Wow.

I see it slamdunk. Wonder who that is. Somebody not for the best interest of Darien people.

Want a joke? Click on justme2's name and read ALL his comments. LOL!

That's the definition of a one track mind. (And I use the word "mind" loosely!)

Darien is a joke. Just look at the board members.

Wow Darien is screwed up!! I am glad I live in Delavan!

familyguy
Get Debi to do a recall. She did it last year.

Information on recall elections can be found at the link below. Ms. Kaufenberg cannot be recalled now, since she has not been in office for at least one year.

http://elections.state.wi.us/docview.asp...

4-2 level are you kidding me? I was at the meeting and Zipp was TOTALLY out of line in what he did. It was inappropriate and unprofessional to bring up an old news paper.
Mr. McCue BLEW HIM AWAY. McCue was well within his right as a citizen of the country to tell his opinion in his letter to an editor.
The whole audience agreed with him, and Zipp made an ass of himself by dogging McCue.

Especially when Etten pointed out Kaufenbergs numerous letters to editors ALSO - that Zipp ignored.

Zipp has sealed his own fate. He is so full of himself he cannot be an impartial judge of anything. Just watch him up there on the throne and read his face.

You said "Zipp confronted McCue and McCue responded with hostility."

Are you saying Zipp did not confront McCue with hostility? Because he DID. And McCue responded with REASON.

Everyone who was present SAW it. Zipp was all red and sweaty because he did not expect that McCue would respond to him in a logical manner.

McCue - 1

Zipp - -0 (for being underhanded and childish)

After this show of Zipps I want him recalled. What a putz.

4-2levelheaded What I saw was Zipp pushing McCue's buttons trying to get him to say something that might be inapropriate. Good for Craig! He kept his cool. At least the best he could under the pressure Zipp was inflicting!

get your story straight, Zipp confronted McCue and McCue responded with hostility. And for those who have questions call Danz Law offices @ (262)723-7720 and ask David Danz your self why he was not at the meeting.

The attorney resigned, KZ attacked CM and bigbird fluffed his feathers..

So what happened at the meeting last night?

I have seen it Copperguy

chair39
?????

It seems to me that at least one of the four is willing to listen to alternative points of view and to consider them. Isn't that one of the reasons we have meetings: to discuss and form opinions as a group?

On another note, has anyone seen an agenda for tonight's meeting?

Outsider-You answered your own question.Stupid Stupid Stupid!

WiSpedTeacher
“He spoke to only 4 board members trying to negotiate a settlement in the DeVoy case...which 4? The 4 he knew who would vote in favor of the settlement!”
I agree that he should talked to all 7. That would have keep the egos in check but how would that changed the outcome? The vote still would be 4 to 3

WisconsinMom
"Why would anyone give up a job at the state with all it's perks to work for the village of Darien? No one would want the grief, and dealing with the incompetence of the 4 village board members that are carrying out vendetta's"

Why did she apply then?

Responsible
Why would anyone give up a job at the state with all it's perks to work for the village of Darien? No one would want the grief, and dealing with the incompetence of the 4 village board members that are carrying out vendetta's..The legal bills alone from the lawsuit against the chief and other erroneous lawsuits are what's bankrupting the village. Don't you think Steve DeVoy has been punished enough? Let's get our chief back so the officers morale is lifted and they start writing tickets!
Evelyn has only lived in Darien for 4 years and wanted to make Darien a better place to live. So she ran for VP..She is trying to do a good job, but is met with resistance every step of the way!
We have gotten in debt and have a huge mess from over the last 20 years of the Metzner / Wenzel / Danz reign..
We have the highest mill rate in Rock and Walworth counties..we are even higher than Lake Geneva.
Evelyn stood up for Darien, and wants to make a difference..this is something that cannot be fixed in 5 months!
Mrs. K has lived in Darien for eons, and her whole campaign was based on negativity! We can't change the colors of the rainbow!
So why not sit down and shut up! (RM Quote)

EE does not act like she is better than the rest of us.. She is very happy with her job..SHE withdrew her application when she found out how dirty Metzner was..
How can you people defend him (MD) with the blatant disregard he has for the citizens of Darien?
He spoke to only 4 board members trying to negotiate a settlement in the DeVoy case...which 4? The 4 he knew who would vote in favor of the settlement!
I live in this town which has a 7 member board..NOT 4!
WAKE UP PEOPLE!

I can’t image how bad it’s been for Mr. Dennison. New on the job and every third person in your door is trying to get you fired and you don’t know who is your friend.

Well said, but good luck implementing it.

I hope EE can really look into the mirror and see that she is no better than the rest of us...if only she understood what it takes to have a village operate properly. Her personal vendetta against the man who took the position SHE applied for has to come to an end. Marc Dennison has been doing his duties and there is always more to a story than is reported. If the other board members WOULD WORK WITH each other we might be able to get something done. At least with the potential re-financing of the Village Debt we may be able to dig ourselves out of the financial hole that we are put in with the whole sewer mess. Everyone needs to quit the side vs. side mentality...both "SIDES" need to work with each other it is not one group of peoples fault that we are in the mess we are in. This has been going on for QUITE some time. Look around go to other area communities and see how board members collide with each other and can not agree how to provide the village with a proper Gov't. If people would provide "constructive" criticism instead of always being negative maybe we could all get through this mess together.

questioner: What a great line. I've tucked that one away in my bag-o-quips. Where shall I send royalty payments?

Can anyone testify that Mrs. K was EVER happy? EVER?

She seems capable of saying that a rainbow has all the wrong colors.

What a way to live life.

Actually I was at the meeting and did in fact hear Mrs. K complaining about the PUBLIC agenda being blogged. She was not happy.

Seriously. Do you doubt that?

"I heard Mrs. K was upset about the PUBLIC agenda being posted on the blog."
Would that be a rumor?

I for one saw the meeting notice at the post office..
Why is anyone concerned about it being on the blog? I think this medium of information is great!
Did you guys see that Elkhorn PD has twitter? Maybe Darien should, then EVERYONE could know of last minute meetings!

Yeah, what's up with that? The agenda is PUBLIC RECORD that is posted around town and available from Village Hall upon request. If someone gets the PUBLIC RECORD and puts it on the blog, there's something somehow WRONG with that?!?!?!?!

I asked about the agenda and, as I understand it, some citizen took their OWN TIME to go to the bank, get the agenda, copy it, and then post it on the forum. What's WRONG with THAT? How could a VB member rail against other VB members for something over which they had NO CONTROL and that is MANDATORY under STATE LAW?!?!?

I guess we should outlaw Open Government in Wisconsin!

It seems to me that someone is doing her best to confirm all the warnings about her before the election.

What's wrong with a public notice being put on the blog? Sounds a little paranoid.

I don't believe that the Hearing Examiner would approve termination, so why would he quit as part of a settlement agreement?

He will be disciplined in some way but reinstated.

1943 (AKA) J.H. Wishfull thinking. I think Steve will be serving up crow for a long long time.

I disagree.. DeVoy would be stupid to quit.. The punishment needs to fit the crime!

I heard Mrs. K was upset about the PUBLIC agenda being posted on the blog..

What are you afraid of?

As long as we are guessing about the DeVoy hearing I’m going to take a shot. I agree that it will be settled before the hearing but I think DeVoy will quit, keep the wages he has been paid since March & the Village will give him a good recommendation for his next job.

Anyone else care to take a guess?

I tend to agree with your thoughts on this, level. Another thing to consider is that given the apparent fact that this was the work of the VA - as opposed to an elected VB member - the thought about a walking quorum never entered their mind. I had to reread the Charter Ordinance twice before I found the section making him an ex-officio member of committees and commissions. I'm not convinced that also makes himn ex-officion member of the VB as a whole. I would hope that in retrospect, the four would tell him that this sort of direction needs to come from the entire VB.

I see this as a valid concern, and I think it should be a concern to all seven VB members. It flies smack in the face of open government. The four who were contacted should be concerned about who will be left in the dark in the future.

As for the last minute attempts at a deal, that is typical of any legal proceeding. I see on the agenda that they were also to receive two reports from Atty. Stanley. I recently read a post that the Darien PD officers were only very recently interviewed. The results of those interviews were in one of the reports. Those reports would be essential in deciding how strong the case is and what type of agreement to accept.

One can agree or disagree as to the strength of the case against Chief DeVoy but, based on my in my professional and personal experience and knowledge, I think the chances of Atty. Herrick going along with termination are very low at best. A week long hearing will cost in the tens of thousands of dollars. The Village would be much better off to reach an agreement with Chief DeVoy and avoid the unnecessary cost of a hearing. I would fully expect his attorney to counsel him in favor of accepting a period of suspension and avoid his own costs of the hearing.

I guess the fact that they are discussing the VA's employment status is probably (my opinion here) a good indication that the four members were unaware of what he was doing and after discovering what happened are willing to do something about it. I guess in my mind it could be reasonable for them not to think anyone else had been contacted. If he didn't inform them that he was contacting anyone else or that he wanted to contact others. It also depends on the frequency of which he happens to call members of the board with questions since he still fairly new in his position. He may not have even asked the four if they wanted to go into negotiation meetings and it may have been even a hypothetical question. It is hard to say really what happened since the article does not say specifically what any of the board members had told him. What if he was trying to take things into his own and trying to create a solution without the members knowing what he was actually up to. Why would the VA and even other members have waited until the last minute to try and negotiate before the trial? Although I know that this is quit common from people facing a trial to make a deal before going through the time and expense of a trial.
To me, it just seems highly unlikely that if the members had any idea of what the VA was doing they would have discussed the issue with him considering the past charges and if any of them read these blogs.

Again, though, all of this discussion is probably irrelevant. I doubt the DA will charge ANYONE. The VB will need to address this outside of the courts.

Excellent point, level! If the VA is legally a "member," and if he contacted a number of VB members sufficient to constitute a quorum, then yes, the VA would definitely be culpable.

As to the four who he contacted, good question. To an extent, it seems to rely on the conversation. There is a difference between "intent" and "knowing." If four VB members were to go to the same place for dinner without planning it, and Village business were discussed, that would be "knowingly" violating as opposed to if they had planned together to go there (which would be intentional). The question you then end up with is plausibility of a defense. A jury might have to answer the question of "Is it reasonable for each of them to claim they had no knowledge - either explicit or implicit - that the others would be asked.

Put another way: What would be the purpose of the VA contacting one, single VB member to ask if s/he would be willing to make a deal? Is it reasonable (that is: with a reason) to think that the VA would not be soliciting a consensus before giving the prosecutor direction? Would the VA give direction to the prosecutor WITHOUT a majority consensus of the VB?

Clearly, it seems to me wholly UNreasonable for any of them to think that a walking quorum would NOT be created.

As with ALL legal cases, it comes down to the totality of the circumstances. A prosecutor could very easily arrive at the conclusion that none of the four could have reasonably expected the VA to act without a majority consensus. Of course, the prosecutor would then have to prove that theory to a judge or jury. The caveat there is that the burden of proof for a forfeiture offense (which an Open Meetings case is), is less than for a criminal case. In forfeitures, the prosecutor need not prove the case "beyond a reasonable doubt," but rather, to a a "preponderance of the evidence." That level of prrof is, basically, that the prosecutions theory is "more likely than not."

copperguy: so then who are you saying would have violated the walking quorum, the administrator himself or the administrator and the four that were contacted. I don't see the word intent in the quotations you noted but it does say knowingly attends a meeting. So, I don't think it's the same as the DebO incident. If the VA called each one individually and asked them if they would be willing to make a deal and they each told him either yes or no and that was it, how could all five of them have violated it if they didn't know any of the other members were contacted or were going to be contacted? It appears as if the VA may have violated it knowing that enough members were contacted.

The charges filed by Ms. Etten clearly say that McCue, Olmstead and herself were not contacted

Take your best guess, coyote. This one's easy.

I didn't see anything stating which four members of the board were contacted, the article leaves that open.

I would like to know how we can employ such incompetent people!
I saw the meeting notice posted for tonight's meeting and there is a mistake! We now can post in the future..Good Lord!

If a walking quorum was created- I find it ironic that only four of the board members were contacted. And they are the board members that clearly want Chief Devoy fired. It is very hard for me to believe that this whole situation is being done fairly and most importantly by following the law!!!

2 level
The others do not have an open mind either! Well except for Jim...and sometimes Bob
Have you ever seen mrs.K vote? She never listens to what is being said and ADAMANTLY says "nooooo".

Also, level, keep in mind that 19.96 does not require "intent." So, the question of whether any of the four knew who else was being contacted is irrelevant. This is very similar to the campaign law violation the Ms. Olmstead was charged and convicted of. Intent is not an element of the offense.

level: Very good analysis of the article. I agree that nothing in the article indicates that the "four" did anything other than answer the questions put to them by the VA. According to the article, then, the real offender here seems to be the VA. I think everyone - including the "four" - should be very concerned about the VA's actions.

I have read and re-read the Open Meetings statutes several times now. I did so with the thought that, "This must be a violation because it defeats the whole idea of Open Government." I see only one POSSIBILITY to make a case.

Under Charter Ordinance 254, 2.10.060(D) states that the Administrator shall, "Serve as ex-officio nonvoting member of all Village commissions and committees of the Village, except as specified by the Board President and Village Board or Wisconsin State Statutes."

State Statute 19.96 states, "Any member of a governmental body who knowingly attends a meeting of such body held in violation of this subchapter, or who, in his or her official capacity, otherwise violates this subchapter by some act or omission shall forfeit without reimbursement not less than $25 nor more than $300 for each such violation."

So, IF (and that's a big "IF") the VA is a member of the VB, then their MIGHT be an argument that by him calling the four, he did create a walking quorum.

Again, I think it would take a very ambitious prosecutor to make this case. But, I think it would be an excellent test case for the Courts to take up.

I have read the article above. I never stated that anything in the article was not TRUE. The articles says that only four were contacted, it doesn't say that each of the four knew that they were the only ones contacted or were even aware who was contacted in regards to this matter. You need to get your head out of the sand and quit making false statements.
Was it wrong for only four of the members to be contacted, yes it was. But don't implicate that the four knew that they were the only ones who were contacted the article DOES NOT state that. You are only saying that they don't have the best interest of the village in mind while making decisions because they are not voting the way you feel they should be voting on this issue. And the only reason you think the other 3 are good is because they have voted the way you think they should and don't have an open mind if it smacked them in the face either.
You are part of the problem that has occurred in the village because you have them same "us vs. them" mentality that many people do. There shouldn't be an us vs. them mentality it should be for people to vote on issues they way they feel is correct and is the best for the village. Everyone should be working together to make changes and decisions that are beneficial to the village.

2-level READ the article above. The VA contacted ONLY 4 board members regarding serious negotiations about a HUGE financial matter that affects ALL citizens. - TRUE!

Get your head out of the sand. The ones who truly seem to represent the good of the villagers were the ones LEFT OUT of the loop. Defend THAT!

Your irresponsible rantings are getting old.

beer: It would be a CLEAR violation if they had spoken to each other. It doesn't say that they did speak to each other.

craftymom: what is your problem or issue? you seem to know a lot of things and seem to be stirring up issues and making accusations that are not true. Give it a rest already!!

SarahB1: the whole issue could never be put to rest with people like craftymom making false accusations because she/he is not getting their way. Besides many of the negative comments on these blogs are coming from a minority of the population. Many of whom do not have an open mind and refuse to see some of the things that are going on even though it is smacking them directly in their face.

"So how is it that a non voting employee can break the Open Meetings Law? Is the new VP losing it already?"

That employee did not break Open Meetings Law, read my entry below to see how the board members may have done so.

That employee broke the terms of his own job description by neglecting to contact ALL members of the board, not just his 'favorites'.

Whether that employee went back to attorneys with the 'input' of JUST those board members is also an issue, as is whether those 'selected' board members spoke with each other. A CLEAR Open Meeting violation.

I would also not rule out craftymom2's observation. The representation of a 'biased selection' of board members as being the FULL board's opinion would certainly render those negotiations as invalid. This would seem to put DeVoy's right to 'fair' negotiation at a disadvantage.

The fact that you would attack the new VP and say she's 'losing it' suggests you are also biased.

Good faith and rights violated are two different things

outsider if negotiations went on, DeVoy's lawyer presumed that Stanley was truthful when he said he was acting with the support of the board. And Stanley presumed Dennison was truthful when he told Stanley he had contacted the board. Neither was the case.

In fact the only members of the board who were contacted were the ones who helped start the whole witch-hunt. How could any of those negotiations have been conducted in good faith?

So how is it that a non voting employee can break the Open Meetings Law? Is the new VP losing it already?

craftymom2 “If there were under the table negotiations going on that could have resolved the case without a hearing, wasn't Chief DeVoy's rights violated?” Any negotiations would have been with DeVoy or his lawyer.

I have a question:

What does Marc Dennison have against Chief DeVoy? A man he really has never met. Dennison is the puppet at the end of many strings.

If there were under the table negotiations going on that could have resolved the case without a hearing, wasn't Chief DeVoy's rights violated?

Seems like these old board members have been out to get him for a very long time. And they are the ones who hired Dennison.

Me2 your correct definition of a walking quorum neglected one important note. These 'meetings' can take place by telephone or e-mail and would also violate the open meetings law.
So what does Dennison mean when he says that he "did talk to four board members but did not direct negotiations"?

1.) WERE there 'negotiations'?
2.) Why did Dennison only choose to contact 4 members?

It seems clear that Mr. Dennison went outside the scope of his authority when attempting to manipulate negotiations. Yet at the same time he neglected his responsibility to inform ALL board members.

I tend to agree with others on here, from what I've seen, Mr. Abbott tends to vote with reason and not 'by association'. How did he get mixed up in this unfortunate circumstance?

As I recall from the meeting where the VB voted in favor of paying her cell phone bill, it was $35/month, not $200. Since she is not available to talk with the VA during the day and, apparently, arrives home after the VA has gone for the day, what other options are there? She seems to be conducting legitimate Village business during her drive home from work, keeping apprised of the issues. As VP, she is responsible for setting meeting agendas (read the law), so she really does need to know what's going on.

ncboy: According to the full aticle in today's print edition of The Gazette, "Because the circumstances are "exigent," 24-hour notice is not required for the posting, Danz said."

That's Danz as in corporation counsel for the Village of Darien, not Etten, President of the Board of Trustees. I agree with your question about the notice requirements, but it appears from the article that Mr. Danz is the one giving the advice.

EE tells the Gazette on Tue that she is calling a special meeting for Wed but she cant get the meeting posted 24 hours before. Is that a violation of the open meeting laws? EE has said she is excluded from the conversation but she wants to have the Village pay here $200.00 phone bill. Who is she talking to?

DOES IT NOT SEEM STRANGE THAT WHEN WE ELECT SOMEONE, AT TIMES SOME GET A SWELLED HEAD, AND THEY CAN DO ANYTHING THEY WISH, IT SEEMS TO FILTER RIGHT DOWN FROM THE NATIONAL, STATE, TO THE VILLAGE LEVELS....WHAT A PITY

ncboy: From what I see in this article, the three VB members who were not consulted have no fault in this matter. It seems to me that the Administrator has the responsibility to work with ALL members of the Board, rather than pick and choose who gets informed and consulted about what. I fail to see how your cite somehow points to the three who were not consulted as being in violation of the Ordinance. It's not their fault they weren't consulted.

Darien Ordinance No 254 States 2.10.080 Cooperation All officials and employees of the Village shall cooperate with and assist the administrator so that the Village government shall function effectively and efficiently. Three Board members need to read this even if they doin't look at the information on Devoy.

It's sounds like a lot of people have faith in Jim Abbott that he'll do the "right" thing. He obviously did when reinstating Konopski to avoid further embarrassment and financial strains on the village.
The next issue is to determine if the attorney's have been giving complete and accurate information to the board regarding the DeVoy termination. It appears that they have failed to apply the policies and rules fairly which could be a hugh problem come hearing time. It also appears that they did less then a fair job in their investigation just based on the fact that it took 8 months to speak with the subordinate officers. I would think that they would have done so prior to constructing charges.
I agree with Copperguy, the only way out of this for the citizens of Darien is to hope that Abbott acts reasonable as he's done in the past and initiate a recall sooner than later.
According to another article, Darien residents are paying dearly for sewer charges because of a delapated sewer and storm water system. It appears that maybe this all needs to be put to rest and focus on issues that will save money for the tax payers instead of spending it foolishly.
The charges against DeVoy are not criminal, he's had a good work record and only because of a few vindictive people are the citizens of Darien in this mess.
Good luck tonight, I hope these issues are resolved promptly and with great thought in the interest of the people of Darien and not the personal agendas of some board members. Darien needs resolution and closer on some grave matters.
The last thing Darien needs right now is more litigation if DeVoy sues them for discrimination which he has a VERY strong case at this point.

Joe: Thought I would speak to something in your post for clarification. It's a very easy thing to get lost in, and I have had to read some court opinions as well as the statutes and materials from the Attorney General's office to arrive at my own conclusion. I'm working from the premise that Mr. Dennison did, indeed, talk with four VB members. He acknowledged that much in the article.

I don't believe that the letter of the Open Meetings law was violated. In order for there to be a walking quorum, it seems that one of the VB members would have had to have done the discussing with one or more others. The law doesn't speak to a non-voting person being the "go between."

Where it might become a "gray area" is what role Mr. Dennison's discussion with the four played. If Mr. Dennison was providing official guidance to Atty. Stanley, and if that guidance was based on the input of the four, then a daring District Attorney MIGHT try to make the case for a walking quorum even thought the LETTER of the law doesn't make it fit. It would be a good test case to send up to the Supreme Court. Most DAs are not looking for test cases, though.

I think it's a CLEAR violation of the Administrator's responsibilities to operate in this manner, and I think there are clear grounds for discipline given Mr. Dennison's admission. I doubt that a DA will issue an Open Meetings charge, though.

citizen...I was fooled too! I thought an "outsider" might bring a freshness... It is very clear by Ann's interview that he did speak to 4 board members! We should have known when he attached his name to the LAWSUIT filed against the village for violation of his amendment rights..after being employed for less than 1 day!

I have faith in Mr. Abbott too.. He often has a clear head and does what he knows is right, however, he was part of the "walking quorum" because they need 4 for a majority.. (BW, CK, KZ and JA) Unless Mr. Dennison was acting on behalf of 1 or 2 and said he had a majority..

I to would like to see Mr. Dennison go. He was rude to me when I had to talk to him on a private matter. He does not know how totalk nice to people. Well be glad to see him go.

One of these days, the folks in Darien should just stage a revolution and put this whole issue to rest ... how do you folks have the patience to put up with this garbage?!

I am one who believes that far too many people are quick to jump on the recall bandwagon. In this situation, I believe a recall might be the ONLY way to resolve Darien's issues.

When Mr. Abbott voted to "reinstate" Ofcr. Konopski, he said something to the effect of, "This has to end." After giving VERY CAREFUL consideration to what I've been able to learn of the Chief DeVoy issue, I truly hope that Mr. Abbott can see the wisdom of taking the same approach. I simply am not convinced that the Board's jump to termination of Chief DeVoy was merited - even if all of the allegations were proven totally. Since there has been NO disciplinary action against Chief DeVoy in the past, I think the reasonable thing would have been to go with a written reprimand. Even that would have been jumping ahead on the progressive discipline model.

Perhaps Mr. Abbott will introduce a proposal in tonight's closed session to offer a more reasonable and appropriate level of discipline in order to try and stop the bleeding in your Village.

I believe that the time has come for the People of Darien to finally say, "Enough is Enough!" I think a recall is in order, given this latest development of Mr. Dennison and - apparently - four members of the VB to create a "star chamber."

OMG - I have been holding my breath hoping that Mr. Dennison is a honest person. If this is true I will be so disappointed!!

Is it any wonder the taxes in that small town are so high.

A walking quorum is a series of gatherings among separate groups of members, each less than quorum size, who agree, tacitly or explicitly, to act and vote in a certain manner in numbers sufficient to reach a quorum.
What about the same board members that are facing charges for open meeting violations on August 11 and are still at it. Their competency also comes into question. Maybe it's time for some to call it quits.....I have no idea how any Judge would be sympathetic to someone who would violate open meeting violations on a regular basis. Maybe formal resignations would be appropriate prior to the expense of a recall of several members.

Copperguy..
I couldn't agree more! I have said from day 1 that he was incompetent and not serving the village appropriately!

Note to Gazette staff: PLEASE, PLEASE don't let the chronic blog offenders shut down yet ANOTHER forum. Cancel their user ids if you want, but don't let them deliberately stifle legitimate and beneficial debate!

Well, I've made a concerted effor to give Mr. Dennison the benefit of the doubt in all of this. Partly because of his apparent inexperience, and partly because of the situation he was thrust into, I have hoped that things would get better.

If this article is true, and he sought input from a select group of VB members while working with the prosecutor, he has clearly and egregiously crossed the line. Further, I don't know how anyone - on either side of the Chief Devoy issue - could condone these activities.

There may or may not be an Open Meetings law violation, but there certainly are grounds for substantial disciplinary action against Mr. Dennison. What a shame.