of
the code of ethics, as to whether... Whether social media was... was to be... Or what you're supposed to do on
social media. And if it's five years ago, it seems to me that if the City Council wanted to speak clearly and
coherently on conduct of social media, it could have done so. And as I said, I think Mr. Knight points out a very
substantial problem. And the problem is remedied by the City Council revisiting this and putting together a
very clear guidelines for its members to observe. Now, with regard to public forums and the morphing of the
phrase "public forum" in section four, what we have here... Well, first of all, this is a hyper-technical area of
law. And it befuddled me for quite quite some time until I read eight or 10 cases. I am not a First Amendment
attorney, and this is a very complex, and as I said, hyper-technical area of law. Now, the term "public forum" is
a term of art in First Amendment law. In fact, I'm quoting from Price versus the City of New York, and there
are public forums that are present in First Amendment law. There are limited public forums. So, the fact that
the First Amendment law terms of art jive with the section four is an absolute chance occurrence. I don't think
the City Council is choosing to use the term of arts of First Amendment law and it's basically, plain recitation
of what's happening in a public meeting. But, this is extremely complex and it took me a lot of cases... Reading
a lot of cases to figure out what's going on. And to expect that a 72-year old, semi-retired electrician is going
to read the same cases as I did is just unbelievable. This is a very difficult area of law and I don't think you can
keep up with it because it's constantly changing. And unless you're really an expert in the area and pay
attention to it all the time. What it underlines here is the need for the professional staff to summarize what
should be the applicable public policy and for the City Council to basically, promulgate clear guidelines for its
members to occur. To observe, excuse me. With regard to some of the niceties of Facebook, it would have
been really helpful if Mr. Knight had put those in written arguments. Frankly, I am not a user of Facebook in
any meaningful sense... To address the distinction between a politician and somebody who's running for office, I
can just recount the history of the website as I understood it. I can also recite that for many aldermen and city
and County board members, they are constantly running for reelection. I know that Mr. VanderLeest's
brother, who was a City Council member for 20 years, used to constantly run for office by distributing a
newsletter. So, it is a constant cane for many of the members of these bodies. And, that has to be understood.
I don't know that one can make a clear distinction between the transmission of information by a public official
for just communication and the transmission of public information for the purposes of being reelection. The
two are intermixed and probably can't be separated. A public official is always trying to curry the favor of the
public for his next or her next election. So, I don't see the distinction between campaign posts and the
transmission of public information as being significant. With regard to whether they can communicate with
their aldermen or County board member, well, it seems to me that the ultimate accountability is to run against
the individual to utilize other avenues. Be it other Facebook sites. Be it writing letters to the editor. Ultimately,
just running against the person until he or she is defeated. I would note here that I believe Mr. VanderLeest
won via a large margin. Something like 60%. So, apparently, the bulk of the populace is satisfied with his
representation. That being said, it is indeed regrettable that everyone is not permitted to communicate with
their aldermen, but as I said... Or other public officials. But as I said, it's clear First Amendment law that the
public does not have an absolute right to communicate with a public official. Thus, my letters to a U.S. senator
might not be read. They might not take my phone call. They might not talk to me if I see them at Lambeau
Field. This is entirely the same as we see in the ordinary course of business. So I think, on balance, I only differ
with Mr. Knight as to how this problem should be solved. I don't see that punishing a 71-year old, semi-retired
electrician for his lack of knowledge of First Amendment law is going to be really productive of a solution to
this problem. Rather, the Ethics Board should communicate with the City Council, or the City Council
members that are present here tonight should take it upon themselves to resolve this problem once and for
all. To put forward a very clear cut set of guidelines that the City Council can observe at their peril. So, for all
those reasons I think this should be dismissed and it should be placed in the lap of the City Council to resolve
it once and for all. Thank you.

- Any board members for Attorney Miller? Right. Anybody have any further questions for Mr. Knight on this
Motion to Dismiss issue? All right. I will assume that we are closed with this issue. Last motion that looks like
we need to address is another Motion to Suppress, filed the by Mr. Knight. That one appears to be dated
October 2, 2020. Mr. Conley has pulled that up. And so, Mr. Knight, I'll give you an opportunity to address
that motion.

- Thanks. This was a simple motion that I filed just arguing that I didn't think any of the points, which were just
brought up in the last argument, which is in response to the document and motion that was filed and brought
up by Attorney Miller. I didn't think that any of those applied to the language of the... Basically, of the preamble
of of section four of the code of conduct. I still think that those were all applicable and I still feel very strongly
about that. And so, I wasn't sure about the relevance of any of those issues because, as you just saw, anything
that was argued formally could just be refuted, again, in response. So, that's what this motion is. It's a simple
motion saying I didn't think that it was relevant. And, I would still ask that... that everyone take a look at the
exhibits. Because, a number of things that have been brought up in this last motion are refutable by exhibits
that have been submitted. And, maybe there'll come a time for that conversation But, I still feel very strongly
that there's grounds for this complaint to be made. And I think it happened over a number of years. This is not
an isolated incident. This is repeatable. And so, I don't think that I understood any of the argument and how it
applied to everything that I know about this. That's all.

- Mr. Miller, any response?

- Well, I think obviously my brief was relevant to all the subjects raised in this proceeding. But, I guess I would
emphasize that there's really nothing particularly novel about this controversy. Representatives have been
ignoring or been have alleged to have ignored constituents' wishes since there have been representatives.
What we have here is a variation in the form of not listening to people or not reading their letters or not
taking their phone calls. Somehow, we feel that everything has changed or it's been transmuted. Because these
actions are taking place on the internet as opposed to, via United States mail or a phone call. Or before that, a
Telegraph. These are common concerns, with regard to every type of representative. There's nothing
particularly novel here. If, in fact, the City Council is concerned about this then they should have a specific
social media policy for its members. If it was produced in 2015, certainly the Facebook and Twitter and the
like, were present. Omnipresent, perhaps, in everybody's lives. And the City Council could have spoke to this
in specificity. At this point, I've made my argument several times. I think it needs to be resolved by the
legislative body not by the Board of Ethics rewriting ordinances. In fact, I think it would be very problematic
for the Ethics Board to rewrite ordinances in the circumstance. Under those circumstances, I think the matter
should be dismissed. And, I would join with Mr. Knight in trying to have the City Council solve this problem
once and for all. Thank you.

- Any... Mr, knight, go ahead.

- I want to make it clear that this is not as it has been stated in the formal complaint and in our deliberation
here, this is not simply people being ignored. This is people, over a number of years, having not only been
ignored or not given access to communicate but denied it to sort of add infinum. They're not able to
communicate because they've been blocked. This is not someone who can't get a hold of... This is intentional
blocking of communication. This isn't just ignored. They are being deleted. Their letters are not only not being
read on the internet, they're being removed. And, when there is the opportunity given for communication and
they communicate, in a public setting, they're being deleted and removed entirely. And they're disappearing.
And, there goes their opinion which they were asked for. So, I think it's almost malicious it's... I think it's being
too innocently as these people are being ignored. They do not feel that way and their evidence does not point
to that. They're not just being ignored. This is a four year or a five year habitual behavior. Where, these
people, over and over are being deleted and removed. And then, when they communicate privately about it, as
you'll see in the exhibits, it's almost gloated about. That they were deleted. It's almost bragged about. Back at
them. That they have the right to do so and they are happy to do so. And they do not want out to free
expression, as long as it's not in line with the form of thinking of the aldermen. I think it's not innocent. And I
think it shouldn't be explained way so easily. This is a serious matter. And I think that these constituents and
these tax-payers, quite a few of them, feel very strongly about . So, that this isn't just being ignored, as it's
being stated. This is malicious behavior. And if it's not Alderman VanderLeest then it's someone else running
his page. But no matter who it is, someone is responsible. And Alderman VanderLeest is responsible for
allowing that to continue. And, he's known about this page and that these things have been going on or should
have known since he's been in office for four years. So, I think that... I wanted to clarify that I think it's more
serious than that.
- Any board members have any questions for either, Attorney Miller or Mr. Knight?

- No.

- No? All right. Then, I believe we're ready to move into deliberations. Mr. Knight, Attorney Miller, thank you
for your efforts to enlighten our board here on these issues. We are going to go into closed session now and
to deliberate on this. Before doing that, Attorney Conley, anything you want to add before we close this open
session?

- Well, there's two things I want to observe. First of all, there's been a lot of argument raised and the Ethics
Board, with its duty to interpret the code, I think has a lot to consider. And we've been at it for over two
hours already. So, it's already been a lot for the board to take in. I think it makes some sense for the board to
deliberate tonight, obviously, and at least start deliberations. I think it may be necessary for the board to meet
again to deliberate after tonight. We'll see. I could be wrong in that. I also note that we continue to have
problems with the transmission and reception. Frankly, I think that doing a hearing and having testimony taken,
if we go in that direction. I know there's a motion pending, would be kind of troublesome and might not afford
due process. Mr. Miller has previously stated that he doesn't like the idea of having to go to a hearing in this
type of forum. And tonight kind of emphasized that again. People were getting knocked off, not being able to
hear everything. So, I have two comments in that regard. Number one, we have another meeting scheduled for
two weeks from tonight. We have a lot to deliberate about. And, I'm anticipating the board's going to want
some feedback before they make their final decision on this. From me. So, I just want to suggest that it is
possible and we may want to consider not having the hearing in two weeks. But instead, deliberating and giving
our opinion within that period of time. I just want to put that out there as a possibility so that the parties
aren't surprised if that winds up happening. I think that's a realistic concern. Certainly, if they have comments
regarding that, I think we should invite them to make those comments at this point.

- Attorney Miller... Mr. Knight, go ahead.

- I'm perfectly pleased with any amount of deliberation. I don't think that there's a timeline that I want to see
occur. I do want for people to have the opportunity in order to speak to this, because I think that the people
in the community want some closure on it. And I think they want to be able to speak toward the things that
have occurred here. And, obviously, there's a Motion to Dismiss. But... I would still like for the opportunity for
those people to be able to come forward and speak. Or for a number of them, who feel intimidated or feel
threatened, to do so. I would like to still subpoena them so they still have the opportunity to do that. Because
they have in the past voiced that they want to. And I hope that we deliberate as much as you need to about it.
I think it's a very serious matter and I appreciate you guys putting thought into it in order to rectify it. Thank
you.

- Mr. Knight, a question. Attorney Miller has brought up the concern about doing this by video and rather,
would prefer to do it in person. What's your position on that?

- It's not a very large group of people if it's all done at once. I think that in person, it can be... Whether it's now
or later, can be done in a safe way. As long as other meetings are occurring that way. But, I think that no one
that I've asked or have presented in the complaint with the list of potential witnesses to be subpoenaed. And
half of them have transportation issues and so can't make it in person. But I think all of them, as well, would be
fine appearing like this. I certainly don't have any issue appearing virtually like this on the Zoom if it works for
everyone. Whatever would work. I'm just trying to give these people the opportunity to get some closure on
this. Whatever works.

- Very good. Thank you. Attorney Miller, any comments on your side --
- I did not clear what Mr. Conley wanted me to address some questions No. No, basically, what I was saying is
I think it's possible that we're going to be amending our scheduling order as a result after we deliberate, as a
part of our deliberation. And that, we might not be having the hearing in two weeks.

- Oh, yeah. That's fine. And, quite honestly, when I made my statement about the in-person hearing, I had no
conception that we have such a increase in cases. And, I guess I'm not much of an epidemiologist. But, I'm not
trying to endanger anybody's health over a blind insistence on in-person hearing. I mean, we're going to have
to figure out how it can be safely done. So, I'm fine. I recognize these are very difficult issues. It took me a long
time to attempt to get a handle on these and I expect it's gonna take some time for the Ethics Board to discuss
this.

- Very good. Well, again, non-board members, thank you for your time and efforts tonight. We will now be
going into closed session. So, next on our agenda is deliberation and possible action on motions filed in the
matter of the ethics complaint against Alder John VanderLeest, filed by Mr. Tarl Knight under the City of
Green Bay code of conduct for elected officials. And so, it reads "The board may convene in closed session
pursuant to sections eight or 19.85 and of the Wisconsin statutes, for the 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 the open session pursuant to section eight or 19.85 of the Wisconsin
statutes to take action on items discussed in closed session, if appropriate. And then, to consider the
remainder of the agenda". So, is there a Motion to Adjourn session?

- I'll make that motion.

- And I will second it Lindsay, you want to do a roll call here for the vote?

- [Lindsay] All right. Just bear with me one second, I'm having some technical difficulties.

- Certainly

- [Lindsay] You can go ahead and do the vote. I don't know if you can do it on the board. Otherwise, if you
want to just do a voice vote.

- Yeah, let's... Can we do a roll call vote? So, call the roll and each one will vote as you call their name.

- [Lindsay] Alder Galvin.

- Aye.

- [Lindsay] Attorney VandeCastle. Did you say yes? I can't hear anything all of a sudden.

- I can hear you, Lindsay.

- Bill, can you hear?

- I can hear. Yeah.

- All right, cool.

- Okay.

- [Lindsay] I can hear Bill now. I apologize. I just couldn't hear you for a little bit.

- Right, yes. I vote yes.
- [Lindsay] Thank you. Cheryl.

- Aye.

- [Lindsay] Aaron.

- Aye.

- All right.

- [Lindsay] That passes four to zero.

- That's all of us so there was no opposition. So, we are adjourned into closed session and we'll proceed
accordingly. So, I think we've got a couple of people that still appear on my screen that probably aren't... They
shouldn't be .

- [Lindsay] So... For some reason, I'm not able to create a breakout room like I had intended to do. So, I'm
going to have to put people in the waiting room.

- Okay.

- [Lindsay] Unfortunately, as the host I won't be able to put myself in the waiting room. Jim, if I make you a co-
host, are you able to put the City of Green Bay in a waiting room?

- I really don't know that.

- [Lindsay] Okay. That's fine. Let me just take care of this

- Lindsay, your concern is that you would move out of the closed session?

- [Lindsay] No, that I would actually be in the closed session and I shouldn't be, since we're conflicted out.

- Oh, okay. Okay, so I'm seeing Alder VanderLeest is not...

- [Lindsay] Okay, so it's just me.

- Can we just trust that Lindsay leaves the room for now? Or is there something we could do? Cross your
fingers.

- Recording. Does the recording have to

- [Lindsay] I'm can turn my video on and you can... Oh, I do have to stop recording. I've run into this in other
municipalities and we weren't able to get the host out.

- [Lindsay] Okay.

- And we still need the host-- Yes.

- We still need the host around so that when we back to open session.

- What we're gonna do that you're not able to correct it this time. So instead, I'm going to give you the log in
and send you a Zoom meeting from the law department's account. So that you can put them into that one.
Into that meeting separately and we'll keep this one open. And then, when they're ready to come back they'll
just need to come back to this meeting. That's the only solution I could come up with right now.

- [Lindsay] Thank you, Attorney . Does that make sense to everybody?

- So when we're done, we're gonna close out of this Zoom? When we're done with deliberations and sign
back into this Zoom?

- [Lindsay] So, she's gonna send you an invite for a separate Zoom meeting, and you'll do your closed session
in there. And then, when you're done with closed session come back to this meeting.

- Okay.

- [Lindsay] So, we're going to leave this one on. The phone will keep going.

- You're anticipating a lot of technical .

- All we need to do, is login to the new Zoom. You're going to send us an email right now, right?

- [Lindsay] Attorney says, "Yes."

- And we just need to log into that email Zoom.

- When we're done with this or right now?

- [Lindsay] I will tell you when to log in to that meeting.

- Right, okay. Let's--

- [Lindsay] this meeting opens. So you'll come back to this one once you guys are done with your post session.
And so, that will be a completely separate meeting for you to have your closed session.

- Right. Before you do that, let me just interject and ask a question. Again, we've been at this for... coming up
on, well beyond two hours. Do we want to delay the deliberation tonight? And just wait until two weeks from
now? And do our deliberation then after we've had a chance to think about this a little bit. And then--

- I'm sorry. Before you guys talk about that, I'm Attorney . I put people in the waiting room but this is still
recording. I don't know if they're technically in a closed session right now. So, should I stop the recording?
back to where they're aware of what's happening.

- Okay.

- [Lindsay] 'Cause I don't feel that any of this is privileged.

- Okay.

- No.

- We're not deliberating, we're just talking about schedule .

- [Lindsay] So sorry, everyone.
- So, again, from the board's perspective, do we want to go forward with deliberations tonight? Or do we want
to adjourn the deliberations for two weeks? I mean, that would be--

- I'd vote to adjourn and deliberate. This is a lot. This is a lot of information.

- Yeah.

- It's a long sit, I think.

- Yes. And then, to duke it out, I wouldn't mind waiting a couple of weeks.

- We'll be back at this in two weeks.

- All right.

- I would concur. So, I'll--

- [Lindsay] Do you want to reconsider the vote to go into closed session maybe?

- Nope. We've this closed session. All we're doing in closed session is agreeing to adjourn the closed session
for two weeks. So, I think we can go back out of session and report that to the other parties

- [Lindsay] . I take this has all been not closed session.

- Right. But we did vote to go into closed session so I think we got a --

- Motion. Motion to move into open session.

- Second.

- We have a motion and a second. Again, roll call. If we need it.

- Yeah, you do.

- All right.

- Lindsay, call it off.

- [Lindsay] I'm getting there. I'm sorry. Alder Galvin.

- Aye.

- [Lindsay] Bill.

- Aye.

- [Lindsay] Cheryl.

- Aye.

- [Lindsay] Aaron.

- Aye. That is unanimous.
- All right. So, we are back in open session. So, the results of our very short closed session were that...

- "Closed session." to adjourning deliberations until October...

- Let me look.

- I think it was the 19th.

- I believe I have the scheduling order here. Just a second. It's coming up any minute now.

- October 28th.

- I think you're right.

- 28th?

- Yep.

- Oh, it's... Oh, great. I already had the file open and I didn't know it. Okay. Yep. October 28th at five o'clock --
was the action taken in closed session to the extent that there was a closed session. And so, notice will go out
to the parties that we will be having a closed session, on that date beginning at 5:00 p.m. to begin our
deliberations. And that, parties will be notified . anything else on the agenda? Anybody have any further
comments before we move for adjournment?

- Nope.

- Is there a motion to adjourn?

- Motion.

- We have a motion.

- Second.

- We have a second. All in favor of adjournment signify by saying "Aye".

- Aye.

- Aye.

- Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none. We are adjourned. Thank you all for your time and effort tonight. Again,
some issues here that you have to think about. But, I think this is a good step here giving us a chance to think
about some of the things that we've heard tonight and review our notes and then we'll come back prepared to
deliberate on this in two weeks. Very good. Thank you all.

- All right.

- Thank you.

- Night, everybody.

- Good night.