Wisconsin Ethics Commission, a titular election watchdog, member, Robert Kinney has resigned in disgust.
Reports Jason Stein: "Kinney said that in a private session the commission has already declined to take action on a complaint that he believed merited it."
"If financial or ethical improprieties are leveled, or allegations of quid pro quo corruption are made, they must be thoroughly and timely investigated, and, if warranted, aggressively prosecuted. Sadly, it appears we have created a system which almost guarantees that this will not occur," Kinney said in a statement Monday (Stein, MJS), (Capitol Newspapers).
Nearing the age of Donald Trump, some local Wisconsin municipalities cannot wait to get started.
Following is a first-person saga chronicling a small Wisconsin city targeting a nine-year veteran poll worker, writer, PR Specialist and voting rights activist.
Harassed as a poll worker, several Fitchburg, Wisconsin Republicans, fundamentalist Christians, and white racists decided to obstruct and harass this now-former poll worker, me, at the polling place in the Fall Primary election, now held in August.
The crusade continues as a Fitchburg poll worker is now violating Wisconsin's voter-privacy guarantees in his bizarre pursuit of this voter.
Silence emits from City Hall officials who have failed to respond to numerous requests for investigation and comment.
Fitchburg Election Inspector Ron Johnson has now taken his crusade against me from the polling place to content at my ICI Info Group site, Mal Contends, to now the Fitchburg Star, (Woodward Communications).
State law and ethics prevents official such as poll workers from acting officially in a matter in which s/he is privately interested.
From an email sent this morning to Fitchburg City Clerk and asst City Clerk:
... It would appear that Ron Johnson feels secure in his reading of Wisconsin election law that he as an election inspector is relieved of his duties to help administer impartial elections free of hostile and discriminatory conduct, and an election inspector's duty to protect the privacy of voter, (in this instance, me).
Ron Johnson's defamatory editorial comment in the Star chronicles this voter's personalized voting experience on August 9. Ron Johnson violates my right to cast a ballot privately in Wisconsin, (Wisconsin Elections Commission).
Putting aside the defamations and inaccuracies in Ron Johnson's letter to the editor Ron Johnson offers his version of the voter-obstruction incident in a step-by-step chronicle that identifies me as a voter, describes my specific and personalized issues I experienced on Aug 9, and concludes with a chronicling of Johnson's attempt in August to comment at this site.
To understand this appeal to my privacy in this matter, consider scenarios when a voter enters a polling site and experiences an issue such a spoiled ballot, a 30-minte delay in voting, or the use of a disability apparatus. Now, consider Ron Johnson working a poll worker and publishing a personalized narrative of the voters' experience using this voter's name, replete with invective in these instances. This conduct violates privacy expectations, and is pernicious activity committed by a Fitchburg election official.
This conduct does as well casts light on the state of mind and attitudes of some Fitchburg election inspectors towards another former election inspector and voter who writes disfavored political analyses and commentary syndicated through Newxtex, (now ACI Information Group), and client periodicals.
I suggest you contact the City Atty's office, (Cced), as well consider SCR 946.12(3), Misconduct in public office.
With respect to election inspector Ron Johnson's conduct in the attached letter, I expect a reply detailing the scope of your investigation, the protocols of this investigation, and the resolution of Ron Johnson's conduct, including specifically whether Ron Johnson will not be on the roster of election inspectors working in 2017.
Frankly, I want a resolution of these matters, though some in City Hall and those retained as election inspectors have quite different aspirations.
I have copied some text Re SCR 946.12(3)
946.12 Misconduct in public office.
(1) Intentionally fails or refuses to perform a known mandatory, nondiscretionary, ministerial duty of the officer's or employee's office or employment within the time or in the manner required by law; or
(2) In the officer's or employee's capacity as such officer or employee, does an act which the officer or employee knows is in excess of the officer's or employee's lawful authority or which the officer or employee knows the officer or employee is forbidden by law to do in the officer's or employee's official capacity; or
(3) Whether by act of commission or omission, in the officer's or employee's capacity as such officer or employee exercises a discretionary power in a manner inconsistent with the duties of the officer's or employee's office or employment or the rights of others and with intent to obtain a dishonest advantage for the officer or employee or another; or
(4) In the officer's or employee's capacity as such officer or employee, makes an entry in an account or record book or return, certificate, report or statement which in a material respect the officer or employee intentionally falsifies; or
(5) Under color of the officer's or employee's office or employment, intentionally solicits or accepts for the performance of any service or duty anything of value which the officer or employee knows is greater or less than is fixed by law.
I would note as well that Johnson's continuing conduct buttresses contemplation of investigation of abuse-of-process questions.