Report: Judge wrong to accuse co-workers
Investigator says communication is serious problem between Ozaukee County’s Voiland, court clerks
PORT WASHINGTON — An Ozaukee County judge was wrong when he accused coworkers of criminal misconduct, an investigator said Tuesday, expressing surprise at the level of dysfunction in the courthouse.
Judge Joe Voiland’s allegations — centered around filing practices by the clerk of courts — prompted a state Department of Justice investigation and an internal inquiry, but a report released Tuesday said there is no truth to the judge’s belief that others in the courthouse are out to get him.
The investigator, former judge and U.S. Attorney Patrick Fiedler, instead said in a report the errors identified by Voiland were understandable and properly addressed after being discovered. Fiedler’s conclusions focused on the atmosphere that has developed around Voiland.
“Communication between Judge Voiland and the others involved is a serious problem,” Fiedler wrote. “I question how this situation could have evolved to the extent that it has. … This communication problem has resulted in a lack of trust which has affected the administration of the court system.”
The investigation is the second prompted by Voiland, who had first persuaded the state Department of Justice to investigate his belief that case records were altered or destroyed as courthouse officials committed crimes and worked to undermine or embarrass him.
That investigation stretched for 15 months and generated a 357-page report, but it ended abruptly in September when Voiland stopped cooperating with the inquiry.
The two investigations show Voiland has jousted with court clerks and other judges over all manner of procedures and long-standing practices since his election in 2013.
Earlier this year, officials said judges reached the point of exclusively communicating through email, and Clerk of Courts Mary Lou Mueller said Voiland hadn’t spoken to her in years — even refusing to respond to greetings.
Fiedler, who began his investigation in February, was asked to look into Voiland’s claims that Mueller’s office improperly deleted or altered online court records and abused register in probate authority, and that the county was improperly administering finances for custody studies in family law cases.
Fiedler said Mueller and her staff did make errors in some of the cases Voiland referenced, but they were “reasonable” and “innocent” mistakes that were remedied after being identified.
Fiedler noted repeatedly in the report that mistakes were a result of human error and not “an attempt to usurp the authority of Judge Voiland.”
Fiedler noted that Mueller’s staff processes about 100,000 documents annually.
Mueller, who said in January that Voiland’s paranoia created a “hostile work environment,” said Tuesday she felt vindicated by Fiedler’s report.
She said many of the errors came as the county was undertaking the mammoth task of converting to a paperless record-keeping system.
“I am extremely pleased that the investigation found what we had been saying all along: There is no basis for allegations that I, or anyone else in my office, violated any law,” Mueller said in an email.
“I am also pleased that it was noted the Clerk of Courts office has taken, or is in the process of taking, appropriate measures to correct past errors and to ensure court records are accurate going forward. … The Clerk of Courts office remains willing to work collaboratively and cooperatively with all judges, county personnel and the community at large.”
Voiland did not respond to attempts to reach him Tuesday by email and phone.
In some cases, the incidents Voiland reported as potentially criminal were court procedures he didn’t understand.
He complained about probate cases suddenly showing up as overdue in his listing of pending cases, but probate cases are handled on a rotation so those had been before another judge before rotating to Voiland’s court, the report said.
In other cases, what Voiland alleged as misconduct was a result of his own failure to communicate and coordinate with other court officials.
In one case Voiland blamed a court clerk for refusing to follow his orders to schedule a case, but Fiedler said the issue could have been cleared up if Voiland hadn’t refused to answer Judge Sandy Williams’ questions on the matter.
In another case, Voiland ordered a custody study and was angry when Judge Paul Malloy told a court commissioner not to do so immediately.
Malloy said the county didn’t yet have a necessary ordinance in place, so he was waiting to ensure everyone was on the same page, which Fiedler says Voiland should have been more cognizant of.
The Fiedler investigation was ordered by Waukesha County Judge Jennifer Dorow, the chief judge of the judicial district that includes Ozaukee County.
She said in a statement Tuesday that she accepts the findings and will work with the director of state courts to establish “an appropriate plan of action.”
The report finished with two recommendations:
❚ That the state conduct an audit to ensure the county is properly tracking money for custody studies — which Voiland alleged was improper but Fiedler believed was not.
❚ And that Voiland, Mueller and other county court officials “endeavor to communicate and cooperate with each other in a professional and timely manner.”
Voiland’s courthouse conflicts are not limited to staffers and judges. His judicial performance rating was the second-lowest in the state in a survey of attorneys conducted last year by USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin.
He also received the second-lowest retention rating, with just 22 percent of responding attorneys recommending he remain on the bench.
And Voiland has one of the highest substitution rates in the state.
Defendants can request a new judge, assigned by the court system, once per case, and Voiland averaged 127 such requests per year from 2013 to 2017. The average judge had about 30 substitutions annually.
Mueller told DOJ investigators that, based on what she hears from attorneys, the increased substitutions are because female lawyers don’t want to practice in front of Voiland and attorneys don’t want to bring complicated cases before him.
“Communication between Judge Voiland and the others involved is a serious problem. I question how this situation could have evolved to the extent that it has. … This communication problem has resulted in a lack of trust which has affected the administration of the court system.” Patrick Fiedler, the investigator, a former judge and U.S. attorney