Will Monica Piga Wallace and John Bruso do the right thing?

[mark blazejewski]

Gotcha Ms. Gorja, sorry for the confusion.

[mark blazejewski]

Character assignation (Bruso) based on speculation, who knew what and when and specific targeting when the practice is widespread and has been going on since the beginning of the political system.

Lee,

You are giving the likes of "Breezy" opportunistic, unjustified, and unsupported future soundbites here, which he can twist and distort. You need to remember, as far as my specific person is concerned, that it was the "Breezy" account that started this guilt by association crap, and it was he who seemed to apply character assassination tactics.

You will remember, I was neutral in the 2017 Town Council campaign, until "Breezy," without prior comment from me regarding those races, said that any words that I may write in 2017, should be reduced in the readers' mind, because I made token contributions totaling under $100, to two candidates in 2015, and that, seemingly, as a reflection of those donations, that I somehow share a common personal value system with those candidates.

Again, I was not, and am not, aware of any efforts by the great ethics crusaders Ruffino or Bruso to walk back those comments by their apparent surrogate, or to discourage any such future comments.

But, to the present.

I am not "assassinating" Bruso's character. I am giving him advise, albeit unsought, to enhance it.

I have suggested that in light of his, and the Democrat Party's 2017 position on ethics, some type of donation return would seem appropriate, and may well-serve Mr. Bruso's reputation and interests.

Mr. Bruso NOW knows of the apparent Dirschberger transgressions, and Mr. Bruso now has a terrific opportunity to lead by example.

My opinion of Mr. Bruso's performance as a legislator is not predestined, is undefined, and is far from formed. To wit, in the event that Mr. Bruso already has, or will, return the money, or more desirably, donate it to charity, I am open to a public acknowledgement of that gesture, and will commend him for it.

This ends my comments concerning the issue of the Dirschberger donation to Mr. Bruso, and I will have no further recommendations or insights to add.

[shortstuff]

[QUOTE

I share and fully support Greg's opinion Lee.

Bruso should be held accountable for accepting the contribution. My only caution is that Bruso, in his rebuke, needs to exercise caution not to do so with linkage to the ongoing criminal investigation.

The Democrats ALWAYS play the guilt-by-association game, and have done so in cases that do not rise to the area of government corruption or malfeasance, let alone in cases with suggestions of possible criminal conduct.

Dirschberger was far from a "Joe Blow Average." As I understand it, at the time the contribution was made, Dirschberger was a public figure, and had some questionable baggage before assuming that position. It seems that it was the apparent indifference applied to that baggage by the powers, that be that made Dirschberger's tenure possible.

As one who sought to lead, Mr. Bruso either was remiss in understanding the issues that the Dirschberger appointment raised at the beginning of his tenure at Social Services, or blindly accepted the administration seemingly rather lax vetting standards, and is now properly held accountable.

If such a situation would have existed with Fudoli, Brainard, or Morton, that "acceptance" would be a highlighted issue on mailers, Speak Up discussion threads, lit drops, and the subject of television and radio commercials. For Heaven's sake, Blazejewski, a private citizen, was brought to task for a token contribution to a candidate who had no issues negatively impacting the tax dollars or governance.

Bruso wanted the job, and in very significant part did so by a compare and contrast ethics platform to Mr. Morton's. It is VERY fair to apply the observation: "You are the company you keep" to Mr. Bruso.

Just my humble opinion.

I agree somewhat here Mark as well as what Greg is stating. Character is important, if Bruzo has integrity (and I heard he has some), I would appreciate him returning the campaign donation as a sign of character. I also agree some with what Lee states in how do we truly vet those who donate to the campaign? Tough, but Bruzo is small time, he does have control easier than those who run for Senate or Congress. Remember, politics begin at a local level. If Bruzo is who he has claimed on the campaign trail, this would be an example of what he was campaigning on. I know empathically, Russ Sugg would never of taken those donations from someone like Dirschberger.

[mark blazejewski]

If Bruzo is who he has claimed on the campaign trail, this would be an example of what he was campaigning on.

That is all that I am saying; I don't know where all the pejorative conclusions and suggestions are coming from. I accept that he was remiss in vetting, but as John Kennedy once said "An error does not become a mistake unless it goes uncorrected."

Those words seem applicable in this instance with Bruso.

I know empathically, Russ Sugg would never of taken those donations from someone like Dirschberger.

I do not presume to speak for Russ Sugg, but, I do know some of the people around him, among those, I know very well, the individual who may be his key political adviser.

I believe that if Russ Sugg had prior knowledge of even the possibility of such transgressions, such a monetary donation would have been promptly returned.

I believe that if Russ Sugg would have been informed of such possible transgressions after acceptance, as appears to be the case with Mr. Bruso, Sugg most likely would be careful of the manner in which the return was executed, but I am confident it would be returned, directly, or indirectly through a charitable contribution, in the interests of "keeping faith" with those who honored him with their votes, and in the interests of ethical governance.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Lee,

You are giving the likes of "Breezy" opportunistic, unjustified, and unsupported future soundbites here, which he can twist and distort. You need to remember, as far as my specific person is concerned, that it was the "Breezy" account that started this guilt by association crap, and it was he who seemed to apply character assassination tactics.

You will remember, I was neutral in the 2017 Town Council campaign, until "Breezy," without prior comment from me regarding those races, said that any words that I may write in 2017, should be reduced in the readers' mind, because I made token contributions totaling under $100, to two candidates in 2015, and that, seemingly, as a reflection of those donations, that I somehow share a common personal value system with those candidates.

Again, I was not, and am not, aware of any efforts by the great ethics crusaders Ruffino or Bruso to walk back those comments by their apparent surrogate, or to discourage any such future comments.

But, to the present.

I am not "assassinating" Bruso's character. I am giving him advise, albeit unsought, to enhance it.

I have suggested that in light of his, and the Democrat Party's 2017 position on ethics, some type of donation return would seem appropriate, and may well-serve Mr. Bruso's reputation and interests.

Mr. Bruso NOW knows of the apparent Dirschberger transgressions, and Mr. Bruso now has a terrific opportunity to lead by example.

My opinion of Mr. Bruso's performance as a legislator is not predestined, is undefined, and is far from formed. To wit, in the event that Mr. Bruso already has, or will, return the money, or more desirably, donate it to charity, I am open to a public acknowledgement of that gesture, and will commend him for it.

This ends my comments concerning the issue of the Dirschberger donation to Mr. Bruso, and I will have no further recommendations or insights to add.

By bringing Breezy into the mix you are giving him relevance and undeservingly so considering the provocateur is the paradigm for the ‘guilt by association’ tactic and resulting castigation of one’s character. And this campaign donation outcry appears to follow a similar prototype.

Seriously, I have to ask the following:

• How much did Dirschberger contribute to Bruso’s campaign?

• How many other campaigns did Dirschberger contribute to and are you suggesting the winners and losers return the money as well? That said, how can you then take the position that Bruso is not being singled out? This circumstance is prevalent throughout the country and occurs on all sides of the political spectrum. If Dirschberger had contributed to the losing candidate would we be having this discussion?

• Who become the judge and jury as to ethical contribution donations and what the standards and timelines are?

• Is it a simple matter of Bruso just submitting a check to Dirschberger and writing ‘thanks but no tanks’? And, is there no IRS involvement?

I understand and respect your position. However, until such time Bruso makes his bones in office I will then judge him on merit, not on the character of campaign contributors.

[mark blazejewski]

By bringing Breezy into the mix you are giving him relevance and undeservingly so considering the provocateur is the paradigm for the ‘guilt by association’ tactic and resulting castigation of one’s character. And this campaign donation outcry appears to follow a similar prototype.

Seriously, I have to ask the following:

• How much did Dirschberger contribute to Bruso’s campaign?

• How many other campaigns did Dirschberger contribute to and are you suggesting the winners and losers return the money as well? That said, how can you then take the position that Bruso is not being singled out? This circumstance is prevalent throughout the country and occurs on all sides of the political spectrum. If Dirschberger had contributed to the losing candidate would we be having this discussion?

• Who become the judge and jury as to ethical contribution donations and what the standards and timelines are?

• Is it a simple matter of Bruso just submitting a check to Dirschberger and writing ‘thanks but no tanks’? And, is there no IRS involvement?

I understand and respect your position. However, until such time Bruso makes his bones in office I will then judge him on merit, not on the character of campaign contributors.

Lee, I have not judged him yet. How he handles this matter will be a component to my comprehensive assessment.

Also, the Dixon-Loreigo Bill, which I fully supported, was defeated by a 3-2 committee vote, with the Democrats voting in the majority. If I am understanding Mr. Sojka's version of his exchange with Mr. Bruso, as posted on Speak Up, correctly, Mr. Bruso offered nothing more than a commitment to speak with Legislator Dixon.

IMHO, that is not leadership on the ethics issue, nor does it suggest any overt support for the measure. That account, if accurate, and if I am understanding the Sojka post correctly, is suggestive of a reaction occasioned by a lack of information, detachment, or perhaps indecisiveness.

I hope when this entire business clarifies, Mr. Bruso's performance will have been one that I can enthusiastically support, and will be a positive element in my future overall assessment of his tenure.

[Greg Sojka]

Lynne Dixon update: 02/01/18 .Very happy my resolution asking the County Attorney to draft a policy that would ban public dollars to settle harassment claims passed the Legislature today. He has thirty days to deliver the policy to us for further deliberation, but today's action keeps the momentum going forward!

[mark blazejewski]

Lynne Dixon update: 02/01/18 .Very happy my resolution asking the County Attorney to draft a policy that would ban public dollars to settle harassment claims passed the Legislature today. He has thirty days to deliver the policy to us for further deliberation, but today's action keeps the momentum going forward!

This seems to be very welcomed and positive news Greg. Thanx for sharing.

Although Dixon's comments as presented above, do not directly reference a Bruso vote, I assume that he voted in favor of that resolution, and commend him for what appears to be a very positive first step towards ethical sanity.

[Greg Sojka]

We are living in interesting times.I know of several people that called our elected officials on this issue and am glad to see it is not bogged down or swept under the rug.I am hopeful that it will not be politics as usual in the future.I believe both political parties are struggling for footing and our current elected officials will try harder for their communities. I am still waiting for my call back from assembly woman professor Monica Piga Wallace. Legislator John Bruso did call me back and I hope he does the right thing.

[Lee Chowaniec]

We are living in interesting times.I know of several people that called our elected officials on this issue and am glad to see it is not bogged down or swept under the rug.I am hopeful that it will not be politics as usual in the future.I believe both political parties are struggling for footing and our current elected officials will try harder for their communities. I am still waiting for my call back from assembly woman professor Monica Piga Wallace. Legislator John Bruso did call me back and I hope he does the right thing.

You went about it the right way and got the result we all appreciate. Thanks Greg!

[mark blazejewski]

=Greg Sojka;1779581]We are living in interesting times.

From the Village Hall to the halls Congress; from the chambers of our courts, to the recesses of the White House, these are not only "interesting times" Greg, but a time that may develop into the ultimate moment of testing both the truth and the collective conscience(s) of our leadership, while our Republic faces an urgent hour of national danger.

IMHO, February, 2018 has a foreboding resemblance to February, 1861.

My observation is not totally congruent to the Thread's topic, but the topics are symmetrical in overtones.