Waupaca County Sheriff candidate qualifications & Waupaca County Sheriff Department questions
By Trey Foerster
Two candidates are vying for the position of Waupaca County Sheriff in the Tuesday, Aug. 9, primary election. The winner of that contest will most likely win the position in the Nov. 8 election.
You can read the first part of this series here.
Candidate qualifications
Many residents of Waupaca County may know about several ideas or actions that either incumbent Sheriff Timothy Wilz or Detective Sgt. Cameron Durrant may have. What many may not know are the qualifications each has to run for sheriff.
Cameron Durrant
Durrant’s educational credentials include bring a Waupaca High School graduate, receiving an Associate Degree in Police Science at Fox Valley Technical College, a Bachelor’s Degree in Criminal Justice from Concordia University, and achievement of a Master’s Degree in Homeland Security from American Public University.
His 26-year career with the Waupaca County Sheriff’s Department includes being a parttime reserve officer, a parttime water patrol officer, a jail booking officer, a transport officer, a patrol officer, a special weapons and tactics alternate team officer, and a detective sergeant.
Accomplishments of Durrant during his 26-year career include field training officer, emergency vehicle operation and control, tactical response instructor, and assisted in development of the Rescue Task Force. He also took the FBI Leadership Program.
Timothy Wilz
Past term accomplishments for Timothy Wilz include: Redesign of Law Enforcement Center and revamp of staffing, relocation of the 911 Communications Center, he oversaw the promotion of 14 officers, implemented more community involvement of the department, and raised funds to pay for a dive team of 12 members.
Waupaca County Sheriff Department questions
Each candidate was sent a list of six questions about the Waupaca County Sheriff’s Department. These answers have not been edited (except for typos) and are as long or as brief as the candidate chose. The 35 questions pertain to a multi-week set of questions, grouped by category, with deadlines over four weeks.
Timothy Wilz
Incumbent Sheriff Timothy Wilz declined to answer the questions.
“I will have to respectfully decline to answer your 35 questions. My operation of the Sheriff’s Office and my campaign are consuming my time. No disrespect to you or your paper,” he noted in an email.
The six questions were as follows:
What is your perception of the role of Sheriff inside the Waupaca County Sheriff’s Office?
What are a few things you know the Waupaca County Sheriff’s Office does really well? What are a few areas that can be improved and how do you intend to implement those improvements?
As wages for law enforcement continue to lax, what incentives would you try and offer your employees to make up for this growing issue and retain your staff?
What are the WCSD’s successes/failures with regards to transparency and what are you going do differently?
Since you perceive that “a small number of individuals” have “personal agendas” within the WCSD, should Detective Sgt. fear retribution from you due to this campaign?
Local and regional news stories have covered the issue of the WCSD with incidences of withholding of evidence and rewriting of police report and subsequent alleged coverup by you. Explain what you know as fact about this allegation, which was alluded to in the June 16 debate.
Cameron Durrant
Candidate Detective Sgt. Cameron Durrant did answer the questions and here are his unedited responses as he submitted them.
What is your perception of the role of Sheriff inside the Waupaca County Sheriff’s Office?
The sheriff is the top law enforcement officer in the county. The sheriff needs to lead by example. This means the sheriff needs to be honest, transparent, and accountable to everyone in Waupaca County for all decisions made within the sheriff’s office.
What are a few things you know the Waupaca County Sheriff’s Office (SO) does really well? What are a few areas that can be improved and how do you intend to implement those improvements?
The S.O. does a great job hiring officers. They are smart, hardworking, with good morals and ethics.
Sheriff Hardel was instrumental in purchasing much needed and updated equipment to support officers in pursuit of public safety.
The S.O. has not done well with maintaining relationships with other community partners. The sheriff requested Waupaca Police Department to serve an out of state court order to a former sheriff office correctional officer. Waupaca Police Department asked the Sheriff for a deputy for to assist. The sheriff would not allow a deputy to assist. Then before the police department officer arrived to serve the paper, the current Sheriff contacted the former employee and advised him the police department was coming over. This caused a serious safety issue for the Waupaca Police Officers. The sheriff was not truthful when he was confronted about this by Waupaca Police Department Administrative staff.
The Sheriff and Chief Deputy have not allowed sergeants to sign criminal complaints because the D.A. has wording in the complaint that they felt was not appropriate. They finally agreed upon wording that allowed only the Chief Deputy to sign the complaints. The Chief Deputy swore a legal oath that the complaints that he was signing were reviewed by him, and they were correct. Recently, the Chief Deputy testified in court that he had not reviewed the complaints that he signed. Because of this testimony the D.A. has to dismiss all eighty criminal complaints that the Chief Deputy signed. This is a great injustice to the victims and criminal justice system. (I included one motion to dismiss to verify my statement.)
Fixing this problem is done with honest and open communication amongst all parties involved. Mistakes happen. What makes a great leader is admitting the mistake and moving forward to fix that mistake.
As wages for law enforcement continue to lax, what incentives would you try and offer your employees to make up for this growing issue and retain your staff?
Pay increases and benefits are tough for the sheriff to offer. Most of these are decided at the county board level. I would push for a more competitive wages compared to agencies within Waupaca County.
I would offer training or duties in areas that officers are interested in. I would work on building the morale so they would enjoy coming to work. I would show the employees the appreciation that they deserve.
What are the WCSD’s successes/failures with regards to transparency and what would you do differently?
Success: The sheriff’s office has adapted to the social media platform to distribute news to the public.
Failures: The failures are not on the sheriff’s office as a whole. The current sheriff has caused most of the failures in transparency. There are two press releases that are great examples of this. The first example is the press release from the current sheriff in February, after he testified in the Klotzbucher motion hearing. The press release states that he was being transparent writing the press release. Then he lies and says that the deputy knew about the report being changed. Television news recordings and court transcripts show the complete opposite.
The second example is the press release that the current sheriff released on the sheriff’s office Facebook site stating that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals vindicates the sheriff’s office. At no time did the Wisconsin Court of Appeals vindicate the sheriff. The ruling states that the sheriff’s office was denied on both requests. The Court of Appeals sided with the Waupaca County Circuit Court in their ruling. The Court of Appeals stated that Waupaca County Circuit Court Judge Huber made a statement and not a ruling, when Judge Huber said that the whole sheriff’s office should be Brady officers. The Court of Appeals did agree with the Circuit Court that a Brady violation did occur. The current sheriff posted the press release but did not post the Court of Appeals ruling with it, because it would not validate his press release. I attached a copy of the Court of Appeals ruling.
It will take time for the sheriff’s office to rebuild trust from the community and criminal justice partners. I will be open and honest about issues happening within the sheriff’s office.
You were recently placed on administrative leave for two months by Wilz and received a verbal warning placed in your personnel file. Since Wilz perceives that “a small number of individuals” have “personal agendas” within the WCSD, do you fear retribution from Sheriff Wilz because you are campaigning to replace him?
Yes, I am concerned about retribution. Officers within the department will not openly support me and my campaign because of the fear of retaliation from the current sheriff.
The current sheriff said that there are personal agendas, I disagree. I simply want what is best for the sheriff’s office and the community.
Local and regional news stories have covered the issue of the WCSD with incidences of withholding of evidence and rewriting of police report and subsequent alleged coverup by Sheriff Wilz. Explain what you know as fact about this allegation, which you alluded to in your summation at the June 16 debate.
Peter Klotbucher theft complaint, September 2020, Deputy Stephens received a suspicious vehicle complaint. Deputy Stephens thought this vehicle may have some evidence in it from a previous theft complaint. Deputy Stephens contacts Detective Captain Julie Thobaben to see if he needed a search warrant to search for evidence inside the vehicle. Captain Thobaben advised him to do an inventory search of the vehicle at the Manawa Evidence Garage. (An inventory search is only used to document items in a vehicle while it is being stored in an impound area. This prevents accusations that something was stolen. You cannot use an inventory search to search for evidence.) Deputy Stephens needed a search warrant. Deputy Stephens did an inventory as instructed.
Detective Sergeant Pete Kraeger read Deputy Stephens report the next morning. The report was being referred to the District Attorney’s Office for criminal charges. The deputies report indicated that he performed an Inventory Search searching for evidence of the crime of theft. Detective Sergeant Kraeger took the report to Captain Thobaben and advised her. She stated that she would take care of it. Captain Thobaben changed the sentence so it read that Deputy Stephens performed an Inventory Search. It changed the report from an illegal search, to a legal search. Captain Thobaben then had the report forwarded to the District Attorney’s office for charges. Deputy Stephens was never made aware of the changes before it was sent to the D.A.’s office.
Detective Kraeger was speaking to Deputy Stephens about how to use an inventory search. Deputy Stephens then told Detective Sergeant Kraeger that he was told by Captain Thobaben to do this type of search. While they were speaking Detective Sergeant Kraeger realized that the report was changed and Deputy Stephens had no knowledge of this.
Detective Sergeant’s Kraeger, McClone, and I met and discussed what should be done. We thought it was best that we brought this to Captain Thobaben’s supervisor, Chief Deputy Carl Artz. Detectives Kraeger and McClone brought this information to Chief Deputy Artz. The next morning, Detectives Sergeant Kraeger and McClone were sent home on administrative leave. They were disciplined and reassigned to patrol duties for thirty days for harassing Captain Thobaben.
The District Attorney was made aware of the illegal search by an unnamed source. The District Attorney was legally obligated to notify Klotzbucher’s defense council. The current sheriff has since tried to minimize this by saying that the sheriff’s office changes reports all the time. This is not true. He has also tried to change the direction of blame to the District Attorney, saying that this is political.
I am not able to discuss my suspension because it involves other personnel matters that are still pending.
Next Week: Questions pertaining to the District Attorney’s Office and its relationship with the Waupaca County Sheriff’s Office.
