County records show a separation entered October 12, a reported withdrawal five minutes after HR’s notification, and missing written confirmation two days later.
On October 12, 2026, at 12:07 p.m., Trempealeau County Board Chairman Andy Todd told Trempealeau County Human Resources that Scott Leonard had resigned: “Yes he Has resigned. Thanks for letting me know.” Sixteen minutes later, Todd supplied October 5 as the date Leonard gave notice. D01, page 1
At 2:15 p.m., Human Resources notified payroll staff that a separation effective October 5 had been entered in the county’s UKG system, based on Todd’s confirmation. At 2:20 p.m., according to a county call log, Todd told Human Resources that Leonard had called him and rescinded his resignation. Human Resources asked for written confirmation before making changes. D02, page 1; D05
That evening, Leonard voted against removing Todd as chairman. The motion failed, 8–8. His vote was one of the eight that kept Todd in the chair. The relevant roll call begins at 1:14:09 in the recording; Leonard’s name is called at approximately 1:14:54.
First, the rules. Yes, there are two.
The earlier controversy concerned Leonard’s committee service and his wife’s employment in the district attorney’s office. The relevant county laws address two different situations: eligibility to serve on a committee and participation in a particular decision.
I checked the following language against a fresh download of the county’s published Chapter 2 on October 19. Both provisions appear on printed page 2-10, PDF page 10. County code; saved source
2.04(5) Limitations on Serving on Committees. No County Board Supervisor or non-board citizen committee member may serve on a committee if a relative is an employee in a department governed by such committee. The term “relative” shall include a parent, spouse, domestic partner [as defined in Wis. Stat. § 770.01(2)], child, sibling, mother-in-law, father- in-law, sister-in-law, brother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepchild, stepparent, stepsister, stepbrother, aunt, uncle, nephew, niece, grandparent, and grandchild.
2.04(6) A County Board Supervisor who has a financial or other prohibited interest in any proposed action before the County Board, or any committee thereof, shall not discuss, otherwise participate in the discussion, vote on, or take any other official action on such item. That County Board Supervisor may disclose the nature and extent of such interest to the County Clerk, County Board Chair, or committee chair prior to the matter being publicly heard.
Section (5) turns on family employment and the committee’s governing responsibility. Section (6) turns on an interest in the specific proposed action.
Now rewind to why I raised this in the first place. I was demanding an answer to a straightforward question: why was Leonard serving on a committee when §2.04(5) prohibits that service if a relative works in a department the committee governs? My objection concerned his wife’s employment in the DA’s office and Law Enforcement’s oversight of that office.
The response I expected was simple: Shoot, I missed that. Let’s fix it. Acknowledge the rule. Reassign the committees. Move on.
Instead, on August 17, the board considered moving oversight of the DA’s office from Law Enforcement to Executive/Finance. Todd described efficiency and cost savings as reasons for the proposal. I had asked why Leonard’s assignment complied with the county’s own rule. The proposal would have changed which committee governed the office.
A colleague asked a simple question: what problem were we trying to solve? Todd’s explanation pointed to the DA’s status as a constitutional office and to cost savings. That explanation made no sense to me. The coroner and sheriff are also constitutional officers, yet the proposal left their oversight alone. The board voted 9–7 to postpone the proposal indefinitely, so the oversight transfer never took effect. Discussion, 1:06:18; vote, 1:21:22
On September 9, Leonard again voted against the Law Enforcement recommendation that the sheriff cover the county’s three Flock cameras; the recommendation passed 3–2. Leonard’s letter requesting removal from Law Enforcement is dated that same day.
At the September 28 meeting, Todd said Leonard had asked him on September 9 to be removed. The dated letter and Todd’s account establish September 9. It should be noted that Todd was in the gallery for most of this meeting.
. This was a request to leave the committee, not the either of the October resignation from the board. Law Enforcement vote, 55:21; Todd’s September 9 account, September 28 at 1:50:27
In a separate September 9 Personnel/Bargaining discussion of the Victim Witness Coordinator’s reclassification, the chair directed that Leonard’s departure at the beginning of that item be recorded. The agenda allowed discussion only, and no action vote occurred on that item. That departure is relevant counterevidence to any blanket claim that Leonard always participated in matters concerning his wife. Personnel discussion, 23:33
On September 28, the board approved a committee swap: Leonard moved from Law Enforcement to Property, and Renee Lyon moved to Law Enforcement. Before the vote, I challenged the sequence: the proposed DA oversight transfer had failed, and now the board was considering this letter. I asked whether we could get an honest explanation on the record. Todd answered by describing Facebook criticism directed at Leonard and its effect on his family. He said Leonard wanted to leave Law Enforcement to stop that pressure and that he agreed with Leonard’s choice to put family first. My question and Todd’s answer, 1:51:24–1:52:20
Watch the explanations in order: first Todd’s August 17 efficiency and cost explanation for moving DA oversight, then his September 28 account of Leonard’s September 9 request, then my truth question and his family-pressure explanation. These concern different proposed actions. Showing them together lets readers evaluate the sequence; it does not turn the sequence into proof of an undisclosed common motive. Committee swap and vote, 1:50:03–1:53:24
October 5–8: the letter, the equipment and the empty seat
Leonard’s signed October 5 letter to Todd says: “I resign my position as County Board Supervisor for District 7 effective Monday, October 5th, 2026.” It also alleges online harassment by a fellow supervisor. That is Leonard’s stated reason; this investigation has not independently established the harassment allegation. Letter
The county administrator’s October 19 records response adds an account from IT: Leonard returned equipment late on the morning of October 5 and said he was resigning. IT disabled his county network account, collected his badge, and changed the website to show a vacancy. Email screenshot
At the October 8 Personnel/Bargaining meeting, Chairman Kevin Whalen announced that a supervisor had resigned and explained that the five-member committee still needed three affirmative votes to pass business. The announcement does not name Leonard. Its connection to Leonard rests on the surrounding records. October 8, 1:17–1:57
The later roll call documents participation by Bridgette Turner, Andy Todd, Paul Syverson and Kevin Whalen. It records Turner voting no and the other three voting yes. Leonard had been appointed to that committee in April; he was the only committee member missing from that roll call.
Todd participated in the same meeting at which the resignation was announced, before confirming a resignation to HR four days later. The announcement excerpt contains no objection attributed to him. That does not establish everything he heard or said during the meeting or in private.
October 12: resigned at noon. Back by supper.
Human Resources initiated the written HR exchange at 11:51 a.m. The email said someone had mentioned Leonard’s resignation and asked Todd to confirm it and provide the effective date.
Todd confirmed the resignation at 12:07 p.m. When Human Resources asked at 12:10 for a specific notice date, he replied at 12:23: “Oct 5th 2026.” Human Resources acknowledged that reply at 12:29. D01, pages 1–2
The call log shows a 1:34 p.m. call that rang once and ended without a conversation. At 2:02 p.m., an automated system message reported a termination request requiring review and approval. At 2:15, Human Resources told payroll the separation had been entered. The automated request alone is not proof that every approval or downstream action had been completed. D02; D05
At 2:20, Human Resources answered Todd’s call. The call log says he reported that Leonard had called him and rescinded, so he was back on the board. Human Resources requested written notification and said no changes would be made until it arrived. Todd said he would email verification upon reaching the office. A 3:57 call was missed. The log does not establish the time or words of Leonard’s call to Todd.
During the evening meeting, Todd acknowledged receiving Leonard’s letter, said it had been rescinded, and explained that a board resignation had to go through the sheriff. Todd explained the process clearly enough: the sheriff had a required role. By October 12, he knew that. This was the same day he confirmed Leonard’s resignation to HR and supplied October 5 as the notice date. His stated reason for allowing Leonard to continue voting was that the resignation had been withdrawn and the required process was incomplete. October 12, 35:15–35:59
Leonard’s intent to resign was clear in the evidence reviewed. He signed a letter resigning effective October 5. I have described the returned items as his computer and keycard. The county’s IT account uses “equipment” and “badge ID” and says he told staff he was resigning. Todd then affirmed the resignation to HR in writing. A signed resignation, returned equipment and a written confirmation from the chairman. That is quite a paper trail for a departure with such uncertain handling. Whether the letter reached the legally required recipient is a separate question. It does not make the letter, the returned equipment or Todd’s confirmation disappear.
Wisconsin law makes the sheriff’s role consequential. Section 17.01(7) directs a county supervisor’s resignation to the sheriff, who notifies the county board chair and files the resignation with the clerk. Section (13) requires a written resignation addressed and delivered as prescribed and governs when it takes effect. HR offboarding and a website vacancy label do not establish compliance with that statute. The statute’s county-supervisor route also does not include the clerk-to-governor step described in the meeting captions. Wisconsin Legislature, § 17.01
Before the removal vote, Supervisor Robert Baecker argued that the committee issue had been corrected, while acknowledging delay. I pushed back: Leonard had asked to leave Law Enforcement, and Todd had honored that request. My objection was that leadership had not enforced the structure in the first place. I described temporary removal while the county resolved the issue as an available response. October 12, 51:55–53:21
The exchange then turned to whether the proposed DA oversight transfer and Leonard’s committee issue were connected. Baecker distinguished them; I pressed that point. His eventual response was qualified, acknowledging some connection and then saying that yah he agrees with me on that. The complete exchange belongs in the record, including his argument that the issue was corrected and my immediate rebuttal. A short edit ending with a bare acknowledgment would erase the disagreement. Full correction, rebuttal and connection exchange, 51:55–54:08
Leonard then voted no on removing Todd. His vote contributed to the tie. An arithmetic change in the tally is not a legal finding that Todd would have been removed under a different set of eligible voters or procedural circumstances.
October 13–14: now, about that paperwork
October 13: first the September letter. Then the October letter turns up. At noon, Martin told me:
Hi Andy,
What I have is still the same thing I emailed you on September 29th at 3:07 pm. (to you, Andy Todd, Rebecca and Susan)
I have not received anything from the Sheriff’s office indicating Scott Leonard has submitted his resignation to them.
Thank you, Mary Martin Trempealeau County Clerk
That response pointed me back to the committee-removal letter. After I clarified that I wanted the board-resignation letter, her answer changed. Here is her full substantive correction to me, including her apology and denial of knowingly withholding a record. The quoted email header says October 13 at 4:51 p.m.; Mail displays 4:52 p.m. Standard confidentiality boilerplate is omitted; the complete email chain is here.
Dear Supervisor Parrish,
My apologies. I was mistaking Scott Leonard’s letter of removal from Law Enforcement Committee as his resignation letter. I am sorry for causing confusion on this one.
To reply to your records request today (October 13, 2026) at 12:32 pm, please see the attached document. I received it from Chair Todd, with my honest, best estimate being either Tuesday, October 6th or Thursday, the 8th. I stuck it in the October County Board folder for safe keeping and completely forgot about it there.
Andy Parrish and Susan, my sincere apologies for extra time you spent today helping me get my thoughts together on this one.
No record has been knowingly denied to you. However, note that per Wis. Stat. 19.37 (1), a requestor denied a record in whole or in part may bring an action for mandamus directly or request that of the district attorney or attorney general.
Sincerely, Mary Martin Trempealeau County Clerk
She had the letter. What she lacked was a reliable receipt date. The initial answer was mistaken; the correction says Todd had already handed her the resignation and she had forgotten it in the October folder. It would be inaccurate to turn her initial statement about the sheriff into a literal claim that she had never seen any letter.
A separate screenshot of a Martin email makes the stamp problem explicit: “Since I didn’t date stamp it with my “received” stamp, my best guess is either Tuesday, October 6th, otherwise Thursday, October 8th, that it was handed to me.” She also apologizes for not stamping it when it was brought over and says she based her estimate on Todd’s courthouse office hours. The screenshot shows 3:18 p.m., but no calendar date or complete recipient header, so I am not assigning it a place within the dated October 13 sequence.
A resignation letter, an October folder and a best guess. In my opinion, that is an unacceptable paper trail for a record bearing on who serves on the county board. Her admission supports criticism of the recordkeeping. It does not, by itself, prove she deliberately concealed the letter.
October 14, the reported second resignation: At the Law Enforcement meeting that Wednesday, Erika showed the committee chair Leonard’s resignation and confirmed she had received it, according to my eyewitness account. My contemporaneous emails document that I reported the event that morning. At 10:25 a.m., I wrote to Fisher: “The sheriff just announced Leonard resigned with her today.” At 10:54 a.m., I added: “Erika just showed us it.” Those are my descriptions at the time, not a verbatim transcript of an official announcement. Dated email screenshot
This supports an October 14 endpoint attributed to my direct observation and same-day reporting. It does not establish the precise time of delivery, the letter’s exact language, or whether it was a new letter or another submission of the earlier letter. The public recording’s captions do not resolve those points. The letter and sheriff intake record remain necessary. The file named “RJ Resignation Letter.pdf” belongs to Ronald Johnson and cannot establish Leonard’s resignation.
On October 14 at 11:10 a.m., Human Resources was still asking Todd for written confirmation of Leonard’s withdrawal, Todd’s approval of reinstatement, and the date, so Human Resources could reverse the separation process. At 11:23, Todd supplied instructions concerning Ronald Johnson’s separate resignation and said he would get back to her about Leonard. The later 12:39, 1:12 and 1:13 messages concern Johnson’s paperwork. They do not supply Leonard’s missing withdrawal confirmation. At 1:16, Human Resources warned payroll that the separation action might differ from what had originally been communicated and that written confirmation was still outstanding. D03, pages 1–3; D02, page 1
On October 15 at 7:39 a.m., Martin answered my question about who had filed the earlier letter with her: “Chair Todd.” D06, page 1
The receipts—and the questions they leave
Todd confirmed a resignation to HR, then reported a withdrawal before a vote in which Leonard helped preserve Todd’s chairmanship. County staff had already taken steps consistent with a departure. Written confirmation requested by HR remained outstanding in the October 14 exchange produced here. HR was still chasing the receipt after Leonard had cast the vote.
That sequence warrants an explanation, including the original withdrawal communication and the sheriff’s intake records. It supports scrutiny of whether the handling benefited Todd and Leonard. It does not establish a coordinated plan, deliberate concealment, or an illegal vote. A legally defective first resignation, followed by a genuine change of mind, remains an explanation the evidence must test.
The public should not need a flowchart to find out who was on its county board. Produce Leonard’s October 14 letter, the sheriff’s transmittal, Todd’s promised written withdrawal confirmation and the system audit records. Then we can stop chasing explanations and follow the documents.
Response status: This draft includes the officials’ explanations already in the records. New responses to the assembled HR timeline have not been requested. No one is described as declining comment or failing to respond.
Watch the record
Selected excerpts retain the officials’ explanations and the full correction/rebuttal exchange. Timecodes below refer to elapsed time in the full source recording.
2026 08 17 13 structural change question and Todd answer
2026 09 28 01 committee swap explanation
2026 10 08 02 resignation announcement
2026 10 08 03 minutes approval context
2026 10 08 11 attendance rollcall
2026 10 12 04 Todd opening statement
2026 10 12 05 resignation and withdrawal explanation
2026 10 12 06 Parrish ordinance inquiries
2026 10 12 07 Todd conflicting ordinances account
2026 10 12 08 counsel immediate response
2026 10 12 12 Baecker resolved Andy rebuttal and connection
2026 10 12 10 complete chair removal rollcall
Evidence screenshots
Screenshots and rendered source pages were captured October 19, 2026. Document dates and times appear within the records; video times are elapsed recording times.
Evidence index and reporting notes
Prepared October 19, 2026. Read with the reporting draft and clip guide. Intentional manipulation and an unlawful vote are not established. The October 14 endpoint is supported by Parrish’s eyewitness account and contemporaneous emails; the underlying letter and intake record are still missing.
Time conventions
Email/PDF times below reproduce the source’s displayed local time, treated as Central for this Wisconsin correspondence. Embedded HR email exports and call-log images do not supply independent timezone metadata. Mail displays some times one minute later than quoted transport headers; both are listed where material. Times are evidence precision, not independently synchronized clocks. Video timecodes are elapsed recording time, never wall-clock time. No exact clock time is assigned to a meeting statement by adding elapsed time to the advertised start.
Original files in LeonardOR
All nine files were inventoried. Original filenames are retained in source-records/. SHA-256 hashes and original locations appear in source-inventory.csv and .json. The two PNGs are byte-identical; do not count them as independent sources.
| ID | Original filename | Pages | Evidence and limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
| D01 | 10.12.26 RE_ Borad Member – Off Boarding.pdf | 2 | Human Resources/Todd exchange, 11:51 a.m.–12:29 p.m. October 12. Direct resignation confirmation and October 5 notice date. |
| D02 | 10.14.26 Notification to PR FW_ Action Required_ Termination Request Submitted.pdf | 2 | October 12 automated 2:02 request, 2:15 separation notice; October 14 1:16 qualification. Does not establish every approval completed. |
| D03 | 10.14.26 RE_ Resignation _ Reinstatement Confirmation.pdf | 3 | October 14 request for written Leonard withdrawal and date; later Johnson correspondence must be separated. |
| D04 | 10.14.26 Request FW_ Open Records Request.pdf | 1 | October 15 8:10:04 a.m. Glewen forwards Parrish’s October 14 1:44 request to Human Resources. Parrish’s vacancy allegation in the request is not an IT audit log. |
| D05 | Phone call log 10.12.26.pdf | 1 | Embedded call images establish 1:34, 2:20 and 3:57 p.m. Only 2:20 was answered. Narrative attributes withdrawal report to Todd. Date authored is not shown. |
| D06 | RE Open Records.pdf | 4 | October 15 7:39 reply and quoted October 13 correction/noon response. Page 4 has no extracted text. Mail independently shows the dated correction. |
| D07 | RJ Resignation Letter.pdf | 1 | Ronald Johnson’s letter, sheriff stamp October 12 and HR stamp October 14. Not Scott Leonard’s second letter. |
| D08 | image001-1.png | — | Identical hash to D09; ancillary image. |
| D09 | image001.png | — | Duplicate of D08; no separate evidentiary weight. |
Additional primary sources: Leonard’s October 5 signed letter from the earlier local production (source-records/S Leonard Resignation to AT.pdf); freshly downloaded official county Chapter 2; current Legislature §17.01 retrieved October 19; Mail messages described below; public meeting recordings and their captions. Local working copies and captions are navigation evidence, not certified transcripts.
Every HR contact documented in this production
| Date | Displayed time | Sender / participants | What the record documents | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct. 12 | 11:51 a.m. | Human Resources → Andy Todd | Someone mentioned Leonard resigned; asks for confirmation and effective date. Informant unnamed. | D01 p.1–2 |
| Oct. 12 | 12:07 p.m. | Todd → Human Resources | “Yes he Has resigned. Thanks for letting me know” | D01 p.1 |
| Oct. 12 | 12:10 p.m. | Human Resources → Todd | Asks when he gave notice, to enter accurate records and avoid expense-reimbursement problems. | D01 p.1 |
| Oct. 12 | 12:23 p.m. | Todd → Human Resources | “Oct 5th 2026” | D01 p.1 |
| Oct. 12 | 12:29:00 p.m. | Human Resources → Todd | Acknowledges date. | D01 p.1 |
| Oct. 12 | 1:34 p.m. | Todd call to HR | Rang once and ended; no conversation. UI says rejected, but note says no opportunity to answer. | D05 |
| Oct. 12 | 2:02 p.m. | [email protected] → Human Resources | Termination request for Scott E. Leonard submitted, awaiting review/approval. | D02 p.1–2 |
| Oct. 12 | 2:15 p.m. | Human Resources → Shelly Rietmann, Stacy Sylla | Separation effective Oct. 5 entered in UKG per Todd confirmation. | D02 p.1 |
| Oct. 12 | 2:20 p.m. | Todd ↔ HR manager | Answered call. Todd reports Scott called him and rescinded, back on board; HR requests writing and holds changes until received; Todd promises email. Also discusses Johnson separately. | D05 |
| Oct. 12 | 3:57 p.m. | Todd call to HR | Missed because manager meeting with someone. No documented discussion. | D05 |
| Oct. 14 | 11:10 a.m. | Human Resources → Todd | Follow-up on Oct. 12 conversation: still needs written Leonard withdrawal, Todd approval of reinstatement and date to reverse separation. Also seeks Johnson confirmation. | D03 p.2–3 |
| Oct. 14 | 11:23 a.m. | Todd → Human Resources; cc Martin | Refers Human Resources to Martin for Johnson; says he will get back about Scott. | D03 p.2 |
| Oct. 14 | 12:39 p.m. | Human Resources → Todd; cc Martin | Acknowledges; asks Martin for Johnson confirmation/date. Not Leonard withdrawal confirmation. | D03 p.1 |
| Oct. 14 | 1:12 p.m. | Martin → Human Resources, Todd | “Here you go, Lisa.” Context is Johnson. | D03 p.1 |
| Oct. 14 | 1:13:00 p.m. | Human Resources → Martin, Todd | Thanks them. Context is Johnson. | D03 p.1 |
| Oct. 14 | 1:16:00 p.m. | Human Resources → Rietmann, Sylla | Previous separation action may differ from original information; update after written confirmation. Subject chain concerns Leonard. | D02 p.1 |
| Oct. 15 | 8:10:04 a.m. | Glewen → Human Resources | Forwards Oct. 14 records request “FYI.” An HR-related records contact, not new substantive resignation evidence. | D04 |
No exact time is supplied for Leonard’s call to Todd. The 2:20 call log provides a latest documented reporting point, not the time of the underlying withdrawal. No later written confirmation of Leonard’s withdrawal appears in these produced HR attachments. This is a bounded statement about the reviewed production, not proof that no such document exists elsewhere.
Mary Martin correspondence relevant to the story
Apple Mail All Mailboxes sender search returned 50 results for Mary Martin. Inventory preserved in the working evidence trail; results include unrelated audits, expenses and routine notices. Relevant chains were read; not every unrelated email or attachment was opened. Gmail separately returned three direct messages from her, ending August 4, and therefore did not cover the current Exchange correspondence. Do not present the Gmail result as exhaustive.
| Date/time | Message | Evidence / caution |
|---|---|---|
| Sept. 29, 3:07 p.m. | RE: Open Records Request | Supplies committee-removal letter and envelope; says Todd gave her that letter that afternoon, places it in Sept. 28 folder. Quoted reply header says 3:06. This is the September document. |
| Sept. 29, 3:36 p.m. | Same chain | “Thank you, Andy” acknowledgment; adds no substantive fact. |
| Oct. 9 | RE: Special County Board Meeting Request | Receipt acknowledgment visible in search; exact response time not established in this review. Do not fabricate it. |
| Oct. 12, 9:37 a.m. | RE: Agenda item | Says counsel’s Oct. 9 3:25 p.m. email requested the word “removal,” and counsel called around the same time concerning “and Other Board” assignments. Supports an attributed explanation for wording, not deliberate manipulation. |
| Oct. 13, 12:01 p.m. Mail / 12:00 quoted | RE: Open Records | Refers to Sept. 29 production; says no sheriff notice received. Does not literally say “I have never seen a resignation letter.” |
| Oct. 13, 4:52 p.m. Mail / 4:51 quoted | RE: Open Records | Corrects confusion; estimates Todd delivery Oct. 6 or 8; forgot letter in October folder; apologizes and denies knowing withholding. Same-day correction matters. |
| Oct. 14, 1:12 p.m. | RE: Resignation / Reinstatement Confirmation | Message to HR/Todd included in production, about Johnson. Not a new message addressed to Parrish. |
| Oct. 15, 7:39 a.m. | RE: Open Records | Identifies “Chair Todd” as filer with her. |
Parrish request Oct. 13 8:09 Mail / 8:10 quoted; clarification 12:31 Mail / 12:32 quoted. Oct. 14 question to Mary 3:26 Mail / 3:27 quoted. These one-minute differences are disclosed rather than turned into an allegation.
mary2.jpeg on the Desktop is a separate screenshot with a 3:18 p.m. display but no visible calendar date or complete header. It repeats estimated Oct. 6/8 receipt, absence of received stamp and unfamiliarity with the sheriff-first process. It cannot establish when another recipient received a record or prove preferential treatment. It has not been used as an authenticated dated email.
October 14 endpoint
Parrish confirms he witnessed Erika show the Law Enforcement chair Leonard’s resignation and verify receipt at the October 14 meeting. At 10:25 a.m. that day he emailed Fisher that the sheriff had just announced Leonard resigned “with her today.” At 10:54 he wrote “Erika just showed us it.” Mail quotes the latter transport time as 10:54:21. Screenshot preserved as October14-eyewitness-email.png.
These are a direct witness account and that same witness’s contemporaneous reports, not independent sources of the underlying receipt. Do not assign an official title or surname to Erika without verification. Do not quote Parrish’s “sheriff” wording as a verified title for Erika. The second letter’s text, whether it was a new letter or re-submission, exact intake time, and sheriff transmittal remain unverified. Official TelVue recording located; caption search for resign/Leonard/Scott/letter did not locate this exchange. This does not prove it did not happen, particularly if a document was shown off-microphone.
October 8 attendance
| Person | Evidence | What can be said |
|---|---|---|
| Kevin Whalen | Chair in announcement frame; roll call at 55:52 | Participated and chaired. |
| Andy Todd | Roll call 55:47; visible beside Syverson in roll-call frame | Participated, voted yes on this particular motion. |
| Paul Syverson | Roll call 55:49; county roster confirms spelling | Participated, voted yes. Captions render “Severson.” |
| Bridgette Turner | Roll call 55:43; county roster confirms spelling | Participated, voted no. Remote attendance is suggested by screen; mode not conclusively assigned by captions. |
| Rebecca Glewen | Repeated address to Rebecca beginning 3:09 and administrative discussion | Participation supported by caption context; obtain attendance record for formal roster. |
| Susan Fisher | Whalen says he consulted Susan | Consultation established by his statement; attendance is not established by that statement. |
| Staff/public/other remote attendees | No complete attendance sheet obtained | Not exhaustively identified. First-name “Kara” at opening is insufficient to authenticate full identity. |
Never claim these are “everyone in the room.” A committee roster is not an attendance sheet. Nor does attendance establish each person’s knowledge of legal routing or later HR contacts.
Video source map and review limits
Meeting captions and earlier source research were used for navigation and paraphrase. Existing extracted clips were inspected for composition and source dates; they have not all received a fresh independent audio transcription. Quotations in the blog are from documents or visibly read email, not certified video speech. Retain full exchanges, especially counsel’s response to Todd and Todd’s withdrawal explanation.
Aug. 17 board: iFUG3-0nyyw, 1:06:18 explanation; 1:21:22 postponement vote.
Sept. 9 Law Enforcement: E1yYsTwJniQ, 55:21–56:06 camera recommendation vote.
Sept. 9 Personnel: fyPM_DmzN_k, 15:47–23:58 reclassification and recorded Leonard departure; discussion only.
Sept. 15 special board: 595yrNzbq98, captions concern insurance; no DA oversight passage located. Do not substitute a September 15 claim for the August 17 event.
Sept. 28 board: XAIhxZreaD8, 1:50:03–1:53:24 committee swap.
Oct. 8 Personnel: wz_I7MHlvCU, announcement and roll call excerpts preserved.
Oct. 12 board: qUWdWUzhjuU, resignation explanation, ordinance exchange, chair-removal vote.
Oct. 14 Law Enforcement: official TelVue recording, official captions retrieved Oct. 19. No claimed Leonard-resignation clip has been invented.
Findings matrix
| Proposition | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Todd told HR Leonard resigned and gave Oct. 5 date | Direct documentary evidence. |
| HR entered separation and later sought written reversal | Direct documentary evidence; complete audit trail not obtained. |
| Todd reported withdrawal before evening vote | HR call-log account at 2:20; corroborated by Todd’s evening explanation. Direct Scott communication missing. |
| Leonard voted no in an 8–8 removal vote | Recording/captions and preserved roll-call clip. Independent final audio check still needed. |
| Handling benefited Todd’s position | Supported description of vote’s political effect. |
| Todd engineered withdrawal to win vote | Unproven motive; no agreement/instruction demonstrating that plan obtained. |
| Mary intentionally concealed letter | Not established. Initial error and same-day correction are documented. |
| All HR/IT actions establish legal vacancy | Incorrect inference; statute controls legal status. |
| Leonard’s Oct. 12 vote necessarily illegal | Not established. Need statutory delivery and effective-time facts and legal analysis. |
| Second resignation reported Oct. 14 | Eyewitness account plus contemporaneous emails; original letter/intake missing. |
Remaining reporting
Obtain the October 14 letter, sheriff receipt/transmittal, original withdrawal communication, Todd’s promised HR confirmation, UKG/account/badge audit logs, October 8 signed attendance sheet and approved minutes. Ask Todd when and why he first concluded the first resignation was defective, when Leonard contacted him, and why HR lacked writing on October 14. Ask Human Resources what actions were completed/reversed and when. Ask Martin about her intake record. Offer Leonard an opportunity to describe both resignation submissions and the withdrawal. No new outreach has been sent.
Download the source files
10.12.26 RE_ Borad Member – Off Boarding.pdf
10.14.26 Notification to PR FW_ Action Required_ Termination Request Submitted.pdf
10.14.26 RE_ Resignation _ Reinstatement Confirmation.pdf
10.14.26 Request FW_ Open Records Request.pdf
S Leonard Resignation to AT.pdf
Leonard-investigation-review-package.zip