Sauk County board rejects motion to dismiss two ethics findings, moves to admonish supervisors and disallows nursing-home claim

The Sauk County Board of Supervisors spent much of its meeting debating ethics‑inquiry findings and steps tied to an ongoing dispute over the proposed sale of the county nursing home, ultimately rejecting a motion to dismiss the inquiry but directing the accused supervisors to follow board rules and voting to disallow a related citizen claim.

A motion by Supervisor Polivka to dismiss the Ethics Inquiry Board’s findings against Supervisors Walden and Staling was debated at length and failed after voice and recorded votes (13 in favor, 15 opposed, 3 abstentions). Opponents of dismissal argued the inquiry produced credible findings and warned that dismissal would weaken enforcement of closed‑session rules; proponents said procedural defects and the reputational cost already borne by the accused justified dismissal.

"We could be petty. We can give in to vindictiveness, or we can do the right thing," Supervisor Harris said while asking colleagues to dismiss the findings because of perceived procedural flaws in the inquiry. In contrast, Supervisor Dietrich—who attended the inquiry—said there was substantive evidence presented, including text messages, and that dismissing the charges would undercut the county’s open‑meetings obligations.

After the dismissal motion failed, the board adopted a narrower, remedial action: a motion asking the two supervisors to "conform to the board rules" going forward. Chair (name not specified) said staff and counsel would draft a letter reflecting that direction; several supervisors voted in opposition to the admonition (the speakers named as opposed included Supervisors Johnson, Plivka and Virgil), but the motion carried.

Separately, the board considered Resolution 95‑2024, a county attorney‑led motion to "disallow" or deny a notice of claim filed by Sauk County Citizens for Senior Care (Thomas Kriegel and Judy Bridal) related to the nursing‑home sale. Corp. Counsel explained that disallowing the claim does not resolve the underlying dispute over the sale’s merits; instead, it triggers a statutory timeline that shortens the period in which claimants may file state court actions (disallowing a county claim typically starts a six‑month filing window and thereby reduces the claimant’s overall statute‑of‑limitations period).

Supervisor Peppers, who moved the resolution, said shortening the time frame would allow the county and claimants to proceed more quickly rather than leaving the dispute unresolved in limbo. Others expressed concern that forcing a shorter deadline could limit public participation.

The board approved Resolution 95‑2024 by roll call: 29 in favor, 2 opposed. Corp. Counsel reiterated that the vote simply sets the procedural timeline for any state claims; certain exceptions (for example, declaratory judgment actions or open‑records claims) are not affected.

The disputes heard at the meeting are part of a broader, ongoing controversy over the nursing‑home sale that has prompted public comment, ethics complaints and litigation. Members of the public who spoke during the meeting urged more transparency on promises made about bed retention, staff continuity, local buyer preference and minimum sale price. "It would be a travesty for those beds to disappear," said a public commenter, Thomas Kriegel.

Next steps: the county will publish the board’s letter asking the supervisors to conform to rules, and the disallowed claim triggers the statutory deadlines explained at the meeting. Any subsequent lawsuit would proceed under the shortened timeline or under applicable statutory exceptions; the underlying dispute about the sale remains unresolved pending further legal and administrative steps.