Fox Crossing Municipal Judge Len Kachinsky faces Judicial Commission complaint

MADISON - Fox Crossing Municipal Judge Len Kachinsky is facing a judicial misconduct complaint filed with the state Supreme Court, the latest in a series of legal developments revolving around allegations that he continually harassed his clerk for the last year.

The complaint, filed April 4 by the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, comes after a Winnebago County court commissioner granted a restraining order on his clerk's behalf against Kachinsky and while he has an open civil case against the village to stop the administration from requiring a third person be present when he meets with the clerk.

Previous court filings allege erratic behavior and harassment against the clerk — starting a year ago — and subsequent retaliation against her. The documents include accusations that he made cat noises while staring at her for almost 40 minutes; sent an email that she, village administration and the police chief interpreted as a threat of violence; continually emailed her about nonwork issues; and filed letters of reprimand against her for such conduct as refusing to acknowledge or return Christmas greetings.

RELATED: Harassment restraining order granted against Fox Crossing Municipal Judge Len Kachinsky

RELATED: Fox Crossing Municipal Judge Len Kachinsky faces harassment allegations

Kachinsky has pushed back against many of the allegations and wrote in response to the clerk's petition for a restraining order that he hasn't harassed, intimidated or retaliated against her.

The Judicial Commission is in charge of investigating allegations of misconduct by judges. In its investigation, which began last summer, the Commission found that Kachinsky had violated a series of rules governing judicial behavior, including treatment of others.

The Commission found that his treatment of the clerk and the reprimands he filed against her were "in retaliation against her for complaining to the village about his conduct and/or being in contact with the Judicial Commission concerning its investigation."

It also argued that Kachinsky violated a rule prohibiting the use of the office to "advance his private interests" and retaliated when he sent an email to a village official saying that the village should be defunded if it filed a judicial ethics complaint against him.

As its basis, the complaint reiterates the lengthy allegations that appeared in records in the previously filed cases. Kachinsky's response is due May 21.

Once the Commission files a complaint, it must prove its allegations in public proceedings. The judge can be reprimanded, censured, suspended or removed. The Commission did not make any recommendations.

In June 2017, the village filed a complaint with the Commission, which notified Kachinsky the following month that it had opened an investigation into allegations regarding his treatment of the clerk. It notified him in November that its investigation had expanded due to "numerous allegations of ongoing misconduct" since the original complaint was filed, the complaint states.

Kachinsky told USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin in an email Thursday that on March 26 he gave his clerk a letter terminating her employment. That termination is effective April 30 and he said he had brought on a replacement employee who he expects his current clerk to train.

He added that Village Manager Jeff Sturgell had told him that the village wouldn't process the termination.

Sturgell declined to comment, citing the ongoing litigation.

Kachinsky called the clerk "a very capable employee" in her current and previous positions.

"We just had a deteriorating relationship on the job that seemed beyond repair," he wrote in an email to USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin. "I am sure she will find another job where she will excel. But a two-person office can't do a good job if the people in it do not get along."

