Republicans endorse Sugg for assembly seat

[Lee Chowaniec]

Guilt by endorsement if more appropriate of a reply, Mr. Chowaniec.

Clearly, if ethics and corruption - heck, the very way political types comport themselves in public office are the Number One issues in this year's election for State legislative office, especially for the seat currently occupied by Assemblymember Wozniak, then Mr. Sugg's campaign in 2015 should disqualify him from consideration due to his complete and total support for Mr. Fudoli and Mr. Brainard.

This man, Mr. Sugg, had literally MONTHS to distance himself from these two men, or more accurately, repudiate them for any number of well-established unethical and corrupt behavior.

Yet, Sugg chose not to open his mouth, not even once, and call out the exact kind of misdeeds that a leader looking for a promotion to higher public office should have done.

So you can sit there, Lee, and support this man, but, you know that you are wrong.

The same holds true for another office and local candidate seeking public office this year, that being Lancaster resident Mark Sacha seeking the high office of Erie County District Attorney in the Democratic primary.

How can Mark Sacha possibly expect me to believe that he is righteous when he, too, supported Dino Fudoli with campaign money and support in Mr. Fudoli's re-election campaign???

And how can Mr. Sacha possibly think he can call himself "independent" when he tried to prop up Fudoli in order to protect his wife's political patronage job in the supervisor's office??

Did Mark Sacha not also see all of Dino Fudoli's ethical shortcomings?????

Did Mark Sacha not see Dino Fudoli, as the top leader of one of Erie County's largest municipalities, thumb his nose at paying his real property taxes, which the rest of us are expected to pay???

Thankfully, there are other candidates in this race for DA, but I also would never support the incumbent district attorney for serious unethical actions on his part, nor would I support Kristy Mazurek if she does actually follow through and run for the office of Assemblymember.

If ethics and righteousness are important to voters, then Mr. Sugg and Mr. Sacha fall far short of those important principles.

Just saying!!!

So, it is guilt by association or do you believe Sugg is supposed to be his brother’s keeper regarding others personal life ethics? Please give me an example of a similar situation where a Party endorsed candidates speaks out on the personal ethics of other endorsed candidates on their Party line. I can’t think of any.

You keep blowing the same horn on Fudoli and Brainard not paying their property taxes. Those were everyday business transactions by business people and where nothing was illegally done.

You and others blamed and smeared Fudoli for spending down the fund balance by $5.2 million. Another untruth and nothing more than creative accounting adding project Ban Anticipation Note to the revenue stream and then incorrectly saying Fudoli spent the money when the time came to withdraw money for the project and wrongly accusing Fudoli of spending down fund balance money. An independent was recently completed and the opinion was that the town finances were in good shape with fund balances never healthier.

So you expected Sugg to complain about what ethical breach? Sugg lost a town board position not because of his being unethical but because 3,000 Republicans did not come out to vote because of the crap people like you were peddling that worked and get them at home.

Regardless, this has nothing to do with the recent election and I as many others see Sugg as a man of integrity and morals, having already proven he is ethically sound by his proposing the Village of Lancaster instate an Ethics Citizen Advisory Board, where now there is none.

Take the high road for a change and present facts why Wallace should be considered worthy of electing when you so tenaciously present how important ethics will be (considering the last two office holders) when in fact many see the use of attorney and ethics in the same sentence as oxymoronic.

As to the remainder of your tirade on the DA position, I could care less as long as it is now Sedita. And what the hell does that have to do with Sugg?

[gorja]

Originally posted by Breezy:

Clearly, if ethics and corruption - heck, the very way political types comport themselves in public office are the Number One issues in this year's election for State legislative office, especially for the seat currently occupied by Assemblymember Wozniak

Exactly, Mr Sugg in his elected office has always comported himself ethically and with great integrity. He's the only one in Lancaster village government that offered up an Ethics policy.

[Breezy]

Readers, what is clearly the Number One issue in this year's election for NYS Legislature?

Here's the answer: Restoring ethics and fighting corruption!

It is said that past practice is a good indication of future results, and on that score, Russ Sugg failed Lancaster miserably by not speaking up against the very people on his ticket last year who personified those sorry human failures, that being very-very-very poor ethics and an ominous history of corruption in their professional lives. But, heck, maybe Russ just didn't realize that ethics and corruption were to be the main issues in 2016, or maybe he was just too wrapped up and blinded by the thought that he could be a State Assemblyman.

In my view, any and all candidates or supporters from Team Fudoli/Brainard 2015 are certifiably unqualified to hold public office.

And that would mean Russ Sugg and Mark Sacha as candidates should be run out of town on a rail!!!!

LOL

Please give me an example of a similar situation where a Party endorsed candidates speaks out on the personal ethics of other endorsed candidates on their Party line. I can’t think of any.

And concerning your question here, Lee, let's look at those Republicans not supporting Mr. Trump, that being Republicans announcing that they just can't support him, including GOP Senator Kirk, Gov. Kasich, the Bush family, former presidential candidate and former Gov. Romney, Senator Sasse, former Gov. Whitman, GOP commentator Bill Kristol, former Gov. Tom Ridge, to name just a few.

You can see in the national election where Republicans are fleeing the party's candidate (George Will being the latest) due to Donald Trump's style of politics. So, where was Mr. Sugg (and Mark Sacha)in 2015 when they could and should have stood up to Dino Fudoli and Joseph Brainard as both had very clear unsavory reputations on any number of important principles - ethics, the treatment of women, civility, etc.

So, it is guilt by association or do you believe Sugg is supposed to be his brother’s keeper regarding others personal life ethics?

Guilt by endorsement is more accurate, and yes, he should have been his brother's keeper or stand up for the community and speak up!!!

You keep blowing the same horn on Fudoli and Brainard not paying their property taxes. Those were everyday business transactions by business people and where nothing was illegally done.

Oh, yeah, the chief executive of a municipality refusing to pay his property taxes and it's ok with you. PLEASE!

Not only does that set a horrible example, it also is plain wrong.

What if everyone followed suit? Especially the business community had their company run into tough times.

And Mr. Sugg's silence on this matter speaks volumes!!!!!

As does Mark Sacha's silence, as well; and worse is the fact that Mr. Sacha funded the Fudoli re-election campaign. But Mr. Sacha wanted to protect the political patronage position for his family in Dino's office. So much for independence on Mr. Sacha's part. PLEASE!!!

You and others blamed and smeared Fudoli for spending down the fund balance by $5.2 million. Another untruth and nothing more than creative accounting adding project Ban Anticipation Note to the revenue stream and then incorrectly saying Fudoli spent the money when the time came to withdraw money for the project and wrongly accusing Fudoli of spending down fund balance money. An independent was recently completed and the opinion was that the town finances were in good shape with fund balances never healthier.

I just do not recall mentioning the use of fund balance in my comments last year.

My concerns centered around civility in the highest office in Town, this man's treatment of women, his boorish behavior, his aforementioned property tax scandals, and more.

So you expected Sugg to complain about what ethical breach? Sugg lost a town board position not because of his being unethical but because 3,000 Republicans did not come out to vote because of the crap people like you were peddling that worked and get them at home.

Regardless, this has nothing to do with the recent election and I as many others see Sugg as a man of integrity and morals, having already proven he is ethically sound by his proposing the Village of Lancaster instate an Ethics Citizen Advisory Board, where now there is none.

Sorry, Lee, but you either have your head buried in the sand or you're just as duplicitous as that charade that was called the Republican campaign for Lancaster 2015!

Maybe those 3,000 Republicans stayed home because they too had enough of Fudoli and a Republican leadership that was (and is with the endorsement of Russ Sugg this year) tone deaf to shouts of ethics reform, ending corruption and restoring civility to Town government.

Take the high road for a change and present facts why Wallace should be considered worthy of electing when you so tenaciously present how important ethics will be (considering the last two office holders) when in fact many see the use of attorney and ethics in the same sentence as oxymoronic.

Hmmmmmm!!!!

Let's see: An attorney and ethics (Ms. Wallace) vs. a politician and ethics (Mr. Sugg).

I guess I'll stick with the attorney.

And I have never met Ms. Wallace; however, I believe she clearly is the best choice for this office.

And again, we need more qualified women in public office, especially in the NYS Legislature.

As to the remainder of your tirade on the DA position, I could care less as long as it is now Sedita. And what the hell does that have to do with Sugg?

Mark Sacha endorsed and financed the campaign of Dino Fudoli, as did Russ Sugg.

Both are running for public office in 2016.

Both has failed the ethics test miserably in my view.

Especially for the DA position, supporting Mr. Fudoli says a lot about any candidate.

Thankfully there are others running too for DA.

[gorja]

Originally posted by Breezy:
Let's see: An attorney and ethics (Ms. Wallace) vs. a politician and ethics (Mr. Sugg).

Sometimes attorney and ethics are oxymoronic terms especially on the Democratic side

Mark S Aquino
The grievance committee found that –
1. Aquino engaged in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law.
2. Aquino misappropriated funds belonging to another person
3. Aquino commingled client funds with personal funds
4. Aquino failed to maintain separate account for funds belonging to third parties
5. Aquino failed to promptly pay funds belonging to third party
6. Aquino engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice
http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/ad4/C...f/P-12-015.pdf

[shortstuff]

And, Aquino what he smashed a car, ran from the scene trying to climb a fence BUT a passerby called the police and halted Aquino....come on.......

[Lee Chowaniec]

Hello Breezy

Regarding post 33

It is near impossible to get a clear understanding where you stand on specifics while you continue to not stay focused on what this thread is all about; namely Sugg’s and Wallace’s endorsements and their qualifications. Trump, Sacha, DA campaign, etc., again, who gives a ****?

You do nothing again to give any reason why I should consider Wallace as the more qualified and ethical individual because she is an attorney. You state you don’t even know her but that’s she’s an attorney (with no political experience) and that’s good enough for you. That’s it? Washington is loaded with attorneys; need I say more. Bill and Hillary were attorneys.

What I have earned from your recent post (as well as past posts) is:

• That you are disingenuous in saying you have but a casual interest in politics and are an independent resident thinker. You are in fact a diehard Democrat operative who will only savage like Democrats to diminish the herd running for office. The Trump analogy was so much more of your distortion and detraction policies.

• You say more women are needed in office and all I can think about is Hillary, Pelosi, Feinstein and Wozniak on a local level. Yes, they are the standard bearers of ethical behavior. And Hillary is your girl, isn’t she? I remember your cackling when the DEMS won in the town last year and you’re stating your job was done here that it was time to move on to support Hillary. That says much to me on your position regarding ethical standards.

• You say you do not remember the fund balance fiasco last year; maybe you don’t because you seem to have a memory for only what suits your best interest.

I have stated often in the past that with few exceptions all politicos suck – all Breezy, from all political parties. It is most often a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils when voting for a candidate running for office who indeed would provide the best governance and acting in providing for the best interest of the community. Sugg is such individual – in my opinion! He is not of the typical, polished, BS, political class.

He is one who best represents the people; in my opinion, just saying, heck!

[Breezy]

Sometimes attorney and ethics are oxymoronic terms especially on the Democratic side

Mark S Aquino
The grievance committee found that –
1. Aquino engaged in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law.
2. Aquino misappropriated funds belonging to another person
3. Aquino commingled client funds with personal funds
4. Aquino failed to maintain separate account for funds belonging to third parties
5. Aquino failed to promptly pay funds belonging to third party
6. Aquino engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice
http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/ad4/C...f/P-12-015.pdf

For exceptionally weak replies, this one takes the cake!



Anyone with a brain understands that neither side (Dem nor Republican) has a lock on righteousness, attorney or non-attorney; but the evidence clearly shows a record of poor judgement on the part of candidate Sugg in terms of standing up for people who have overwhelming records of poor ethical standards and misdeeds.

Heck, he was the bully pulpit in 2015 for the bully in the supervisor's pulpit.

He was the loudest mouth loud-mouth pitbull for the GOP Town ticket, which was littered with ethical misfits masquerading as reputable candidates.

Was he not?????

To somehow bring someone into the question (remember the thread title: Republicans endorse Sugg for assembly seat) with no connection at all is just ridiculous and laughable. Even posted with a link, but who in their right mind would be confused by such a farce of a reply?

Please!

Not even a nice try here, my dear, and only shows that your candidate, Russ Sugg, does have a soft spot in his candidacy by attempting to shove Dino Fudoli and Joseph Brainard down the throats of Lancaster Town voters JUST LAST YEAR.

So why not use the "Aquino Card" when that name is pretty much out of local politics? I don't recall Mr. Aquino endorsing anyone for the State Assembly, nor would I expect such an endorsement.

Unlike Mr. Sugg, Mr. Aquino did not endorse anyone in the big Lancaster Town races last fall, and Town residents saw the spectacle of Mr. Sugg groveling at the feet of Dino Fudoli while knowing full well the terrible sort of person in terms of ethics that Dino Fudoli was as Town supervisor. Of course that's what political hacks do. Ignore a very long list of ethical shortcomings - most played out in the daily newspaper for everyone to see, yet, when the test of ethics came up, Russ Sugg failed miserably.

Sorry, gorja, on this one you are all bark and no bite.

This dog simply can't hunt!

[Breezy]

Hello Breezy

Regarding post 33

It is near impossible to get a clear understanding where you stand on specifics while you continue to not stay focused on what this thread is all about; namely Sugg’s and Wallace’s endorsements and their qualifications. Trump, Sacha, DA campaign, etc., again, who gives a ****?

You do nothing again to give any reason why I should consider Wallace as the more qualified and ethical individual because she is an attorney. You state you don’t even know her but that’s she’s an attorney (with no political experience) and that’s good enough for you. That’s it? Washington is loaded with attorneys; need I say more. Bill and Hillary were attorneys.

What I have earned from your recent post (as well as past posts) is:

• That you are disingenuous in saying you have but a casual interest in politics and are an independent resident thinker. You are in fact a diehard Democrat operative who will only savage like Democrats to diminish the herd running for office. The Trump analogy was so much more of your distortion and detraction policies.

• You say more women are needed in office and all I can think about is Hillary, Pelosi, Feinstein and Wozniak on a local level. Yes, they are the standard bearers of ethical behavior. And Hillary is your girl, isn’t she? I remember your cackling when the DEMS won in the town last year and you’re stating your job was done here that it was time to move on to support Hillary. That says much to me on your position regarding ethical standards.

• You say you do not remember the fund balance fiasco last year; maybe you don’t because you seem to have a memory for only what suits your best interest.

I have stated often in the past that with few exceptions all politicos suck – all Breezy, from all political parties. It is most often a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils when voting for a candidate running for office who indeed would provide the best governance and acting in providing for the best interest of the community. Sugg is such individual – in my opinion! He is not of the typical, polished, BS, political class.

He is one who best represents the people; in my opinion, just saying, heck!

Readers, stop back later as this post deserves a point-by-point reply.

There is so much here that's just wild and warrants a thoughtful response.

LOL

But again, just shows that Mr. Sugg, clearly does have a soft spot in his candidacy if ethics and restoring a high ethical standard in the NYS legislature is the Number One issue facing State government.

Oh, yeah, and that is the issue according to polling that states upward of 90% of State voters cite ethics and corruption has the Number One issue.

[Lancastermom]

Breezy you need to chill before you give yourself a heart attack. Your character assassination or attempt thereof of Mr. Sugg is laughable at best

[Lee Chowaniec]

Readers, stop back later as this post deserves a point-by-point reply.

There is so much here that's just wild and warrants a thoughtful response.

LOL

But again, just shows that Mr. Sugg, clearly does have a soft spot in his candidacy if ethics and restoring a high ethical standard in the NYS legislature is the Number One issue facing State government.

Oh, yeah, and that is the issue according to polling that states upward of 90% of State voters cite ethics and corruption has the Number One issue.

Yawn, still waiting. Come on, putting some BS together should be easy for someone like you.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Breezy recently posted:

Let's see: An attorney and ethics (Ms. Wallace) vs. a politician and ethics (Mr. Sugg).

I guess I'll stick with the attorney.

And I have never met Ms. Wallace; however, I believe she clearly is the best choice for this office.

Breezy impugns State Assembly candidate Russell Sugg’s integrity while declaring that although he has never met Monica Wallace he will favor her State Assembly candidacy based on her being an attorney and thereby automatically possessing ethical standards above those of Sugg.

And then I read:

The US Supreme Court just ruled (8-0) to reverse former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell‘s corruption conviction and declared the prosecutors ‘overreached’. Now Dean Skelos and Sheldon Silver may walk free because of this court decision. Guess what all these bozos have in common? Why they are all lawyers. So while Breezy intimates that by profession attorneys are more prone to have integrity and to be more ethical than the unwashed citizenry, I find that amusing.

Federal and state governments are loaded with these types, where corruption is rampant by both political parties, and they want no part of any type of ‘citizen ethics committee’. But Sugg does and what did one of his fellow Village of Lancaster Board members have to say about his Citizens Ethics Advisory Committee proposal at Monday evening’s? Why she accused him of using his proposal for political gain now that he is running for a State Assembly position.

Sugg’s proposal timeframe

Sugg brought up the citizen’s ethics committee proposal in September of 2015, received no formal response on it and left it on the backburner until after the Town of Lancaster election where he was running for a council position and was narrowly defeated. He didn’t press it as he didn’t want to be accused of political gain at that time.

It resurfaced again in early 2016 (Feb or March at the latest), long before Wozniak announced her resignation and the assembly seat position became formally announced in June 2016.
He was wrongly berated Monday night as using it for political gain; and to further rub salt in the wound the Village is plagiarizing his Citizens Ethics Advisory Board proposal and where the following resolution was adopted (from the Lancaster Bee):

The Lancaster Village Board on Monday passed a resolution updating the Village’s Code of Ethics to add a process to request an advisory legal opinion.

The resolution, which was passed after a public hearing, was codified as the new Section 14-8. It states that requests may be made in writing for an advisory opinion on whether the past, present or proposed conduct violates the Code of Ethics.

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.

“I believe this is a fair and equitable process that really is ethical,” Trustee Dawn Robinson said. “People can reach out with a concern and get an answer for that concern and know exactly where everybody stands on it.”

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.

Comments

Update of what Village of Lancaster Ethic’s Code? Was there a formal policy ever put in place or just another ‘by Municipal Law’ language.

So let me get this straight. The Village Board appoints the attorney. The attorney’s principle task is to protect the Village and the Village Board members. He will now render advisory opinions on the nature of conflict of interests by board members. And no one see a conflict of interest on his selection of personally guarding the hen house while protecting the best interests of the community; guarding against corruption, fraud, waste of community financial resources, etc.?

But an attorney’s and integrity and credibility is above reproach. There is now a corruption probe against a Supreme Court jurist and several attorneys. So much for that fairy tale! Yep, we need more lawyers in Washington and Albany; things are just humming long in the right direction.

“What we passed today was a good step,” Sugg was quoted as saying in the Bee. “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.”

Sugg will hold a work session on Thursday in an attempt to further the scope of the drafted resolution and in order to create a Citizens Ethics Advisory Board. Nice try Mr. Sugg but no cigar. It is obvious the Village of Lancaster Board will take the same stance on limiting any resident involvement as the Town of Lancaster did when the creates their feckless ethics committee and while then Town Council member Donna Stempniak uttered that infamous, but telling declaration, “We don’t want them looking over our shoulder.”

Lastly, the Buffalo News reporter today that Justice Michalek’s Hamburg Old Lake Shore home is up for sale. He is asking $987,800 for it. He purchased the home in 1996 for $340,000 and it is currently assessed at $255000. I am sure there is a credible explanation for the disparity in numbers.

Ethics in the political and legal professions, LMAO.

[gorja]

Russ Sugg's platform
I. TOP PRIORITIES:

(A) My first priority would be to provide financial relief for students, family caregivers, the elderly over seventy, and our veterans.

Under my plan, students and family caregivers would receive limited exemptions from the five (5) per cent New York State Sales Tax. The elderly and our veterans would have permanent and complete exemptions from this tax. I would encourage the counties and local governments to follow suit.

Taking each category in turn, this plan would serve to mitigate the student debt problem; help keep New York’s health care costs down, give our elderly on fixed income much needed financial relief, and would serve to honor and assist our veterans.

Also, in tribute to our September 11, 2001 fallen, and out of respectful gratitude for those who carry on, I would introduce legislation that would exempt each and every law enforcement officer and first-responder from the base New York State Sales Tax from September 1-September 30 each and every year.

(B) I would simplify and expand the STAR (School Tax Relief) program.

I have extensive experience implementing the New York State STAR program. I believe that the application process can be simplified by including it as a line item on the New York State Income Tax, and can be expanded into ancillary areas.

(C) I will fully support prudent legislation to cut taxes on business. This will help create jobs and help to revitalize New York's economy.

(D) I am committed to the full preservation of all of our Constitutional guarantees. I will always support the pursuit of governance that keeps, to the maximum extent possible, decision making in the hands of the most local authority.

(E) I am committed to ethics reform. While serving by example. I intend to start a serious conversation in this state to raise the population’s level of concern and consciousness, in the hope and expectation that TRUE ethics reform may be realized.

(F) Furthermore, in pursuit of ethical governance, I will propose that each member of the New York State Assembly and the New York State Senate be term-limited. Under my plan each Assembly member and Senator shall serve no more than five (5) two-year terms.

II. Campaign Finance

I believe campaign finance is a free speech issue covered under the First Amendment. As such, I am reluctant to restrict the exercise of free speech. But, I do believe the voter has a right to know what businesses, individuals, and organizations are financing a political candidate. An informed voter is a powerful voter. With that in mind, I will pursue legislation to lend maximum transparency to the campaign finance process.

Moreover, I would work to hold candidates responsible for inaccurate, misleading, and/or deceptive campaign statements and pledges.

III. Electoral Process

There needs to be more effective monitoring of the electoral technology and balloting process, in order to limit both the intentional and unintentional inaccurate counting of ballots.

[Breezy]

Russ Sugg's platform
(E) I am committed to ethics reform. While serving by example. I intend to start a serious conversation in this state to raise the population’s level of concern and consciousness, in the hope and expectation that TRUE ethics reform may be realized.

(F) Furthermore, in pursuit of ethical governance, I will propose that each member of the New York State Assembly and the New York State Senate be term-limited. Under my plan each Assembly member and Senator shall serve no more than five (5) two-year terms.

Funny how this guy all of a sudden likes "ethics" when just last fall he supported the poster child of everything unethical: the former Lancaster Town supervisor.

Why did this man not stand up for ethics in 2015?

[gorja]

Funny how this guy all of a sudden likes "ethics" when just last fall he supported the poster child of everything unethical: the former Lancaster Town supervisor.

Why did this man not stand up for ethics in 2015?

He did support ethics in 2015 regarding the Gaczewski matter. It's his co-elected officials the have no ethics.
Lancaster village’s unethical ethics code

An ethics code should be a process in which the results of any advisory opinion and/or an investigation of ethics violations would not be perceived by the taxpayers as a ‘Conflict of interest’.

Utilizing the appointed Village attorney as the handler of advisory opinion and ethics code violation requests is in itself a perceived ‘Conflict of interest’

An example would be Trustee Schroeder who cohabitates with Dawn Gaczewski continually votes for her as Special Events coordinator. If someone were to request an investigation into the ethics of that vote, how would Village attorney Herdzik make a decision of the ethics of that vote without the appearance of a conflict of interest?

As someone who draws a salary from his appointment to his position as village attorney by the village trustees, how could his decision be viewed as non-conflicted?

A decision like that would put the three of them in bed together in the eyes of the taxpayers.

A non-paid advisory board would not have that conflict, in my humble opinion.

[Lee Chowaniec]

He did support ethics in 2015 regarding the Gaczewski matter. It's his co-elected officials the have no ethics.
Lancaster village’s unethical ethics code

An ethics code should be a process in which the results of any advisory opinion and/or an investigation of ethics violations would not be perceived by the taxpayers as a ‘Conflict of interest’.

Utilizing the appointed Village attorney as the handler of advisory opinion and ethics code violation requests is in itself a perceived ‘Conflict of interest’

An example would be Trustee Schroeder who cohabitates with Dawn Gaczewski continually votes for her as Special Events coordinator. If someone were to request an investigation into the ethics of that vote, how would Village attorney Herdzik make a decision of the ethics of that vote without the appearance of a conflict of interest?

As someone who draws a salary from his appointment to his position as village attorney by the village trustees, how could his decision be viewed as non-conflicted?

A decision like that would put the three of them in bed together in the eyes of the taxpayers.

A non-paid advisory board would not have that conflict, in my humble opinion.

Stop it gorga, you are making too much sense and Breezy will only distort or detract from the point being made – kind of like the uber biased mainstream media.