Ethics Board — Green Bay, WI
Date: 2022-02-10
Time: 17:00

AGENDA OF THE ETHICS BOARD
 THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2022, 5:00 PM
 Virtual Meeting. Public may join via Zoom.


A. Zoom Meeting Instructions.

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

B. Roll Call.

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

C. Approval of the Agenda.

 1. Approval of the Agenda for the February 10, 2022 Ethics Board meeting.

D. Approval of Minutes.

 1. Approval of the Minutes for the December 14, 2022 Ethics Board meeting (held from
 2/3/2022 meeting).

 2. Approval of the Minutes for the February 3, 2022 Ethics Board meeting.

E. Regular Business.

 1. Discussion with possible deliberation and action on the Ethics Complaint filed by Brenda
 Staudenmaier under the City of Gren Bay Code of Conduct for Elected Officials against
 Mayor Eric Genrich and Alders Brunette, Scannell, Stevens, Galvin, Gerlach, and Dorff.

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

 2. Discussion with possible deliberation and action on the Ethics Complaint filed by Keith
 Decker under the City of Gren Bay Code of Conduct for Elected Officials against Mayor Eric
 Genrich and Alders Brunette, Scannell, Stevens, Galvin, Gerlach, and Dorff.


Agenda of the Ethics Board
February 10, 2022
Page 1
 The Board may convene in closed session pursuant to Section 19.85(1)(a), Wis. Stats., for purposes of deliberating
 concerning a case which was the subject of any judicial or quasi-judicial trial or hearing before that governmental body. The
 Board will thereafter reconvene in open session pursuant to Section 19.85(2), Wis. Stats., to take action on items discussed
 in closed session, if appropriate, and to consider the remainder of the agenda.

 3. Discussion with possible deliberation and action on the Ethics Complaint filed by Lacey Kuehl
 under the City of Gren Bay Code of Conduct for Elected Officials against Mayor Eric
 Genrich and Alders Brunette, Scannell, Stevens, Galvin, Gerlach, and Dorff.

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

 4. Scheduling of future proceedings.

F. Informational.

 1. Benjamin Khademi voluntarily withdrew his ethics complaint against Mayor Eric Genrich and
 Alders Brunette, Scannell, Stevens, Galvin, Gerlach, and Dorff.

G. 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
February 10, 2022
Page 2

AGENDA OF THE ETHICS BOARD
 THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2022, 5:00 PM
 Virtual Meeting. Public may join via Zoom.


A. Zoom Meeting Instructions.

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

B. Roll Call.

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

C. Approval of the Agenda.

 1. Approval of the Agenda for the February 10, 2022 Ethics Board meeting.

D. Approval of Minutes.

 1. Approval of the Minutes for the December 14, 2022 Ethics Board meeting (held from
 2/3/2022 meeting).

 2. Approval of the Minutes for the February 3, 2022 Ethics Board meeting.

E. Regular Business.

 1. Discussion with possible deliberation and action on the Ethics Complaint filed by Brenda
 Staudenmaier under the City of Gren Bay Code of Conduct for Elected Officials against
 Mayor Eric Genrich and Alders Brunette, Scannell, Stevens, Galvin, Gerlach, and Dorff.

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

 2. Discussion with possible deliberation and action on the Ethics Complaint filed by Keith
 Decker under the City of Gren Bay Code of Conduct for Elected Officials against Mayor Eric
 Genrich and Alders Brunette, Scannell, Stevens, Galvin, Gerlach, and Dorff.


Agenda of the Ethics Board
February 10, 2022
Page 1
 The Board may convene in closed session pursuant to Section 19.85(1)(a), Wis. Stats., for purposes of deliberating
 concerning a case which was the subject of any judicial or quasi-judicial trial or hearing before that governmental body. The
 Board will thereafter reconvene in open session pursuant to Section 19.85(2), Wis. Stats., to take action on items discussed
 in closed session, if appropriate, and to consider the remainder of the agenda.

 3. Discussion with possible deliberation and action on the Ethics Complaint filed by Lacey Kuehl
 under the City of Gren Bay Code of Conduct for Elected Officials against Mayor Eric
 Genrich and Alders Brunette, Scannell, Stevens, Galvin, Gerlach, and Dorff.

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

 4. Scheduling of future proceedings.

F. Informational.

 1. Benjamin Khademi voluntarily withdrew his ethics complaint against Mayor Eric Genrich and
 Alders Brunette, Scannell, Stevens, Galvin, Gerlach, and Dorff.

G. 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
February 10, 2022
Page 2
Virtual Meeting Instructions
Ethics Board 2-10-2022
Zoom Meeting Information


  Join Zoom Meeting
  https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88520661416?pwd=a0lIaFlRTG1LRVZXaTBEenR3aTladz09

  Meeting ID: 885 2066 1416
  Passcode: 232441

  One tap mobile
  +13126266799,,88520661416#,,,,*232441# US (Chicago)
  +19292056099,,88520661416#,,,,*232441# 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 (Washington DC)
 +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
 +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
 +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
  Meeting ID: 885 2066 1416
  Passcode: 232441
  Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kedR2kndVa
Public Comments
  If you wish to speak at this public meeting or leave a comment, please fill out the online
  Comment Form prior to the meeting.

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

Calling into the Zoom meeting using a smartphone
  1. Dial the phone number listed at the beginning of this document.
  2. When prompted, enter the Meeting ID number followed by #
  3. Once you are in the meeting, notify the meeting host that you are in and state your
 name.
  4. If you do not wish to speak, please make sure your phone is on Mute
 a. If you’re using a smartphone, look at your screen and click the Mute button
 MINUTES OF THE ETHICS BOARD
 TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2021, 5:00 PM
 Virtual Meeting. Public may join via Zoom.


 A. ZOOM MEETING INSTRUCTIONS.

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

 B. ROLL CALL.

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

 C. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.

1. Approval of the Agenda for the December 14, 2021 Ethics Board meeting.
Moved by Staff Cheryl Renier-Wigg, seconded by Vice Chair Aaron Weinschenk to approve.
Motion Passed.
Yes- William VandeCastle, Cheryl Renier-Wigg, Aaron Weinschenk, Janet Hathaway, No- None,
Abstain- None.

 D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.

1. Approval of the minutes from the January 6, 2021 Ethics Board Meeting.
Moved by Vice Chair Aaron Weinschenk, seconded by Board Member William VandeCastle to
approve.
Motion Passed.
Yes- William VandeCastle, Cheryl Renier-Wigg, Aaron Weinschenk, Janet Hathaway, No- None,
Abstain- None.


 1
 E. REGULAR BUSINESS.

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

The Committee may convene in closed session pursuant to Section 19.85(1)(a), Wis. Stats., for purposes of deliberating concerning a
case which was the subject of any judicial or quasi-judicial trial or hearing before that governmental body. The Committee 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.

Chair Vande Castle disclosed potential conflicts and affirmed his belief he can remain impartial
despite those conflicts. The parties have until January 18, 2022 to submit any concerns about those
disclosures in writing to outside counsel Attorney Mike May.

Complainant Rollin has until January 18, 2022 to respond to the arguments raised by Respondent
Mayor Genrich's letter dated December 9, 2021. Mayor Genrich has until January 28, 2022, to
respond to Ms. Rollin's arguments. Attorney May will send a scheduling order to the parties.

A Board meeting to address any conflicts as well as the jurisdictional arguments will be scheduled in
February 2022.

2. Discussion with possible deliberation and action on the Ethics Complaint filed by Brenda
Staudenmaier under the City of Gren Bay Code of Conduct for Elected Officials against Mayor Eric
Genrich and Alders Brunette, Scannell, Stevens, Galvin, Gerlach, and Dorff.

The Committee may convene in closed session pursuant to Section 19.85(1)(a), Wis. Stats., for purposes of deliberating concerning a
case which was the subject of any judicial or quasi-judicial trial or hearing before that governmental body. The Committee 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.

Chair Vande Castle recuses himself due to conflicts of interest based on previous work he has done
for the Green Bay Water Utility, including work on issues related to fluoride and previous
interactions with Ms. Staudenmaier.

Vice Chair Weinschenk requests briefing from the parties on jurisdictional questions. Complainant's
brief is due January 10, 2022. Briefs from Respondents are due January 24, 2022. An Ethics Board
meeting to address those issues will be scheduled in early February .

3. Discussion with possible deliberation and action on the Ethics Complaint filed by Benjamin
Khademi under the City of Gren Bay Code of Conduct for Elected Officials against Mayor Eric
Genrich and Alders Brunette, Scannell, Stevens, Galvin, Gerlach, and Dorff.

The Committee may convene in closed session pursuant to Section 19.85(1)(a), Wis. Stats., for purposes of deliberating concerning a
case which was the subject of any judicial or quasi-judicial trial or hearing before that governmental body. The Committee 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.

Chair Vande Castle recuses himself due to conflicts of interest based on previous work he has
done for the Green Bay Water Utility, including work on issues related to fluoride.

Vice Chair Weinschenk requests briefing from the parties on jurisdictional questions. Complainant's
brief is due January 10, 2022. Briefs from Respondents are due January 24, 2022. An Ethics Board
meeting to address those issues will be scheduled in early February.
 2
4. Discussion with possible deliberation and action on the Ethics Complaint filed by Keith Decker under
 the City of Gren Bay Code of Conduct for Elected Officials against Mayor Eric Genrich and Alders
 Brunette, Scannell, Stevens, Galvin, Gerlach, and Dorff.

  The Committee may convene in closed session pursuant to Section 19.85(1)(a), Wis. Stats., for purposes of deliberating concerning a
  case which was the subject of any judicial or quasi-judicial trial or hearing before that governmental body. The Committee 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.

  Chair Vande Castle recuses himself due to conflicts of interest based on previous work he has done
  for the Green Bay Water Utility, including work on issues related to fluoride and previous
  interactions with Ms. Staudenmaier.

  Vice Chair Weinschenk requests briefing from the parties on jurisdictional questions. Complainant's
  brief is due January 10, 2022. Briefs from Respondents are due January 24, 2022. An Ethics Board
  meeting to address those issues will be scheduled in early February .

  5. Discussion with possible deliberation and action on the Ethics Complaint filed by Lacey Kuehl
  under the City of Gren Bay Code of Conduct for Elected Officials against Mayor Eric Genrich and
  Alders Brunette, Scannell, Stevens, Galvin, Gerlach, and Dorff.

  The Committee may convene in closed session pursuant to Section 19.85(1)(a), Wis. Stats., for purposes of deliberating concerning a
  case which was the subject of any judicial or quasi-judicial trial or hearing before that governmental body. The Committee 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.

  Chair Vande Castle recuses himself due to conflicts of interest based on previous work he has done
  for the Green Bay Water Utility, including work on issues related to fluoride and previous
  interactions with Ms. Staudenmaier.

  Vice Chair Weinschenk requests briefing from the parties on jurisdictional questions. Complainant's
  brief is due January 10, 2022. Briefs from Respondents are due January 24, 2022. An Ethics Board
  meeting to address those issues will be scheduled in early February.

 F. ADJOURNMENT.
  Moved by Staff Cheryl Renier-Wigg, seconded by Janet Hathaway to adjourn.
  Motion Passed.
  Yes- William VandeCastle, Cheryl Renier-Wigg, Aaron Weinschenk, Janet Hathaway, No- None,
  Abstain- None.




 3
 VERBATIM MINUTES

- I should have started a little earlier.

- All right, the recording has started. We move ahead.

- All right. All right, very good. This is the meeting of the City of Green Bay Ethics Board for
Tuesday, December 14, 2021. It is 5:01. As we're getting started, this meeting is being
conducted via Zoom, and it appears that we do have a quorum. So we will move to item C on
the agenda which is approval of the agenda for the December 14th, 2020 Election Board
Meeting. Is there a motion to approve or are there any additions or modifications?

- I'll make a motion to approve.

- All right, is there a second?

- I'll second.

- All right. So we have a motion and a second. Again, are there any additions or modifications?
Hearing none, all in favor, signify by saying aye.

- [All] Aye.

- Any oppose? Motion carries. Item D approval of the minutes of the January 6th, 2021 Ethics
Board Meeting. Those documents or that document is in your packet. Are there any additions
or corrections? Hearing none, is there a motion to approve?

- Motion to approve Aaron.

- All right, and I will second that. So we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion or
questions? Otherwise all in favor of approving the minutes from the January 6th, 2021 meeting,
signify by saying aye. Aye.

- [All] Aye.

- Any oppose? Motion carries. Item E. We're now into the substance of the meeting tonight,
item E number one. Discussion with possible deliberation and action on ethics complaint filed by
Kimber Rollin against Mayor Eric Genrich, under the City of Green Bay code of conduct for
elected officials. So we'll start with those proceedings first. So procedurally, generally we first
start by addressing any conflict of interest issues. So let me just note for the record here that it
appears from these proceedings that the city's law department has a conflict issue in regard to
these proceedings. I don't know what that is but, irrelevant for our purposes. As a consequence
the ethics board has engaged the services of attorney Michael May from the Boardman Law Firm
in Madison and attorney May's in attendance tonight. So he will be representing the board in this
particular proceeding. With respect to any conflicts regarding the board, let me start first, with
respect to Ms. Rollin. By profession I am an attorney in Green Bay. In the course of these
proceedings, it actually came to my attention that one of the members of my firm who handles
family law matters, previously provided legal services to Ms. Rollin. That representation, I
 4
understand it- Personally I had no involvement in that representation. My practice doesn't
involve family law. I steer away from that as much as possible entirely. So I had no knowledge of
this representation until Ms. Rollin's ethics complaint came into my office a couple weeks, and
prior to today, I would not have known Ms. Rollin even if I met her on the street. In review, I
don't believe that Ms. Rollin's representation by a member of my law firm, for which I had no
involvement, would in any way affect my ability to be fair and unbiased prior of fact in these
proceedings, or to render a fair or impartial decision at the conclusion of these proceedings. On
the other side, as I said, from a professional standpoint I'm an attorney, the bulk of my legal
practices in the area of municipal law. In that regard for the past two decades, I have served as
general counsel for the Green Bay Water Commission, and in the Green Bay Water Utility, and
in that regard, I've had numerous dealings over the years with the city's law department, and on
occasion with the mayor's office. I'm also a general counsel for the Green Bay Brown County
Professional Football Stadium District, and in that regard I've also worked with the city's law
department over the years, and again on occasion with the mayor's office. In addition to serving
as the chair of this board, I am also the chair of the City of Green Bay Housing Authority, and
I've been a commissioner on that board for more than 20 years. And also in that capacity, I've
worked closely with the city's law department and again, from time to time with the mayor's
office. And lastly, my son is also an attorney, Nicholas VandeCastle. He's currently an assistant
city attorney for the city of Appleton, but prior to that, he worked in my office on many of the
same matters and on the same municipal clients that I mentioned above. He also worked part-
time for the city's law department. In review, I again did not believe that my professional
involvement with the city's law department or with the mayor's office in regard to any of the
above that I mentioned would affect my ability to be fair and unbiased as a prior of fact or to
render a fair and impartial decision in these proceedings. So, however, in light of the foregoing
disclosures, I would turn this over to the parties for any of their comments. I recognize that
these disclosures are being made at this time, and that there have been no prior disclosures of
my involvement with either of the parties that would otherwise have alerted either of the
parties to these issues. And I understand that because of the issues involved in this matter, there
may need to be some briefing that may be discussed tonight, rather than compel the parties to
make a decision tonight on any conflict issues that they perceive, I would be amenable to
allowing the parties time to consider these disclosures and to address them as part of the
briefing process, and then I will take that under advisement. So that's my disclosure. I would
turn it over to other board members in case they have anything that they wish to disclose at
this point, in terms of a potential conflict of interest. All right, hearing none, then let's move into
the discussion of this matter. And I think at this point there have been so I will this over to
attorney May to give us some direction as to how we proceed. Attorney May, are you with us?

- We can't hear you. Try muting and unmuting again.

- Oh.

- Now can you hear me?

- Yes.

- Yes.

- Thank you.
 5
- Of course these headphones are supposed to make it easier, and sometimes a little harder.

- I had to do the same thing with mine about a week ago.

- The board members should be aware that in addition to the complaint, which was filed in this
matter, there was a jurisdictional argument put forward by the mayor's representative Attorney
Lans, that was forwarded to the board. I informed the parties that if they wanted to make any
such arguments, they should get them to me by last Thursday, and that was the only thing I
received and I passed it onto the board. I informed them also at that time that A, there would
not be any testimony taken tonight, but that the board would discuss procedural issues and
likely set up a schedule to consider this matter as we go forward. So I think that as the board
discusses a schedule, one of the things you need to do is to consider how you will take up the
jurisdictional arguments that were raised on behalf of the mayor, and whether there are any
arguments to make, and then also I assume, have a time to consider those and depending on the
disposition of those to move on to an evidentiary hearing if there is not a dismissal on
jurisdiction. That would be my recommendation, and I don't know if you've done it differently in
Green Bay in the past, but that is normally the way that we would go. So that's what I would
recommend, and I'd turn it back over to the chair of the body.

- Thank you counsel. That has been in fact what we've done in the past, in fact the last
proceeding before this board back in January of this year, we followed that same format, there
were a number of constitutional and procedural issues that the parties were allowed to brief
first, and then we met again to discuss those with council, the responses with council, and then
made a decision on those issues before moving forward with any evidentiary hearing. So, again,
that's been past practice, so I think it would be appropriate to continue to follow that. And so I
think that, again, turning it over back to you for any suggestions how we move forward.

- Well just one further comment is that, although the mayor made some jurisdictional
arguments, nothing had been filed by Ms. Rollin and I don't know when you set up your
schedule, whether you want to give her a chance to either in our brief or otherwise to raise any
issues related to that.

- Okay. So, again, procedurally I'm looking at this, put my lawyer hat on here for a minute,
looking at this conference with the judge and that one party has already filed a brief, so, well the
other party would be given time to respond and then the initial filing party would get a chance
to reply to that. So that again, was the process we had applied in the past, and so I would
suggest that we look at a timeframe for doing that, with essentially a response brief for Ms.
Rollin's, the time for her to do that and then a time for Attorney Lans to reply to that, and then
set up a time for another meeting of this board to discuss those issues. Board members any
comments on that process? No. All right. So, hearing none I think this is really a calendaring
issue. We could do that tonight or in the past what we've done is allow council for the board to
work with the parties to set up that briefing schedule. It really doesn't, the only thing we need
to be concerned about to take in the future for this board to get back together an opportunity
to review that. So, I guess I would turn it over to Ms. Rollin or Attorney Lans to comment on
that process if they have any thoughts on how we should proceed to give everybody an
opportunity to respond.

 6
- [Ms. Rollin] Hi, this is Ms. Rollin here, and I would like to have additional time please. At least
30 days to respond due to the holidays here.

- Sure. Sure. Understand. So that would put us to about the middle of January, Attorney Lans
any thoughts on when you'd have the opportunity to submit a response to that?

- Thank you Mr. Chair, and happy to be here. On behalf of the mayor, I think we'd be prepared
to respond or to issue a reply certainly within 10 days after we receive Ms. Rollin's response.

- Okay.

- Yeah, I don't wanna push that out any longer. So maybe towards the end of January.

- All right. That would make sense. And then we could look at, if we have that timeframe in
place, we could look at a board meeting again, probably sometime in mid February which would
give us the board members an opportunity for a couple of weeks to review all this and schedule
this. So, with that in mind I guess I would turn this back to, yes, Attorney Lans go ahead.

- Thank you, I'm sorry. I should've mentioned, we appreciate the Chair's disclosures earlier.
Obviously I haven't had a chance to discuss it with my client. I don't foresee that being an issue
but just in the unlikely event that it is, I think we'd like a deadline for when you'd like to hear
our argument on that or present some sort of briefing.

- Sure. And I think what we would probably do would be to do it at the next meeting. We
address that as the first issue, and then go into a discussion of the arguments that are being
made by the parties. And in the past we've also given, not only the briefing arrangements, but
also at that next meeting given the parties an opportunity to briefly address the board on
anything they wanna add to what they've already submitted. So there would be an opportunity
for some oral discussion in case the board has any questions. So with that being the case, I
would like the board to set up a meeting for some time in mid February, and I don't know if
we're prepared to necessarily schedule that tonight, but with this briefing schedule in place
maybe I would turn this over back over to the city's law department to try to put together for
us where we could meet next and have this available, and made available to the parties. Lindsay
does that sound appropriate?

- Attorney May did you wanna weigh in?

- I wanted to weigh in with a couple of things. I'd be happy to put together a written schedule
along those lines which would have the responses.

- Yes.

- Ms. Rollin's response is due on January 14th, that's a Friday and then Mr. Lans-

- [Ms. Rollin] Can't do it on the 14th.

- You can't have your filing made by that time?

 7
- [Ms. Rollin] I wouldn't be able to until January 16th at the earliest.

- Okay. Well 16th might be a holiday let me see.

- [Ms. Rollin] It's a holiday.

- 18th is? Okay.

- [Ms. Rollin] I believe so.

- Oh 17th is the holiday.

- [Ms. Rollin] Okay, 17th?

- Well, then why don't you have it due on Tuesday, January 18th? And then,

- [Ms. Rollin] Okay.

- your response Mr. Lans will be due on the 28th, if that's a weekday. It is. And I would ask if, as
part of that schedule I'm gonna ask that if either party wants to raise any questions about
conflicts, to do it in a filing on the 18th so that that people have a chance to respond to it if they
wish to. And then the only other thing I would note is that I am out of state in February. I
should, if I have decent internet connection, I can attend a meeting via Zoom, but that's just a

- Okay. So right now is a bit up in the air in February, so I wouldn't be prepared tonight to set a
date for that meeting in February. I need to consult with one of the other party or one of the
other people in my office that's handling their case for me that we're both counsel on. So, I will
turn this back to the city and ask them to arrange the scheduling and their usual format as to
how they handle this. So, it's acceptable to Ms. Rollin and Mr. Lans?

- [Ms. Rollin] Yes.

- Okay.

- Yes, thank you.

- Very good. So we will have that, and again that meeting in February will not, will again not be
evidentiary, it will be to discuss the procedural and jurisdictional issues that have been raised,
and the responses to them and then also the conflict of interest issues. Just so everybody
knows.

- [Ms. Rollin] Could you repeat that?

- Yeah, so it will not, the meeting in February will not be a trial. So there'll be no testimony or
no witnesses need to be available, then it will be the board's response to the motions that have
been filed jurisdictional issues and to the conflict of interest issues, we will deal with all of that
on the date in the middle of February, and then depending on how it goes at that point, we
would then schedule an evidentiary hearing after that. So we would, the close of that hearing
 8
would be a decision on whether there would be an evidentiary hearing and if so, we would then
schedule it. Is that clear?

- [Ms. Rollin] Okay, thank you. Yes.

- All right, very good. Attorney May anything further we need to address?

- The only question I have, as chairman of the board, would you sign the scheduling order or am
I allowed to send that out on behalf of the board?

- I don't have any problem with you sending it out since a legal counsel for the board.

- Okay.

- That's fine.

- Okay, thank you. Otherwise I think if you're done with this item, I can leave the meeting as far
as I know.

- Yeap. Any parties to these proceedings have anything else further before we close this aspect
of the meeting?

- [Ms. Rollin] No, I do not, thank you.

- All right.

- No, thank you. Have a good evening.

- That's okay, very good, thank you.

- Good bye.

- All right. All right. Thank you much.

- [Ms. Rollin] Bye.

- Thank you.

- All right. So now we'll move on to item E two, that would be discussion and possible
deliberation and action on ethics complaint filed by Brenda Staudenmaier under the City of
Green Bay code of conduct for elected officials against the mayor Genrich and Alders Rynette,
Scannell, Stephens, Galvin, Gerlach and Dorff. Again with these proceedings can I have the
appearances for the parties please? Are there any legal counsel representing any of the parties in
these proceedings? All right, hearing none I'll assume that there aren't any. So once again, we'll
address potential conflict issues that may affect these proceedings. I would note that in the
previous proceedings, as we just finished up here this evening, the city's law department, which
usually represents this board, had a conflict of interest resulting in the board being represented
by Attorney May. That's not the case in these proceedings, so for these proceedings the board
 9
will be represented by the city's law department and that would be Attorney Mather and I think
acting city attorney will also be involved in this in some variation or not. So, again I'll start first.
As I related in my previous, in the previous proceedings tonight, I'm an attorney here in Green
Bay, and in that capacity I serve as general counsel for the Green Bay Water Commission, and
also the Green Bay Water Utility itself. In my representation of the utility over the past two
decades, I have at least over the last almost decade now at large with Ms. Staudenmaier, and her
ongoing anti fluoride campaign against the utility and her efforts to frankly disparage and
denigrate the utility, its product, its administrative staff and its employees, as Ms. Staudenmaier
has, for some reason again, stalked the air in these proceedings. As I understand Ms.
Staudenmaier complaint, these proceeding relate to whether the named city officials violated the
city's code of conduct for elected officials at about December 1, 2020, by not opening the floor
at a city council meeting to allow the complainant and others to speak. Despite the lengthy
recitations in the complaint, this body has no any fluoridation issues laid out in the complaint.
Those assertions and arguments are completely irrelevant to these proceedings. As noted in her
complaint Ms. Staudenmaier seeks my recusal from these proceedings. The ethical
considerations and obligations of this position would most certainly require that I recuse myself,
and I would have delivered without Ms. Staudenmaier requests and despite her efforts to change
these proceedings with more fluoridation, anti fluoridation arguments and personal attacks that
are again not relevant to the substance of her complaint or these proceedings. I've had the
privilege of serving on this board and over those years this body has taken great steps to
provide everyone who comes before it with a fair, unbiased and impartial prior of fact. That is
why we go through these conflict reviews prior to the commencement of each hearing, and that
is why I am recusing myself from these proceedings, and also to continue to uphold those
standards set by this board, and to avoid even the appearance of a bias by this board, and to its
principles and standards, I will not only recuse myself from these proceedings involving Ms.
Staudenmaier, I'm also recusing myself from the three other companion proceedings on this
evening's agenda. And with that, I will turn these proceedings over to the board's vice chair Mr.
Weinschenk. Aaron, the floor is yours.

- Hello everybody, good evening. So, I think that the way to proceed is similar to the previous
case where we think about scheduling forward, and I say that in part because some people who
are named in the complaint could be here 'cause they have another meeting and they're excused
from this meeting. And also because I think there are important jurisdiction issues with this case
that need to be addressed. And so I think scheduling a meeting out where we can take up those
jurisdictional issues would be useful that way you can respond to concerns over our jurisdiction
on the issue. And so attorney Mather, do we wanna take each, each one individually, each ethics
complaint individually or can I speak to all of them simultaneously since they, they raise the same
sections of the code?

- So we will have to take up each one individually but you can speak broadly to what the issues
are, and then, and then just, excuse me, and then just refer back for each of the subsequent
ones to those same issues that you raised with respect to Ms. Staudenmaier. I would, before we
move on because we do have just three board members at this point and that's what we need
for quorum. Just wanna check with the remaining three of you that nobody else has any other
conflicts that they need to declare at this point. Thank you. Go ahead Aaron.

- Great. So there's some jurisdictional issues that I think need to be addressed. We obviously
have to have jurisdiction over things in order to make decisions about them, and so the
 10
complaints all cite violations of two parts of section four of the ethics code, but those sections
of the code apply if numbers are given the chance to speak and Wisconsin Open Meetings Law
will impress citizens the right to attend and observe open sessions, but does not require a
government body to allow the members of the public to speak or participate. And so I think we
need more information on how the sections cited apply, right? If there's no requirement that a
government body open the floor for public input, then what is the relevance of the sections of
code that are cited? And so I think there's a, there's a question of if we're able to even take this
up given that the violation of citing parts of the code that refer to speakers and there was a
decision not to let people speak.

- So do you wanna set it for briefing then?

- I think I would like responses from all of the complaints in writing, maybe like a week before
or whatever we set the meeting, just to address the jurisdiction issue of whether we can even
deal with deal with these.

- I would recommend giving a deadline for the complainants and then also similar to what was
done in the last item, providing a deadline for responses from the respondents as well, and then
having the meeting after that.

- Do we have a date? I know that there was some work on trying to figure out a date for a
meeting.

- We do not have a date yet.

- Okay.

- So I guess it depends on the alders that are not here, and I guess if you'll permit me, I will just
make a really quick record about the respondents who are not able to be here, just so that
everybody knows Mayor Genrich, Alder Dorff, Alder Gerlach and Alder Galvin, all reached out
directly to the law department and indicated that they are going to defend against this
complaint, however they all have other commitments. I know some of them are at the
personnel and finance committee meetings this evening, and some have other commitments as
well, but because this was scheduled as quickly as it was, and there were so many respondents
we knew that it was unlikely we were going to get a date right off the bat that would work for
so many people. So I did ask everybody to provide some dates in January that would work,
however, I did only ask them for January and depending on how much time the parties would
like to brief, if we do wanna push it out and have the meeting in February, I would just ask that
similar to the last item, you allow the law department sufficient time to coordinate with
everybody as far as finding a time that fits everybody's schedule for the next meeting.

- Do you have any recommendations on the amount of time that we should allow for briefs
from those filing complaints and then responses?

- I would first ask the complainants if they have, what their opinions are and as far as how long
they would need to respond to the jurisdictional questions that you've raised and then based off
of that ask the respondents how long they would like to be able to respond to whatever
arguments are raised. So I would start with Ms. Staudenmaier.
 11
- Yeah, Ms. Staudenmaier do you have any sense of how long you would like to respond to the
jurisdiction question I raised?

- Sure. I think can we have until the first week of January, January sometime the week on the
third? So then it's after Christmas and after new years.

- So we could, maybe something like Monday the 10th briefs and response to the jurisdiction
issues and then, does that work for other, I guess since these are individual complaints, just by
the what they cite, the same section of the code as being vile on each complaint, does that work
for the other complaints?

- Yes.

- Yeah.

- So we don't have some of the people here, right, who are gonna be possibly responding?


- Correct.

- It works for me too, anytime in January.

- Okay.

- Thank you.

- So is that the 10th then? I'm sorry is that what you said?

- Yeah. It's the 10th, briefs responding to the jurisdiction question by the 10th.

- Okay. And then, yeah, all the respondents aren't here, but if you wanna just ask the ones that
are to weigh in on when they would like to see, how much time they would like to see or to
have rather to be able to respond.

- Sure. I can't see all of the participants, if you wanna raise a hand. Yeah, go ahead city council
member.

- Yes, sorry. Thank you chairman. That is reasonable as long as there's sufficient notification
when the complainants have made their case.

- So something like a two week span to respond after they're submitted, would that work?

- It seems reasonable.

- So we could say, let's see, responses by the 24th of January? That would be two weeks from
that Monday.

 12
- Yes.

- And then we could set a meeting after that or maybe the first week in February.

- Alder Scannell did you ever comment? Did we lose him?

- It looks frozen.

- He certainly looks frozen but-

- On my end. But Gerinna wasn't like Alder Scannell.

- Alder Scannell did you have a comment? You froze for a minute on us.

- That's funny, you all froze. I was just gonna say that the dates the 10th and the 24th I think are
agreeable to me as well.

- Alder Stevens?

- Works for me as well.


- Thank you. Do we have any others here? I don't think so. The other four are not here, so
what I'll do just so all the parties are aware, following this meeting I will reach out to everybody
with both the questions that Aaron has posed as far as what should be included in your
responses, and then also with the scheduling deadlines so that everybody who is here, and
everybody who's not here is aware of those deadlines, and I will also work with everyone,
unless you, all want to pick a date right now, if we do push the meeting into February, I will
work with everybody to come up with a date that's amenable to everybody, I don't have dates
beyond January at this point from the respondents who are not here.

- I think we can, we don't have to pick a date, we can sort that out via email once we get these
materials and we can go from there. It's usually pretty easy to coordinate a meeting date with a
couple of weeks notice. Do we, we need to go through the rest, each of the rest of the
complaints?

- Sorry, Civic Clerk is acting up on me, I'm getting sidetracked. So, I guess since they are all on
the agenda we should call each of the items and just outline the scheduling dates for each of
them as well. In the past we haven't had the board approve of scheduling orders once we've set
them so we don't necessarily have to take votes, but since they are on the agenda we should call
each item and handle it individually and set that schedule for each one.

- Okay. So we will move on to item three of the agenda that is the discussion about possible
deliberation action on the ethics complaint filed by Benjamin. I think you probably understand
the jurisdiction question I'm raising, but since you cite the same sections I'll just say it again to
make it clear. You're citing sections of the code that refer to how people are to be treated if
they're given the chance to speak, how they're supposed to, how members of the council are
supposed to interact with them, councils are under no obligation to allow people to speak if
 13
they don't want to, that's state open records laws, you can look at it on the Wisconsin
Department of Justice page. They make it abundantly clear that boards it's under their discretion
to open up so we need to know how those sections of the code apply given that they entail
interactions with speakers but people were not granted the chance to speak by the council
which is their prerogative. So we need responses to that issue from your complaint as well. Any
questions, concerns otherwise I can move to the next item where I will basically say the same
thing again. All right. We will move to agenda item four discussion and possible deliberation and
action on ethics complaint filed by Keith Decker under the City of Green Bay code of conduct
for elected officials. I have the same jurisdictional questions regarding that complaint as well.
Councils do not have to open up the floor to speakers, and so how does the sections of the
code do you cite, which entail allocating time, how council members are supposed to interact
with the public apply, given the rules at the state level.

- Yeah, you're asking you to one of us about the legalities of it, right?

- I'm asking each one of you to respond in writing to my questions about jurisdiction.

- Okay. I mean basically to be honest we're just following Brenda's lead on this and so I would,
differ comes to the legalities involved. We're just trying to do what makes sense to us as far as
what's right. So I'm not a lawyer and I don't have one, so maybe we can give you a written
respond then sure so.

- You'll have until that same January 10th deadline to submit your arguments in writing, and then
the respondents, all of the alders and the mayor will have the chance to respond in writing as
well, and then the board will discuss it at the next board meeting. And you'll be able to be there
and make arguments if the board asks for them.

- Sure. That's good.

- All righty, and we have one more agenda item five, discussion of possible deliberation and
action on the ethics complaint filed by Lacey Kill under the City of Green Bay code of conduct
for elected officials. I feel like a broken record here, but since we cite the same cautions of the
ethics code we need to know how that applies when boards are not obligated to permit speech
by audience members, and again, you have the opportunity to respond to my jurisdiction
question in writing, the people who are complained against have the opportunity to respond,
and then we will... I think we got all of the complaints. Yes. So-

- Any questions from any of the complainants about that timeline? I just wanna be very clear.
And I think Aaron mentioned this as well but just as a reminder, these submissions should only
address the jurisdictional issues, none of the merits of any of the other arguments as far as the
merits of fluoridation versus not, whatever the opposite of fluoridation. I can't speak. But just
strictly whether the ethics board has the authority to hear this under the code of conduct, and
if the board determines at the next meeting that it does, then at that point what we would
move on to an evidentiary hearing, but I just want to make clear to all of the complainants and
all of the respondents that there should be strictly limited to addressing those jurisdictional
questions that Aaron has raised.

- On attorney Mather just on, to add on. The folks here know they can hand write those
 14
responses on if they need to, I should say they don't need an attorney to respond to those. You
can respond to those yourselves, and they get delivered to you. Is that where they would
respond to?

- Yes.

- Okay.

- You can email them to me, I believe at this point you have all received email communications
from me. So you should all have my email address, if you do not, please let me know now and
I'm happy to give that to you. So you can either email me your submissions, you can mail it in,
you can bring it to the clerk of court's office, however is most convenient for you. In general,
we do ask that you provide a copy to the other parties as well, however if you're unable to do
that, I always send copies to all of the parties as well just to make sure that everybody has
everybody else's motion. So... Good question, thank you.

- And that's due by January 10th?

- January 10th for the complainants, January 24th, right? For the respondents.

- Yeap.

- Right.

- Yeap. All right. I think that I am done being vice chair and I can turn things over to Bill.

- [Bill] All right. So it looks like we've completed the agenda, so I think the next item on the
agenda is a motion to adjourn, unless anybody has anything further. On hearing none, is there a
motion to adjourn?

- I'll make that motion.

- [Bill] We have a motion and a second. And thank you all for participating tonight and working
through all of this. There's a lot to cover here, and I think we successfully worked through all of
it. So thank you all very much. So all in favor of the motion to adjourn signify by saying aye. Aye.

- [All] Aye.

- [Bill] Any opposed? Motion carries. We are adjourned. Thank you all again.

- Thank you all, have a good night.




 15
 MINUTES OF THE ETHICS BOARD
 THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2022, 5:00 PM
 Virtual Meeting. Public may join via Zoom.


 A. ZOOM MEETING INSTRUCTIONS.

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

 B. ROLL CALL.

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

 C. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.

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

 D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.

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

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

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


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

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

Parties provide statements on jurisdictional issues.

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

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

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

 F. ADJOURNMENT.
 VERBATIM MINUTES


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


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


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


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


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


- Point of order.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


- Not at this time.


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


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


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


- You bet, Alder Galvin?


- Yes.


- Chair VandeCastle?


- Yes.


- Ms. Renier-Wigg?


- Yes.


- Mr. Weinschenk?


- Yes.


- Ms. Hathaway?


- Yes.


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


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


- Certainly.


- Go ahead.


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


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


- Second.


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


- Just a voice vote is fine.


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


- [Multiple Board Members] Aye.


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


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


- That's correct.


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


- I'll second.


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


- [Multiple Board Members In Unison] Aye.


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


- I'll second.


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


- [Multiple Board Members In Unison] Aye.


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


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


- Yes.


- Thank you all.


- All right, very good, thank you.


- Thank you for your time.
 Report to the
 Ethics Board
 of the City of Green Bay


 MEETING DATE PREPARED BY
 February 10, 2022

AGENDA ITEM # E.1
Discussion with possible deliberation and action on the Ethics Complaint filed by Brenda Staudenmaier under
the City of Gren Bay Code of Conduct for Elected Officials against Mayor Eric Genrich and Alders Brunette,
Scannell, Stevens, Galvin, Gerlach, and Dorff.

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

BACKGROUND


RECOMMENDATION


FISCAL IMPACT


ATTACHMENTS
1. Staudenmaier_Jurisdiction_Final
2. Alder Scannell's Ethics Response
3. Response to Ethics Complaint - Dorff Stevens Galvin
4. Response to EthicsBd Gerlach




 100 North Jefferson Street, Room 608, Green Bay, Wisconsin 54301-5026
 (p) 920.448.3400 (f) 920.448.3426  greenbaywi.gov
1278 Doty St
Green Bay, WI 54301

Celestine Jeffreys
City Clerk
City of Green Bay
100 North Jefferson St.
Green Bay, WI 54301

Subject: Staudenmaier jurisdiction of complaint against Mayor Eric Genrich and Common
Council members Barbara Dorff, District 1, Lynn Gerlach, District 3, Bill Galvin, District 4,
Craig Stevens, District 5, Randy Scannell, District 7, and Jesse Brunette, District 12’s behavior
and treatment of citizens at the December 1, 2020 City Council Meeting for agenda item, N.
Report of the Protection & Policy Committee November 16, 2020 AND November 19, 2020). 6.
To receive and place on file a request by Ald. Galvin, filed on behalf of constituent Brenda
Staudenmaier, that the City consider taking fluoride out of the treatment process for the City
water. (November 19, 2020) for violating CITY OF GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN CODE OF
CONDUCT FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS
SECTION 4: Elected Official Conduct Towards the Public in Public Meetings
A. Be welcoming to Speakers and Treat them with Care and Respect
B. Be Fair and Equitable in Allocating Public Hearing Time to Individual Speakers

Dear Ms. Jeffreys:

The Ethics Board should examine the respondents’ conduct toward the complainants because of
the way the complainants were treated at the December 1, 2020 meeting. The code does not
specify nor state that the code only applies if and when the floor is open for public comment.
State open records law is irrelevant in this complaint and should not be used to avoid following
the city’s own code of conduct. The code of conduct is a local provision that governs the
conduct of councilors and irrespective of any state law because it is the elected officials own
rules of conduct for the treatment of citizens during meetings. The code can only be interpreted
as written and arguments based on limitations to this code that are not found in the text of the
code itself are not relevant and cannot be relied on to allow the council to avoid its own rules.

Many statements and actions made by the respondents at the meeting potentially violate the
city’s code of conduct and should be evaluated for violation of the code sections cited. The vote
to open the floor was a 6-6 tie which should have been called in favor of public interest because
the mayor and council’s job is to serve the citizens of Green Bay and the interest of the public
who elected them. Three out of four Protection & Policy Committee members voted to open the
floor at the December 1, 2020 meeting. The floor was not opened to the complainants after they
were led to believe at the Protection & Policy Committee meetings that they would have the
opportunity to present to the full council and if anyone did not have the opportunity to speak at
the P&P Committee level, they would be able to speak at the full council meeting. Based on this
prior representation, dozens of residents waited an hour or more to speak at the December 1,
2020, meeting. During this extending wait, we were not treated with respect for our attempts to
participate in our local government decision making, but rather had to listen to council members
belittle us citizens. The ultimate decision not to open the floor turned insult to injury. Many
citizens left the meeting dissatisfied with the mayor and council respondents denying them of the
ability to participate in the democratic process regarding an issue that is important to the health
and wellbeing of all who receive neurotoxic fluoride dosed water from the Green Bay Water
Utility. This was the first time in our known history where the floor was not opened to the public
with dozens waiting to speak while sitting through council members’ discussions denigrating
them and their efforts to understand science and public health risks.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,


Brenda Staudenmaier
Alder Scannell’s Response to Ethics Inquiry


For the Ethics Board to exercise its duty over a violation of the Code of Ethics, a complainant
must state which part of the code and what behavior of an elected official violated the portion of
the Code of Conduct stated. The complainants have filed that the defendants violated Section 4
Elected Officials Conduct Towards the Public in Public Meetings (A) Be welcoming to speakers
and treat them with care and respect (B) Be fair in and equitable in allocating public hearing
time to individual speakers. The complainants state the violating behavior of the defendants was
their votes to not open the floor.

In the city’s Code of Conduct, Section 4(D) Follow Parliamentary Procedure in Conducting
Public Meetings ensures that city officials follow Robert’s Rules of Order. Robert’s Rules for
allowing commentary by public speakers at a meeting are: a motion must be made to suspend
the rules and open the floor, a second must be given, and then a vote taken. Nothing in this
process guarantees the floor will be opened for a public speaker. There is no violation of our
Code of Conduct by not making a motion to open the floor to the public, not seconding such a
motion, or voting against opening the floor. With the floor not open, Section 4(A) and 4(B) of
our Code of Conduct do not apply to the facts of the case. There are no public speakers if the
floor is not opened. It is impossible to not be welcoming or not treat a speaker with care and
respect, or to not fairly and equitably allocate hearing time to speakers if the floor is not opened,
because there are no speakers.

In their submissions of January 10, 2022, three of the complainants put forth their explanations
of why they believe the Ethics Board should have jurisdiction over this case, which I summarize
here:
 The Council “should” have opened the floor and the Ethics Board should exert an
“oversight” authority over those who voted to not open the floor.
 State law does not apply or should be specifically stated in the Code.
 The entire Code of Conduct does not apply only to speakers when the floor is open.

These statements are off point or contrary to the facts of the complaint the complainants filed.

Since the floor was not opened, nothing the complainants argue as being a violation of Sections
4(A) and 4(B) of the Code of Conduct applies to the facts of this case.

The complainants have failed to demonstrate how the Ethics Board could have jurisdiction over
how the defendants, who appropriately followed Robert’s Rules of Order, violated our Code of
Conduct. The Ethics Board therefore has no jurisdiction in this matter and the complaint should
be dismissed.
January 22, 2022
From:

Alderwoman Barbara Dorff
Alderman William Galvin
Alderman Craig Stevens
________________________________________________________________________

Response to the submissions concerning the Ethics Board’s jurisdiction to hear the
complaints of Ms. Staudenmaier, Ms. Kuehl, and Mr. Decker.
________________________________________________________________________

The City of Green Bay Municipal Code 2-27 gives authority to Robert’s Rules of order to
govern City Council in all cases in which they are applicable. (See citation below) Robert’s
Rules of Order clearly grants the Common Council the prerogative to choose whether or
not to open the floor for public discussion. The vote not to open the floor was taken in
public and reported accurately. Wisconsin Open Meeting Law does not require a
governmental body to allow members of the public to speak or actively participate in an
open session meeting. The law only grants citizens the right to attend and observe open
meetings. (See citation below)

The Ethics Board has no authority to hear this case. Since no public discussion actually
took place, no member of the Council can be found “disrespectful” or “unwelcoming” to the
public. This complaint has no merit on its face.


As a private citizen, do I have a right to speak at my city council’s public meetings?
Answer: The Wisconsin Open Meetings Law acknowledges the public is entitled to the
fullest and most complete information regarding government affairs as long as it does not
hinder the conduct of governmental business. All meetings of governmental bodies, such
as a city council, shall be held publicly and be open to all citizens at all times unless
otherwise expressly provided by law. The open meetings law does not require a
governmental body to allow members of the public to speak or actively participate in an
open session meeting. The law only grants citizens the right to attend and observe open
meetings.

However, the law permits a governmental body to set aside a portion of an open meeting
as a public comment period. While public comment periods are not required, if a
governmental body decides to have such a comment period, it must be included in the
meeting notice.

There are other state statutes—other than the open meetings law—that require
governmental bodies to hold public hearings regarding certain matters. Unless such a
statute specifically applies, a governmental body has wide discretion over any public
comment period it chooses to permit. Besides the discretion over whether to allow public
comments at all, a body also has discretion to decide to what extent it will allow public
participation. For example, a governmental body can limit how much time each citizen may
speak.
January 22, 2022
If a governmental body permits a public comment period, it may receive information from
the public, and it may discuss any subject raised by a member of the public. A body may
not take any formal action on such a subject unless it was identified in the body’s meeting
notice. If a citizen raises a subject that is not included on the meeting notice, it may be
advisable for the body to limit substantive discussion on the subject until a subsequent
meeting in which the body can include the subject on the meeting notice.


https://www.doj.state.wi.us/office-open-government/ask-the-oog/private-citizen-do-i-have-right-speak-
my-city-council%E2%80%99s-public




ARTICLE II. - COMMON COUNCIL


Sec. 2-27. - Rules of Council procedure.

(a)

Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised. The rules of parliamentary practice comprised in "Robert's
Rules of Order, Newly Revised" shall govern the Council in all cases in which they are applicable,
except when they are inconsistent with state laws or rules contained in this chapter.
January 23, 2022

TO: Ethics Board, City of Green Bay
FR: Lynn Gerlach, Alder, District 3
RE: Statements regarding the Ethics Board’s jurisdiction to hear the complaints of
Ms. Staudenmaier, Ms. Kuehl, and Mr. Decker.


The Ethics Board has no authority to hear this case. Since no public discussion took
place, no member of the Council can be found “disrespectful” or “unwelcoming” to
the public. This complaint has no merit on its face, as explained below in Parts I
and II.


PART I: The Vote
The City of Green Bay Municipal Code 2-27 gives authority to Robert’s Rules of order
to govern City Council in all cases in which they are applicable (see below) . Robert’s
Rules of Order clearly grants the Common Council the prerogative to choose whether
to open the floor for public discussion. The vote not to open the floor was taken in
public and reported accurately. Wisconsin Open Meeting Law does not require a
governmental body to allow members of the public to speak or actively participate
in an open session meeting . The law grants citizens only the right to attend and
observe open meetings. (See below)

Per Wisconsin Department of Justice:
As a private citizen, do I have a right to speak at my city council’s publ ic meetings?
Answer: The Wisconsin Open Meetings Law acknowledges the public is entitled to
the fullest and most complete information regarding government affairs as long as
it does not hinder the conduct of governmental business. All meetings of
governmental bodies, such as a city council, shall be held publicly and be open to all
citizens at all times unless otherwise expressly provided by law. The open meetings
law does not require a governmental body to allow members of the public to speak
or actively participate in an open session meeting. The law only grants citizens the
right to attend and observe open meetings.

However, the law permits a governmental body to set aside a portion of an open
meeting as a public comment period. While public c omment periods are not required,
if a governmental body decides to have such a comment period, it must be included
in the meeting notice.

There are other state statutes —other than the open meetings law—that require
governmental bodies to hold public hearings regarding certain matters. Unless such
a statute specifically applies, a governmental body has wide discretion over any
public comment period it chooses to permit . Besides the discretion over whether to
allow public comments at all, a body also has di scretion to decide to what extent it
will allow public participation. For example, a governmental body can limit how much
time each citizen may speak.

If a governmental body permits a public comment period, it may receive information
from the public, and it may discuss any subject raised by a member of the public. A
body may not take any formal action on such a subject unless it was identified in the
body’s meeting notice. If a citizen raises a subject that is not included on the meeting
notice, it may be advisable for the body to limit substantive discussion on the subject
until a subsequent meeting in which the body can include the subject on the meeting
notice.

ARTICLE II. - COMMON COUNCIL
Sec. 2-27. - Rules of Council procedure.

(a) Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised. The rules of parliamentary practice comprised in
Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised shall govern the Council in all cases in which they are
applicable, except when they are inconsistent with state laws or rules contained in this chapter.

PART II: My Testimony
In response to the allegation that, at the December 1, 2020, Council meeting, “we listened to
insults and false accusations hurled by Alder Gerlach,” I wish to remind the Board that I spoke
from written notes (extant), compiled over several weeks on the basis of:
 • Review of 148 emails sent me by the public, including follow-up and study of all sources
 the writers referenced in their emails
 • An exhaustive review of the available studies on Community Water Fluoridation
 • Dialogue with a respected pediatrician at Wisconsin Children’s Hospital
 • Dialogue with Green Bay’s Water Utility Manager
Please note, in addition, that I mentioned no names and made no ad hominem attacks. While I
began my study quite convinced that the complainants’ position against fluoride was correct, I
submit that the conclusion I reached, after all my research and study, simply did not support
the assertion that CWF is harmful and should be curtailed. My testimony did reflect those
thoughtful, objective findings, which were, I’m afraid, contrary to the complainants’ position.

And please note further that I had attended each committee meeting in its entirety and
listened respectfully to all public testimony prior to attending the Common Council meeting of
December 1. Nothing about my testimony violated the letter or the spirit of the city’s Code of
Conduct. It simply happens that I was the only new alder on the Council and, therefore, the
only one who conducted research and provided extensive testimony at the meeting.
 Report to the
 Ethics Board
 of the City of Green Bay


 MEETING DATE PREPARED BY
 February 10, 2022

AGENDA ITEM # E.2
Discussion with possible deliberation and action on the Ethics Complaint filed by Keith Decker under the
City of Gren Bay Code of Conduct for Elected Officials against Mayor Eric Genrich and Alders Brunette,
Scannell, Stevens, Galvin, Gerlach, and Dorff.

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

BACKGROUND


RECOMMENDATION


FISCAL IMPACT


ATTACHMENTS
1. Flouridation Ethics Complaint 2022-01-10 Decker Re Weinschenk
2. Response to EthicsBd Gerlach
3. Alder Scannell's Ethics Response
4. Response to Ethics Complaint - Dorff Stevens Galvin




 100 North Jefferson Street, Room 608, Green Bay, Wisconsin 54301-5026
 (p) 920.448.3400 (f) 920.448.3426  greenbaywi.gov
January 10th, 2022


From:
Keith Decker
2821 Bristol Mountain Trl.
Green Bay, WI 54313
keithjdecker@gmail.com
(920) 639-9955


To:
City Clerk Celestine Jeffreys, Vice Chair Weinschenk, City Council members, and any relevant party
City of Green Bay
100 North Jefferson St.
Green Bay, WI 54301



Ethics Complaint, Re: Mr. Weinschenk’s jurisdictional questions


November 30th 2021 I filed an ethical complaint regarding the city council meeting of December 1st
2020 and the committee meetings leading up to that. The intended purpose of my complaint is to
state that the council members have mishandled the fluoridation issue, first and foremost with the
subject itself, and secondly in the way they dealt with the people involved.


Included in the complaint was the notion that it would be in violation of the City of Green Bay WI
Code of Conduct for Elected Officials, Section 4, as I believe it could easily enough be read that way.
To me, this reference to legal wording is a technicality, ethically secondary to the crux of the
complaint. But for what it’s worth I’ll make an effort to address it, per Mr. Weinschenk’s request for
clarification.


The events in question are not limited to December 1st, when the council chose not to open the
floor, so to limit the scope of things to that would be a mischaracterization of my ethical complaint.
However in response to that Dec 1 meeting, the contention is not whether they would be able to
deny the public that day, but whether they should have. Alderman Wery said he was “disgusted”
with their behavior. Alderman Brunette was “ashamed”. Dozens of people there were very upset, as
were others who heard of the event. Does that sound like something which was without doubt
handled correctly?


There is a reason there were so many people in attendance ready to speak that day. It wasn’t just
on the hope that they’d hear us, but rather an expectation. It was reasonably presumed by many
that in order to deal with this very important issue, everyone should be involved, with the full
council, and all the speakers, many of whom were not able to be a part of the committee meetings.
It was my understanding, along with others, that the procedure for addressing this very important
issue would be to treat the committee meetings as a preliminary investigation involving a minority of
the council who would have some background when jumping into the actual in-depth discussion
with everyone at the full council meeting. This appeared to be what was indicated by the committee
members throughout the meetings, and indeed was the expectation of some council members
when we asked.


Instead, on December 1st we were met with obstinate denial by people who had made up their
minds, and who turned away from serious engagement with the public who they purport to
represent. As previously said, “We were fortunate enough to have world renowned experts in
attendance, ready to share their wealth of knowledge.” An appropriate handling of the issue would
certainly involve lengthy discussion with those experts.


Knowing that all those people were in attendance, I would not say that they fulfilled what’s described
in Section 4, that they “Be welcoming to speakers and treat them with care and respect.” Instead, we
listened to insults and false accusations hurled by Alder Gerlach, to which we were unable to
respond, alongside Alderman Scannell angrily shouting about how it should not be their
responsibility to deal with this issue, and that "as citizens we should not care what the science is."
This couldn’t be more derelict of duty. As citizens we are the ones directly affected by fluoridation,
and as council members they are exactly the ones responsible for it. It is the Green Bay City Council
which began fluoridation, it is they who are continuing it, and it is they who have the authority to
end it.


Section 4 also describes that the council be “equitable in allocating public hearing time to individual
speakers.” The legal dictionary at USLegal.com describes “equitable” in a way which means to apply
interactions appropriate to particular individuals rather than only engaging each person in the same
limited capacity. This is exemplified in how “equitable” describes differentiation of circumstances
and individual treatment in cases such as divorce settlements where each party is not merely
granted the same 50/50 portion.


In other words, the world’s foremost authorities on the subject would deserve thorough
engagement in discourse, rather than a three minute soundbyte for those able to make the
committee meetings and silence for all those denied at the council meeting.


“Equitable” is also defined as relating to “substantive law” where “substantive rights are protected
from the procedural errors of litigation.” It is stated, “Substantive rights are basic human rights
possessed by people in an ordered society and include rights granted by natural law as well as the
substantive law.”


I consider it a basic human right granted by natural law, that each person owns their own body and
must be free from violation enacted by another against them. When someone, in government or
otherwise, intentionally forces a drug into the body of another person against their will, they commit
a moral crime. If anyone is concerned with ethics, they need to realize that vile act for what it is,
regardless of who attempts to normalize what intrinsically violates human rights. It is inherently
wrong to act as if you own the body of another person, and to intentionally force something into
their body against their will.


When I was quoted in the newspaper, saying this is “intolerably immoral”, I was speaking of the
intentional drugging of a person, and an entire population, against their express will, and with
detriment to their health, either perceived in general or verified individually. That is what my ethical
complaint is fundamentally about, undergirding the complaint that those in power have mishandled
it all.


This is fluorosilicic acid acquired as industrial toxic waste from aluminum factories and fertilizer
manufacturing, contaminated with heavy metals, shown by LD50 data to be more toxic than lead,
and shown by many, many studies, including very recent high quality science, to be substantially
harmful across a broad spectrum of health measures, especially for vulnerable groups of people.
This is not ethical.


If the council charged with governance of society does not recognize this, then that government is
broken. If the board of ethics charged with its oversight also fails to recognize this, then again
government is broken.


Hopefully one day things will change.



Sincerely,


Keith Decker
January 23, 2022

TO: Ethics Board, City of Green Bay
FR: Lynn Gerlach, Alder, District 3
RE: Statements regarding the Ethics Board’s jurisdiction to hear the complaints of
Ms. Staudenmaier, Ms. Kuehl, and Mr. Decker.


The Ethics Board has no authority to hear this case. Since no public discussion took
place, no member of the Council can be found “disrespectful” or “unwelcoming” to
the public. This complaint has no merit on its face, as explained below in Parts I
and II.


PART I: The Vote
The City of Green Bay Municipal Code 2-27 gives authority to Robert’s Rules of order
to govern City Council in all cases in which they are applicable (see below) . Robert’s
Rules of Order clearly grants the Common Council the prerogative to choose whether
to open the floor for public discussion. The vote not to open the floor was taken in
public and reported accurately. Wisconsin Open Meeting Law does not require a
governmental body to allow members of the public to speak or actively participate
in an open session meeting . The law grants citizens only the right to attend and
observe open meetings. (See below)

Per Wisconsin Department of Justice:
As a private citizen, do I have a right to speak at my city council’s publ ic meetings?
Answer: The Wisconsin Open Meetings Law acknowledges the public is entitled to
the fullest and most complete information regarding government affairs as long as
it does not hinder the conduct of governmental business. All meetings of
governmental bodies, such as a city council, shall be held publicly and be open to all
citizens at all times unless otherwise expressly provided by law. The open meetings
law does not require a governmental body to allow members of the public to speak
or actively participate in an open session meeting. The law only grants citizens the
right to attend and observe open meetings.

However, the law permits a governmental body to set aside a portion of an open
meeting as a public comment period. While public c omment periods are not required,
if a governmental body decides to have such a comment period, it must be included
in the meeting notice.

There are other state statutes —other than the open meetings law—that require
governmental bodies to hold public hearings regarding certain matters. Unless such
a statute specifically applies, a governmental body has wide discretion over any
public comment period it chooses to permit . Besides the discretion over whether to
allow public comments at all, a body also has di scretion to decide to what extent it
will allow public participation. For example, a governmental body can limit how much
time each citizen may speak.

If a governmental body permits a public comment period, it may receive information
from the public, and it may discuss any subject raised by a member of the public. A
body may not take any formal action on such a subject unless it was identified in the
body’s meeting notice. If a citizen raises a subject that is not included on the meeting
notice, it may be advisable for the body to limit substantive discussion on the subject
until a subsequent meeting in which the body can include the subject on the meeting
notice.

ARTICLE II. - COMMON COUNCIL
Sec. 2-27. - Rules of Council procedure.

(a) Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised. The rules of parliamentary practice comprised in
Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised shall govern the Council in all cases in which they are
applicable, except when they are inconsistent with state laws or rules contained in this chapter.

PART II: My Testimony
In response to the allegation that, at the December 1, 2020, Council meeting, “we listened to
insults and false accusations hurled by Alder Gerlach,” I wish to remind the Board that I spoke
from written notes (extant), compiled over several weeks on the basis of:
 • Review of 148 emails sent me by the public, including follow-up and study of all sources
 the writers referenced in their emails
 • An exhaustive review of the available studies on Community Water Fluoridation
 • Dialogue with a respected pediatrician at Wisconsin Children’s Hospital
 • Dialogue with Green Bay’s Water Utility Manager
Please note, in addition, that I mentioned no names and made no ad hominem attacks. While I
began my study quite convinced that the complainants’ position against fluoride was correct, I
submit that the conclusion I reached, after all my research and study, simply did not support
the assertion that CWF is harmful and should be curtailed. My testimony did reflect those
thoughtful, objective findings, which were, I’m afraid, contrary to the complainants’ position.

And please note further that I had attended each committee meeting in its entirety and
listened respectfully to all public testimony prior to attending the Common Council meeting of
December 1. Nothing about my testimony violated the letter or the spirit of the city’s Code of
Conduct. It simply happens that I was the only new alder on the Council and, therefore, the
only one who conducted research and provided extensive testimony at the meeting.
Alder Scannell’s Response to Ethics Inquiry


For the Ethics Board to exercise its duty over a violation of the Code of Ethics, a complainant
must state which part of the code and what behavior of an elected official violated the portion of
the Code of Conduct stated. The complainants have filed that the defendants violated Section 4
Elected Officials Conduct Towards the Public in Public Meetings (A) Be welcoming to speakers
and treat them with care and respect (B) Be fair in and equitable in allocating public hearing
time to individual speakers. The complainants state the violating behavior of the defendants was
their votes to not open the floor.

In the city’s Code of Conduct, Section 4(D) Follow Parliamentary Procedure in Conducting
Public Meetings ensures that city officials follow Robert’s Rules of Order. Robert’s Rules for
allowing commentary by public speakers at a meeting are: a motion must be made to suspend
the rules and open the floor, a second must be given, and then a vote taken. Nothing in this
process guarantees the floor will be opened for a public speaker. There is no violation of our
Code of Conduct by not making a motion to open the floor to the public, not seconding such a
motion, or voting against opening the floor. With the floor not open, Section 4(A) and 4(B) of
our Code of Conduct do not apply to the facts of the case. There are no public speakers if the
floor is not opened. It is impossible to not be welcoming or not treat a speaker with care and
respect, or to not fairly and equitably allocate hearing time to speakers if the floor is not opened,
because there are no speakers.

In their submissions of January 10, 2022, three of the complainants put forth their explanations
of why they believe the Ethics Board should have jurisdiction over this case, which I summarize
here:
 The Council “should” have opened the floor and the Ethics Board should exert an
“oversight” authority over those who voted to not open the floor.
 State law does not apply or should be specifically stated in the Code.
 The entire Code of Conduct does not apply only to speakers when the floor is open.

These statements are off point or contrary to the facts of the complaint the complainants filed.

Since the floor was not opened, nothing the complainants argue as being a violation of Sections
4(A) and 4(B) of the Code of Conduct applies to the facts of this case.

The complainants have failed to demonstrate how the Ethics Board could have jurisdiction over
how the defendants, who appropriately followed Robert’s Rules of Order, violated our Code of
Conduct. The Ethics Board therefore has no jurisdiction in this matter and the complaint should
be dismissed.
January 22, 2022
From:

Alderwoman Barbara Dorff
Alderman William Galvin
Alderman Craig Stevens
________________________________________________________________________

Response to the submissions concerning the Ethics Board’s jurisdiction to hear the
complaints of Ms. Staudenmaier, Ms. Kuehl, and Mr. Decker.
________________________________________________________________________

The City of Green Bay Municipal Code 2-27 gives authority to Robert’s Rules of order to
govern City Council in all cases in which they are applicable. (See citation below) Robert’s
Rules of Order clearly grants the Common Council the prerogative to choose whether or
not to open the floor for public discussion. The vote not to open the floor was taken in
public and reported accurately. Wisconsin Open Meeting Law does not require a
governmental body to allow members of the public to speak or actively participate in an
open session meeting. The law only grants citizens the right to attend and observe open
meetings. (See citation below)

The Ethics Board has no authority to hear this case. Since no public discussion actually
took place, no member of the Council can be found “disrespectful” or “unwelcoming” to the
public. This complaint has no merit on its face.


As a private citizen, do I have a right to speak at my city council’s public meetings?
Answer: The Wisconsin Open Meetings Law acknowledges the public is entitled to the
fullest and most complete information regarding government affairs as long as it does not
hinder the conduct of governmental business. All meetings of governmental bodies, such
as a city council, shall be held publicly and be open to all citizens at all times unless
otherwise expressly provided by law. The open meetings law does not require a
governmental body to allow members of the public to speak or actively participate in an
open session meeting. The law only grants citizens the right to attend and observe open
meetings.

However, the law permits a governmental body to set aside a portion of an open meeting
as a public comment period. While public comment periods are not required, if a
governmental body decides to have such a comment period, it must be included in the
meeting notice.

There are other state statutes—other than the open meetings law—that require
governmental bodies to hold public hearings regarding certain matters. Unless such a
statute specifically applies, a governmental body has wide discretion over any public
comment period it chooses to permit. Besides the discretion over whether to allow public
comments at all, a body also has discretion to decide to what extent it will allow public
participation. For example, a governmental body can limit how much time each citizen may
speak.
January 22, 2022
If a governmental body permits a public comment period, it may receive information from
the public, and it may discuss any subject raised by a member of the public. A body may
not take any formal action on such a subject unless it was identified in the body’s meeting
notice. If a citizen raises a subject that is not included on the meeting notice, it may be
advisable for the body to limit substantive discussion on the subject until a subsequent
meeting in which the body can include the subject on the meeting notice.


https://www.doj.state.wi.us/office-open-government/ask-the-oog/private-citizen-do-i-have-right-speak-
my-city-council%E2%80%99s-public




ARTICLE II. - COMMON COUNCIL


Sec. 2-27. - Rules of Council procedure.

(a)

Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised. The rules of parliamentary practice comprised in "Robert's
Rules of Order, Newly Revised" shall govern the Council in all cases in which they are applicable,
except when they are inconsistent with state laws or rules contained in this chapter.
 Report to the
 Ethics Board
 of the City of Green Bay


 MEETING DATE PREPARED BY
 February 10, 2022

AGENDA ITEM # E.3
Discussion with possible deliberation and action on the Ethics Complaint filed by Lacey Kuehl under the City
of Gren Bay Code of Conduct for Elected Officials against Mayor Eric Genrich and Alders Brunette, Scannell,
Stevens, Galvin, Gerlach, and Dorff.

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

BACKGROUND


RECOMMENDATION


FISCAL IMPACT


ATTACHMENTS
1. Kuehl Ethics Letter response
2. Response to EthicsBd Gerlach
3. Alder Scannell's Ethics Response
4. Response to Ethics Complaint - Dorff Stevens Galvin




 100 North Jefferson Street, Room 608, Green Bay, Wisconsin 54301-5026
 (p) 920.448.3400 (f) 920.448.3426  greenbaywi.gov
815 Gross Ct 01/09/2022
Green Bay, WI 54304
LDornaus@hotmail.com




Dear Committee Members:


This letter is in response to the complaint filed November 30th, 2021 for Elected Official Conduct
towards the public in the public meetings.

During our meeting December 14, 2021 Mr. Weinschenk stated we need to submit a response
by January10, 2022 and address the response to:
A. Be welcoming to Speakers and Treat them with Care and Respect .
B. Be Fair and Equitable in Allocating Public Hearing Time to Individual Speakers
How do they apply at the state level?
Mr. Weinschenk states the response is to address only the jurisdictional issue.

I have read the Whole code of Conduct for Elected Officials and do not see the state level nor
the jurisdictional direction that would come from the state level referenced in the Ethics
Committee document. Therefore the document does not address what you are stating.

If there is going to be direction from the state level it should be noted in the document clearly for
the public to see, as well as a resource available to direct interested citizens to review.

The Wisconsin State Statute information was provided with the minutes for the 12/14/2021
meeting. It is addressed for the ethics committee but it is not cited in that document.

Additionally when the meeting was called to order on 12/01/2020 council should have stated
initially that the floor would not be open for the Fluoride issue. Some of the public waited an
hour to speak on the topic.

Communication and information for the City Council Code of Conduct needs to be clear and
easy to comprehend for all citizens and all languages in Green Bay Wisconsin.




Regards,

Lacey Kuehl RN, BSN
January 23, 2022

TO: Ethics Board, City of Green Bay
FR: Lynn Gerlach, Alder, District 3
RE: Statements regarding the Ethics Board’s jurisdiction to hear the complaints of
Ms. Staudenmaier, Ms. Kuehl, and Mr. Decker.


The Ethics Board has no authority to hear this case. Since no public discussion took
place, no member of the Council can be found “disrespectful” or “unwelcoming” to
the public. This complaint has no merit on its face, as explained below in Parts I
and II.


PART I: The Vote
The City of Green Bay Municipal Code 2-27 gives authority to Robert’s Rules of order
to govern City Council in all cases in which they are applicable (see below) . Robert’s
Rules of Order clearly grants the Common Council the prerogative to choose whether
to open the floor for public discussion. The vote not to open the floor was taken in
public and reported accurately. Wisconsin Open Meeting Law does not require a
governmental body to allow members of the public to speak or actively participate
in an open session meeting . The law grants citizens only the right to attend and
observe open meetings. (See below)

Per Wisconsin Department of Justice:
As a private citizen, do I have a right to speak at my city council’s publ ic meetings?
Answer: The Wisconsin Open Meetings Law acknowledges the public is entitled to
the fullest and most complete information regarding government affairs as long as
it does not hinder the conduct of governmental business. All meetings of
governmental bodies, such as a city council, shall be held publicly and be open to all
citizens at all times unless otherwise expressly provided by law. The open meetings
law does not require a governmental body to allow members of the public to speak
or actively participate in an open session meeting. The law only grants citizens the
right to attend and observe open meetings.

However, the law permits a governmental body to set aside a portion of an open
meeting as a public comment period. While public c omment periods are not required,
if a governmental body decides to have such a comment period, it must be included
in the meeting notice.

There are other state statutes —other than the open meetings law—that require
governmental bodies to hold public hearings regarding certain matters. Unless such
a statute specifically applies, a governmental body has wide discretion over any
public comment period it chooses to permit . Besides the discretion over whether to
allow public comments at all, a body also has di scretion to decide to what extent it
will allow public participation. For example, a governmental body can limit how much
time each citizen may speak.

If a governmental body permits a public comment period, it may receive information
from the public, and it may discuss any subject raised by a member of the public. A
body may not take any formal action on such a subject unless it was identified in the
body’s meeting notice. If a citizen raises a subject that is not included on the meeting
notice, it may be advisable for the body to limit substantive discussion on the subject
until a subsequent meeting in which the body can include the subject on the meeting
notice.

ARTICLE II. - COMMON COUNCIL
Sec. 2-27. - Rules of Council procedure.

(a) Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised. The rules of parliamentary practice comprised in
Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised shall govern the Council in all cases in which they are
applicable, except when they are inconsistent with state laws or rules contained in this chapter.

PART II: My Testimony
In response to the allegation that, at the December 1, 2020, Council meeting, “we listened to
insults and false accusations hurled by Alder Gerlach,” I wish to remind the Board that I spoke
from written notes (extant), compiled over several weeks on the basis of:
 • Review of 148 emails sent me by the public, including follow-up and study of all sources
 the writers referenced in their emails
 • An exhaustive review of the available studies on Community Water Fluoridation
 • Dialogue with a respected pediatrician at Wisconsin Children’s Hospital
 • Dialogue with Green Bay’s Water Utility Manager
Please note, in addition, that I mentioned no names and made no ad hominem attacks. While I
began my study quite convinced that the complainants’ position against fluoride was correct, I
submit that the conclusion I reached, after all my research and study, simply did not support
the assertion that CWF is harmful and should be curtailed. My testimony did reflect those
thoughtful, objective findings, which were, I’m afraid, contrary to the complainants’ position.

And please note further that I had attended each committee meeting in its entirety and
listened respectfully to all public testimony prior to attending the Common Council meeting of
December 1. Nothing about my testimony violated the letter or the spirit of the city’s Code of
Conduct. It simply happens that I was the only new alder on the Council and, therefore, the
only one who conducted research and provided extensive testimony at the meeting.
Alder Scannell’s Response to Ethics Inquiry


For the Ethics Board to exercise its duty over a violation of the Code of Ethics, a complainant
must state which part of the code and what behavior of an elected official violated the portion of
the Code of Conduct stated. The complainants have filed that the defendants violated Section 4
Elected Officials Conduct Towards the Public in Public Meetings (A) Be welcoming to speakers
and treat them with care and respect (B) Be fair in and equitable in allocating public hearing
time to individual speakers. The complainants state the violating behavior of the defendants was
their votes to not open the floor.

In the city’s Code of Conduct, Section 4(D) Follow Parliamentary Procedure in Conducting
Public Meetings ensures that city officials follow Robert’s Rules of Order. Robert’s Rules for
allowing commentary by public speakers at a meeting are: a motion must be made to suspend
the rules and open the floor, a second must be given, and then a vote taken. Nothing in this
process guarantees the floor will be opened for a public speaker. There is no violation of our
Code of Conduct by not making a motion to open the floor to the public, not seconding such a
motion, or voting against opening the floor. With the floor not open, Section 4(A) and 4(B) of
our Code of Conduct do not apply to the facts of the case. There are no public speakers if the
floor is not opened. It is impossible to not be welcoming or not treat a speaker with care and
respect, or to not fairly and equitably allocate hearing time to speakers if the floor is not opened,
because there are no speakers.

In their submissions of January 10, 2022, three of the complainants put forth their explanations
of why they believe the Ethics Board should have jurisdiction over this case, which I summarize
here:
 The Council “should” have opened the floor and the Ethics Board should exert an
“oversight” authority over those who voted to not open the floor.
 State law does not apply or should be specifically stated in the Code.
 The entire Code of Conduct does not apply only to speakers when the floor is open.

These statements are off point or contrary to the facts of the complaint the complainants filed.

Since the floor was not opened, nothing the complainants argue as being a violation of Sections
4(A) and 4(B) of the Code of Conduct applies to the facts of this case.

The complainants have failed to demonstrate how the Ethics Board could have jurisdiction over
how the defendants, who appropriately followed Robert’s Rules of Order, violated our Code of
Conduct. The Ethics Board therefore has no jurisdiction in this matter and the complaint should
be dismissed.
January 22, 2022
From:

Alderwoman Barbara Dorff
Alderman William Galvin
Alderman Craig Stevens
________________________________________________________________________

Response to the submissions concerning the Ethics Board’s jurisdiction to hear the
complaints of Ms. Staudenmaier, Ms. Kuehl, and Mr. Decker.
________________________________________________________________________

The City of Green Bay Municipal Code 2-27 gives authority to Robert’s Rules of order to
govern City Council in all cases in which they are applicable. (See citation below) Robert’s
Rules of Order clearly grants the Common Council the prerogative to choose whether or
not to open the floor for public discussion. The vote not to open the floor was taken in
public and reported accurately. Wisconsin Open Meeting Law does not require a
governmental body to allow members of the public to speak or actively participate in an
open session meeting. The law only grants citizens the right to attend and observe open
meetings. (See citation below)

The Ethics Board has no authority to hear this case. Since no public discussion actually
took place, no member of the Council can be found “disrespectful” or “unwelcoming” to the
public. This complaint has no merit on its face.


As a private citizen, do I have a right to speak at my city council’s public meetings?
Answer: The Wisconsin Open Meetings Law acknowledges the public is entitled to the
fullest and most complete information regarding government affairs as long as it does not
hinder the conduct of governmental business. All meetings of governmental bodies, such
as a city council, shall be held publicly and be open to all citizens at all times unless
otherwise expressly provided by law. The open meetings law does not require a
governmental body to allow members of the public to speak or actively participate in an
open session meeting. The law only grants citizens the right to attend and observe open
meetings.

However, the law permits a governmental body to set aside a portion of an open meeting
as a public comment period. While public comment periods are not required, if a
governmental body decides to have such a comment period, it must be included in the
meeting notice.

There are other state statutes—other than the open meetings law—that require
governmental bodies to hold public hearings regarding certain matters. Unless such a
statute specifically applies, a governmental body has wide discretion over any public
comment period it chooses to permit. Besides the discretion over whether to allow public
comments at all, a body also has discretion to decide to what extent it will allow public
participation. For example, a governmental body can limit how much time each citizen may
speak.
January 22, 2022
If a governmental body permits a public comment period, it may receive information from
the public, and it may discuss any subject raised by a member of the public. A body may
not take any formal action on such a subject unless it was identified in the body’s meeting
notice. If a citizen raises a subject that is not included on the meeting notice, it may be
advisable for the body to limit substantive discussion on the subject until a subsequent
meeting in which the body can include the subject on the meeting notice.


https://www.doj.state.wi.us/office-open-government/ask-the-oog/private-citizen-do-i-have-right-speak-
my-city-council%E2%80%99s-public




ARTICLE II. - COMMON COUNCIL


Sec. 2-27. - Rules of Council procedure.

(a)

Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised. The rules of parliamentary practice comprised in "Robert's
Rules of Order, Newly Revised" shall govern the Council in all cases in which they are applicable,
except when they are inconsistent with state laws or rules contained in this chapter.
 Report to the
 Ethics Board
 of the City of Green Bay


 MEETING DATE PREPARED BY
 February 10, 2022

AGENDA ITEM # E.4
Scheduling of future proceedings.

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
 February 10, 2022

AGENDA ITEM # F.1
Benjamin Khademi voluntarily withdrew his ethics complaint against Mayor Eric Genrich and Alders
Brunette, Scannell, Stevens, Galvin, Gerlach, and Dorff.

BACKGROUND


RECOMMENDATION


FISCAL IMPACT


ATTACHMENTS
1. Khademi Voluntary Withdrawal




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

From: ben khad <benjamink982@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 10:35 AM
To: Lindsay Mather
Subject: Re: Ethics Board Meeting - Scheduling
Attachments: image002.jpg


Hi Lindsay,

I will be withdrawing my complaint, and no longer pursuing these proceeding due to personal reasons.

Kind regards.

Benjamin Khademi

On Thu, Dec 30, 2021, 8:12 AM Lindsay Mather <Lindsay.Mather@greenbaywi.gov> wrote:

 Good morning,



 I received an important follow‐up question so I wanted to add to my initial request from yesterday.



 Please provide me with two pieces of information:

 1. What dates DO NOT work for you in the whole month of February?
 2. Ethics Board meetings will typically start between 5pm and 6:30pm on whatever date is chosen. What time
 works best for you?



 Please reach out to me directly with any follow up questions.



 Thank you,

 Lindsay




 1
 Lindsay Mather

 Assistant City Attorney
 The link ed image cannot be display ed. The file may hav e been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.




 City of Green Bay

 920.448.3080

 greenbaywi.gov/law




LEGAL DISCLAIMER: This message and all attachments may be confidential or protected by privilege. If you are
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the
information contained in or attached to this message is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender of the
delivery error by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system. Thank you.




From: Lindsay Mather
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2021 3:45 PM
To: dlenz@lawforward.org; Kimber Rollin <rollinhillsfeatherfarm@gmail.com>; Brenda Staudenmaier
<thelovelybrenda@gmail.com>; ben khad <benjamink982@gmail.com>; keithjdecker@gmail.com;
ldornaus@hotmail.com
Cc: Michael P. May <MMay@boardmanclark.com>; Joanne Bungert <Joanne.Bungert@greenbaywi.gov>
Subject: Ethics Board Meeting ‐ Scheduling



Good afternoon,



You are receiving this because you are either a party (or party’s representative) to one of the complaints currently
before the Ethics Board, or you are a member of the Board itself. (Elected officials and members of the Board are BCC’d
on this email to avoid potential open meetings law issues.) I am reaching out concerning scheduling the next
meeting(s) of the Board.



At your earliest convenience, please reply to this email with a list of all dates in February 2022 on which you are NOT
available.



Thank you,

Lindsay




 2
 Lindsay Mather

 Assistant City Attorney

 City of Green Bay
 The link ed image cannot be display ed. The file may hav e been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.




 100 N. Jefferson St., Rm 200

 Green Bay, WI 54301

 920.448.3080

 920.448.3081 (fax)

 greenbaywi.gov/law



LEGAL DISCLAIMER: This message and all attachments may be confidential or protected by privilege. If you are
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the
information contained in or attached to this message is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender of the
delivery error by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system. Thank you.




 3

MINUTES OF THE ETHICS BOARD
 THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2022, 5:00 PM
 Virtual Meeting. Public may join via Zoom.


 A. ZOOM MEETING INSTRUCTIONS.

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

 B. ROLL CALL.

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

 C. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.

1. Approval of the Agenda for the February 10, 2022 Ethics Board meeting.
Moved by Staff Cheryl Renier-Wigg, seconded by Aaron Weinschenk to approve.
Motion Passed.
Yes- Bill Galvin, William VandeCastle, Cheryl Renier-Wigg, Aaron Weinschenk, Janet Hathaway, No-
None, Abstain- None.

 D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.

1. Approval of the Minutes for the December 14, 2022 Ethics Board meeting (held from 2/3/2022
meeting).
Moved by Aaron Weinschenk, seconded by Board Member William VandeCastle to approve the
minutes, noting that the agenda item should state December 14, 2021, not 2022.
Motion Passed.
Yes- Bill Galvin, William VandeCastle, Cheryl Renier-Wigg, Aaron Weinschenk, Janet Hathaway, No-
None, Abstain- None.

2. Approval of the Minutes for the February 3, 2022 Ethics Board meeting.
Moved by Staff Cheryl Renier-Wigg, seconded by Board Member William VandeCastle to approve.
Motion Passed.
Yes- Bill Galvin, William VandeCastle, Cheryl Renier-Wigg, Aaron Weinschenk, Janet Hathaway, No-
None, Abstain- None.

 E. REGULAR BUSINESS.
Chair Vande Castle restates his recusal on all three items. Alder Galvin states that he is recusing
himself from these three items.

Moved by Staff Cheryl Renier-Wigg, seconded by Janet Hathaway to suspend the rules to take up
items 1 through 3 together.
Motion carried.
Yes- Cheryl Renier-Wigg, Aaron Weinschenk, Janet Hathaway, No- None, Abstain- Bill Galvin, William
VandeCastle.

1. Discussion with possible deliberation and action on the Ethics Complaint filed by Brenda
Staudenmaier under the City of Gren Bay Code of Conduct for Elected Officials against Mayor Eric
Genrich and Alders Brunette, Scannell, Stevens, Galvin, Gerlach, and Dorff.

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

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

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

Moved by Aaron Weinschenk, seconded by Staff Cheryl Renier-Wigg to direct staff to proceed as
directed in closed session..
Motion Passed.
Yes- Cheryl Renier-Wigg, Aaron Weinschenk, Janet Hathaway, No- None, Abstain- Bill Galvin,
William VandeCastle.

The Board will reconvene on February 24, 2022, at 5pm to issue its decisions.


2. Discussion with possible deliberation and action on the Ethics Complaint filed by Keith Decker
under the City of Gren Bay Code of Conduct for Elected Officials against Mayor Eric Genrich and
Alders Brunette, Scannell, Stevens, Galvin, Gerlach, and Dorff.

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

Items considered together. See Item 1.

3. Discussion with possible deliberation and action on the Ethics Complaint filed by Lacey Kuehl
under the City of Gren Bay Code of Conduct for Elected Officials against Mayor Eric Genrich and
Alders Brunette, Scannell, Stevens, Galvin, Gerlach, and Dorff.

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

Items considered together. See Item 1.

4. Scheduling of future proceedings.

 F. INFORMATIONAL.

1. Benjamin Khademi voluntarily withdrew his ethics complaint against Mayor Eric Genrich and
Alders Brunette, Scannell, Stevens, Galvin, Gerlach, and Dorff.

 G. ADJOURNMENT.
Moved by Janet Hathaway, seconded by Staff Cheryl Renier‐Wigg to adjourn.
Motion Passed.
Yes‐ Cheryl Renier‐Wigg, Aaron Weinschenk, Janet Hathaway, No‐ None, Abstain‐ Bill Galvin,
William VandeCastle.


 VERBATIM MINUTES

- All right, good evening everyone. This is the City of Green Bay Ethics Board meeting for Thursday,
February 10, 2022. It is five o'clock or a little after, and we're calling the meeting to order tonight, the
agenda's been published, and we've got roll call. It appears that we have an agenda, excuse me, we've
got a quorum for tonight. So we'll move on to item C on the agenda, and that is approval of the
agenda for the February 10, 2022 Ethics Board meeting. Is there a motion to approve?

- Motion to approve.

- We have a motion, is there a second?

- Second.

- We have a motion and a second. Any additions or corrections to the current agenda? Hearing none,
all in favor of approval signify by saying aye.

- [All] Aye.
- The motion carries. Sorry, any opposed? Motion carries, all right, moving on to approval of the
minutes, we have two sets of minutes to approve tonight. The first one is approval of the minutes for
the December 14th, 2022 Ethics Board meeting that was held on February 3rd, 2022. Those minutes
were provided, any additions or corrections to those minutes? Hearing none, is there a motion to
approve?

- So moved.

- And I will second that motion. Again, any further questions or discussion regarding those minutes?
Otherwise if all are in favor signify by saying aye for approval.

- Aye.

- Aye.

- Clarification.

- Yes.

- December 14th, 2022 hasn't happened yet.

- I'm sorry, that should be 2021. Sorry.

- Thank you Alder.

- I'm just reading and not thinking. Good point, thank you. So that's the clarification, it is the minutes
from December 14th, 2021 that we are approving tonight. Again with that correction all in favor,
signify by saying aye.

- Aye.

- Aye.

- Aye.

- Aye.

- Any opposed, motion carries. Moving onto item number two, approval of minutes of the February
3rd, 2022 Ethics Board meeting. And those also were in your Packet, any additions or corrections to
that set of minutes? Hearing none, is there a motion to approve?

- Motion to approve.

- And I will second that one as well. So again, any further discussion or questions? Hearing none, all in
favor of approval of the minutes of the February 3rd, 2022 Ethics Board meeting, signify by saying aye.

- Aye.
- Aye.

- Aye.

- Aye.

- Any opposed, motion carries. All right, since the issues before this board came up at the December
board meeting, and I recused myself, I will step aside and turn this over to Commissioner
Weinschenk to take over and run the meeting from this point forward. Thank you all very much and
have a good evening.

- Thanks Bill, Alder Galvin do you want to talk about recusal right away or?

- Sure, let's get that out the way.

- Okay.

- Yes after, well obviously, since I'm the focus, one of the focuses of this complaint, I don't think it
would be proper for me to be sitting in judgment of myself and anyone else that's involved with this.
So I'm officially recusing myself.

- Okay, just for the record then, Bill Vande Castle has recused himself Alder Galvin, that leaves
Cheryl, Janet and Erin, which we still have a quorum, we're moving on to item E on the agenda, which
is regular business. And just one kind of thought on a way forward, one of the things we could do is
we could have a motion to suspend the rules so that we could handle all of these simultaneously
rather than taking up each item, going into closed session, deliberating coming back, taking up the
next item. So it might be a more streamlined process given the fact that all the complaints are citing
the same sections of the Code, the facts are the same, the jurisdiction is the same. So the law
department tells me that would require a two thirds vote, so we could have a motion a second to the
vote, and then we would be able to take all of the items up without going back and forth between
deliberations and open session, and taking up a lot of time. So that's a question for the board before
we dive into the items there.

- We would need to move, second, and then discuss, correct?

- Yep.

- Okay, I'll go ahead and move that we consider the items collectively.

- Second that.

- And all in favor signal by saying aye.

- Well, do we wanna...

- I think you need to vote on it before you can discuss, I think.

- I think let's discussed after, vote second, right?
- Okay.

- I see some of the aldermen shaking their heads.

- I don't have to be vice chair of this committee very frequently. In fact, I don't think I've ever had to
be vice chair it is so exceptionally rare, hence my limited experience with Robert's Rules. So any
discussion, reaction to that idea?

- Is this a recommendation from law that the issues are so similar that we could really discuss them
all together? Or do we think are the answers different enough that they should be handled separately,
than the responses?

- So the underlying facts are essentially that the council voted not to go into closed session. And then
the questions of jurisdiction are going to be based on the same, like Chair Weinschenk said that the
same provisions of the Code of Conduct. So my position is that they are similar enough that they can
be taken up together at this stage for the purpose of resolving the jurisdictional question. If it
proceeds to an evidentiary hearing, obviously we would need to consider each of those individually.

- Okay.

- I think it'll make the easier, it'll save us time, rather than having to keep going back and forth. I think
I would be in favor of it.

- Okay, so there's a motion.

- There's a motion and a second, all in favor signify by saying aye.

- Aye.

- Aye.

- Opposed, and the motion carries. All right, so we will move to discussion of possible deliberation,
action on ethics complaint filed by Brenda Staudenmaier over the City of Green Bay Code of
Conduct for elected officials against Mayor Genrich, Alders Brunette, Scannell, Stevens, Galvin,
Gerlach and Dorff. And I think the way to proceed is, we can let the people who have filed
complaints clarify or elaborate on anything, and then we can have questions, and then we can let
anyone who would like to respond, respond. But what I wanna do is, we've read all of the materials
that have been submitted, and so I don't think we need a huge amount of time. And I also wanna
make the point that this should be limited to the jurisdiction questions we asked, this isn't a point to
discuss pros and cons of the substantive issue. So I think we can restrict the amount of time to five
minutes, I think that would be reasonable. Of course, you don't have to say anything if you think
writing is sufficient the same goes for those who've responded, if you wanna say something, that's
totally fine. If you wanna say something as a group and have one person speak, that's also fine. So I
think we can allow Brenda her five minutes or as little, or as much of that as you want, then we'll
move to Keith and Lacey is not here, she indicated that her written was sufficient so she doesn't want
to comment or doesn't need to comment. So we'll start with Brenda, we'll move to the next one.
And we can have any questions from board members and questions from anyone who'd like to
respond. So I'll turn it over to Brenda, if there's anything you wanna say, elaborate on, comment on.

- Sure.

- Do we need a motion to open the floor?

- I don't think we did last time.

- Lindsay?

- That is a very good question.

- I think last time we just turned it over to the speaker.

- Okay.

- I think that's right.

- Yeah.

- So I can talk. I did prepare a bit that I'll just state. Thank you everyone who took time out of their
schedule today. So all I'm asking is for a proper ethics review of the Code of Conduct based on the
December 1st, 2020 meeting, when it came to the agenda item brought forward by myself, that the
city consider taking fluoride out of the treatment process of the city water. I would like to see the
Ethics Board examine the respondent's conduct towards us complainant because we do not believe
that we were treated fairly at the meeting and the Code of Conduct should be examined for
violation. I understand Robert's Rules of Order grants common counsel the privilege to choose
whether or not to open the floor for public discussion. This does not mean that it is okay for council
to vote six to six to not open the floor, then take turns shaming and berating those of us who
showed up, and the scientists who find fluoride is harmful to human health at the levels added by our
local water utility. I understand that we are not here to discuss water fluoridation, but whether or
not the mayor and the six council members violated the City Code of Conduct. The city Code of
Conduct for elected officials, Section four parts A and B does not specify nor state that the Code
only applies if and when the floor is open for public comment. State open records law is irrelevant in
this complaint and should not be used to avoid following the City's own Code of Conduct. The Code
of Conduct is a local provision that governs the conduct of counselors and irrespective of any state
law, because it is the elected officials own rules of conduct for the treatment of citizens during
meetings. The Code can only be interpreted as written and arguments based on limitations to this
Code that are not found in the text of the Code itself are not relevant, and cannot be relied on to
allow the counsel to avoid its own rules. Many statements and actions made by the respondents at
the meeting potentially violate the City's Code of Conduct and should be evaluated for violation of
the Code sections cited. The vote to open the floor was a six to six tie, which I believe should have
been called in favor of public interest because the mayor and council's job is to serve the public and
welcome them to the democratic process. Out of four of the Protection and Policy Committee
members who listen to hours of committee level testimony, voted to open the floor at the
December 1st meeting. The floor was not open to us complaintants after we were led to believe at
the Protection and Policy Committee meetings, that we would have the opportunity to the full
council. And if anybody did not have the opportunity to speak at the P and P committee level, they
would be able to speak at the full council meeting. Based on this prior representation, dozens of
residents waited an hour or more to speak at the December 1st meeting. During this extending wait,
we were not treated with respect for our attempts to part in local government decision, but rather
we had to listen to council members belittle us. The ultimate decision not to open the floor turned
insult to injury, and many citizens left the meeting dissatisfied with the mayor and council respondents
denying them the ability to participate in the democratic process regarding an issue that is important
to the health and wellbeing of all who receive a neuro-toxicant added to the water by the Green Bay
Water Utility. This was the first time in our known history when the floor was not open to public,
with dozens waiting to speak. While we had to sit through council members criticizing our issue and
shaming us and our efforts to understand the science and public health risks. I appreciate you taking
the time to give your attention to this ethics complaint, and I look forward to providing specific
evidence of violation when we proceed further, thank you.

- All right, I think we can see if there are any questions from any of the board members and then
allow for responses, and then move on to the next complainant. Does that sound reasonable? So any
questions from any members of the Ethics Board?

- I have a question for you Brenda, if you could. You've mentioned specifically how council members
berated you, or shamed you, can you give me specific example? I mean, it almost... When I read
through your response, it was almost the fact that that floor wasn't open. We was disrespectful, but
I'm wondering, it sounded to me like there was more with regards to that.

- Yeah, let me see if I can find... If you go through the meeting minutes from the December 1st
meeting, Randy Scannell specifically says like, shame on you, your not a scientist. I forget the exact
wording, I would have to find the meeting minutes. Sorry, I wasn't prepared to pull out evidence yet.

- Was that the, you remember was that the only example?

- That was a big one. I think I handed in the meeting minutes. Does anybody recall with the original
complaint possibly?

- I mean, I recall I was actually at that meeting, that council meeting. And I do recall Alder Gerlach, I
think she, I feel like she read a statement at that meeting. Just kind of explaining how she felt about
that. I guess I didn't, at the time I didn't think of that as being disrespectful. Did you think that was
disrespectful? Is that part of this complaint that you made?

- No, in my original complaint Rick North from... Let's see exactly his title from the, he's the former
executive vice president of the Oregon American Cancer Society. He specifically, I think I submitted
four points where Alder Gerlach basically misrepresented.

- Brenda I guess that's not, the complaint is from you. So my question is not with regards to the data,
or any evidence, or anything, I'm really looking towards how you're considering that disrespectful, I
guess. I mean, because you can be disagreed with respectfully? An Alder can say, I don't agree with
you.

- But she gave a lot of false information.
- That's not really for us.

- And I pointed it out.

- Brenda, that's not for us to decide at this meeting we're not researching this issue, this fluoride
issue, I'm really kind of looking at... For me, I'm looking at how you were treated at that council
meeting. And that's what I'm asking you a guess, is for a better clarification with regards to that
personal treatment you received.

- Sure I mean, I would have to go through the exact meeting minutes again, and I can't find them right
now.

- I have a question, so you cite two sections that you think are violated. Section A, be welcoming to
speakers and treat them with care, respect. Section B, be fair and equitable in allocating public hearing
time to individual speakers. The floor wasn't opened, which the council is not obligated to do, and
state open records laws are relevant, even though they're not in the Code, right? We're in a system
where state law preempts local law, it applies to localities, federal law is supreme to state laws and
local laws. So there's no obligation to open the floor. If there's no obligation and they follow the
proper procedures then there's no speakers, so how can there be any violations of these sections
when there weren't any speakers? If you're not, if the floor's not open there are no speakers. If
you're sitting in the audience, you're a potential speaker, right? You haven't been recognized. So how
can there be violations of sections of Code when...

- Should council still be able to berate us the way they did?

- But you're not a speaker, the sections you're citing refer to being a speaker. If there are no
speakers, then how can you be berated? No one spoke at the meeting 'cause the vote didn't pass.
How can you be disrespectful to a speaker if there aren't any speakers?

- So you're saying it's okay to be disrespectful then to citizens who showed up to speak and you
don't.

- I'm not saying anything about disrespect, I'm asking if these sections are about speakers and the
floor wasn't open to speakers, how are they relevant? You're a potential speaker sitting in the
audience, right? You're not a speaker...

- No, I'm the public, I'm the public.

- You're the public, but the sections of the Code you're citing are towards speakers. There were no
speakers in this case, so how can those sections be relevant?

- So the start of Section four under, In Public Meetings, the first line says, "Make the public feel
welcome is an important part of the democratic process. No signs of partiality, prejudice, or
disrespect should be evident on the part of the individual council members towards 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 their public, their respect and appreciation for the public's participation,
input, and opinions." So that's specifically in the Code. And then Section A and B goes into the care
and respect of the public.

- Your complaint only site Sections A and B first, right? You cite violations of Section A and B.

- Yeah but isn't the, I don't know what it's called, the first paragraph in that section, In Public Meetings
included in Section four?

- You didn't cite a violation of that in your complaint. You cited two specific provisions, right?

- But, In Public Meetings should be included in that as well, Section four.

- So do you think that if the council votes no on some policy that I really like, they've disrespected
me by voting no?

- No, but then if they go into saying how shame on you for showing up to bring this, shame on you
for bringing this issue to us, and shame on you scientists that are saying fluoride is harmful, is that
respectful for council? I mean.

- Can I ask, were individuals singled out? Is that the issue, you feel that the issue is belittled, or you
felt like individuals were singled out, even though they weren't speakers, but they were present?

- I mean, I felt very singled out because I was the one that brought this issue forward. So when
someone says shame on you for bringing this issue forward to us. I mean, I would Think they're
talking about me, that's how I would interpret it.

- I'm thinking, just listening. You know, I was reading the same things when I was looking at this, the
fact that the floor wasn't open, so technically there really weren't any speakers. Do the council
members have the rights to voice their opinions on the floor? I can understand, I guess Brenda how
you're... I guess you're feeling like you come to this meeting and with an expectation to speak, but it
really isn't, there's no right for you to speak at a council meeting unless the council determines the
floor is open. So that's where I'm struggling with the complaint that you've submitted, in that the
floor wasn't open for you to speak, which is the council's ability to do that. I'm trying to find specific
citations, you've brought the shame on you comment up, I don't think it was given to you by name. I
think he was, I can't say to what the elder was saying, why he said that, but I'm trying to find the
specifics that would bring this and have us look at this as an ethics complaint, off of what you've
submitted to us. And I see a lot of documentation on fluoride in your paperwork. I guess that's what
my struggle is with it a little bit, but I don't have any further questions for you Brenda. I don't know if
Janet or Erin, if you do?

- I have one more, just I'm a little concerned about the expectation that you were going to be able to
speak. You said the Protection and Policy Committee meetings led you to the expectation that the
floor would be opened. Can you explain how that would be? I'm not sure that's a promise or an
expectation that should have been set up in advance of a meeting. So I just have a little bit of concern
'cause I think that that expectation might have colored the context of the meeting.

- Sure, we had multiple meetings at the Protection and Policy Committee level, and I don't know if it
was every single meeting, pretty much I believe is Mark Steuer still on this call? Can he answer to this
at all? 'Cause whenever people spoke, it was really stressed that, if you forgot to make a point, or if
you forgot to provide us with some information, or if you didn't get a chance to speak, you will be
able to speak at the council meeting when it goes to full council, 'cause that's the meeting that it really
matters. That's where the final vote is gonna happen. So some people didn't speak at those Policy
Committee meetings, they were waiting for the full council to speak at. I know of at least three, four
people that were waiting for that full council meeting to speak and then they never opened the floor.

- Do you want me to answer that or not?

- Can you, I mean, I don't know Alder Steuer, do you remember what was said after the Protection
and Policy meeting? I mean, I know what's normally said but.

- Right well, first of all, the meetings were very lengthy, you know, five, six hours. I mean, we sat
through a lot of testimony and we listened to both sides. Generally speaking, whenever I've been at
committee level or a lot of us alders that many times we will say, "This is the committee decision, but
it goes to council for final approval." So I'd have to look back at the minutes, but I believe that I did
say that it will go to City Council. And I did vote to open the floor, even though I know it took five
and a half hours at committee, but my take was that it's not finalized until it gets to council. So that
was my initial take.

- Thank you both for the clarification, I'm not familiar enough with those processes, so thank you.

- Okay, I think if there is just then if anyone who is a respondent would like any time, I think in spirit
of fairness, we could give five minutes to any person. I know we got lots of information from many of
the alders, which we were able to read, which were part of our Agenda Packet, but just wanna make
sure that we're equitable. So if anybody wants to speak for up to five minutes or respond to anything,
clarify. Or if somebody wants to, Lindsay's raising her hand.

- I don't wanna speak, did you want to talk to Keith first?

- Yeah, I don't know if we should do questions or if we should do both of the...

- I think it makes more sense to go to Keith and then give all the alders, and everybody the chance to
respond altogether.

- Okay, that works. Then we will give Keith five minutes.

- It's up to the committee though, so you three can decide.

- Does that work for the rest of the Ethics Board? Let Keith have five minutes or how...

- I think that's fine.

- I was just jumping in, I was just jumping in to basically say, I don't have like a big statement of
running through five minutes here. No, I didn't prepare to say yet another statement. It's like, I feel
like I put a lot of work into the last statement that was written. So if you want to hear what I have to
say, please reread that statement. I don't know, I wasn't sure what to expect at this meeting even, I
was just here to answer questions, Brenda's got them. And to see what you guys say, I could try to
reiterate key points of what my statement was, but that's all kind of all there is to it. It's like, I've said
what I feel like needs to be said, if people wanna listen, if they wanna hear that message, it's there
black and white for you to read it. And to me it's just a core ethical issue. I feel like everybody is
focused on legalese where you can't see the forest for the trees, where it seems kind of clear that the
motivation for that would likely be just, "We don't wanna deal with this, please go away." It's like, is it
our jurisdiction to deal with this? Can we read the letter of the law in a way that'll make it so we
don't have to deal with it? That's kind of what it seems like, because you could read it in a way where
yeah, you could deal with it. You could, if you wanted to. There is plenty of underlying ethical issues
there to deal with. The number one being, the fluoridation issue itself. That's the only reason I even
care about any of this. I don't actually honestly care that much about people having opinions that
disagree with me or any of that stuff. It's like, I get that that's what we're sort of focusing on here. It's
like it was mismanaged, it was mishandled. Yeah, it was mishandled in a lot of ways. I feel like they
just, people aren't getting the core points being made, and then aren't listening to, if you wanna like
get into the subject, they didn't really listen to the people that they needed to listen to, that were
there to speak, and we're trying to communicate with them. Those are just what I'm thinking, it's just
for your consideration, whatever you guys wanna do it's like, you're the government, you can do it.
That's the position we're in here. So we're just voicing our opinion of what we think is true, and what
we think is right.

- Thanks Keith, any questions there from the Ethics Board?

- Just on one clarification, the reason why we have to think about jurisdiction issues is it could be a
real liability for us to start doing things that are not, we can only do things that are in the Ethics
Code, right? I think people often think, "I think this thing is not ethical, therefore I should go to the
Ethics Board." We only have certain things we can do. I could think somebody is dishonest, or
doesn't have integrity, or something is not ethical. The Ethics Board doesn't have the power to take
up everything that everyone thinks is unethical. So we do have to look at what's actually in the Code
so that we don't charge ahead working on something that we really don't have any authority over. So
that's why we take great care to think about like, how the complaint actually corresponds to the
Code.

- I mean, it's fine. My point was that it could be easily enough read in a way where, okay, let's open
this up to thinking about it and dealing with it. You could do that. And I feel like I've elaborated on
that enough in the written statement, so that's up to you guys how you deal with that.

- Keith, I read through your statement and I'm gonna be honest with you, one thing that concerned
me a little bit was the fact that in your statement, you say the intended purpose of my complaint is to
state that the council members have mishandled the fluoridation issue first and foremost, with the
subject itself. And then you have secondly, in the way they dealt with the people involved. You know,
ethics complaints are big deals. Like when you make an ethics complaint against someone, look we all,
this whole board takes that very seriously because you're really making a judgment call on someone.
And when I read this I think to myself, if the issue is fluoridation, is this issue about how the council
did not vote in favor of the issues you wanted them to at the fluoridation level? So you're falling back
on, you know what I mean like, what's the, I would hope your primary for coming to the ethics
commission is with regards to the treatment that you believe was unethical, not so much the
mishandling of fluoridation issues. You know what I'm saying? Like this is.
- For me it's both. I think Brenda is focusing on, maybe a little more than me on that portion of it. For
me, the only reason I care about this is because I think that people are being ethically violated by the
government. That it's inherently morally wrong to violate the body of an unwilling participant, as it
said in the Nuremberg Code, and other bioethics laws, things like that. That is the key thing that I
care about. But I also would say then that it was mishandled and it was mishandled in how they dealt
with that issue particularly. Also people I mean, it's both. But the only reason I care about how they
dealt with the people is because of the issue.

- Was it mishandled because they didn't open the floor? Is that your thought?

- It's one of the ways in which you could be argued that it was mishandled?

- Okay.

- I see two hands, but I wanna make sure that we allow time for questions in case any of the board
members have questions for Keith based on anything he said or wrote.

- I think, you say that the contention is not whether they would be able to deny the public that day,
but whether they should have. And I guess I'm not sure if this is a question for you or just a question
in general, whether or not we jurisdictionally can determine whether the floor should have been
been to the public that day by the council. So I don't know, that's just a question I have hanging out
there.

- I mean, my primary answer to that is simply that ethics itself is about what should or should not be,
whether someone can or cannot do something is entirely secondary. So it's you know, people are
allowed all kinds of stuff, 'cause there's a lot of suffering and death in the world. People are allowed
free will, but should they do this or that? That's what ethics is.

- But that then applies to the council members as well right, and the decisions that they make?

- I'm just saying at the core, that's what ethics is, is judging what should or should not be, what is right
or wrong. And again, the whole thing, the whole reason I care about any of it is 'cause I think that
that's what this issue is, it's fundamentally an ethical issue. Secondarily, it's also hurting people, it's
doing you can argue it on all these different angles, but.

- I have no more questions.

- Yeah, I think we should give time in case any of the respondents would like to use five minutes. And
again, you could do it individually, you could not say anything at all if you have nothing further to say.
You can, if there's somebody who wants to speak on behalf of other people, that would be
acceptable as well. There's lots of view on my screen, so just throw a hand up and I'll try to
remember the order. Alder Dorff I think I saw your hand first.

- Thank you, and I will speak on behalf of Alder Dorff, Alder William Galvin, and Alder Craig Stevens.
And I'm simply going to read the first two paragraphs of my statement, I won't read the full two
pages, but I do want to at least have on the record what we are are contending. The City of Green
Bay Municipal Code two dash 27, gives authority to Robert's Rules of Order to govern city council in
all cases in which they are applicable. Robert's Rules of Order clearly grants the common council the
prerogative to choose whether or not to open the floor for public discussion. The vote not to open
the floor was taken in public and reported accurately. Wisconsin Open Meetings Law does not
require a governmental body to allow members of the public to speak, or actively participate in open
session meeting. The law only grant citizens the right to attend and observe open meetings. The
Ethics Board has no authority to hear this case since no public discussion actually took place, no
member of counsel can be found quote, disrespectful or quote, unwelcoming to the public. This
complaint has no merit on its base. Perhaps later on if needed I will cite the parts of the law in
Robert's Rules, but in the interest of time I won't do that right now. And Alder Galvin, Alder Stevens,
is there anything more you want me to say?

- Thank you, Alder Gerlach.

- I will speak on behalf of myself, but first of all, I would just like to point out on behalf of Alder
Scannell. I distinctly remember hearing him say, "We are not scientists." I heard him say that we are
not scientists. As for me, I received 148 emails about this. I read every single one of them, followed
up on every link and website that I was asked to follow up on. If I remember correctly, Ms.
Staudenmaier called me at home, and I took her call and I listened to her and I believed her. And for
the first time in my life, I considered that fluoride might not be a good thing. And so I launched into
my studies in addition to all of the follow up I did from those emails. But those emails took me to the
places that made me ultimately make the decision that I was right, and that this movement or
whatever this was, this effort, this initiative was misguided and was incorrect. I have three types pages
of notes from which I spoke. I have them at my fingertips right now, I can read them for you if you
wish. I use the first page and a quarter, the last page and three quarters I didn't speak about but I have
them there, I have the names of the studies, I have the reasons exactly why the scientists came to the
conclusions they came. Again, I berated no one, I never used the word shame, I named no one, I
stated the science. This was the conclusion I came to after a lot of research, I completely changed my
mind. I think that's what intelligent people sometimes do. I'm sorry, but that I have to stand by what I
said.

- Brunette.

- Yes, thank you chairman. I remember one of the previous agendas, the Packet had a statement that I
issued on Facebook the day after I voted not to open the floor. And I don't recall seeing it as part of
the Agenda Packet for this meeting, maybe I simply overlooked it. So I'm just simply going to read
that it won't take nearly the five minute limit. But whether my actions on voting not to open the floor
violates any ethics, Code of Ethics or Code of Conduct violation, that's up for the Ethics Board to
decide. But I at least want to give you my perspective that I felt the day after I took that vote, which
is the same feelings I have today, which is over a year later. I wrote on December 2nd, 2020. Serving
in public office means taking tough votes on important issues. Last night, the common council voted
on water fluoridation after several months of hour long committee meetings, and over 2,000 pages of
documents provided by the public. Although I stand by my final vote on that issue, it was the vote
prior to that decision that I regret. As with all important topics, I believe the public has every right to
be heard during open government meetings when decisions are made which affect their lives.
Transparency and openness are values I expect to be exhibited consistently in local government. In
other words, I hold myself to a high ethical standard, I will forever believe this government belongs to
quote, we the people, and quote all the people. The common council voted to not open the floor for
public comment. I recommended this position and voted accordingly. I felt that after hours, upon
hours of public testimony at the committee level, as well as the few thousand pages of documents,
both sides of the issue provided, all sides of the argument were presented well. What I failed to fully
consider, is that there were people who had not yet spoken on the issue, waiting in the Zoom
waiting room to be heard. If you were one of those people, I do apologize for not voting to open the
floor, to hear your opinions. It is something I don't believe I have ever done while in public office, nor
is it something I will ever do again. Or I should say, nor is it something I will do again? I know in the
grand scheme of things this may be a blip on the radar, and not noticed by many. Some of you may be
asking why I would even bring it up? Well simply put, it has been on my conscience since last night,
and because this government belongs to you, you have every right to speak during meetings. People
in public office have... They don't live up to the values they hold. Simply what I wrote. I don't regret
writing that, I stand by that statement. And as I said, Mr. Chairman and Ethics Board, if you felt that
my conduct or any conduct was untoward to the public during that meeting, that is your duty to rule
on. But I'll let that statement speak for itself, thank you.

- Alder Scannell, yep go ahead.

- Okay, thank you. Well, I think that you are bound to follow the Code and you're bound to follow
the complaint. And I feel that what is happening now is the complaint is somewhat being shifted that
they're trying to, they stated what ethics violation was, but now they can't support that. So they're
trying to massage it and change it to something else and present it without any evidence. I mean, if it's
comments we made, that's what the complaint should have stated and it should have those
comments. I mean quite honest, I have a vague recollection of what all I said and why I said it. I don't
remember exactly, I'm not really prepared to talk about it much. I mean, if you have questions for me
I can answer to the best of my ability. But it seems like they have not proven the complaint they filed.
We have the right to not open the floor and I don't know how anyone can argue against that. And
the argument of general ethics should be applied. Again, you have to follow the Code of Conduct, not
general ethics. And the purpose of the general ethics is to re-argue fluoride, which is not the purpose
of this body. So I think there's some misconception on the complainant's part about what your job is.
And I think they also think that you have some authority over us, it's not that you would have
something like judicial hearing and come to conclusions of fact, and they make a recommendation to
council that's passed on to council, and council would then decide. I'm not sure they quite understand
the process they're involved in here. So I just feel that they haven't made a valid complaint and I don't
know that having regrets, for any alder having regrets about their decision, I've had some regrets, so I
don't think that's an ethical violation if you do have a regret. And as far as their expectation that
they'd be allowed to speak, that's unfortunate that was made if anything, but that's not an ethics
violation either. But if that's their complaint that they were given an expectation, then they filed a
complaint against the wrong person, but I don't even see how that's a violation because I believe even
if you... I did look at what was said and it was, he never stated it would, the chair never stated it
would be open but that, I can't remember exact words now, but it would most likely be open, I can't
remember exactly what he said, but he never said it would, made it a promise to be open. So that's
all I have to say, unless there's any questions about anything for me.

- Any other comments from, we could take questions if anybody on the board has questions. If
there's anybody else who would like to make a comment, Mayor Genrich yep.

- Thank you chair. I would just concur with the comments of Alder Dorff, the argument that she had
made earlier in the meeting here. I think what we have before this body is really a political argument
rather than an ethical one, as it relates to the City's Code of Conduct. And so I think this
jurisdictional question is an important one to answer, and important one for the Ethics Board to
answer correctly. And so it's my judgment that obviously, all of our citizens can second guess our
decisions and our actions, but that's to be handled in a different venue, and that venue is not this
body.

- Okay, any other comments? Otherwise we can have questions from the Ethics Board for any of the
people who spoke. Brenda is this a response to something somebody said? 'Cause I don't wanna get
into having everyone go back and forth, I wanna give everybody their amount of time, allow for
questions and then proceed on. No other questions from anybody? Okay, and I think I mentioned
this already but Lacey, which is the third item on our agenda is not gonna be here. So didn't wanna
make any verbal response, just thought the writing was sufficient. I think what we can do now is
move to deliberation if there are no additional questions. What we usually do is go into close session,
deliberate, and then come back, move to open session, and summarize our discussions. And so I
guess to do that, we would need a motion, a second, and a vote. And I'm willing to make the motion
to go into close session.

- Second.

- Do we need discussion Lindsey?

- If there is any, you can have discussions.

- Any discussion?

- I just had a quick question. Would the closed session involve all alders that we wanna be allowed in?

- The alders who are respondents would not be allowed in.

- All in favor, signify by saying aye.

- Aye.

- Aye.

- Aye.

- Opposed? Motion carries, and so I'm just gonna read the statement that allows us to go into closed
session, just so we have that on the record. The board may convene in closed session, pursuant to
section 19.85 sub one sub a Wisconsin statutes for the purpose of deliberating concerning a case,
which is a subject of any judicial or quasi judicial trial, or hearing before the governmental body. The
board will thereafter be pursuant to section 19.85 sub two Wisconsin statutes to take action items
discussed in close session, if appropriate and to consider the remainder of the agenda. So I'll have
Lindsay scoot us into closed session. We will eventually return and we'll proceed from there.

- Okay, so just to go over how this works for those who haven't been through it, I'm going to put
everybody in a waiting room, except for the board members, and myself, and any of the alders who
are here that are not respondents who may want to stay and Attorney Bunger as well. You are free
to remain in the waiting room as the board will most likely be returning after deliberations.
Depending on I mean, they will return to open session. There may or may not be a decision prepared
at that time, but they will likely take some sort of action when we come back. So, I'm gonna put you
all in the waiting room. Go ahead, go ahead.

- I make a motion to go back into open sessions?

- We're back, we're still in close session technically, but we need a motion, second, and vote to go
back into open session. I can make the motion.

- Okay, second.

- All in favor?

- Aye.

- Aye. Opposed, motion carries. We are now back in open session, we had discussions on the
information that we heard this evening, and on the reports that were submitted by everybody. And
we are going to make a motion to have Ethics Board direct staff to proceed based on the discussions
that we had. And we will plan to return at the next ethics meeting with findings and conclusions
based on our discussions, it will be February 24th at 5:00 PM. So we need a motion to have staff
proceed as directed.

- I'll make that motion.

- I'll motion, Cheryl second.

- Second.

- All in favor, signify by saying aye.

- [All] Aye.

- Any opposed, motion carries.

- I'm sorry guys, I was doing something. Who motioned and seconded?

- For this one or for the coming back to open session?

- For this one.

- For this one, we'll do me as the motion, Cheryl as the second.

- Thank you, sorry about that.

- Staff proceed as directed. So again, we will recon been on February 24th at 5:00 PM. We will discuss
the conclusions and findings. The next item on the agenda is simply an informational item. It's just that
Benjamin Khademi voluntarily withdrew his ethics complaint against Mayor Genrich, and Alders
Brunette, Scannell, Stevens, Galvin, Gerlach and Dorff. Purely informational, no action item needed
there. Last item on the agenda, G adjournment. Need a motion, and a second, and a vote.
- I'll move.

- Second.

- I'll second.

- All in favor?

- Aye.

- Aye.

- Aye.

- Aye. Opposed, motion carries. And we are wrapped up, thanks everybody.

- Thanks everyone for coming.

- Thank you.