The Town and Village of Lancaster: Progressive or Conservative?

[GroundControl]

There appears to be a growing question within both entities. What is the true answer to that very question.

In the past those two completely different ways of governing were not an issue to the good people of Lancaster. But as of recently this issue is on the minds of many who live there.

In the Town of Lancaster the people spoke loud and clear giving full control to a mix of republicans and conservatives and a few real civic minded democrats. The message was clear and immediately was addressed upon being seated by the new peoples representatives. A more conservative direction was desired by the voters.It was not national issues that worried them, it what was going on in their own back yards.


In the Village of Lancaster it is a completely different story. In the last election Mayor Ruda took control of the board and proceeded to wrangle State grants that favored friends and political supporters and massage the rules of proper government to install the leftist progressive mindset she grew up with. This way of deducing a right answer to any particular problem is also fortified in the school system where her entire background comes from. My point, Mayor Ruda represents a person fully committed the Progressive Left of the Democrat Party.

Will the people of the Village of Lancaster take that same stance as their close neighbors did and rebuke the Progressive Ruda Agenda for more inclusive awareness of all the private citizens and all the local businesses and the immediate concerns of each. Cherry picking and favoritism is a way life for the Ruda type of politician. Will it be Electric automobile stations or sewer systems that are up to date before they flood the citizens homes and businesses?

The QUESTION the Lancaster villagers will be face at their next mayoral election is "What is our real political center?"

[mark blazejewski]

The QUESTION the Lancaster villagers will be face at their next mayoral election is "What is our real political center?"

We face it today, GC, so we really don't have to wait until 2025.

In the recent VOL Special Election, and in the subsequent forthcoming Runoff, I believe that Schroeder represents that honored "center." That is why I have been, and remain, such a pain in the ass about his messaging.

In the recent campaign, Schroeder failed to send that clear centrist message to voters. Rather, he most likely unwittingly, was absorbed into an informational black whole,. Apparently, many voters were left with the impression that this honored, decent, common sense man, is passionless about such stable and soothing centrist values.

Conversely, the March 14, 2024 Bee article by Ruda, was a thinly disguised endorsement of Santoro, which seemed to strongly identify Santoro as a strong supporter of her left wing status quo.

Fifty-three percent of the voters rejected that status quo. That fifty-three per cent also signals to Mayor Schroeder that in the time leading the VOL Trustee Run-off campaign, it is okay and in fact an expected requirement, for him to tastefully criticize the status quo. I believe that they eagerly await such precise messaging.

With the anticipated Run-off Election, Schroeder and his supporters, and obviously I include myself among his supporters, have been given a electoral second chance to claim that the political center, and from that advantage point, stop the existent whacky, leftist agenda. I hope that Schroeder adjusts his style and message, so that together, we do not squander this prized opportunity.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Except for the Republican Lucien Greco administration (1992-1996) the Town of Lancaster had been under Democratic Party control for 70 years. Under Greco the town was no better served when it came to development, infrastructure, the environment. Developers ruled!

Over time, as the town developed the town’s voter registry changed dramatically. Where registered Democrats outnumbered registered Republicans 2-1, the number is near parity, the Conservative Party has grown considerably, and the number of ‘blanks’ (unaffiliated registered voters) has increased significantly.

Tired of seeing a political party charged with patronage and development favoritism, outraged at witnessing the Machiavellian, dishonest, unethical political campaign a few years ago, town residents opted for a change in direction and voted in a town board made up of Republicans and Conservatives dedicated to the best interests of the community; not developers, not special interest groups.

They will be held equally accountable; yet supported against entities falsely charging them and attempting to undermine their agenda – which is already taking place by those adamantly opposing change. Foxes in the hen house!

Witnessing Supervisor Leary’s position on conducting a development moratorium against the advice and vote of his predecessor, a board member, and even the town attorney, assailed by a mob of developers and realtors, Leary has prevailed and has opened the moratorium committee meetings to the public. Public commitment, transparency, and openness, you bet!

As for the Village board, unless you are determined to look up their voter registries, you can’t determine party affiliation as they hide behind party names. As such, it is near impossible to determine progressive or conservative values. Regardless of today’s political party makeup, one thing appears certain. The village is in dire need of government transparency and openness and a board committed to the best interests of the community; not developers, not special interest groups.

The Village's status quo is not acceptable and IMHO none of the three Trustee candidates had the balls to fight for that change. Same old vanilla political claptrap!

[mark blazejewski]

Except for the Republican Lucien Greco administration (1992-1996) the Town of Lancaster had been under Democratic Party control for 70 years. Under Greco the town was no better served when it came to development, infrastructure, the environment. Developers ruled!

My Opinion:

The topical question of this entire thread, "The Town and Village of Lancaster: Progressive or Conservative," is profound today, but had it been asked in 1980 or 1990, it would have been pretty much irrelevant.

Up until then, the town was a rather good-natured battleground for two competing political families, the Keyas and the Volkers.

The Keyas carried the Democrat brand and the Volkers wore the Republican collar. The perceptible distinction between the two were their superficial party labels. Similar to the national brand of their parties, their core social, moral, and economic values were actually very similar; it was in their approach to problem solving that differed slightly. In the end, both of the town's parties seemingly served as the loyal custodians of Lancaster's way of life. The people came first, the parties almost a footnoted second. There was really nothing radical about either party.

That safe and stable landscape began to change in the mid-1980s and early 1990s, when the developers obsessively began to recognize Lancaster's value: abundant green space as a source for profit.

With that development came population growth, and with that growth came the intrusion of county and state politics. Both parties saw opportunities to increase their voting ranks. The more development, the more people; the more people, the more potential party voters. Sadly, both town parties assisted their county parties by strongly accommodating the developers.

Ergo, the era of the developers in Lancaster began. In strong support of the developers, came the birth of a very cooperative Lancaster Uni-Party system. That system is made-up of strong Democrats seeking to grow their voter rolls, and pathetic Republicans that content themselves with gathering discarded Democrat political/patronage crumbs. At least that is how I see things.

Lancaster's Uni-Party system posed no significant threat to Lancaster's social and moral values until the national Democrat Party turned Socialist/Marxist left. The state, county, and local Lancaster Democrats support their national party.

As such, for Lancaster's Uni-Party to survive, the Republican actors in it had to, at the very least, tolerate the radical Democrat positions. Without two strong competing parties, Lancaster residents had no choice but to swallow values that were an existential threat to their core beliefs. (This issue also appears evident in the VOL, but more on that in my next post.)

Enter Sojka.

Greg recognized the resident's dilemma, and in 2018, began a movement to give Lancaster residents an opportunity to reclaim their values and their destinies. Sojka's philosophy committed itself to serving the needs and concerns of the residents. His movement won the essential support of the Lancaster Conservative Party under Debbie Lemaster. In 2021 and again in 2023, Lancaster town residents overwhelmingly embraced the Sojka-Lemaster movement.

The Sojka-Lemaster movement reflects Lancaster's political center, and now stands in distinct contrast to a state, county, and town party which are taking leaps off the Social/Marxist tree, and all three are hitting every branch their way down.

[WNYresident]

Except for the Republican Lucien Greco administration (1992-1996) the Town of Lancaster had been under Democratic Party control for 70 years.

Is it just me.... I find it in poor judgement to support a group that is current supporting the agenda we have all been witnessing for the last 7+ years from the Democrat Party.

Why would people want people with poor judgement on their town board?

[mark blazejewski]

As for the Village board, unless you are determined to look up their voter registries, you can’t determine party affiliation as they hide behind party names. As such, it is near impossible to determine progressive or conservative values. Regardless of today’s political party makeup, one thing appears certain. The village is in dire need of government transparency and openness and a board committed to the best interests of the community; not developers, not special interest groups.

The Village's status quo is not acceptable and IMHO none of the three Trustee candidates had the balls to fight for that change. Same old vanilla political claptrap!

The Village Board is composed of a Mayor and four Trustees.

A trustee is defined as "an individual person or member of a board given control or powers of administration of property in trust with a legal obligation to administer it solely for the purposes specified."

That definition would seem to suggest a non-political body that would administer the affairs of the village.

In the past, the governing body of the VOL was always referred to as the "VOL Board of Trustees". Oddly, that terminology more recently seems to have changed to accommodate the term "The VOL Board". I am someone who believes that terminology is more than an exercise in semantics, but actually serves an intended purpose. So, what, if anything, is with that subtle change in the wording?

Throughout most of my life, Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives and blanks would all check their political baggage at the Municipal Building door, and honor their role as a Trustee or Mayor, without regard to their political identity and agenda. Those actors were almost always very faithful to advance the best interests of the property that they administered.

To me, it is very troubling that the village government now seems to have undertaken a more political track in its governance; a concerning directional shift replete with dramatic examples of a politically-driven agenda, even though the board members still do not overtly celebrate party labels.

Is that why there has been a change from "VOL Board of Trustees" to "The VOL Board"; words that remarkably mirror "The Lancaster Town Board", which is an entity in which partisan labels are acceptable, if not proudly and boldly identified?

The only actor that seems to be above the political crap in VOL government is Clerk-Treasurer Stegmeier, but that is just my opinion.

I just threw that out there for your thoughts.

[Lee Chowaniec]

My thoughts Mark:

Town of Lancaster

Town board has been under Democratic control 64 of last 70 years. Partisan to the point that a Republican Supervisor of a 4-councilmember board member was told outright that the council would let him govern if it met with their approval. “We have the f’en votes,” he was told; in no uncertain terms.

Resolution sponsoring livestreaming all board meetings was proposed by then Republican councilmember Robert Leary in January 2022. Received approval votes from Republican councilmembers Dickman and Burkard. Supervisor Ruffino and councilmember Mazur cast no votes.

It was a known fact that developers / builders ruled in Lancaster, supported by Democrats voicing that developers had property rights and were able to do whatever they wished. Developers were granted rezones and even rezones of rezones to accommodate their ‘market’ demands. Opposing / challenging their property rights even if the project infringed on residents’ property / quality of life was sure to bring a lawsuit voiced the Democrats. Supervisor Leary waited until taking office, sponsored a 1-year commercial-residential building moratorium in January 2024. It was approved unanimously, met with resident support, and has not been legally challenged as threatened – as there are no legal grounds.

In the town, party affiliation gives some sense of a candidate’s values and or direction in supporting the best interests of the community – supposedly. Too often candidates act in their own best interests.

Change has come to the town.

Village of Lancaster

The Village board is a mix of political party affiliations, yet beholding to a Mayor I believe is a ‘blank’ – a self-serving one at that.

The board is enigmatic secretive, and seems to favor businesses, special interest groups, and developers (one in particular) over the best interests of its residents.

Whereas the town refused to participate in having marijuana dispensaries and an ‘open container’ ordinance, the Village is okay with both.

President Biden is encouraging municipalities to change their zoning codes to allow for more affordable housing to take place. To at least have a certain percentage of rentals in development complexes to meet ‘affordable’ criteria. A certain developer has been granted assistance and LIDA tax breaks consideration without meeting those criteria – openly marketing his apartments in his mixed-use retail / apartment complex as market rate, upscale apartments.

The status quo continues.

[mark blazejewski]

Village of Lancaster

The status quo continues.

MY OPINIONS:



As always, the village government is a mix of political actors, and way back when, what is almost ancient history now, most residents, myself included, were fine with that.

Decades ago, those actors went about their business without any overt indications of the their partisanship. But, even then, the Board of Trustees conducted most of its work in secret, and the public board sessions were simple rubber-stamp affairs. Most of the moved legislation was aimed at the daily functions of the village, served the needs of the residents, and generally honored a stable, peaceful village. It was only in more recent years that the board seemingly started to become almost aggressively arrogant, unresponsive, and in many instances, defiant of ethical appearance.

In 2016, one rather principled trustee boldly acknowledged the board's troubling trend and proposed a "Citizens Advisory Board on Ethics Oversight, Transparency, and Government Responsiveness." This is the original outline of the proposed board:

I. Title: Citizens Advisory Board on Ethics Oversight, Transparency, and Government Responsiveness.

The members of this Citizens Advisory Board will be appointed by the Village Board. The make-up, number of members, term of office and other functional details to be determined by the VOL Board

II. Charter on Ethics Complaints

A. Will serve as the initial in-take step of an allegation of an ethics violation.

B. Will determine the validity of the complaint.

C. Will send to the Board a "finding" and recommend Board action.

D. The Board RETAINS all of its authority in terms of acceptance of "finding" and sanction(s).

III. Charter On Review of required Financial Disclosure documents

A. Will review at LEAST on a yearly basis the up-to-date status of such documents.

B. Will give an opinion of possible failures and recommend action/sanction to VOL Board.

IV. Charter on Advisory Opinions prior to potential Ethics Violations

A. Will issue Advisory opinions on contemplated outside activities and business dealings, and all business dealing within the scope of the VOL government, by VOL officials and employees which may constitute a conflict of interest.

B. Serve as the reporting channel for all gifts, or offer of gifts or gratuitous compensation rendered to VOL officials and employees.

C. Will advise on the appropriateness of fundraising solicitation by all VOL officials and employees.

D. Within the scope of all collective negotiations agreement, all officials and employees are required to seek prior consent for items A. and C. herein, and report items specified under B. to the Board immediately.

V. Charter under Public Complaints and Grievances

Residents who consider themselves aggrieved by any VOL official or employee may submit a written complaint to the Board, which will in turn refer the matter to the proper VOL official and advise the VOL Board as whole of the grievance.

That ethics proposal ultimately resulted in two (2) rather weak, so-called "reforms":

The first such reform was the adoption of legislation which apparently required a complaining the party to submit any complaints to the village attorney. The village attorney would then study the complaint(s) and decide whether it was worthy of pursuit. If I understood, and still understand, the process correctly, the village attorney would serve as a filter between the complainant, most probably a village resident, and the board, the exact entity which hired its services and compensates the attorney.

Reference:https://www.lancasterbee.com/article...ode-of-ethics/

Anything wrong with that?

This trustee answered it so well:

“But the attorney is appointed by the board, which could create issues of bias. If the village is looking over your shoulder for taxes, for building permits, for inspections, for licenses or so on, who is watching them? I’m proposing a citizen’s advisory board to watch over them.”

The second so-called reform now requires village employees to sign an acknowledgement that they have read the VOL ethics code.

The Lancaster Village Board is making sure its ethics code is understood by those who are governed by it.

The board unanimously approved a resolution at Monday night’s meeting requiring village employees to sign a document acknowledging that they have read and understand the code.

Reference: https://www.lancasterbee.com/article...mate-concerns/

Hmm, does not that reform suggest a requirement that an unethical actor read the ethics code before he would violate it?

Wow, that should discourage an unethical person, eh?

Let me summarize, a 2016 reform process began with a very aggressive proposal which gave citizens a strong voice, but ended with the construction of a further barrier between the residents and their government, and with some piece of paper, required to be signed by all village employees, acknowledging that it has read the VOL ethics code.

Simply put, I think when people begin to serve on the village board, they seem to get self-conscious. They are uncomfortable when the residents can look over their shoulder, what do you think?

Some things don't change for the better, they only get worse, eh?

(BTW, did the VOL always have an Assistant Village Attorney?)

[GroundControl]

Mark, to put a point on your well found and fact supported post, who was the Mayor then and the sitting Trustees, and who was that famous lawyer that crafted that very document and would in the end be the unbiased referee of the outcome of complaints and possible law suits brought upon the VOL, may I ask?

[mark blazejewski]

Mark, to put a point on your well found and fact supported post, who was the Mayor then and the sitting Trustees, and who was that famous lawyer that crafted that very document and would in the end be the unbiased referee of the outcome of complaints and possible law suits brought upon the VOL, may I ask?

GC,

To your questions:



During that entire 2016 process, according to the April 28, 2016 edition of the Lancaster Bee, Paul Maute was Mayor of the VOL.

“We don’t have anything like that right now. It would be new,” Maute said. “It’s still in the early stages. We’re not even sure if we’re going for it. It’s just something that’s been brought up.”

https://www.lancasterbee.com/article...ew-fire-chief/



According to the June 30, 2016 Lancaster Bee, Arthur Herdzik was VOL Attorney.

"Unless the Village Board determines otherwise, all requests will be handled by village attorney Arthur Herdzik. Upon receiving the request, Herdzik will have 30 days to respond, unless he is granted an extension. Herdzik will then advise the Board on the matter and give his suggested course of action. The Board will then respond to the inquiry as a singular entity."

https://www.lancasterbee.com/article...ode-of-ethics/



According to The April 28, June 30, and August 25 editions of the Lancaster Bee, Ken O'Brien was the Deputy Mayor...

We’ve had one issue in the 20 years I’ve been on the board,” Deputy Mayor Ken O’Brien said. “We’re doing this to deter these things from happening in the future. The board agreed that we should have employees acknowledge that we have the code in there and that you’ve read and understand it so we don’t have a problem in the future.”

and Dawn Robinson,

Some, including Robinson, feel that an advisory committee is unnecessary given the difficulty of forming it and the presence of Herdzik.

“We thought ‘who better than a village attorney?’ That position is an appointed one and so would an advisory board, it would be the same thing,” Robinson said.



“You’re not getting anything different out of an advisory board. The same people are appointing them as would appoint a village attorney. I think what we did today was a great solution for people who do have answers and want an opinion rendered,"

Russell Sugg,

...Sugg said. “But the attorney is appointed by the board, which could create issues of bias. If the village is looking over your shoulder for taxes, for building permits, for inspections, for licenses or so on, who is watching them? I’m proposing a citizen’s advisory board to watch over them,"...

and Bill Schroeder I know were Trustees.



References:

https://www.lancasterbee.com/article...ew-fire-chief/

https://www.lancasterbee.com/article...ode-of-ethics/

https://www.lancasterbee.com/article...ew-fire-chief/

The past is the past GC, but Sugg was way ahead of the curve, IMHO.

Schroeder appears to have gained in political maturity, and now seems intent on correcting the flaws which may exist in our village government, and that is why I am supporting him over the apparent Ruda endorsed candidate, Santoro.