HomeMy WebLinkAboutCounty Board of Supervisors - Minutes - 5/28/2013
388
Minutes of the
Bayfield County Board of Supervisors’ Meeting
Of May 28, 2013 – 6:00 p.m.
Bayfield County Board Room, Courthouse, Washburn, Wisconsin
The monthly meeting of the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors was called to
order by Chairman Miller at 6:00 p.m. Roll call was taken by Bayfield County Clerk, Scott
Fibert as follows: Jardine-present: Maki-present; Kittleson-present; Bennett-present;
Pocernich-present; Schultz-present; Williams-absent; Bichanich-present; Miller-present;
Crandall-present; Rondeau-present; Meyers-present; Bussey-present; Total 13: 12
present, 1 absent. A quorum was present to conduct business. The following were also
present for the meeting: County Administrator, Mark Abeles-Allison; Deputy County Clerk,
Dawn M. Bellile; Paul Susienka, Sheriff; Jan Victorson, Emergency Mgmt. Coordinator;
Terri Kramolis, Health Director; Elizabeth Skulan, Human Services Director; Brenda
Spurlock, Criminal Justice Coordinator; Tim Kane, UW-Extension Community Dev.
Educator; Hope McLeod, Reporter for The Daily Press; and community residents.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all in attendance.
1. Motion Regarding Minutes of April 16th and May 7, 2013 Bayfield County
Board of Supervisors’ Meeting.
April 16th - A motion was made by Rondeau/Kittleson to adopt the minutes of
the April 16, 2013 Bayfield County Board of Supervisors’ Meeting. The motion
carried.
May 7, 2013 - A motion was made by Rondeau/Kittleson to adopt the minutes
of the May 7, 2013 Bayfield County Board of Supervisors’ Meeting. The
motion carried.
2. Public Comment.
Joyce Hood-Orlowski, Iron River, WI. Joyce was present to discuss an issue that
took place today in Court that left her very upset. She attended a hearing for someone
who has been in the system for a year and stated that the District Attorney’s office is a
mess. She further stated that the former District Attorney left the office in such an
array of chaos that it is going to take quite a long time to straighten up. She further
went to say that people who have suffered a loss because of the actions of the court and
asked that the Board look into this problem and get the District Attorney’s office back up
to speed.
On a second note, she praised and thanked the Board for devoting the time, care,
and consideration for the Bayfield County Fair. This is near and dear to her heart, and she
supports it as well. Thank you for making the fair a better place for everyone.
Katie Hancock, Town of Cable. Katie stated she and her husband are present to
ask for a rezone from the County Board on their property. She explained they would like
to establish the 35-acre parcel as the Cable Community Farm to grown food and build
community. There will be a 1-acre garden site to grow food for the local food shelf, a
389
flower garden for the children’s theater, and there will be a children’s garden for the
children from the school to participate in. For these reasons they have received an
overwhelming response from the community and are asking for the Board to approve their
rezone.
Chairman Miller closed public comment.
3. Bayfield County Resolution No. 2013-29, Honoring all Organizations and
Iindividuals Involved with Response to the Germann Road Fire. Jan Victorson,
Emergency Management Coordinator, was present to read the following Resolution:
WHEREAS, On May 14, 2013, Bayfield and Douglas Counties experienced the
largest wildfire in 33 years encompassing approximately 9,000 acres in the two counties;
WHEREAS, over 50 agencies and organizations were involved in providing response
to the fire including: DNR, Fire Departments, EMS Services, Law Enforcement Agencies,
Drummond School, Red Cross, Emergency Management Organizations and mutual aid
services from various other agencies;
WHEREAS, local community members and groups also provided needed services to
those residents displaced by the fire;
WHEREAS, as a result of the collaborative efforts, no injuries or fatalities were
incurred and loss of property was minimized;
WHEREAS, the efforts of the individuals and organizations involved with response
to the fire showed the resiliency and community spirit of Bayfield County and surrounding
areas.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bayfield County Board of
Supervisors assembled this 28th day of May, 2013, recognizes those individuals and
organizations involved with the Germann Road Fire and thank them for their efficient and
compassionate response.
By Action of the
Bayfield County Board of Supervisors
Shawn W. Miller, Chairman
Abeles-Allison thanked members in the audience and some of our department heads
who spent many hours of time helping out the victims of the fire. Jim Crandall was also
thanked for arranging for a facility in which the people could go to for help. A motion was
made by Bussey/Rondeau to adopt Bayfield County Resolution No. 2013-29, Honoring
all Organizations and Individuals Involved with Response to the Germann Road Fire.
The motion carried.
4. Bayfield County Resolution No. 2013-31, Emergency Proclamation.
Victorson stated that there was an incredible coming together of people for a huge task.
Bayfield County lost approximately 18-acres of land but structures documented. The
efforts by the Governor proclaimed a state of emergency for both Bayfield and Douglas
counties. Board members mention that they appreciated Victorson keeping them up to
390
date via their drop box as to how the fire was progressing. Victorson read the Resolution,
which reads as follows:
WHEREAS, a disaster, namely the GERMANN ROAD FIRE commencing on May 14,
2013, has had major impact on local jurisdictions in Bayfield County; and
WHEREAS, the GERMANN ROAD FIRE has required the response of county and
local departments and agencies in providing evacuation, shelter and information support
throughout the event; and
WHEREAS, documentation related to emergency conditions and related
expenditures will support the county in requesting outside funding assistance if available.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bayfield County Board of
Supervisors assembled this 28th day of May, 2013, pursuant to State Statute 323.11 and
323.14 (4)(b) of the Wisconsin State Statutes, finds it necessary and expedient for the
health, safety, welfare and good order to proclaim that emergency conditions exist.
By Action of the
Bayfield County Board of Supervisors
Shawn W. Miller, Chairman
A motion was made by Pocernich/Meyers to adopt Bayfield County Resolution
No. 2013-31, Emergency Proclamation. The motion carried.
5. Presentation of Bayfield County UW-Extension Highlights 2012 Annual
Report. Tim Kane, UW-Extension Community Dev. Educator was present to go over some
of the highlights of the report and explained how the individual offices within the
department operate. The UW-Extension Office is divided into 5 programs; the
Community Development Education, Family Living Education, Agricultural Community &
Economic Development; 4-H Youth Development; and Nutrition Education. The Board
thanked Kane for his report. A motion was made to receive and place on file the UW-
Extension Highlights 2012 Annual Report. The motion carried.
6. Report of the Bayfield County Planning & Zoning Committee Regarding
the Rezone of the Arthur and Katherine Hancock Property Located in the Town of
Cable. Rob Schierman, Zoning Director, was present to summarize what has taken place
regarding the actions of the Town of Cable Board and the Zoning Committee. The Town
Board did not find it compatible with their Comprehensive Plan thus turned it down.
However, the Bayfield County Planning & Zoning Committee did find it compatible and
approved the rezone. Board members spoke in favor of Zoning Committee’s decision.
Discussion then turned to when the Town of Cable filed their Resolution of Town Board
Extending for 20 Days the Town of Cable’s Time for Disapproving of Petition for Zoning
District Map Amendment; was the timeline met. Schierman pointed out that State
Statutes defines time period, and in his opinion, they did not meet the deadline. The
Town’s Resolution was dated May 15th and it was received in the County Clerk’s office on
May 16th. Further discussion took place. A motion was made by Bussey/Crandall to
receive and place on file the letters received from the Town and the public that were
391
placed in the Boards' Drop Box as well as the letters received this evening. The
motion carried.
The Board dispensed with the reading of the Report, which reads as follows:
TO: The County Board of Supervisors of Bayfield County on the hearing of petitions to
amend the Bayfield County Zoning Ordinance.
The Planning and Zoning Committee of the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors, having
held a public hearing pursuant to Section 59.69(5)(e), Wisconsin Statutes; notice thereof
having been given as provided by law; and having been duly informed of the facts pertinent
to the following changes; hereby recommends the following action on said petition:
The Zoning of Arthur and Katherine Hancock 4.96-acre parcel (Tax ID# 10026)
described as Lot Two (2), Block Three (3), Assessor’s Plat No. 2 in the Village (now Town)
of Cable, Section Eighteen (18), Township Forty-Three (43) N., Range Seven (7) W, Town
of Cable be changed from Residential-One (R-1) from Agricultural-0ne (Ag-1). And
34.26-acre parcel (Tax ID# 10030), described as Block Four (4), Assessor’s Plat No. 2 to
the Village (now Town) of Cable, EXCEPT a parcel therein described as follows: To find
the point of beginning, commence at the Northeast corner of section Eighteen (18),
Township Forty-Three (43) North, Range Seven (7) West; thence S03°13’36” E, along the
East line of said Section Eighteen (18), a distance of 43 feet to a 2 inch pipe on the
Southerly right-of-way of the town road known as Perry Lake Road, being the point of
beginning; thence from said point of beginning by metes and bounds; continue S03°13’26”
E, along the East line of said Block Four (4), being also the East line of said Section
Eighteen (18), 505 feet to a 1 inch iron pipe; thence S 81°18’01” W, 444 feet to a 1 inch
iron pipe; thence N03°13’36” W, 502.35 feet to a 1 inch iron pipe on the Southerly right-
of-way line of Perry Lake Road; thence Easterly along the said Southerly right-of-way of
Perry Lake Road, 444 feet more or less, to the point of beginning in Section Eighteen (18),
Township Forty-Three (43) N., Range Seven (7) W, Town of Cable be changed from
Residential-Two (R-2) to Agricultural-One (Ag-1).
The Bayfield County Planning and Zoning Committee recommendation is: Be Approved
Date: April 18, 2013
BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE
Kenneth Jardine, Shawn Miller, Dennis M. Pocernich, Brett T. Rondeau, Neil Schultz
A motion was made by Pocernich/Maki to receive and place on file the Report of the
Bayfield County Planning & Zoning Committee Regarding the Rezone of the Arthur and
Katherine Hancock Property Located in the Town of Cable. The motion carried.
7. Town Board of Cable Speaking Regarding Supporting Documents and
Resolutions Adopted on May 15, 2013 Regarding the Rezone of the Arthur and
Katherine Hancock Property from Residential-1 & 2 to Agricultural-1. Larry Ludzack,
Town of Cable Chair, spoke regarding the Town Board meeting which voted to not approve
the rezone for the Hancocks. He stated that the Board was not against the rezone itself,
but a couple of issues regarding the rezone. If rezoned it would stay with the property
forever. He explained that when zoning was created, several parcels were created in
392
Section 18, (which is the old Village of Cable) for the purpose of separating the village
from the town. The town wants to keep Section 18 uniform. The Bayfield County Zoning
Comprehensive Plan includes the secragetion of agriculture with residential development.
The Town’s recommendation to the Zoning Committee was to give the Hancocks a Special
Use Permit. Ludzack went on to state that the Town Board would like the County Board to
consider tabling this matter so that the Town can revisit this at their next meeting, which
is tomorrow (Wed., May 29th) to consider another use for the property. Discussion then
took place on the members that are on the Comprehensive Plan Committee; were some
replaced because they thought different from the others. It was explained that their
terms were up and they did not want to be reappointed.
Discussion took place as regarding a previous owner who had over 100 sheep, which
was overloading the area. The Town Board did not want to see this happen again; even if
this is not the intent of the Hancocks, it could happen if they ever sold the property.
Jeff Rasmussen, Town of Cable Supervisor, spoke stating that no one on the Town
Board is against the Hancock’s farm. The Board is suggesting the possibility of a
Conditional Use Permit. Further discussion took place.
8. Bayfield County Zoning Amendatory Ordinance No. 2013-07 Regarding
the Rezone of the Arthur and Katherine Hancock Property Located in the Town of
Cable. Schierman spoke again regarding the rezone and gave the definition of a hobby
farm. Discussion then took place on the realm of the activities that the Hancocks want to
undertake. Further discussion took place. The Board dispensed with the reading of the
Amendatory Ordinance, which reads as follows:
The Bayfield County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows:
That the Bayfield County Zoning Ordinance, adopted June 1, 1976, be and the same, is
hereby amended as follows:
The Zoning of Arthur and Katherine Hancock 4.96-acre parcel (Tax ID# 10026)
described as Lot Two (2), Block Three (3), Assessor’s Plat No. 2 in the Village (now Town)
of Cable, Section Eighteen (18), Township Forty-Three (43) N., Range Seven (7) W, Town
of Cable be changed from Residential-One (R-1) from Agricultural-0ne (Ag-1). And
34.26-acre parcel (Tax ID# 10030), described as Block Four (4), Assessor’s Plat No. 2 to
the Village (now Town) of Cable, EXCEPT a parcel therein described as follows: To find
the point of beginning, commence at the Northeast corner of section Eighteen (18),
Township Forty-Three (43) North, Range Seven (7) West; thence S03°13’36” E, along the
East line of said Section Eighteen (18), a distance of 43 feet to a 2 inch pipe on the
Southerly right-of-way of the town road known as Perry Lake Road, being the point of
beginning; thence from said point of beginning by metes and bounds; continue S03°13’26”
E, along the East line of said Block Four (4), being also the East line of said Section
Eighteen (18), 505 feet to a 1 inch iron pipe; thence S 81°18’01” W, 444 feet to a 1 inch
iron pipe; thence N03°13’36” W, 502.35 feet to a 1 inch iron pipe on the Southerly right-
of-way line of Perry Lake Road; thence Easterly along the said Southerly right-of-way of
Perry Lake Road, 444 feet more or less, to the point of beginning in Section Eighteen (18),
393
Township Forty-Three (43) N., Range Seven (7) W, Town of Cable be changed from
Residential-Two (R-2) to Agricultural-One (Ag-1).
Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Bayfield on the 28th day of May,
2013.
By Action of the
Bayfield County Board of Supervisors
Shawn W. Miller, Chair
A motion was made by Schultz/Meyers to adopt Bayfield County Zoning
Amendatory Ordinance No. 2013-07 Regarding the Arthur and Katherine Hancock
Property Located in the Town of Cable. Discussion took place regarding the fact that
all of the issues that have risen this evening were all discussed thoroughly at the Zoning
Committee meeting. The Town Chairman has asked that we table this matter so that they
can try to find a better way to address the rezone. The motion carried with two
oppositions.
9. Report of the Bayfield County Planning & Zoning Committee Regarding
the Rezone of a 4.25-acre Parcel in the Bayfield County Forest Located in the Town
of Tripp. Schierman explained that this is to clean up the rezones prior to transferring
the property to the individual owners rather than doing it twice for each property owners.
The Board dispensed with the reading of the report, which reads as follows:
TO: The County Board of Supervisors of Bayfield County on the hearing of petitions to
amend the Bayfield County Zoning Ordinance.
The Planning and Zoning Committee of the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors, having
held a public hearing pursuant to Section 59.69(5)(e), Wisconsin Statutes; notice thereof
having been given as provided by law; and having been duly informed of the facts pertinent
to the following changes; hereby recommends the following action on said petition:
The Zoning of Bayfield County Forestry 4.25-acre parcel (ID#s 04-048-2-48-08-33-3-
02-000-06000; 04-048-2-48-08-33-3-02-000-10000; 04-048-2-48-08-33-3-02-000-
09000; 04-048-2-48-08-33-3-02-000-08000 ; and 04-048-2-48-08-33-3-02-000-07000)
described as that portion of the Southwest Quarter (SW ¼) of the Southwest Quarter
(SW ¼), Section Thirty-Three (33), Township Forty-Eight (48), Range Eight (8) Town of
Tripp further described as:
Commencing at the SW corner of said Section 33; thence N01°21’50”E 1243.07 feet to the
point of beginning, which is located at the intersection of the centerline of Jackman Lake
Road and the West line of said Section 33; thence continuing along the centerline of
Jackman Lake Road S80°28’35”E 664.64’; thence continuing along the centerline of
Jackman Lake Road, on a curve to the left, having a radius of 1090.19 feet, a long chord,
bearing and distance of S81°31’38”E 39.99 feet, 39.99 feet; thence continuing along the
centerline of Jackman Lake Road S82°34’42”E 239.38 feet on a curve to the left, having a
radius of 354.31 feet, a long chord, bearing and distance of N89°23’21”E 99.02 feet,
99.34 feet; thence continuing along the centerline of Jackman Lake Road N81°21’25”E
219.81 feet; thence continuing along the centerline of Jackman Lake Road on a curve to
394
the left having a radius of 139.20 feet, a long chord, bearing and distance of N71°08’48”E
49.35 feet, 49.61 feet to the East line of the SW¼ of the SW¼ of said Section 33; thence
N01°12’27”E 135.17 feet to the NE corner of the SW¼ of the SW¼ of said Section 33;
thence along the North line of said SW¼ of the SW¼ of said Section 33 N88°52’38”W
1297.02 feet to the NW corner of said SW¼ of the SW¼ of said Section 33; thence
S01°21’51”W along the West line of said SW¼ of the SW¼, of said Section 33, 63.83 feet
to the point of beginning-- be changed from Forestry-Two (F-2) to Residential-One
(R-2).
The above-described parcel contains 4.25 acres, or 3.26 acres excluding road right-of-
way.
The Bayfield County Planning and Zoning Committee recommendation is: Be Approved
Date: March 21, 2013 (tabled) and April 18, 2013
BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE
Kenneth Jardine, Shawn Miller, Dennis M. Pocernich, Brett T. Rondeau, Neil Schultz
A motion was made by Jardine/Bichanich to receive and place on file the
Report of the Bayfield County Planning & Zoning Committee Regarding the Rezone of a
4.25-acre parcel in the Bayfield County Forest Located in the Town of Tripp. The
motion carried.
10. Bayfield County Zoning Amendatory Ordinance No. 2013-08, Regarding
the Rezone of a 4.25-acre parcel in the Bayfield County Forest Located in the Town
of Tripp. The Board dispensed with the reading of the Ordinance, which reads as
follows:
The Bayfield County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows:
That the Bayfield County Zoning Ordinance, adopted June 1, 1976, be and the same, is
hereby amended as follows:
The Zoning of Bayfield County Forestry 4.25-acre parcel (ID#s 04-048-2-48-08-
33-3-02-000-06000; 04-048-2-48-08-33-3-02-000-10000; 04-048-2-48-08-33-3-02-
000-09000; 04-048-2-48-08-33-3-02-000-08000 ; and 04-048-2-48-08-33-3-02-000-
07000) described as that portion of the Southwest Quarter (SW ¼) of the Southwest
Quarter (SW ¼), Section Thirty-Three (33), Township Forty-Eight (48), Range Eight (8)
Town of Tripp further described as:
Commencing at the SW corner of said Section 33; thence N01°21’50”E 1243.07 feet to the
point of beginning, which is located at the intersection of the centerline of Jackman Lake
Road and the West line of said Section 33; thence continuing along the centerline of
Jackman Lake Road S80°28’35”E 664.64’; thence continuing along the centerline of
Jackman Lake Road, on a curve to the left, having a radius of 1090.19 feet, a long chord,
bearing and distance of S81°31’38”E 39.99 feet, 39.99 feet; thence continuing along the
centerline of Jackman Lake Road S82°34’42”E 239.38 feet on a curve to the left, having a
radius of 354.31 feet, a long chord, bearing and distance of N89°23’21”E 99.02 feet,
99.34 feet; thence continuing along the centerline of Jackman Lake Road N81°21’25”E
219.81 feet; thence continuing along the centerline of Jackman Lake Road on a curve to
395
the left having a radius of 139.20 feet, a long chord, bearing and distance of N71°08’48”E
49.35 feet, 49.61 feet to the East line of the SW¼ of the SW¼ of said Section 33; thence
N01°12’27”E 135.17 feet to the NE corner of the SW¼ of the SW¼ of said Section 33;
thence along the North line of said SW¼ of the SW¼ of said Section 33 N88°52’38”W
1297.02 feet to the NW corner of said SW¼ of the SW¼ of said Section 33; thence
S01°21’51”W along the West line of said SW¼ of the SW¼, of said Section 33, 63.83 feet
to the point of beginning-- be changed from Forestry-Two (F-2) to Residential-One
(R-2).
The above-described parcel contains 4.25 acres, or 3.26 acres excluding road right-of-
way.
By Action of the
Bayfield County Board of Supervisors
Shawn W. Miller, Chair
A motion was made by Maki/Bichanich to adopt Bayfield County Zoning
Amendatory Ordinance No. 2013-08 Regarding the Rezone of a 4.25-acre parcel in
the Bayfield County Forest Located in the Town of Tripp. The motion carried.
11. Criminal Justice Coordinating Council Committee Appointments. Abeles-
Allison explained that Supervisor Crandall chairs this Committee and Brenda Spurlock,
Criminal Justice Coordinator, serves as the Executor of the Committee. Presently, the
Committee has spot openings and the candidates that are being brought to the Board for
approval are: Judge Edward Brunner, Duane Magers, Psychologist with Bay Area Mental
Health; and Dr. Joseph Corbine, Mental Health Physician for Red Cliff. Discussion took
place on the individuals and their backgrounds. A motion was made by Crandall/Meyers
to appoint Judge Edward Brunner, Duane Magers, and Dr. Joseph Corbine to the
Criminal Justice Coordinating Council Committee. Further discussion took place and the
motion carried.
12. Bayfield County Resolution No. 2013-23, To Support Additional and
Ongoing State General Purpose Revenue to Regional Income Maintenance Consortia.
Elizabeth Skulan, Human Services Director, was present to explain the Resolution to the
Board. The Board dispensed with the reading of the Resolution, which reads as follows:
WHEREAS, as a result of regionalization of Income Maintenance (IM)
Administration brought about by Wisconsin Act 10, the 2011 – 2013 Biennial Budget Bill,
Bayfield County entered into an agreement with 12 counties in the northern region
including: Ashland, Bayfield, Forest, Florence, Iron, Lincoln, Price, Rusk, Sawyer, Taylor,
Vilas, and Wood Counties, and formed the Northern IM Consortium (NIMC) ; and
WHEREAS, the Northern IM Consortium (NIMC) sustained a 37% reduction in
state funding; and
WHEREAS, the average statewide reduction in funding was 17%, but more than
half of the IM Consortia sustained greater reductions than 17%; and
WHEREAS, the level of funding reduction creates conditions and staffing levels
that jeopardizes NIMC’s and other Income Maintenance Consortia’s ability to sustain a
396
system that can meet performance measures and comply with state and federal
regulations; and
WHEREAS after reviewing the information and conditions of the request, both
Wisconsin Counties Association and Wisconsin Counties Human Services Association are
advocating for the legislature to increase funding to NIMC by $250,000 GPR with
associated Federal Match for NIMC for calendar year (CY) 2013 to be included in the
2013 – 2-15 State Biennial Budget; and
WHEREAS the Wisconsin Counties Association is advocating for the legislature to
approve new GPR in the amount of $316,161 and its federal match for CY 2014 and 2015
and is supporting statutory language change to ensure that no regional income maintenance
consortia has funding less than 83% of its 2011 state GPR funding level; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bayfield County Board of
Supervisors assembled this 28th day of May, 2013 does hereby request an increase of
$250,000 GPR and associated Federal Match for NIMC to be included in the 2013 – 2015
state biennial budget; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that that Bayfield County Board of does hereby
request new GPR funding of $316,161 and its corresponding federal match for calendar
years 2014 and 2015, as well as statutory language that will ensure that no regional income
maintenance consortia is funded at less than 83% of its 2011 state GPR level.
By Action of the
Bayfield County Board of Supervisors
Shawn W. Miller, Chair
A motion was made by Bussey/Kittleson to adopt Bayfield County Resolution
No. 2013-23, To Support Additional and Ongoing State General Purpose Revenue to
Regional Income Maintenance Consortia. Discussion took place to the fact that it is
important to have the counties support one another. The motion carried.
13. Bayfield County Resolution No. 2013-26, Honoring Seniors on World
Elder Abuse Awareness Day, June 15, 2013. Skulan explained this Resolution.
The Board dispensed with the reading of the Resolution, which reads as follows:
WHEREAS, Bayfield County’s seniors deserve to live safely with dignity, and as
independently as possible, with the supports they need.
WHEREAS, Elder abuse is most often defined as any act that harms a senior or
jeopardizes his or her health or welfare.
WHEREAS, combating abuse of older people will help improve the quality of life
for all seniors across this country and will allow seniors to continue to live as independently
as possible and contribute to the vibrancy of Bayfield County.
WHEREAS, all county residents should watch for signs of abuse, such as physical
trauma, withdrawal, depression, anxiety, fear of family members, friends or caregivers.
397
WHEREAS, the well-being of Bayfield County’s seniors is in the interest of all and
further adds to the well-being of our communities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bayfield County Board of
Supervisors assembled this 28th day of May, 2013, does hereby recognize June 15, 2013 as
Elder Abuse Awareness Day and encourages everyone to commit to build a safer
community for our elderly residents.
Passed on May 23, 2013 by the Human Services Board and forwarded to the
Bayfield County Board of Supervisors.
By Action of the
Bayfield County Board of Supervisors
Shawn W. Miller, Chair
A motion was made by Meyers/Crandall to adopt Bayfield County Resolution No.
2013-26 Honoring Seniors on World Elder Abuse Awareness Day, June 15, 2013.
The motion carried.
14. Bayfield County Resolution No. 2013-27, Human Services Board to
Oppose Proposed Senate Bill #128. Skulan explained this Resolution and why they are
not in favor of the proposed bill. The Board dispensed with the reading of the Resolution,
which reads as follows:
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 128 requires county community programs board appointees
to include consumers, family members of consumers, law enforcement personnel, and
hospital employees or representative, and increasing the size of county community program
boards; and
WHEREAS, Bayfield County is a small, rural county in northwest Wisconsin that
already includes consumers or family members of consumers on advisory committees to the
Bayfield County Human Services Board; and
WHEREAS, Bayfield County partners with local law enforcement and medical
providers to meet the needs of Bayfield County residents; and
WHEREAS, local medical providers contract with Bayfield County to provide
services and their participation on the county community programs board may be viewed
ethically as a conflict of interest; and
WHEREAS, an increase in the number of county community programs board
members on the Human Services Board will increase board expenses and compromise its
current efficiency.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bayfield County Board of
Supervisors assembled this 28th day of May, 2013, is in opposition to Senate Bill 128; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this Resolution be sent to DHFS
Secretary Rhoades, Representative Bewley, Senator Jauch, the Wisconsin Counties
Association, and to any others who may be deemed to have an interest in this issue.
Passed this day, May 23, 2013 by the Human Services Board and forwarded to the
Bayfield County Board of Supervisors.
398
By Action of the
Bayfield County Board of Supervisors
Shawn W. Miller, Chair
A motion was made by Crandall/Kittleson to adopt Bayfield County Resolution
No. 2013-27 Human Services Board to Oppose Proposed Senate Bill #128.
Discussion. The motion carried.
15. Bayfield County Resolution No. 2013-24, Criminal Justice Budget
Amendment FY2013 to Reflect Award of Restore and Protect Project. Spurlock
explained that she had applied for a grant and Bayfield County received it. This will
expand our current treatment court. The Board dispensed with the reading of the
Resolution, which reads as follows:
WHEREAS, Bayfield County continues to put a strong emphasis on pro-active
approaches to reduce criminal activity in the county;
WHEREAS, Bayfield County applied for and was awarded a Restore and Protect
Project grant through the Wisconsin Office of Justice Assistance Byrne Memorial Grant
Program, in the amount of $79,203;
WHEREAS, funding through this grant will compliment work already being
conducted through the Risk Reduction Treatment Court;
WHEREAS, funding through this grant was not known until after the 2013 budget
had been established;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bayfield County Board of
Supervisors, meeting this 28th day of May, 2013 accept the Restore and Protect Project
Grant and approve the following budget amendment to the 2013 Criminal Justice (100-04)
budget to reflect the funding:
Increase Revenue:
100-04-43522-004 $79,203
Increase Expenses:
100-04-52716-50290 Contractual Services $72,828
100-04-52716-50325 Registration Fees & Tuition $3,255
100-04-52716-50340 Operating Supplies $3,120
By Action of the
Bayfield County Board of Supervisors
Shawn W. Miller, Chair
A motion was made by Meyers/Crandall to adopt Bayfield County Resolution No.
2013-24, Criminal Justice Budget Amendment FY2013 to Reflect Award of Restore
and Protect Project. Discussion took place and Supervisor Meyers thanked Brenda for
applying for this grant as the services are so beneficial to Bayfield County citizens. A roll
call vote was taken as follows: Maki-yes; Kittleson-yes; Bennett-yes; Pocernich-yes;
Schultz-yes; Williams-absent; Bichanich-yes; Miller-yes; Crandall-yes; Rondeau-yes;
Meyers-yes; Jardine-yes. Total: 13, 12 yes, 0 no, 1 absent. The motion carried.
399
16. Bayfield County Resolution No. 2013-25, Criminal Justice Budget
Amendment FY2013 to Reflect Award of Crisis Intervention Team and Partners
Training Grant. Spurlock explained that a grant was applied for and received this grant
which will fund the work already being conducted through the Criminal Justice Program.
The Board dispensed with the reading of this Resolution, which reads as follows:
WHEREAS, Bayfield County continues to put a strong emphasis on pro-active
approaches to reduce criminal activity in the county;
WHEREAS, Bayfield County applied for and was awarded a Crisis Intervention
Team and Partners Training grant through the Wisconsin Office of Justice Assistance
Byrne Memorial Grant Program, in the amount of $73,052;
WHEREAS, funding through this grant will compliment work already being
conducted through the Criminal Justice Programs;
WHEREAS, funding through this grant was not known until after the 2013 budget
had been established;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bayfield County Board of
Supervisors, meeting this 28th day of May, 2013 accept the Crisis Intervention Team and
Partners Training Grant and approve the following budget amendment to the 2013 Criminal
Justice (100-04) budget to reflect the funding:
Increase Revenue:
100-04-43522-003 $73,052
Increase Expenses:
100-04-52715-50290 Contractual Services $73,052
By Action of the
Bayfield County Board of Supervisors
Shawn W. Miller, Chair
A motion was made by Kittleson/Crandall to adopt Bayfield County Resolution
No. 2013-25, Criminal Justice Budget Amendment FY2013 to Reflect Award of Crisis
Intervention Team and Partners Training Grant. Discussion took place on who
completes the training, reimbursement of the training and the fact that Bayfield County
has a higher suicide rate than any other county in the State. A roll call vote took place
as follows: Kittleson-yes; Bennett-yes; Pocernich-yes; Schultz-yes; Williams-
absent; Bichanich-yes; Miller-yes; Crandall-yes; Rondeau-yes; Meyers-yes; Jardine-
yes; Maki-yes. Total: 13, 12 yes, 0 no, 1 absent. The motion carried.
17. Community Health Improvement Plan 2013-15. Terri Kramolis, Health
Director and Kevin Stranberg of Community Health Plan Coordinator for Memorial Medical
Center were both present to explain the improvement plan to the Board. This Plan is
statutorily required by the State and is a totally unfunded and mandated. In 2012, non-
profit hospitals were also required to have this plan in place. Ashland and Bayfield
Counties have partnered in the assessment and they explained how the information was
achieved. A survey was set up, via a website and located throughout the community during
special days, like Bay Days, etc.; and listening sessions were held. Kramolis further
400
reported that from the data received it gave notice to Bayfield County that the number 1
issues in our area are alcohol and drug abuse and these are the two areas that will be
addressed over the next 3 years. Stranberg spoke on Memorial Medical Center’s behalf.
MMC is taking a lead in this venture, and they have become strong collaborators; this is a
good partnership. Further discussion took place.
A motion was made by Meyers/Kittleson to receive and place on file the 2013-
15 Community Health Improvement Plan. The motion carried.
17. Bayfield County Resolution No. 2013-28, 2013 Health Department
Budget Adjustments. Kramolis reported that this Resolution is strictly for budget
adjustments within the department. The Board dispensed with the reading of the
Resolution, which reads as follows:
WHEREAS, adjustments to the 2013 Health Department budget are necessary due
to the Health Department receiving grant funding in 2012 that spans 2012 and 2013; and
WHEREAS, the 2013 budget does not reflect any expenses of revenue for said
grants; and
WHEREAS, no additional county levy is required in the Department’s 2013 budget;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bayfield County Board of
Supervisors assembled this 28th day of May, 2013 amends the 2013 budget by $10,425 and
authorizes the increase of the following revenue and expense accounts for 2013.
ACCOUNT NUMBER DESCRIPTION ADJUSTMENTS
Revenue Adjustments
100-20-43550-007 Prevention Grant 1,536
100-20-43550-011 WIC Grant 1,298
100-20-43550-016 CHANGE Grant 7,591
Total Increase to Revenues $10,425
Expenditure Adjustments
100-20-54104 Prevention Grant 1,536
100-20-54107 WIC Grant 1,298
100-20-54126 CHANGE Grant 7,591
Total Increase to Expenditures $10,425
Passed by the Health Department Board on April 15, 2013 and forwarded to the Bayfield
County Board of Supervisors.
By Action of the
Bayfield County Board of Supervisors
Shawn W. Miller, Chair
A motion was made by Maki/Pocernich to adopt Bayfield County Resolution No.
2013-28, 2013 Health Department Budget Adjustments. A roll call vote took place
as follows: Bennett-yes; Pocernich-yes; Schultz-yes; Williams-absent; Bichanich-
401
yes; Miller-yes; Crandall-yes; Rondeau-yes; Meyers-yes; Jardine-yes; Maki-yes;
Kittleson-yes. Total: 13, 12 yes, 0 no, 1 absent. The motion carried.
18. Bayfield County Resolution No. 2013-30, To Create Stateside Seamless
Data Layer, Allowing the Integration of Information Across Government Jurisdictions.
Abeles-Allison explained. The Board dispensed with the reading of the Resolution, which
reads as follows:
WHEREAS, Land Records Departments across the state create and maintain
multiple Geographic Information System (GIS) GIS layers; and
WHEREAS, Geographic Information Systems at the local level have the most
accurate information on physical features for most data layers; and
WHEREAS, Counties and Cities create and maintain their own data which make it
very difficult to work across boundaries; and
WHEREAS, statewide data layers are created by uploading data to a central
source or by creating links to the 72 individual County and multiple City web services; and
WHEREAS, information provided impacts multiple users across all sectors; and
WHEREAS, having a seamless statewide data layers would improve regional
planning, impacting economic growth as well as creating cost savings; and
WHEREAS, a leadership role from the Department of Administration for Land
Records Modernization is critical; and
WHEREAS, the State’s role in this area has diminished in recent years due to
budget shortfalls; and
WHEREAS, In order to accomplish a seamless data layer, a strong commitment
must be made by the State Legislature to ensure that funds designated for Counties are
dedicated to establishing a statewide data layers from locally built data layers for an
integrated land information system.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Bayfield County Board of
Supervisors assembled this 28th day of May, 2013 support the full establishment of a
Statewide seamless GIS data layers that create the free flow of information across
government agencies to everyone who needs it and recommends the Wisconsin Counties
Association work with Land Information Officers Network, Wisconsin Land Information
Association, Wisconsin Geographic Information Coordinating Council, State Cartographer
Office, Geographic Information officer to create seamless GIS data layers across the
State of WI starting with Parcel, PLSS, Addresses, Transportation, Orthophoto, LIDAR
(elevation) and Interactive Mapping.
By Action of the
Bayfield County Board of Supervisors
Shawn W. Miller, Chair
A motion was made by Kittleson/Jardine to adopt Bayfield County Resolution
No. 2013-30, To Create Stateside Seamless Data Layer, Allowing the Integration of
Information Across Government Jurisdictions. The motion carried.
402
19. Bayfield County Amendatory Ordinance No. 2013-30, Ethics Ordinance.
Abeles-Allison explained that presently, Bayfield County does not have such an ordinance
in place. We do have a Gifts & Gratuities Policy. The Board asked why the County needed
one. Abeles-Allison explained that this was brought up at the Transition Committee and is
being forwarded to the full Board for its hopeful adoption. Abeles-Allison believes it will
help by giving us a conduct code. If something comes up, we will have a plan in place. It
was adked if this was coming up now the eve of the fact finding for WPPA? It was also
asked as to when it will take effect. An Ethics Board will have to be designated to enforce
this Ordinance. Bayfield County has always had problems in the hiring process, with
personnel issues, etc. The perception is that Bayfield County is loaded with nepotism. The
appointments to the Ethics Board will be done by the County Board Chair. If there is a
recommendation for a person to serve on the Ethics Board, it would go to the Chair for his
consideration. The Board discussed at length that this is how we get biased committees.
All members should be approved by the full County Board.
The Board dispensed with the reading of the Ordinance, which reads as follows:
The Bayfield County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows:
That the Bayfield County Ordinance, adopted June 1, 1976, be and the same, is
hereby amended as follows:
Chapter 4 Ethics Ordinance
Sec. 2-4-1 Title.
This ordinance is cited as the Bayfield County Ethics Ordinance.
Sec. 2-4-2 Purpose.
The purpose of this ethics ordinance is to establish ethical standards of conduct
for all Bayfield County officials and employees by identifying those actions that are not
compatible with the best interests of the County. The County Board believes that a code
of ethics for the guidance of County officials and employees in serving the County will help
officials and employees avoid conflicts between personal interests and public
responsibilities, will improve standards of public service and will promote and strengthen
the faith and confidence of the people of Bayfield County in their officials and employees.
To this end, the policy of the County is that:
A. Officials and employees are independent, impartial and responsible to the
people;
B. Government decisions and policy are promulgated in the bests interests of
the people, community and government;
C. County office or employment should not be used for personal gain or political
advantage; and
D. County business is conducted so as to reinforce the public’s confidence in
the integrity of County government.
403
Sec. 2-4-3 Authority.
Bayfield County (hereinafter “Bayfield County” or “County”) enacts this ethics
ordinance pursuant to the authority of Wis. Stat. §19.59.
Sec. 2-4-4 Definitions.
A. Anything of Value includes any money, property, favor, service, subscription,
payment, advance, forbearance, loan or promise of future employment.
“Anything of Value” does not include door prizes, compensation and expenses
paid by the County, fees and expenses which are permitted by Wisconsin
Statutes, political contributions which are reported under Chapter 11 of the
Wisconsin Statutes, or hospitality extended for a purpose unrelated to
County business by a person other than an organization.
B. Anything of Insignificant Value includes unsolicited advertising or
promotional materials such as pens, pencils, notepads, calendars,
informational or educational materials of insignificant value, (an item from a
vendor that costs less than $25.00 on a one (1) time basis, but not more than
$50.00 worth of items in a calendar year from a vendor), plaques, other
advertising giveaways or any other thing which is not likely to influence the
judgment of individuals covered by this Code.
C. Associated when used in reference to an organization, includes any
organization in which an individual or a member of his/her immediate family
is a director, officer, or trustee, or who has a significant fiduciary
relationship or an individual who owns or controls, directly or indirectly, and
severally or in the aggregate, at least ten (10) percent of the outstanding
equity.
D. Confidential Information means written material or oral information related
to county government that is not otherwise subject to the open records law
and that is designated by statute, court decision, lawful order, ordinances,
resolutions or custom as confidential.
E. Contract means all agreements executed between the County or a sub-unit
thereof and another party or parties, for the provision of goods, materials,
supplies, construction or services in exchange for valuable and sufficient
consideration.
F. Employee means any person employed by the County in any capacity, full-
time or part-time, and not otherwise included in the definition of Official.
Employee includes, without limitation, limited term employees (LTE),
temporary employees, casual employees and seasonal employees.
G. Financial Interest means any interest which yields, directly or indirectly, a
monetary or other material benefit to the Official or Employee, to the
Official or Employee’s immediate family, or to any person employing or
retaining services of the Official or Employee.
404
H. Immediate Family means an Official’s or Employee’s spouse, children,
stepchildren, parents, siblings, grandparents and stepparents. Immediate
Family also means any other legal relation who contributes more than one-
half (1/2) support to the Official or employee, or receives that level of
support from the Official or employee, or lives in the Official’s or
Employee’s residence.
I. Official includes all County elected officials and appointed members of
policymaking Boards, Committees, Councils and Commissions.
J. Organization means any stock or non-stock corporation, partnership,
proprietorship, firm, enterprise, franchise, incorporated or unincorporated
association, trust or other legal entity other than an individual or body
politic.
K. Personal Interest means any interest arising from blood or marriage
relationships or from close business or political associations, whether or not
any financial interest is involved.
L. Significant Fiduciary Relationship means owning or controlling, directly or
indirectly: (a) at least ten (10) percent of the outstanding stock or stock of
any business corporation having a cost or market value of at least five
thousand dollars ($5,000); or (b) an interest of at least ten (10) percent or
five thousand dollars ($5,000) of any organization.
Sec. 2-4-5 Responsibility of Public Office.
Officials and Employees hold their positions for the benefit of the public. They
are bound to uphold the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State
of Wisconsin, and to carry out efficiently and impartially all laws of the United States, the
State of Wisconsin as well as all ordinances, resolutions and policies of the County. They
are further bound to observe in their official acts the highest standards of morality and
to discharge faithfully the duties of their office regardless of personal considerations.
The public interest must be their primary concern.
Sec. 2-4-6 Fair and Equal Treatment.
A. Use of Public Property. An Official or Employee shall not use or permit
the use of County services or County-owned vehicles, equipment and
materials for non-governmental purposes or for personal convenience or for
profit.
B. Obligations to Citizens. An Official or Employee shall not grant any special
consideration, treatment or advantage to any citizen beyond that which is
available to every other citizen.
Sec. 2-4-7 Conflicts of Interest.
A. Financial and Personal Interest Prohibited. No Official or Employee shall
engage in any business or transaction or shall act in regard to financial or
personal interest, direct or indirect, which: (1) is incompatible with the
discharge of his or her duties; (2) would tend to impair their independence
405
of judgment or action in the performance of their official duties; or (3) is
contrary to the provisions of this ethics ordinance.
B. No Financial Gain or Anything of Value. Except as otherwise provided or
approved by the County Board, no Official or Employee shall use his/her
public position or office to obtain financial gain or anything of value for the
private benefit of himself/herself or his/her immediate family, or for an
organization with which he/she is associated. This paragraph does not
prohibit a county elected official from using the title or prestige of his/her
office to obtain campaign contributions that are permitted by and reported
as required by Chapter 11 of the Wisconsin Statutes.
C. Incompatible Employment. An Official or Employee shall not engage in or
accept any private employment or render any service for a private interest
when such employment or service is incompatible with the proper discharge
of their official duties or which may impair their independence of judgment
or action in the performance of their official duties unless as otherwise
permitted by law or unless disclosure is made as hereafter provided. An
Employee shall obtain prior approval from their Department Head, or in the
case of a Department Head, from the applicable home committee, before
engaging in outside employment. Any authorized outside employment must
not conflict with the Official’s or Employee’s ability to do their job with the
County and must not otherwise violate any provision of this ethics ordinance.
D. Use or Disclosure of Confidential Information. An Official or Employee
shall not, without lawful authority, knowingly disclose or permit the
disclosure of confidential information to any person not lawfully authorized
to receive such privileged information, or use confidential information to
advance their personal financial interest or the financial interest of any
other person or organization.
E. Receipt of Gifts and Gratuities Prohibited. An Official or Employee shall
not solicit or accept from any person or organization, directly or indirectly,
anything of value without full payment, if it could reasonably be expected to
influence their vote, governmental actions or judgments, or if it could
reasonably be considered as compensation or a reward for any governmental
action or inaction. It is not a conflict of interest for an Official or
Employee to receive an unsolicited item of insignificant value or anything
that is given to them independent of their position as an Official or
Employee. This provision does not prohibit an Official or Employee from
engaging in outside employment in accordance with this ethics ordinance.
F. Nepotism. An Official or Employee shall not hire, promote or advocate for
the hiring or promotion of any member of his or her immediate family. An
Official or Employee shall not directly supervise any member of his or her
immediate family. An Official or Employee shall not approve or advocate for
approving increases in the rate of pay or benefits of an immediate family
member.
406
G. Contracts. No Official or Employee shall, in a private capacity, negotiate,
bid for, enter into, make or perform a contract in which the Official,
Employee, immediate family member of the Official or Employee, or any
business or organization with which an Official, Employee or immediate
family member is associated, has a direct or indirect financial interest, if
the Official or Employee is authorized or required by law to participate in
the Official’s or Employee’s capacity as such Officer or Employee in the
making of that contract or to perform in regard to that contract some
official function requiring the exercise of discretion on the Officer’s or
Employee’s part. If the Official or Employee will not be involved with the
contract in an official capacity, the contract may be allowed only if awarded
through a process of public notice and competitive bidding in conformity
with all applicable laws. This provision is intended to comply with, and in no
way contradicts or invalidates the guidelines in Wisconsin Statute § 946.13.
H. Financial Interest in Legislation. A member of the County Board who has a
financial interest in any proposed action before the County Board, or whose
immediate family member has a financial interest in any proposed action
before the County Board, shall fully disclose the nature and extent of such
interest to the County Board Chair prior to the initial discussion of such
action and shall refrain from participating in the discussion of, and voting on,
such action. A member of the County Board shall request to be excused by
the Board or Committee Chair for the duration of any deliberations
concerning such action in which the member has a financial interest. Any
other Official or Employee who has a financial interest in any proposed
action before the County Board, and who participates in discussion with or
gives an official opinion or recommendation to the County Board, shall first
fully disclose the nature and extent of such interest to the County Board.
I. Business Interest. An Official or Employee shall not engage in any business,
transaction or act in regard to any financial interest, direct or indirect,
which:
1. Is incompatible with the proper discharge of their official duties for
the benefit of the public;
2. Is contrary to the provisions of this Code; or
3. May impair their independence of judgment or action in the
performance of their official duties.
J. Unfair Persuasion. No Official or Employee may use or attempt to use his
or her public position to influence or gain unlawful benefits, advantages or
privileges for himself or herself or others.
K. Issuance of Permits. No Official or Employee empowered to issue a
discretionary permit pursuant to either state or local laws or regulations
shall issue any such permit to himself or herself or to any member of that
Official’s or Employee’s immediate family without first revealing in writing
407
the request for such permit to that person’s immediate supervisor or to the
County Board that regulates the subject of such permit and obtaining
written permission from the person’s immediate supervisor or the County
Board to issue the same.
Sec. 2-4-8 Public Records and Property.
Pursuant to §19.21-19.39, Wisconsin Statutes, each and every Official is the legal
custodian of and shall safely keep and preserve all property and things received from the
Official’s predecessor or other persons and required by law to be filed, deposited, or kept
in the Official’s Office, or which are in the lawful possession or control of the Official or
the Official’s Deputies.
Sec. 2-4-9 Political Activity.
Officials and Employees may engage in political activity provided that such activity
does not interfere with the performance of their duties and does not involve the use of
county equipment or property. Officials and Employees are specifically prohibited from
directly or indirectly coercing any person to withhold or contribute monetary or other
types of assistance to any political candidate, party or purpose.
Sec. 2-4-10 Wisconsin Statutes Incorporated.
The following Sections of the Wisconsin Statutes are hereby incorporated by
reference and made a part of the ethics ordinance:
A. Chapter 11.00 Campaign Financing;
B. Section 19.21 Custody and Delivery of Official Property and Records;
C. Section 19.59 Code of Ethics for Local Government Officials, Employees and
Candidates;
D. Section 946.10 Bribery of officers and employees;
E. Section 946.12 Misconduct in Public Office;
F. Section 946.13 Private Interest in Public Contract Prohibited.
Officials shall comply with the Sections of Wisconsin Statutes incorporated in this Code
and failure to do so shall constitute a violation of the Code of Ethics.
Sec. 2-4-11 Ethics Board.
This ethics ordinance hereby creates an Ethics Board.
A. Membership. The Ethics Board shall be comprised of five (5) members
consisting of three (3) County Board members and two (2) citizens.
Membership on the Ethics Board shall be determined by the County Board
Chair, subject to confirmation by the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors.
B. Powers and Duties. The Ethics Board shall be responsible for investigating
complaints and conducting fact finding hearings pursuant to section 1.11
below.
408
C. Assistance of Counsel. The Corporation Counsel shall furnish the Ethics
Board whatever legal assistance is necessary to carry out its functions. The
Corporation Counsel may retain outside counsel to provide this assistance as
necessary.
Sec. 2-4-12 Complaints, Notice, Response and Initial Hearing.
A. Content of Complaints
All complaints shall be made in writing. The complaint shall state the
specific provision(s) of the county ethics ordinance or Wisconsin statutes
believed to have been violated and shall include sufficient information to
support the allegations. The complaint shall also include all of the following:
(a) the name, address and telephone number of the complainant; (b) the
name, address and position of the individual who is the subject named in the
complaint; (c) the facts constituting the alleged ethics violation(s) set forth
clearly and in detail; (d) if complainant(s) believes that any board member
has a conflict of interest or bias, it shall be stated in the complaint.
Complaints that do not meet the minimum requirements set forth above shall
be dismissed without prejudice. All written complaints shall be submitted to
the office of the Bayfield County Clerk. The County Clerk shall forward the
complaint to the chair of the ethics board and the corporation counsel. No
action may be taken on any request or complaint filed later than one (1) year
after a violation of this ethics ordinance is discovered or should have been
discovered.
B. Notice, Response and Setting of Initial Hearing. The Ethics Board shall
send notice, including a copy of the complaint to the respondent and
complainant within seven (7) business days of receipt of the complaint by the
Ethics Board Chair. The notice shall be sent via certified mail or by personal
service. The notice shall inform the respondent that he or she may file a
written statement of his or her position with the board within ten (10)
business days of the date the notice was sent. The Ethics Board shall set a
time for an initial meeting on the complaint that is within fifteen (15)
business days following the ten (10) business day deadline for response by
the respondent. The initial meeting shall be set prior to the notice being
sent out so that the notice will include the date, time and place of the initial
meeting of the board regarding the complaint. An agenda shall be filed and
posted prior to the initial hearing. The corporation counsel shall send a copy
of the response(s) received from the respondent(s) to the Ethics Board and
the complainant(s) at least five (5) business days prior to the initial hearing.
C. Initial Hearing. The Ethics Board shall convene within fifteen (15) business
days following the ten (10) business day response period for the respondent
to determine if it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint
and to determine if there is a basis for the complaint. The complainant shall
be present. If the complainant does not personally appear, the Ethics Board
may dismiss the complaint without prejudice. If the board determines that
409
there is no basis for the complaint, the board may immediately dismiss the
complaint with prejudice and without hearing. In determining if there is a
basis for the complaint, the Ethics Board must review the complaint,
assuming that every allegation is true.
If the Ethics Board determines that the verified complaint alleges facts
that provide a reasonable basis to constitute a violation of the code of
ethics or that an investigation of a possible violation is warranted, it may
make an investigation with respect to any alleged violation after notifying
the respondent in writing. Such notice shall state the nature and purpose of
the investigation, the actions or activities to be investigated and the
respondent’s due process rights. The Ethics Board may, in its sole
discretion, extend the deadlines for taking action on a verified complaint or
request. Failure of the Ethics Board to take action within the time frames
set forth in this subparagraph shall not preclude the Ethics Board from
pursuing a complaint.
Sec. 2-4-13 Investigations and Enforcement.
Pursuant to any investigation or hearing conducted under this ethics ordinance, the
Ethics Board has the authority to:
A. Require any person to submit in writing such reports and answers to
questions relevant to the proceedings conducted under this article as it may
prescribe, such submission to be made within such period and under oath or
otherwise as it may determine.
B. Administer oaths and to require by subpoena issued by it pursuant to
Wisconsin statute 885.01 the attendance and testimony of witnesses and
the production of any documentary evidence relating to the investigation or
hearing being conducted.
C. Order testimony to be taken by deposition before any individual who is
designated by it and has the power to administer oaths, and, in such
instances, to compel testimony and the production of evidence in the same
manner as authorized by subsection (2) above.
D. Pay witnesses the same fees and mileage as are paid in like circumstances by
the courts in Wisconsin.
E. Request and obtain from the department of revenue copies of state income
tax returns and access to other appropriate information under Wis. Stat. §
71.78(4), regarding all persons who are the subject of such investigation.
F. Retain outside counsel and other experts as needed in connection with any of
the Ethics Board’s responsibilities hereunder after solicitation of
recommendations from the office of corporation counsel and upon such
contract for services approved for content and form by the corporation
counsel.
410
Sec. 2-4-14 Hearing Upon Finding of Probable Cause.
A. If after investigation, the Ethics Board finds that probable cause exists for
believing the allegation(s) in the complaint, the Ethics Board shall not less
than thirty (30) business days after such finding is made schedule a hearing
date. The Ethics Board shall give the complainant and the accused at least
thirty (30) business days’ notice of the hearing date. The Ethics Board may
appoint corporation counsel and/or outside counsel to act as prosecutor of
the complaint.
B. Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 19.85, the hearing shall be closed to the public
unless the accused requests that it be opened.
C. All evidence, including certified copies of records and documents which the
board considers, shall be fully offered and made part of the record of the
case. The evidence presented shall be limited to the scope of the charges
made in the complaint. The Ethics Board shall not be bound by the rules of
evidence for trial, but it shall admit all evidence having reasonable probative
value provided that it relates to the scope of the charge(s) made in the
complaint and shall exclude immaterial, irrelevant or unduly repetitious
testimony.
D. Every party shall be offered, during all stages of any investigation or
proceeding conducted under this ethics ordinance, reasonable opportunity to
rebut or offer countervailing evidence.
E. The parties and/or their representatives shall provide each other with an
opportunity to examine all documents and records to be used at a hearing
under this section at least ten (10) business days prior to the scheduled
hearing.
F. The parties may make a brief opening statement to acquaint the board with
the nature of the complaint;
G. During the hearing, the parties shall have the opportunity to present
witnesses, confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses and establish all
pertinent facts.
H. The voting members of the Ethics Board may direct questions to any party
or witness.
I. The burden of proving violations alleged in the complaint shall be on the
complainant. Violations shall be proven by clear, convincing and satisfactory
evidence.
J. All proceedings held before the Ethics Board shall be recorded either by a
certified court reporter or an electronic recording device.
K. The Ethics Board shall have the power to compel attendance of witnesses
and to issue subpoenas under Wis. Stat. § 885.01.
411
L. Unless otherwise precluded by law, informal disposition of any case may be
made by stipulation, agreed settlement, consent order or default.
Sec. 2-4-15 Deliberations and Decision.
Upon completion of the hearing, the Ethics Board shall adjourn to closed session
for deliberations. Any person not a member of the board, including county board
supervisors, shall be excluded from the deliberations of the Ethics Board. Corporation
counsel shall further be excluded from deliberations if corporation counsel prosecuted the
complaint on behalf of the complainant. Within the ten (10) workdays of the conclusion of
the hearing, the Ethics Board shall complete and serve the parties its written findings,
recommendations and orders signed by all participating Ethics Board members, together
with findings of fact and conclusions of law, concerning the propriety of the conduct of
the Official or Employee. The recommendations made by the Ethics Board may include a
recommendation of the action and/or discipline that the Ethics Board believes that the
Official or Employee by the Official’s or Employee’s governing, appointing or hiring
authority should consider taking against the accused including, without limitation, censure,
suspension, removal of an Official from office or employment or that an Employee be
disciplined or discharged.
If the Ethics Board determines that no violation of this ethics ordinance has
occurred, it shall dismiss the complaint, and notify all parties involved including the
accused, and if requested to do so by the accused, issue a public statement. If the Ethics
Board finds that clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence of an ethics violation exists,
the Ethics Board shall take any action and make any recommendations and/or orders that
it deems appropriate in accordance with this paragraph and section 1.15 below. The
official or body to whom the decision of the Ethics Board is referred shall be guided by
the recommendations of the Ethics Board but shall not be obligated to follow them.
Sec. 2-4-16 Enforcement and Penalties.
If, after investigation and hearing, the Ethics Board determines by clear,
convincing and satisfactory evidence that a violation of this ethics ordinance has occurred,
the Ethics Board must take one (1) or more of the following actions:
A. Supervisors. If the person found to have violated this ethics ordinance is
an elected member of the board of supervisors, the Ethics Board may refer
the matter and recommendations to the board of supervisors for whatever
action the board of supervisors deems appropriate under law.
B. Other Elected Officials. If the person found to have violated this ethics
ordinance is an elected county official other than a member of the board of
supervisors, the matter may be referred to the official or body with the
authority to remove the official from office as provided under the Bayfield
County ordinances or Wisconsin statutes. If none is designated in the
Bayfield County ordinances or Wisconsin statutes, the matter shall be
referred to the board of supervisors.
C. Appointed Officials. If the person found to have violated this ordinance is
an appointed county official, the matter may be referred to the official or
412
body with the authority to remove the official from office as provided
under the Bayfield County ordinances or Wisconsin state statutes. If none
is designated by the Bayfield County ordinances or Wisconsin statutes, then
the matter shall be referred to the official or body who appointed the
official to office.
D. Employees. If the person found to have violated this ordinance is an
employee, the Ethics Board may refer the matter to the employee’s
appointing/hiring authority.
E. Return/Restitution. An order for the specified return of county property
or funds or gifts and/or restitution for the value of the gifts, property and
funds procured, obtained or retained as a result of a violation of this ethics
ordinance. An order for return/restitution shall include a deadline for
return or making restitution.
F. Modify Behavior. An order requiring the accused to conform his/her
conduct to this article.
G. Fine. An order requiring an individual who has been determined by the
Ethics Board to have violated this ethics ordinance to forfeit an amount not
less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than one thousand dollars
($1,000) for each offense along with a payment deadline.
H. Corporation Counsel Action. The corporation counsel, when requested by
the Ethics Board, shall institute a civil proceeding to recover any forfeiture,
restitution or declaratory order incurred under this ethics ordinance which
has not been timely complied with by the subject of the order. Any
forfeiture or other funds recovered under this section shall be remitted to
the Bayfield County treasurer. Any property ordered returned shall be
returned to the county department or entity from which the property was
taken, or to any other person or entity providing a gift.
I. Referral to the District Attorney. Referral to the District Attorney to
commence enforcement and penalties as permitted by Wisconsin Statutes
J. Other Penalties. The enumerated penalties and sanctions in this section
shall not be construed to limit the authority of the Ethics Board or the
County from imposing any additional penalties or sanctions. The County may
take disciplinary actions, up to and including discharge, based on any acts,
omissions or conduct of any employee that the County determines has
engaged in conduct which is in violation of this ordinance in accordance with
the County’s policies governing employment. Such disciplinary or other
action by the County is not contingent upon the filing of an ethics complaint
under this ordinance, any finding whatsoever by the Ethics Board or any
competent court of jurisdiction pursuant to this ordinance and is not
precluded by any decision of the Ethics Board hereunder. Any person found
by the Ethics Board to have violated any portion of this ethics ordinance
shall be subject to private reprimand, public reprimand, denial of salary or
413
merit increase, suspension without pay, removal from employment or office
in accordance with the provisions of Wisconsin statutes or other disciplinary
actions pursuant to the recommendations of the Ethics Board and/or
judgment of the official or body to whom the decision of the Ethics Board is
referred under this section. Any action taken by an Official or Employee
that is deemed in violation of this section may be deemed void by Bayfield
County.
K. Miscellaneous. Any other recommendations or orders as may be necessary
and appropriate to carry out the intent and purpose of this ethics ordinance.
No recommendation or order of the Ethics Board becomes effective until
twenty (20) days after it is issued. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing,
the County may take disciplinary actions, up to and including discharge,
based on any acts, omissions or conduct of any employee that the County
determines has engaged in conduct which is in violation of this ordinance in
accordance with the County’s policies governing employment. Such
disciplinary or other action by the County is not contingent upon the filing of
an ethics complaint under this ordinance, any finding whatsoever by the
Ethics Board or any competent court of jurisdiction pursuant to this
ordinance and is not precluded by any decision of the Ethics Board
hereunder. Unless required by a collective bargaining agreement, employee
contract or governing statute or regulation, employment with the County is
“at will” and is for no definite period of time and may, regardless of the and
method of payment of salary or wages, be terminated by the County, with or
without cause and with or without prior notice at any time.
Sec. 2-4-17 Review of the Board Decision.
Any party appearing before the Ethics Board who is dissatisfied with the decision
of the Ethics Board may request a review of its decision. The review is initiated by filing a
written request to the presiding judge of the Bayfield County Circuit Court. The request
for review must be accompanied by a copy of the decision of the Ethics Board and must
meet all circuit court procedures, including but not limited to, proper format and filing fee.
The request for review shall be filed within twenty five (25) days of the Board’s decision
and shall be served upon all parties, including the Ethics Board. Service shall be by
certified mail. Service upon the Ethics Board shall be considered complete upon service on
the County Clerk. Payment of the filing fee and cost of review shall be the responsibility
of the party seeking review.
Sec. 2-4-18 Advisory Opinions
Any person governed by this ordinance may apply in writing to the Bayfield County
Corporation Counsel for an advisory opinion and shall be guided by any opinion rendered.
The applicant shall present his or her interpretation of the facts at issue and of the
applicability of provisions of this Code before the advisory opinion is rendered. All
requests for opinion and opinions rendered shall be in writing. Any official or employee
acting consistent with an advisory opinion issued under this section, shall be presumed to
acting within the provisions of this code. Records of the Corporation Counsel's opinions,
414
opinion requests and investigations of violations shall be closed to public inspection, as
required by Chapter 19, Wis. Stats. However, such records may be made public with the
consent of the applicant.
By Action of the
Bayfield County Board of Supervisors
Attested to by:
Shawn W. Miller, Chair
After a lengthy discussion, a motion was made by Bussey/Pocernich to amend
Section 2-4-11(a) Ethics Board, Membership by adding the following: In the 3rd
sentence, take out “determined” and replace with “appointed.” In the 4th sentence,
after the word “Chair” add: “subject to confirmation by the Bayfield County Board of
Supervisors.
Further discussion took place and a motion was made by Kittleson/Schultz to
approve the Ordinance without any changes.
Again, further discussion took place, and a motion was made by Schultz/Kittleson
to change the language in Section 2-4-7(f) to read as follows:
Nepotism. An Official or Employee of Bayfield County shall neither (1) hire or
promote, nor (2) advocate for employment or promotion of, nor (3) exercise jurisdiction,
supervision or direction over a person to whom he or she is related as a parent,
grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, parent-in-law, grandparent-in-law, brother-
in-law, sister-in-law, uncle, aunt, niece, nephew, partner or spouse.
Discussion took place as to the fact that we sometimes do have relatives working in
different departments, this sometimes can’t be helped. Attorney Borowski was asked for
his opinion regarding the difference in definitions. Discussed turned to adding the
explanation of family members into the definitions and to the nepotism paragraph.
The Board voted on the motions that were made as follows: motion by
Schultz/Kittleson to change the language in Section 20507(f) was defeated.
Next, motion by Kittleson/Schultz to approve the Ordinance without any
changes. A roll call vote was taken as follows: Pocernich-yes; Schultz-yes;
Williams-absent; Bichanich-no; Miller-yes; Crandall-yes; Rondeau-no; Meyers-yes;
Jardine-yes; Maki-yes; Kittleson-yes; Bennett-yes. Total: 13, 10 yes, 2 no, 1
absent. The motion carried.
Final, a motion by Bussey/Pocernich to amend Section 2-4-11(a) Ethics Board,
Membership by adding the following: In the 3rd sentence, take out “determined” and
replace with “appointed.” In the 4th sentence, after the word “Chair” add: “subject
to confirmation by the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors. The motion carried.
20. Public Input Regarding Fact Finding Determination as to Whether or not
Bayfield County Jailers are Protected Status for Purposes of Wisconsin Retirement
System, Employee Trust Funds, and Collective Bargaining.
415
Gary Anderson – Correctional Police Association. Anderson stated that he was a
Deputy Sheriff and Sergeant for 30 years. He spoke in favor of allowing jailers to be
classified under protective status and gave scenarios for his reasoning. His question to
the board was what has changed in their duties that requires some action on your part this
evening. The expectations of jailers has not decreased but rather have increased over the
years, why take away their status now?
Joyce Hood-Orlowski, Iron River. This type of change from protected to
unprotected should not be done at the County level. She gave a scenario of her own
business and that laws have to be followed. She encouraged the Board to use their
consciences and do what is good for everyone and not just a few.
Chairman Miller asked if there was any more public comment, and there not being
any, the Board took a short break at 7:45 p.m.
21. Fact Finding Regarding Determination as to Whether or not Bayfield
County Jailers are Protected Status for Purposes of Wisconsin Retirement System,
Employee Trust Funds and Collective Bargaining. Chairman Miller explained to the Board
that he was going to turn the meeting over to Attorney Jack Carlson who would preside
over the fact finding portion of the meeting. Attorney Carlson stated that they would
listen to Attorney Dan Borowski give his presentation. After Attorney Borowski is finished
with his presentation, you will have time to ask questions. When questions are done, then
Attorney Linda Coleman will give her opinions on behalf of corporation counsel and you will
have a chance to also ask her questions. If after listening to both of these presentations
you find that you want to speak with David McRoberts and talk about his report, we will
give him a telephone call. Attorney Carlson pointed out that opinions are not what we are
looking for, we are looking for the facts. Once we have done all of this, we will entertain a
motion to move into closed session is the is what the Board wants.
To start things off, Supervisor Jardine asked whether or not the State has acted
on this issue yet and whether it is still in Appeals Court. Attorney Borowski explained the
procedure; employees can come forward and tell their story; the Court listens to them and
then to the County; and they then determine if the employees have been properly
classified. This hearing has not been schedule, and no decision have been decided on
regarding ETF. Jardine then asked the rest of the Board, “why don’t we wait until the
decision is made?”
It was explained that at the last County Board meeting, a majority of the Board
wanted to take care of this matter tonight and wanted a fact finding meeting.
Attorney Carlson then asked Attorney Borowski to give his presentation. Borowski
also provided a copy of his power point presentation to the Board to follow along with. A
copy of the presentation is on file in the County Clerk’s office for review. Attorney
Borowski explained that he believes the ETF Board is the proper place for the
determination of protected and unprotected status to be made and with all due respect,
not by the County Board. He provided references, statutes and explanations to back this
fact up. He also stated ETF’s interpretation of the law is the law in the State of
Wisconsin and we can’t change that right now. This interpretation has been around for
416
years. Act 10 had nothing to do with this, it was already in place. If in the past we have
been hiring new jailers with these benefits, we had no right to do so. They were not
entitled to those benefits under the ETF guidelines and they were not properly classified.
The Board then wanted to hear from Sheriff Paul Susienka. Although he hadn’t
seen the McRoberts Report, Susienka stated what the definition of a Deputy Sheriff is
and under that definition, Jailers are Deputy Sheriff’s under that definition. He stated
that it isn’t his position to argue this point, that he works with the Board and the more he
looks at this, the more skeptical he is as legislation isn’t clear and this is what bothers him.
He doesn’t want to violate the law but, he has skepticism about the definitions of the ETF
Board. The Jailers work hard, they are a important part of law enforcement. These
people are an integral part of the system. Mr. Borowski is right about everything he cited
this evening, but there are still inconsistencies.
Attorney Carlson informed everyone that Mr. McRoberts is available by telephone
if we so choose; the opportunity is here. The Board stated they didn’t need to call him.
Attorney Borowski briefly responded to the Sheriff’s statements stating that
Deputy Sheriff’s still do not meet the criteria.
A very lengthy discussion took place on ETF and what would take place. It was
noted that each county will have to submit their own case to fight to keep Jailers
protected. This isn’t a general yes or no answer. The Board stated that they would like to
suspend the rules to hear what the Jailers in the audience have to say. A motion was
made by Bussey/Pocernich to suspend the rules to listen to the Jailers’ input, not to
exceed 10 minutes. The motion carried.
Gary Graveson, a former WPPA Representative, spoke on the fact that the
employer determines the status of what their employees are. The employee does not
determine this. He gave scenarios as to what other counties are doing and the fact that
ETF has not challenged any of these counties as to what the status of their Jailers are.
When you hired these employees, you gave them certain benefits, and now the rug is being
pulled out from under them. Every county in this state determines whether their
employees are protected or not. They took the jobs understanding that they were
protected. Their jobs have not gotten any easier, in fact they have gotten harder.
Attorney Carlson called the fact finding to a close, and asked for a motion to move
into closed session. Supervisor Bussey stated that he felt the Board should consider as
much of this as possible in open session. We are not discussing anything that hasn’t
already been talked about in open session; we aren’t jeopardizing anything by staying in
open session.
22. A motion was made by Rondeau/Kittleson to move into closed session
pursuant to §19.65(1)(g) conferring with legal counsel for the governmental body who
is rendering oral or written advice concerning strategy to be adopted by the body
with respect to litigation in which it is or is likely to become involved, and to allow
Jack Carlson, Dan Borowski and Linda Coleman to be included. The motion carried
with one opposition.
417
After further discussion, a motion was made by Bussey/Crandall to move into
open session. The motion carried with one opposition.
Chairman Miller stated that we will hear from Attorney Borowski and Attorney
Coleman again to wrap things up. Attorney Coleman’s recommendation to the Board is to
take no action to reclassify jailers at this point. If you accept this than it is an open and
shut case. Neither attorney denied that the ETF definition does not apply to what our
jailers do. ETF’s job to interpret the statutes. The employer is to apply the facts to
the statute, not to interpret the statute. Jailers do not have authority to arrest; they
simply as stated now, do not meet ETF’s definition. Attorney Coleman’s advice to the
Board was to follow the authority they do have; the Board may not like it; it doesn’t mean
Jailers don’t have an important job, they do; they should be compensated. But, it cannot
be through the ETF unless and until there is a change in the law.
After a lengthy discussion, the advice from Attorney Coleman to the Board is to
take no action at this point. The Board will entertain a motion to postpone indefinitely the
matter of the Jailer reclassification; let ETF or the Court of Appeals tell Bayfield County
that we are wrong, but this isn’t the case today.
Attorney Borowski had nothing to add stating Attorney Coleman summarized it all
very well.
A motion was made by Rondeau/Jardine to postpone indefinitely the matter of
the jailer reclassification. Discussion. Nothing is being taken away, The motion carried
with one opposition and one abstention.
23. Administrator’s Report:
a) Changing Date of June County Board Meeting. Discussion to have
the next County Board Meeting on June 18th due to conflicts in the
County Clerk’s Office. The Board was in agreement to the change.
b) Update on Wild Fire in Barnes: No update.
24. Supervisors’ Reports:
a) Northern Lights. Supervisor Meyers reported that Jennifer
Augustine was asked to give a report, which she has compiled and is
being passed out tonight for the Board to read at their leisure. The
report is on file in the County Clerk’s office.
There being no further business to come before the Bayfield county Board of
Supervisors, Chairman Miller adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Scott S. Fibert,
Bayfield County Clerk
SSF/dmb