OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY BROWN COUNTY 300 E. WALNUT STREET, P.0, BOX 23600 GREEN BAY, WL 54305-360 PHONE (620) 448-4190, FAX (020) 48-4199 VICTIM WITNESS COORDINATOR rik Franken (oxo) aas4194 SPECIAL PROSECUTORS Laveene 1, Lasce Jolin Letcher Amy RG. Pake Kay. Being Raber Manik July 17, 2025 Special Agent Jay Yerges Special Agent Jeff Wisch Wisconsin Department of Justice Division of Criminal Investigation VIA EMAIL RE: State of Wisconsin vs. Ronald G. Wolff, Jr. Brown County District Attorney No.: 24BR318 DCI #21-008507 Dear Special Agents Yerges and Wisch: DAVID L. LASEE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS Dana J, Jobson ‘Wendy W. Lem (Caleb. Sunde ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEYS Mary M, Keigan-Marex ovine Greene Te RE Kimbesy A. Hartke Bryant M. Dorsey Mera illmann 1. Foss Davis Jessica R. Gereat "Aton Linon Kevin, Stuck Natahe M. Mulvey Magis. Crafond hare baal Brin olin ‘Michael C: Beckman The above referral was accepted as a Special Prosecution case at the request of the Outagamie County District Attorney. After reviewing the referral, our office has decided not to issue charges. However, because our office has significant concerns about the actions of Mr. Wolff, we felt it was prudent to provide a more detailed explanation of our decision not to prosecute. The referral is based upon an incredibly thorough investigation conducted by the Wisconsin Department of Justice-Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) DCI's investigation of Ronald Wolff, Jr. focused on two separate allegations. The first allegation is that Wolff was not a resident of the Town of Grand Chute when he registered to vote there on October 29, 2020, or when he filed his Declaration of Candidacy for the Grand Chute Town Board on December 14, 2020. The investigation went further and raised concerns about whether Wolff was a Grand Chute resident when he was elected to the Town Board in April, 2021, or when he voted in Grand Chute in the Spring, 2022 election.The second allegation concerns Wolff's conduct while serving on the Town Board. Wolff's business, Lakeshore Cleaners, Ino. performed landscaping work for the Town of Grand Chute in about June, 2021 after Wolff was elected to the Town Board. The Wisconsin Department of Justice charged Wolff, based on DC's investigation of alleged self-dealing. The charge of “Public Interest in a Private Contract” was filed in July, 2023 and Wolff was found not guilty after a three day jury trial in March, 2024. There is no need to address that part of the investigation further. In addition to the initial above-described investigations, a citizen complaint of an Open Meetings Law (OML) violation was filed with the Outagamie County District Attorney after a Grand Chute Town Board meeting that took place on May 2, 2023. Finally, the DCI investigation uncovered a concern that Wolff and other members of the Town Board used electronic communications (emails) in violation of the OML, while Wolff was on the Town Board NON-RESIDENCY ALLEGATION Wolff first ran for Grand Chute Town Board Supervisor in the Spring election of 2021 and was elected. Wolf filed the required Declaration of Candidacy with the Town Clerk in December, 2020. At that time, Wolff swore in the Declaration that he met or would meet the residency requirement before assuming office if elected. One must be a resident of the town for voting purposes in order to run for the office of town supervisor and to hold the office. Filing a false Declaration of Candidacy is a form of election fraud and is a Class | felony crime, See Wis. Stat. §12.13(3)(a) & §12.60(1)(a). The DCI investigation focused on whether or not Wolff met the residence requirements for voting in Grand Chute when he filed his Declaration of Candidacy and thereafter. Residence as a qualification for voting is governed by numerous factors and is not always a simple matter. Wis Stat. §6.10(1) states: “the residence of the person is the place where the person's habitation is fixed, without any present intent to move, and to which, when absent, the person intends to return.” The statute then goes on to list sixteen factors or rules for consideration in determining a voter's residence. The DCI investigation established that until sometime in 2020, Wolff resided at his home in Nichols, Wisconsin with his spouse. Wolff owned real estate in Grand Chute where his businesses were located and owned a home at 4801 North Richmond Street. Wolff's brother and his brother's roommate resided in the home in 2020-2021. Wolf filed an affidavit with the Grand Chute Town Clerk in August, 2021, stating the North Richmond Street residence was his home, too, and that although he is often out of town for work or travel, it is “definitely where | sleep more nights than any other place.” Wolff stated he was living with his brother (Herbert) Wolff obtained a driver's license with the North Richmond Street address on October 22, 2020 and he registered to vote in Grand Chute on October 29, 2020. Wolff verified his residence was 4801 North Richmond Street with his driver's license and claimed to have lived at the address for not fewer than 28 days prior to vote registration The DCI investigation developed evidence that Wolff continued to reside with his spouse in Nichols when he registered to vote in Grand Chute, filed his Declaration of Candidacy there, ran for ‘Supervisor there and assumed the office. Put another way, the evidence developed by DCI suggests Wolff never resided at 4801 North Richmond Street at the relevant times, The original complainant concerning Wolff's residency was Brad Gehring. Gehring, like Wolff, was a Town Board Supervisor in Grand Chute in 2021-2022. Gehring told DCI Special Agent Jay Yerges he first became suspicious of Wolff's residency in July, 2021 during conversations with him. Gehringrecalled Wolff saying it took 40 minutes to travel from his business, Lakeshore Cleaners, in Grand Chute to his home. Gehring found this odd because he was aware Wolff reported living on North Richmond Street near his businesses. Gehring became more suspicious when another person told him Wolff admitted he continued to reside in the Village of Nichols with his spouse while a Grand Chute Town Supervisor. DCI began its investigation in October, 2021. Between October 4, 2021 and January, 2022, DCI investigators watched Wolf's supposed residence at 4801 North Richmond, his business at 4623 North Richmond and his home in Nichols. DCI Agent Yerges reports he checked/watched the Richmond Street locations at different times of day and night on almost a daily basis except from December 13, 2021 and January 2, 2022. Yerges reported he never saw either of Wolff's identified motor vehicles at the 4801 North Richmond Street residence, but he regularly observed the vehicles at the Lakeshore Cleaners business. On the other hand, Agent Yerges often saw Herbert Wolff's vehicle and his roommate Ed Karp's vehicle at 4801 North Richmond. On February 1, 2022, there was a Town Board meeting and Wolff attended it. DC! agents watched the North Richmond Street residence. After the meeting, Wolf entered the driveway of the residence, but then departed and drove to the Lakeshore Cleaners business. Wolff entered the business and agents ended their surveillance before he departed As a part of the investigation, on January 28, 2022, DCI placed a pole surveillance camera near Wolff's home in Nichols that showed the driveway and the front of the home. Agent Yerges learned Wolff was to be out of town for several weeks in February, 2022. Prior to leaving, Wolff voted “in person absentee" at the Grand Chute Town Clerk’s office on February 4, 2022 for the Spring primary that took place on February 15, 2022. Reviewing the surveillance video, Agent Yerges determined Wolff travelled to his home in Nichols after voting in Grand Chute on February 4, 2022. On the following day, the surveillance video in Nichols showed Wolff and his spouse load up Wolff's pick-up truck with luggage and depart. Agent Yerges learned Wolff and his spouse travelled away from the area for about six weeks. Wolff returned to his home in Nichols on March 15, 2022. The surveillance video of the exterior of Wolff's home shows Wolff at the home on March 15, 16, 18, and 22%. Yerges reported the surveillance video at 4801 North Richmond did not show Wolff at that residence between the same dates. On March 22, 2022, DCI agents executed search warrants at the Nichols residence, 4801 North Richmond Street and at the Lakeshore Cleaners business. Agents interviewed Wolff and other witnesses, as well Agent Yerges spoke at length with Wolff at his business on March 22" about several topics including his residence. Wolff Stated he resided at 4801 North Richmond Street and lived with his brother, Herbert, and Herbert's friend, Ed Karp. Wolff stated he slept at Richmond Street 2-3 nights each week and spent time at his cabin in the summer, as well. Wolff stated he bought the house for himself and his wife, Karri, a couple of years earlier. Then Karri became seriously ill. It was best for Karri to continue to live at the home in Nichols so she did not move to Grand Chute. Wollf explained he ran for Town Board in Grand Chute in April, 2021 because he was upset about onerous special assessments imposed on his and others’ real estate. Wolff and his allies on the Town Board were determined to change this assessment policy. Agent Yerges pressed Wolff about his residence. Wolff stated he slept at the North Richmond Street property 40 times since he was elected to the Board. Wolff admitted to Yerges his wife, Karri, might‘state Wolff lived with her in Nichols. Wolff stated his intent was to reside in Grand Chute, but his wife's illness complicated matters. Yerges told Wolff falsifying candidacy papers was false swearing and Wolff responded "Gotcha. | heard ya. You guys won. They won.” Wolff admitted, "I know. | know. It's wrong what | did.” Wolff depicted himself as a person caught between his need to be with his spouse, especially because she was ill, and the necessity to actually reside in Grand Chute if he was going to vote there and run for elected office. Agents interviewed other witnesses about Wolff's residency on March 22". Herbert Wolff was interviewed at his residence and stated he lived there with Ed Karp and his brother, Ron. Herbert stated Ron stayed at North Richmond “on and off’. Herbert noted Ron had recently been in Florida for 7 weeks, but prior to that time, he had stayed at his Richmond Street home. Herbert could not estimate how many times per week Ron stayed with him, but did state Ron would sleep there if he had been drinking so he did not have to drive. Herbert showed agents Wolff's bedroom and stated the items in the room belonged to Ron. The agents found some documents with Ronald Wolff's name on them and some items of clothing, as well. Agents described the room as sparsely furnished and containing far fewer things than the other bedrooms belonging to Karp and Herbert. Agents interviewed Karri Wolff. Karri stated Ron lives at 4801 North Richmond in Grand Chute, but will spend 2-3 nights per week with her in Nichols. Karri explained their original plan was to move into. the home on North Richmond, but when she became ill, she decided to stay in Nichols. Karri verified Ron did care for her when she was very ill. If Wolff falsely stated his residence as the Town of Grand Chute on his Declaration of Candidacy filed on December 14, 2020, then he committed Election Fraud. Residence, however, for purposes of voting is not a simple black and white matter. A person need not spend seven nights per week ata habitation to be a resident of a voting district. On the other hand, owning a residence in a district without spending any time there will not confer residency on a voter. Intent to reside in a new voting district without a removal to the district does not confer residency, see Wis. Stat. §6.10(11). The evidence concerning Wolff's residency for purpose of voting is a mixed bag. DC's investigation found no evidence Wolff was residing at 4801 North Richmond Street in the Fall and Winter of 2021-2022. Their conclusion was Wolff was living in Nichols. The evidence developed by DCI is certainly compelling, including the admissions made by Wolff himself. On the other hand, Wolff, Karri and Herbert stated Wolff lived between the two residences after the Richmond Steet home was purchased and Karri became ill. Wolff's portrayal of himself residing at 4801 North Richmond while providing needed care for his ailing wife would not be lost on a jury. The vagaries of “residence” for voting purposes in Wisconsin combined with the conflicting information developed in this thorough investigation lead to the conclusion the State may not be able to meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. OPEN MEETINGS LAW VIOLATION Citizen David Schowalter filed a verified complaint with the Outagamie County District Attorney complaining of an OML violation by the Grand Chute Town Board at a meeting on May 2, 2023. During the meeting, the Board met in a closed session. Afterwards, the Board reconvened in open session and Supervisor Engs moved to terminate Jim March from the position of Town Administrator without cause and to provide thirty days of continued employment followed by six months of severance. The motion carried with four supervisors voting aye: Wolff, Ings, English and Van Eperen; Gehring voted no and expressed disgust with the action of the Board. The gist of Showalter’s complaint is the meeting notice for May 2nd does not inform the public the Town Board would be discussing the termination of the Town Administrator's employment in its closed session.The OML requires all meetings of a governmental body to be open to the public, but does permit closed sessions in exceptional circumstances. Two of the exceptions address the discussion of ‘employees of the governmental body: Wis. Stat. §19.85(1)(b) and (c). Subsection (b) specifically addresses consideration of dismissal, demotion, licensing or discipline of any public employee. Subsection (c) addresses considering employment, promotion, compensation or performance: evaluation of any public employee. Schowalter complains the Board was required to use Wis. Stat. §19.85(1)(b) to discuss March's dismissal in a closed session. The Court of Appeals in State ex rel. Epping v. City of Neillsville Common Council, 218 Wis.2d 616 (Ct. App. 1998) held Subsection (b) only applies to closed sessions when an evidentiary hearing is to take place. There is no evidence an evidentiary hearing was planned or took place during the closed session on May 2nd. Accordingly, the Board was not required to recite (b) in its notice of a closed session. The remaining question is whether the notice that was provided adequately informed the public of what was to take place during the closed session. The agenda for the May 2nd meeting furnished this notice of the closed session: “1. Consider motion to convene in closed session pursuant to WI Stats. 19.85(1)(c) ‘Considering employment, promotion, compensation, or performance evaluation data of any public employee over which the governmental body has jurisdiction or exercises responsibility,’ (e) ‘Deliberating or negotiating the purchasing of public properties, the investing of public funds, or conducting other specified public business, whenever competitive or bargaining reasons require a closed session,’ and (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,’ to wit: to discuss the performance of the Town Administrator, confer with special counsel regarding the Town's rights and responsibilities under the employment agreement with the Town Administrator, review the Town's legal position in relation to the Administrator's counsel's correspondence and otherwise discuss the Town Board's legal position in relation to same, Wis. Stat. §19.84(2) states: “Every public notice of a meeting of a governmental body shall set forth the time, date, place and subject matter of the meeting, including that intended for consideration at any contemplated closed session, in such form as is reasonably likely to apprise members of the public and the news media thereof. The public notice of a meeting of a governmental body may provide for a period of public comment, during which the body may receive information from members of the public.” The only issue is whether the notice adequately informs the public of the subject matter of the meeting. Our Supreme Court in State ex. rel. Buswell v. Tomah Area School Dist. 2007 WI 71, gave three factors to consider when determining whether a notice of meeting reasonably informs the public of the subject matter to be considered. First, what would be the burden of providing a more detailed notice? Here the burden would be minimal. The notice would only need to add a few words stating the Board would discuss possible termination of the Town Administrator's employment. Second, whether the subject is of particular public interest. Schowalter states in his complaint there was public interest in the Town Administrator position and the Board's consideration of his employment. About three weeks prior to the May 2nd meeting, the ‘Town Board held a meeting to discuss hiring an independent counsel to review the Administrator's contract and advise the Board. At the meeting, ten members of the public addressed the Board about this matter, see Town of Grand Chute Minutes of meeting, April 11, 2023. Members of the public were clearly interested in the issue of the Town Administrator's employment.The third factor is whether the subject involves a non-routine matter that the public would be unlikely to anticipate. Termination of an important employee like the Town Administrator is certainly non- routine and extraordinary. The notice of closed session here notifies the public of the Board's intention to discuss the Administrator's performance and to obtain legal advice regarding rights and responsibilities under his employment contract but goes no further. In our opinion, the notice given is too broad for a member of the public to infer termination of the Administrator's employment is to be discussed and acted upon. Considering the objective of the OML: to provide the public with the fullest and most complete information concerning government affairs, | conclude the notice did not adequately inform the public of the Board's intention to discuss termination of the Administrator's employment and any possible action to be taken. The violation was egregious because the supervisors knew there was public interest in the matter. Itis important to note that the minutes of the May 2, 2023 meeting state the Town's Attorney and the retained employment attorney were present at the meeting and the employment attorney attended the closed session, The presence of the Town's Attorney could be significant if the attorney advised the supervisors the notice of the closed session complied with the OML, Under those circumstances, the Court of Appeals has concluded members of a governing body who rely on a legal opinion about a meeting notice do not knowingly violate the OML and should not be held responsible. There is no information indicating whether the attorney did or did not furnish legal advice to the Supervisors about the sufficiency of the notice. The conclusion there was a violation of the OML here could warrant a forfeiture prosecution under Wis. Stat, §19.96, however, whether the violation occurred is only one of the factors to consider. More than two years have passed since the meeting. The composition of the Town Board has changed in the interim. The only current Supervisor present at the May 2, 2023 meeting is Brad Gehring. At the May 2, 2023 meeting, Gehring emphatically voiced opposition to the Town Board's action to terminate the Town Administrator's employment (see Minutes of Town of Grand Chute meeting, May 2, 2023). DC! Investigators collected written materials Grand Chute uses to inform new supervisors of the OML law and the Town's policy to comply with the OML. The Town makes an effort to comply with the OML. Moreover, retaining an attorney to attend Town Board meetings shows an intent to comply with the OML. As a result, from a practical standpoint, a forfeiture prosecution in this instance would be largely symbolic and will accomplish little or nothing, The forfeiture itself would likely be paid by the Town itself, despite the fact that the offending Board members no longer represent the Town. Further, such an action will consume time and resources better used elsewhere. OTHER OPEN MEETINGS LAW VIOLATIONS As part of its investigation into the allegations discussed above, the DCI investigators executed a search warrant at Wolff's business and seized a computer he used. Pursuant to a warrant, DCI extracted emails relevant to their investigation and these included emails between Wolff and other Town Board Supervisors after Wolff joined the Town Board in April, 2021. Some of these emails were communications between a quorum of Supervisors including both the recipients and the sender. Town Board business is addressed in many of these emails. Wisconsin's OML is drafted broadly and is interpreted broadly by our courts. The legislative intent clearly demonstrates the notion that governmental activities are to be conducted in the open, with full transparency. The OML encompasses electronic communications like emails if used to convene a meeting of a quorum of members of a governing body to conduct official business.The Department of Justice Open Meetings Law Compliance Guide is helpful when interpreting whether electronic communications violate the OML. The Guide distinguishes between the use of emails to disseminate written information to governing body members, at one end of the spectrum, and the use of email similar to a group text chat at the other end. The former use is analogous to the use of the Post Office in pre-internet times and does not represent a convening of members of a body for OML purposes. A group chat about official business between a quorum of members of a governing body, however, is tantamount to a meeting held in secret and would violate the OML. Members of a governing body can also unlawlully evade the requirements of the OML through the use of a walking quorum. According to the Compliance Guide, a walking quorum is a series of meetings between members of a governing body, each smaller than a quorum, who agree to act uniformly to reach a quorum at a future meeting. Certainly email communications could be used to create a walking quorum. ‘Some of the emails reviewed here are communications between a quorum of Town Board supervisors about Town business. For the most part, these emails tend to fall on the “use of email to disseminate information” end of the spectrum. The emails that we reviewed tend not to amount to a detailed back and forth discussion of Town business, such that the purpose of a meeting is circumvented by this walking quorum as no message reviewed specifically appeared to be an effort to build a voting quorum on an issue. In the present case, there are a number of concerning activities undertaken by Wolff and his allies on the board. First, there are email communications about town business, which are being conducted by a quorum of the Town Board. Second, despite warning from the Town's administration to use their official Town of Grand Chute email addresses when conducting Town business, Wolff and his allies continued to use their personal emails addresses to conduct Town business. Using one’s personal email address makes it more difficult to maintain public records, and makes it nearly impossible, absent a criminal investigation, for the Town to verify the nature of the communications and activities of the Town Board. This is clearly contrary to the public policy interest of transparent government. Further, Wolff and his allies sent emails about Town business, that included a quorum of the Town Board, but seemingly intentionally excluded Gehring, whom they knew did not agree with them on many of the actions they had taken. Excluding Gehring from the emails about Town business only serves to raise suspicions about their intent to discuss Town business outside the scope of a properly noticed meeting. | must also point out that Gehring would observe Wolff and the other members of the Town Board, meeting without him, immediately following Board meetings. Again, given their knowledge of Gehring’s positions and the strong public policy interest for transparent open government, these actions are suspicious and highly concerning Again, the evidence presents a mixed bag as it relates to potential Open Meetings Law violations for conducting Town business via email. Using personal email addresses to communicate Town business with a quorum of Town Board members is clearly contrary to best practice, and rightfully invites strong suspicion of OML violations. However, there are some concerns that the State may not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the communications actually constituted a violation, if there is not an ongoing discussion or debate such that a “meeting” actually occurred. Once more, on balance, we believe there is little or no practical value to pursuing a forfeiture action against the Town for an Open Meetings Law violation, for the reasons set forth above. Wolff, and hi former allies on the Board, are no longer on the Board. Any prosecution would be challenging, time- consuming, and would have limited prosecutorial value.CONCLUSION The extensive and thorough investigation by Special Agent Yerges and the Department of Justice — Division of Criminal Investigation uncovered what appears to have been a pattem of inappropriate conduct by Ronald Wolff that contradicts the strong public policy interest in fair, open and transparent government actions. Wolff was charged with (and subsequently acquitted of) in appropriately benefitting from a public contract. He very likely mispresented his residence, multiple times, and at a minimum, was not a full-time resident of the Town he represented. He and his allies on the Board facilitated the termination of the Town's administrator in a meeting where such action was not clearly noticed. Further, Wolff and other members of the Board regularly emailed each other about Town business, using their private email addresses, and excluding at least one member of the Board in the process. While there is some question about the State's ability to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that these actions were criminal in nature, there is no question that they are all contrary to the fair, effective and transparent operation of government business. In making any charging decision, the prosecutor is first tasked with determining whether or not a law violation has occurred. If the prosecutor believes there is sufficient evidence for a jury to convict. beyond a reasonable doubt, we are then tasked with determining whether a case has prosecutorial ‘merit, that is, would the public benefit from proceeding with a particular prosecution. In this particular series of matters, | am satisfied that while there would be some challenges to prosecuting both the residency issue and the Open Meetings Law violations, there is sufficient evidence to at least charge both of those matters. However, | am equally satisfied that proceeding with charges against Mr. Wolff at this time in not in the public’s best interest. The people of Grand Chute and Outagamie County have already borne the time and expense of one criminal action against Mr. Wolff. For reasons that are unclear to me, the attorneys at the Department of Justice chose not to make a decision to either pursue or officially decline prosecution of the residence and OML violations as part of the prosecution of Outagamie County Case 23CF673. At this time, neither Ron Wolff, nor any of his allies from the Town Board, remain in office. The Town of Grand Chute appears to be doing a fair job of advising its current Board member of their legal obligations related to the Open Meetings Law and the policy in favor of open and transparent government. The community no doubt has little appetite for a second criminal case, which certainly may be seen by some as ‘politically motivated.” It is my belief that the interests of justice are better served by merely outlining the concems uncovered by the investigation, and making the complete investigation available for public review for anyone who wishes to see it Thank you again for the complete and thorough investigation performed by the Division of Criminal Investigations. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at your convenience. Electronically Signed By: David L. Lasee District Attorney DLUter