DNR emails reveal that Mayor Jim Paine may have orchestrated a deal to trade city-owned land to resolve easement violations on property connected to his own family. If true, this goes beyond mere conflict of interest—it suggests the possibility of using municipal assets to benefit his relatives.

This isn’t just about bending rules; it’s about the potential misuse of public resources to settle a private problem. And if that doesn’t alarm you, it should.

The Family Connection

The controversy centers around property along the St. Louis River, land once owned by the City of Superior but now linked to the Paine family. This property is subject to a Department of Natural Resources (DNR) easement, which restricts development to protect the environment.

Emails between Mayor  Jim Paine’s Chief of Staff, Rebecca Scherf, and DNR attorney Michael Kowalkowski reveal that the mayor was personally involved in negotiating a resolution to these easement violations. And what was proposed? Trading city-owned land to satisfy the DNR and clear the way for his family’s property to skirt the restrictions.

That’s right—municipal land, owned by the taxpayers of Superior, was allegedly put on the table to settle the mayor’s family’s legal headaches.

The Emails That Expose the Deal

February 9, 2024 – Setting the Stage

It all started when Kowalkowski emailed Scherf, saying:

“Please let Mayor Paine know I expect to present the Department’s offer for resolution of this matter to him via email on Monday.”

Why was the mayor personally handling this? Why wasn’t an independent city attorney involved, given his family’s direct stake in the outcome?

February 12, 2024 – The Big Trade-Off

Just days later, the proposal was laid bare. The DNR offered to resolve the easement violations under these conditions:

• • The City of Superior would dedicate public land to the Dwight’s Point and Pokegema Wetlands State Natural Area.

• • The Paine family would remove a sunken barge and other structures from their property.

• • In return, the DNR would release portions of the easement, giving the Paine family more freedom over their land.

Translation: City property was being used as a bargaining chip to benefit the mayor’s relatives. Municipal assets were allegedly leveraged to solve a private problem.

Trading City Land for Family Gain?

Let’s call this what it is—a potential abuse of power. Why should city-owned land be sacrificed to resolve a family property dispute? Would any other Superior resident get this kind of deal?

This smells like a sweetheart arrangement: Public property for private gain. And Mayor Jim Paine wasn’t just aware of it—he was orchestrating it.

The emails show that the mayor’s office, represented by his Chief of Staff, was actively facilitating the deal. And the pressure didn’t let up.

April 18, 2024 – Moving the Deal Forward

Scherf followed up with Kowalkowski:

“We are ready to move forward. Could you provide us with the draft articles of dedication?”

The dedication she referred to was the proposed transfer of city land—a move that directly benefited the Paine family. Was the mayor using his office to push through a deal that no one else could get?

May 3, 2024 – Fast-Tracking the Trade

Weeks later, Scherf again asked for updates on the draft articles of dedication. This wasn’t just follow-up—it was persistence, a clear priority for the mayor’s office.

And who stood to gain from this urgency? Mayor Jim Paine’s own family.

September 5, 2024 – Private Meetings Arranged

Scherf then set up a meeting “regarding the easement with Mayor Paine and potentially Mr. Fred Paine”—the mayor’s own relative.

Hold up. Why was the mayor’s office arranging meetings to negotiate a private property matter for his family? Why weren’t the Paines handling their own business?

Would any other resident of Superior receive this level of personal service from city staff?

Serious Questions Demand Answers

This isn’t just about bending the rules. This is about using city resources to solve a private problem—a problem that just so happens to impact the mayor’s own family.

Here’s what needs to be answered:

• • Did Mayor Paine abuse his position by using city property to settle a family dispute?

• • Shouldn’t the mayor have recused himself from any involvement in this deal?

• • Were other city officials aware that municipal land was being used as a bargaining chip?

Public Trust on the Line

When public officials use their power for private gain, trust is shattered. Superior’s citizens deserve better. They deserve transparency, accountability, and leaders who put the public good above personal interests.

Mayor Paine needs to come clean. He owes the people of Superior an explanation: Why was city land offered to resolve his family’s easement violations?

And more importantly, he must answer this: Who does he really serve—the people of Superior or his own family?

Demanding Accountability

The residents of Superior should demand a full investigation into this land deal. An independent review is necessary to determine if laws were broken or ethics violated.

Trading public assets to settle personal disputes is more than just bad optics—it’s a betrayal of public trust. If Mayor Paine can’t account for his actions, then perhaps he shouldn’t be serving as mayor at all.

This isn’t over. Superior deserves answers. And we won’t stop asking questions until the truth is uncovered.

 

---

The Emails That Sparked the Scandal

(Full email chain follows this article for complete transparency. Read them for yourself and decide: Did Mayor Paine trade city land to benefit his own family?)

February 9, 2024 – 3:51 PM

From: Kowalkowski, Michael J – DNR
To: Scherf, Rebecca
Subject: RE: Proposed Meeting with DNR re. Resolution of Easement Violations by Reducing Easement Area

Rebecca,

Thank you for following up. Please let Mayor Paine know I expect to present the Department’s offer for resolution of this matter to him via email on Monday.

Have a good weekend,

Michael Kowalkowski

---

February 12, 2024 – 4:13 PM

From: Kowalkowski, Michael J – DNR
To: Mayor@ci.superior.wi.us
Cc: Scherf, Rebecca
Subject: Easement matter

Hello Mayor Paine,

Thank you for your diligence in pursuing resolution of the encroachment on the Department of Natural Resources’ easement encumbering property formerly owned by the City of Superior. The Department would be prepared to resolve this matter as follows:

1. 1. The City of Superior would pursue dedication of the Dwight’s Point and Pokegema Wetlands State Natural Area.

1. 1. The property owners would remove the sunken barge and other structures.

1. 1. The Department would release a portion of the easement upon completion of the conditions.

Let me know if I can provide additional information.

Regards,
Michael Kowalkowski

---

April 18, 2024 – 10:27 AM

From: Scherf, Rebecca
To: Kowalkowski, Michael J – DNR
Subject: RE: Easement matter

Hello Attorney Kowalkowski,

We are ready to move forward. Could you provide us with the draft articles of dedication?

Thank you,
Rebecca Scherf

---

May 3, 2024 – 12:18 PM

From: Scherf, Rebecca
To: Kowalkowski, Michael J – DNR
Subject: RE: Easement matter

Hello Attorney Kowalkowski,

Just checking in on next steps of receiving the draft articles of dedication on the Paine easement.

Thank you,
Rebecca Scherf

---

May 3, 2024 – 1:57 PM

From: Kowalkowski, Michael J – DNR
To: Scherf, Rebecca
Subject: RE: Easement matter

Good afternoon Rebecca,

Thank you for following up. The Department looks forward to working with the City on the State Natural Areas dedication process. I am attaching information about the process and examples of Articles of Dedication.

Have a good weekend,
Michael Kowalkowski

---

September 5, 2024 – 1:49 PM

From: Scherf, Rebecca
To: Kowalkowski, Michael J – DNR
Subject: RE: Easement matter

Hello Attorney Kowalkowski,

Do you have time next week for a meeting regarding the easement with Mayor Paine and potentially Mr. Fred Paine?

Thank you,
Rebecca Scherf

---

September 5, 2024 – 2:38 PM

From: Kowalkowski, Michael J – DNR
To: Scherf, Rebecca
Subject: RE: Easement matter

Hello Rebecca,

I have availability next week as follows:

• • Monday: 10-2

• • Tuesday: 10-12

• • Wednesday: 1-3

• • Thursday: 10-12

• • Friday: 9-12

Let me know if any of these work.

Thanks,
Michael Kowalkowski