Ethics Board — Green Bay, WI
Date: 2021-12-14
Time: 17:00

AGENDA 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.


D. Approval of Minutes.

 1. Approval of the minutes from the January 6, 2021 Ethics Board Meeting.

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.

 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
Agenda of the Ethics Board
December 14, 2021
Page 1
 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

F. Adjournment.




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




Agenda of the Ethics Board
December 14, 2021
Page 2

AGENDA 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.


D. Approval of Minutes.

 1. Approval of the minutes from the January 6, 2021 Ethics Board Meeting.

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.

 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
Agenda of the Ethics Board
December 14, 2021
Page 1
 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

F. Adjournment.




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




Agenda of the Ethics Board
December 14, 2021
Page 2
Virtual Meeting Instructions
Ethics Board 12-14-2021
Zoom Meeting Information


 Join Zoom Meeting
 https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84901092265?pwd=NGJ4NDRXV0VnV0hXSk1wQkFqcDlDZz09

 Meeting ID: 849 0109 2265
 Passcode: 640465

 One tap mobile
 +19292056099,,84901092265#,,,,*640465# US (New York)
 +13017158592,,84901092265#,,,,*640465# US (Washington DC)

 Dial by your location
 +1 929 205 6099 US (New York)
 +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC)
 +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
 +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
 +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
 +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
 Meeting ID: 849 0109 2265
 Passcode: 640465
 Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/k7NrOuhzw
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 give their name and address
 b. Committee/Commission/Board members will still follow Roberts Rules of Order
  2. Please log into the Zoom meeting 10 minutes before the meeting starts to ensure proper
 technology is working.
 a. If you are a Board Member, please log into CivicClerk with a computer, laptop, or
 tablet device.
  3. Once you are in the meeting please mute yourselves.
 a. You may unmute yourself when you are called upon to speak.
  4. Waiting room
 a. When you call in, all callers/participants will be placed in a “waiting room.”
 b. Persons on the agenda will be admitted to the meeting, and then once the item is
 concluded, the host will permanently mute you from the meeting (you can still
 hear the meeting).
  5. Using Zoom with a tablet or computer
 a. Tablet - Download the app either with the Apple Store or the Play Store
 b. Computer - You may download the app or click on the link to open Zoom in your
 web browser.
  6. Registering
 a. The host may ask you to register for the meeting. A registration link will be sent to
 you along with the invite. You’ll receive another email confirming that you’re
 registered for the meeting.
 b. If you’re using a phone, your registration will still be tied to an email.
  7. Raising your hand
 a. Committee members—you can either use CivicClerk and request to speak or you
 can “raise your hand” in the zoom meeting (you’d need to use a computer or
 tablet) to let the host know you’d like to speak. You can also un-mute yourselves
 and start speaking.
 b. Persons on the agenda—you can “raise your hand” but you’d need to use a
 computer. You will be allowed to speak, per Wisconsin Open Meetings Rules,
 once the committee has “opened the floor for interested parties to speak.” Once
 the committee is finished with your agenda item, the host will mute you
 permanently, unless the committee opens the floor again.
  8. What devices should I use?
 a. Smart phone (please see more detailed instructions on page 3)
 b. Land line
 c. Tablet—well in advance of the meeting, please download the Zoom Meeting app
 before you join a meeting by using either the Apple Store or the Play Store. You
 will be asked to input your name, thus identifying you for the meeting. You may
 also be asked to verify your email.
 d. Computer—well in advance of the meeting, please download the Zoom Meeting
 app, but you can also click on a link to open the Zoom Meeting in your browser.
 You will be asked to input your name, thus identifying you for the meeting.
 e. For tablet and computer users--if you download the app you may be asked to
 verify your email.
  9. Zoom etiquette
 a. Muting yourselves when you’re not talking will prevent your background noise
 from interfering with others’ ability to listen to and participate in the meeting.
 b. If you’re using a telephone, please identify yourself with your phone number and
 name before you speak. Zoom meeting hosts can see only your telephone
 number and will ask you to identify yourselves.
  10. Closed session
 a. Persons in the Zoom meeting will be put into a waiting room while the committee
 meets in Closed Session. Participants will be admitted back into the Zoom meeting
 once the committee reconvenes in Open Session.
 b. Persons watching a Common Council meeting live on YouTube will see a gray
 screen with the City logo during closed session.
  11. Persons interested in attending anonymously or listening to the meeting may call in by
 dialing *67 followed by the phone number above.

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 need to talk, please make sure your phone is on Mute
 a. If you’re using a smartphone, look at your screen and click the Mute button
 Report to the
 Ethics Board
 of the City of Green Bay


 MEETING DATE PREPARED BY
 December 14, 2021

AGENDA ITEM # E.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.

BACKGROUND


RECOMMENDATION


FISCAL IMPACT


ATTACHMENTS
1. Complaint - Rollin v Genrich
2. Lenz letter w jurisdictional arguments




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

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

 Re: Rollin Code of Conduct Complaint

To the City of Green Bay Ethics Board,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Thank you

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

CC: Kimber Rollin
 Stafford Rosenbaum LLP
 Report to the
 Ethics Board
 of the City of Green Bay


 MEETING DATE PREPARED BY
 December 14, 2021

AGENDA ITEM # E.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.

BACKGROUND


RECOMMENDATION


FISCAL IMPACT


ATTACHMENTS
1. Staudenmaier Ethics Complaint




 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
 December 14, 2021

AGENDA ITEM # E.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.

BACKGROUND


RECOMMENDATION


FISCAL IMPACT


ATTACHMENTS
1. Khademi Ethics Complaint




 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
 December 14, 2021

AGENDA ITEM # E.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.

BACKGROUND


RECOMMENDATION


FISCAL IMPACT


ATTACHMENTS
1. Decker Ethics Complaint




 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
 December 14, 2021

AGENDA ITEM # E.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.

BACKGROUND


RECOMMENDATION


FISCAL IMPACT


ATTACHMENTS
1. Kuehl Ethics Complaint




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

MINUTES OF THE ETHICS BOARD
 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