"The Bee" Continues To Give Me Hives!

[mark blazejewski]

Read this so-called "news story," which IMHO, properly belongs on the editorial page.

So many curious inflections, omissions, and shaded sentences.

The most notable omission seems to have been occasioned by the semantic gymnastics applied by "The Bee," in order to avoid reporting the accurate FACT that Ms. Desiderio is the CHALLENGER to the ENDORSED REPUBLICAN (and the endorsed Conservative and Independence Party) candidate for Town Clerk, Diane Terranova.

IMHO, when it comes to protecting the inhabitants of the bi-partisan swamp, the press seems to be the dutiful lifeguard.

Desiderio announces bid for Lancaster town clerk
April 17, 2019


Anne Desiderio has officially qualified herself for the ballot for Lancaster town clerk by filing almost twice the number of signatures required on petitions filed at the Erie County Board of Elections. She will be running on the Republican line.

“I am extremely grateful for the outpouring of support my candidacy has received to date, and that is evidenced by the number of Republican signatures I was able to file,” said Desiderio. “The reception my volunteers and I were receiving at the doors was very enthusiastic and encouraging, and it strengthens my resolve to work even harder on behalf of all of the residents of Lancaster.”

An award-winning professional with more than 25 years of delivering service and clerical support in Western New York’s healthcare industry, Desiderio’s career performance and achievements have been recognized by her peers and employers. Bringing those same skills, and commitment to excellence in customer service, are priorities for her campaign.

Registered Democrat Diane Terranova has also filed petitions to run on the Republican line after the incumbent clerk’s party refused to endorse her re-election campaign, according to a release sent by Ralph Mohr, Desiderio’s campaign manager. Earlier this year, the Lancaster Democrat organization endorsed Cynthia Maciejewski for the clerk position. Terranova will now face life-long Republican Desiderio in the Republican primary to be held June 25.

“I stand for the Republican principles of delivering the highest quality services in a friendly, efficient and effective manner,” Desiderio said after filing her petitions. “I am looking forward to bringing my business experience and commitment to making our government work better for the residents it serves, to the Town Clerk’s Office.”

[Lee Chowaniec]

Read this so-called "news story," which IMHO, properly belongs on the editorial page.

So many curious inflections, omissions, and shaded sentences.

The most notable omission seems to have been occasioned by the semantic gymnastics applied by "The Bee," in order to avoid reporting the accurate FACT that Ms. Desiderio is the CHALLENGER to the ENDORSED REPUBLICAN (and the endorsed Conservative and Independence Party) candidate for Town Clerk, Diane Terranova.

IMHO, when it comes to protecting the inhabitants of the bi-partisan swamp, the press seems to be the dutiful lifeguard.

LMAO!

You will always find cut throating, deal making, lying, obfuscation, aggrandizing bios, and plain ordinary BS practiced by both Republican and Democratic parties in past Lancaster primaries. However, never have I witnessed an ousted town party chair(s) and a behind the scenes influential committee wheeler-dealer conspire to defeat the endorsed candidates of the newly formed Republican Party.

Republican BOE Commissioner Ralph Mohr being openly identified in the Lancaster Bee as Ms. Desiderio’s campaign manager is appalling, especially considering Mr. Mohr gives the impression that that Ms. Desiderio is the endorsed candidate of the Republican Party – which she is not, and where the appearance given is that endorsed Republican Party candidate Terranova (Democrat) is the challenger to the so-called identified long time registered Republican resident. The Republican Party vetted Ms. Terranova and found her best qualified and deserving of being re-elected. Endorsed as most qualified and not because of party affiliation, how novel is that?

Slick narrative by Mr. Mohr, the Lancaster Republican Party ‘boss’ who in his ‘behind the scene’ leadership role has only been successful twice in in the past 16 years in getting Republican Party candidates elected twice in the last 16 years for town board positions, zero in the Town Clerk’s position and once as Highway Superintendent.

As BOE Commissioner I hope someone holds Mr. Mohr accountable to also explain how Ms. Terranova and Mr. Leary were found ineligible to qualify to have their names included on the Independence Party ballot - especially when they were endorsed by the Independence Party.

The Democratic Party has excelled in machinations in past primaries and kicked the Republican Party’s ass as a result. What the Republican Party is doing this year is unique and downright appalling.

Phew, what’s that smell? An, it's just primary time. The real **** will follow during the election period.

[mark blazejewski]

Slick narrative by Mr. Mohr, the Lancaster Republican Party ‘boss’ who in his ‘behind the scene’ leadership role has only been successful twice in in the past 16 years in getting Republican Party candidates elected twice in the last 16 years for town board positions, zero in the Town Clerk’s position and once as Highway Superintendent.

Lancaster's version of "FAKE NEWS!!!"

[shortstuff]

LMAO!

You will always find cut throating, deal making, lying, obfuscation, aggrandizing bios, and plain ordinary BS practiced by both Republican and Democratic parties in past Lancaster primaries. However, never have I witnessed an ousted town party chair(s) and a behind the scenes influential committee wheeler-dealer conspire to defeat the endorsed candidates of the newly formed Republican Party.

Republican BOE Commissioner Ralph Mohr being openly identified in the Lancaster Bee as Ms. Desiderio’s campaign manager is appalling, especially considering Mr. Mohr gives the impression that that Ms. Desiderio is the endorsed candidate of the Republican Party – which she is not, and where the appearance given is that endorsed Republican Party candidate Terranova (Democrat) is the challenger to the so-called identified long time registered Republican resident. The Republican Party vetted Ms. Terranova and found her best qualified and deserving of being re-elected. Endorsed as most qualified and not because of party affiliation, how novel is that?

Slick narrative by Mr. Mohr, the Lancaster Republican Party ‘boss’ who in his ‘behind the scene’ leadership role has only been successful twice in in the past 16 years in getting Republican Party candidates elected twice in the last 16 years for town board positions, zero in the Town Clerk’s position and once as Highway Superintendent.

As BOE Commissioner I hope someone holds Mr. Mohr accountable to also explain how Ms. Terranova and Mr. Leary were found ineligible to qualify to have their names included on the Independence Party ballot - especially when they were endorsed by the Independence Party.

The Democratic Party has excelled in machinations in past primaries and kicked the Republican Party’s ass as a result. What the Republican Party is doing this year is unique and downright appalling.

Phew, what’s that smell? An, it's just primary time. The real **** will follow during the election period.

Lee we all know the Independent Party has been hijacked by the Democratic Party and that take over was a couple years in the making. No surprise there.

[mark blazejewski]

Lee we all know the Independent Party has been hijacked by the Democratic Party and that take over was a couple years in the making. No surprise there.

MY OPINION AND MY TAKE:

If your claim is true Shortstuff, how is it that Terranova and Leary both received the endorsement of Independence Party?

Is it not far more likely that deception and manipulation may be in play again this year, but, unlike previous years, those tactics are being applied to support a rogue, inter-Republican Party rebellion, most probably initiated by some sympathetic to the deposed "Establishment" actors?

In the past, such tactics seemingly strictly impacted the Independence Party Primary voters, which of course would be an issue separate and apart from the actions and recommendations of the prescribed Independence Party endorsement process which your comments seemingly allege.

It seems to me that the apparent inter-party sabotage which is taking place this year, may be just a different tactic, by different political personages, but the same overall manipulative strategy.

Just some questions and opinions.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Lee we all know the Independent Party has been hijacked by the Democratic Party and that take over was a couple years in the making. No surprise there.

The Independence Party (IP) had been so-called ‘hijacked’ by the Democratic Party years ago when the spouses of the then Town Supervisor and two council members registered as IP members and exerted influence.

In the last several years the Dems have lost control over the party and the IP has endorsed Republican Candidates. The Dems have still managed to win IP lines despite the IP Republican Party candidate endorsements.

This year, despite all IP endorsed candidates following the same eligibility path, two were found eligible and two not. Again Shortstuff, why is that? What do your sources say?

[mark blazejewski]

Lancaster Republican Chairman Greg Sojka's comments on "The Bee's" FB page today:

As I have stated on the Lancaster Republicans Facebook page, I am deeply troubled by the seeming lack of journalistic integrity present in this article.

While "The Bee" represents this article as a "Local News" story, some may view the work as a creative narrative, produced with the acquiescence of a journalist-turned-advocate, and they may do so for these reasons:

(1) This story appears to have relied exclusively on perspectives of Ms. Desiderio and her "campaign manager" Ralph Mohr.

(2)To the uniformed reader, it may appear that Ms. Terranova, is the challenger to Ms. Desiderio in the upcoming Republican Primary Election for Lancaster Town Clerk.

In fact, had "The Bee" extended to the Chairman of the Lancaster Town Republican Committee the "journalistic courtesy" of reactive comment, the author would have been able to communicate to the reader the undisputed fact that Diane Terranova is the ONLY ENDORSED Republican candidate for Lancaster Town Clerk.

Ergo, Ms. Desiderio is pursuing the role of CHALLENGER.

Moreover, had "The Bee" sourced its story beyond the thoughts and comments of Ms. Desiderio and Mr. Mohr, the author would have been empowered to present to the reader the rather troubling fact that, as at no time did Ms. Desiderio respond, formally or informally, to the Lancaster Town Republican Committee's public search for candidates for Town Clerk, equally she never sat for the interview prescribed by the Executive Committee, nor did Ms. Desiderio engage in the necessary robust question and answer session with the Committee assembled.

Rather, Ms. Desiderio chose to avoid the above-described procedure, and now appears on the ballot with her purported credentials and background untested by party finders of fact. Presumably, Ms. Desiderio has shifted upon the individual voter, the burden to probe and test those credentials against her own campaign literature, and what appears to be a rather clever narrative which attends "The Bee" article.

Although it is my responsibility as Republican Chairman to unify the party, I would be remiss if I did not note that the office of Town Clerk, perhaps more than any other local office, requires the holder to possess a temperament suited toward a celebration of transparency, along with a sincere eagerness to provide the public with accurate, precise, and when appropriate, unvarnished information.

In that connection, Ms. Desiderio's, seeming avoidance of the recruitment and background process, prescribed by the Lancaster Town Republican Committee, raises in some minds, questions regarding her predisposition(s) toward the necessary transparency, so essential to fostering public confidence in the institutions of government and its leaders.

In the post bracketed above, Lancaster Town Republican Chairman Greg Sojka responded in detail today to "The Bee" article which is the subject of this thread.

IMHO, he makes a very compelling case for identifying, and calling-out, the rather shabby journalistic standards that the writer appeared to apply to the research and presentation of this so-called "Local News" report.

But more compelling, Chairman Sojka's comments raise what I consider, potentially, to be a significant issue: Ms. Desiderio's rather perplexing application of "transparency" in connection with her own campaign:

Although it is my responsibility as Republican Chairman to unify the party, I would be remiss if I did not note that the office of Town Clerk, perhaps more than any other local office, requires the holder to possess a temperament suited toward a celebration of transparency, along with a sincere eagerness to provide the public with accurate, precise, and when appropriate, unvarnished information.

In that connection, Ms. Desiderio's, seeming avoidance of the recruitment and background process, prescribed by the Lancaster Town Republican Committee, raises in some minds, questions regarding her predisposition(s) toward the necessary transparency, so essential to fostering public confidence in the institutions of government and its leaders.

If a candidate appears to be hesitant about transparently presenting its credentials for party and public scrutiny and consideration, how, once elected, will the official view and discharge the necessary transparency obligations required under NYS law?

Just askin'.

[gorja]

Chairman Sojka states this on the Lancaster Republican Facebook page -

"Last October 2018,The Lancaster Republicans changed direction to become an all inclusive party that welcomes the opinions, ideas, and input of all of Lancaster's residents when it comes to addressing the needs and concerns of the people of Lancaster."

Yet, after I posted Conservative chairman Joe Gallo's remarks after the 2015 primary on the Lancaster republican Facebook page,

Unfortunately, on Primary night, the Democrats carefully orchestrated a campaign to steal the Conservative line from Joe Brainard and give it to their endorsed Democrat candidate Dawn Gaczewski. Their insincere and dishonest effort was successful and therefore her name will appear on our line on Election Day. I am writing to let you know that she is not one of us. She is running for office with the endorsement of the Ultra Liberal Working Families Party and the Women’s TAP Fund. Her backers push a pro-abortion agenda that violates the sanctity of life. Economically, they support socialist policies that would bankrupt small businesses with a living wage, and drown property tax owners in bills to fund never ending social programs.

To be frank, we can’t afford a Town Council with Dawn Gaczewski serving on it, and that is why we didn’t endorse her in the first place. As Conservatives, we want a government that spends and taxes less and understands that the “government” doesn’t have a dollar that they haven’t taken from those they are there to serve. We don’t just want that, I think we deserve it, and can have it.

my ability to comment has been suppressed. So much for welcoming input of all of Lancaster residents, eh?

[shortstuff]

Chairman Sojka states this on the Lancaster Republican Facebook page -


Yet, after I posted Conservative chairman Joe Gallo's remarks after the 2015 primary on the Lancaster republican Facebook page,



my ability to comment has been suppressed. So much for welcoming input of all of Lancaster residents, eh?

gorja, Greg Sojka has shown what kind of leader he is. I too placed an opinion on the Lancaster Republican page and not only was I suppressed, they removed me. It seems that anyone who has an opinion that does not align with Greg Sojka's narrative, gets suppressed. Further alarming, I was asking an administrator on NYS Facebook page to direct me to a link that supports the claim this administrator was making that Chris Jacob's is anti-Trump based on Jacob's voting record regarding abortion. I found that Jacobs was pro-life. So when I asked the administrator to direct me to the information that Jacob was pro-abortion, he bullied me and gave me a warning. It is because I did not comply with his narrative. Further, Buffnews stated that Collins who was trashing Chris Jacob's regarding his position on abortion was a false accusation. The news showcased the reasons that Chris Jacob's is indeed supportive of Trump's polices, he just isn't supportive of some of Trumps crazy talk. Which, I agree.

So it is not good for those who are the mouthpiece for the Lancaster Republican Slate to suppress the opinions of other.

I received Dawn Gaczewski's palm card this weekend. I'll highlight some of what was stated on the card:

1. "Let's work together your voice is important ..I work for you." OK, then why are people's voices being suppressed or removed?

2. "It's amazing what can be accomplished when we communicate and work together to improve our community." {Dawn went to a resident's home to investigate a FOIL request which is the responsibility of the Village Clerk not the Events Coordinator.} Is that what she means by working together if she was Supervisor?

3. "Promotes doing more with less in Town government. Will explore more inter-municipal cooperative/sharing." Gaczewski voted "YES" to every Tax Override resolution put before the Town Board during her time on the board. She has voted along side of the current Supervisor Coleman a "YES" on every tax and spend policy. She has voted to approve many hires and if I recollect, Ron Ruffino did not.

4. "Believes that quality of life issues are an obligation to be protected." YET, Gaczewski had withheld money due to the Food Pantry patrons for the holiday season which wasn't received until the following spring when a family pursued and Village board member began investigating why that happened. This was a hardship for the pantry as well as a "conflict of interest" regarding Dawn Gaczewski's duties as Event Coordinator of the Village.

Bottom line, the Republican slate has an obligation to allow freedom of speech and freedom of opinions to be expressed.

gorja, I remember that letter that Joe Gallo wrote after the 2015 primary. I'll quote this part, "To be frank, we can't afford a Town Council with Dawn Gaczewski serving on it, and that is why we didn't endorse her in the first place. As Conservatives, we want a government that spends and taxes less and understands that the "government" doesn't have a dollar that they haven't taken from those they are there to serve." So why did they feel that way then, yet they are willing to support her same agenda as the Supervisor of the Town of Lancaster in the upcoming 2019 election? Me thinks this is an "oxymoron."

[gorja]

Guess, I'll have to express my opinion here, since the open minded Republican chair has me blocked from commenting

Desiderio is clueless.
Town clerk candidate cluelessly stated in regards to the town’s new refuse contract, “charging us for services other municipalities provide their residents for free”
Wonder what her definition of ‘free’ is. Maybe, it’s like Clinton’s definition of ‘is’.
Desiderio would be paying higher amounts in surrounding municipalities. Clarence - $412
Elma - $444
Cheektowaga - $505. with her current home’s assessment
Alden was $172. in 2018. New contract for 2019. I do not know tax implications.

Desiderio also calls the ‘Yellow sticker’ garbage fee the current town clerk’s tax. One of the town clerk/receiver of taxes duties is to collect fees and taxes. She has no vote on such taxes and fees.

Again, clueless of the duties of the office she seeks.

I’ll take Diligent Diane over Dizzy Desi in any election

[mark blazejewski]

Further alarming, I was asking an administrator on NYS Facebook page to direct me to a link that supports the claim this administrator was making that Chris Jacob's is anti-Trump based on Jacob's voting record regarding abortion.

Yes, I read that exchange as it unfolded Shortstuff.

I noticed that the administrator originally posted that Jacobs was not its"FIRST CHOICE," but would support Jacobs against a liberal Democrat opponent, any of whom would in its opinion be a threat to the Trump program.

Furthermore, the administrator did not reference Jacobs' thin, and at times non-participating voting record, but made reference to, and provided, Jacobs' past comments as recorded in various news reports such as...

https://buffalonews.com/2019/05/18/m...l-race-begins/

So when I asked the administrator to direct me to the information that Jacob was pro-abortion, he bullied me and gave me a warning. It is because I did not comply with his narrative.

(1) Regarding your demand for the Jacobs information, the administrator, as stated above, had previously provided you with linked public news information which impacted his opinion, an illustration of which appears above.

To demand that any fellow FB group contributor provide further information outside the intentional scope of the member's original presentation, is inappropriate, excessive, and in and of itself, may suggest bullying and harassment.

(2) There was no bullying on the part of the administrator, who directed your attention to the site's organizational information and rules for conduct. Those steps were initiated in order to assist you in avoiding further violations of the site's policies, which might be termed "bullying" or "harassment."

(3) Your violation had nothing to do with your advocacy.

Rather, you, perhaps unwittingly, miscast the administrator as the site's "Main Spokesman." The site has no such "spokesman," only administrators to ensure that the site is in compliance with FB standards and regulations.

Arguably, you were attempting to shift upon that specific administrator, an erroneous status and unburden. Since no one individual speaks for the site, which is welcoming of diverse viewpoints in support of its overall cause, your characterization and further comments, seemingly misrepresented the existing governance of the site, and perhaps threatened to compromise its functional integrity.

As such, the administrator's warning seems to be an appropriate, measured response, conveyed in the hopes of your compliant return.

I also recall that the administrator had some kind words for you until your tone soured.

[mark blazejewski]

I too placed an opinion on the Lancaster Republican page and not only was I suppressed, they removed me.

My suggestion is that you consider the Republican page the party's cyber living room where polite political discourse is welcome, not its online bathroom equipped to handle vicious pissing contests.

Just sayin'.

[mark blazejewski]

2. "It's amazing what can be accomplished when we communicate and work together to improve our community." {Dawn went to a resident's home to investigate a FOIL request which is the responsibility of the Village Clerk not the Events Coordinator.} Is that what she means by working together if she was Supervisor?

JUST MY OPINION:

Perhaps the resident and Ms. Dawn were both concerned, unwitting victims of a rather problematic VOL voucher system, with all of its insidious components?

It now seems to me that the light that was shined on the "problem," honorably led to needed, implemented reforms. These reforms appear to have well served the Lancaster community.

Those of us who actually had skin in the game, may have come to appreciate the viewpoint(s) of the other, with an empathetic understanding of, and appreciation for, what might be termed "mutual missteps."

Ergo, this just may be a successful, albeit awkward, application of "working together."

Simply put, if the impacted, opposing participants in the bracketed matter can put aside their differences to work for a better Lancaster, what in Hell is your beef?

[gorja]

Personally, speaking for myself, I have no beef. I do remember how upset that resident was.
The person was very descriptive of the situation and hinted at being very appalled that a FOIL request
to the Village administrator resulted in a trustee and events coordinator at the person's door step which is
not the protocol to respond to a FOIL request.

Are you saying the resident wasn't a reliable source?

Let me be clear. I said I FELT somewhat intimidated by her presence,(along with the presence of an unidentified gentleman, whose purpose was not communicated), and the nature of the visit. I can not speak to her or his intent. But, the Public Officers Law provides ONLY for a WRITTEN response by the Records Custodian, not a reach-out or uninvited drop-by. I felt that the visit was inappropriate, and may have been an attempt to compromise the FOIL process. BUT THANK YOU FOR UNDERSTANDING my position.

WELL, THE COMMENTATOR BREEZY SAID THAT "NO ONE HERE IS GIVING DAWN 'PROCESS'."

The Open Letter speaks for itself. The response CRICKETS. That response speaks for itself.

How are you going to fool'em tomorrow Breeze?

Ms. Gaczewski:


Some commentators on Speakup WNY, purportedly representing your interests, have been highly critical of my post entitled "There Is A First Amendment For Conservatives Too."


They have alleged that this post was a "naked attack on a strong woman;" a revolting insertion of an erroneous gender issue containing disgusting sexual overtones. While your gender should not, and MUST NOT, constitute a barrier to the fulfillment of your high aspirations, equally, it should not and MUST NOT function as a vaccine to immunize you from the necessary scrutiny of your performance as a Lancaster Village official.


They have however, raised one issue worthy of consideration. That is to say, they feel that you are being denied "process," a term which I believe to be consistent with the proper term "due process."


I have in fact requested of the Lancaster Village Board to scrutinize the issue of the apparent nine month delay relating to the proper disposition of the proceeds, accumulated as a result of the August 2, 2014 5K Race. The Village Board has deferred that requested study until a later date. As such, any such due process must necessarily resides with the Honorable Board.


However, since the Village Board has deferred consideration of this matter to an unspecified date, I offer, in sincere, non-required fairness, this post , which will serve as a channel, to provide that "process." With almost three full days before the ballots are counted on primary day, and almost two months before the general election day, I invite you, writing directly under your proper name, to harmonize, that, which you termed to me as a "paperwork snafu," with the following time line of events, as I UNDERSTAND them, all of which are devoid of any rumor(s), or intentional misuse of titles, quotations, or motives, and are based solely upon the documents disclosed to, and understood by me, within the scope of my July 28, 2015 FOIL request:


(1) The Trinity Food Pantry on November 14, 2014, at 7:45 p.m., queried Shawn Marshall as to the whereabouts of the proceeds.


(2) It was Shawn Marshall, apparently an authoritative spokesman for the 5K Race, who advised the Trinity Food Pantry on November 14, 2015, at 7:48 p.m. that a check for about $1,500 is coming. said he would check its "whereabouts."


As such, there was a direct request for the proceeds, three months after the race, which were apparently prompted by budgetary demands for holiday spending by the Trinity Food Pantry.


(3) After a month's delay, Shawn Marshall, On December 15, 2014, at 11:48 a.m. queried the Trinity Food Pantry if it had received the check. The Food Pantry responded at 3:01 p.m. that it did not receive any payment.


This event was FOUR MONTHS AFTER the 5K Race


(4) Shawn Marshall advised on December 16, 2014, at 8:40 a.m., that he was "embarrassed to say" that Dawn "apparently" did not file "the proper paperwork." A check would be forthcoming after January 1.


(5) March 6, 2015, at 3:43 p.m., at Shawn Marshall asked the Pantry if payment had been received. At 4:41 p.m., the Pantry responded that they did not think so, but would "cheek with the bookkeeper."


(6) March 10, 2015, at 2:51 p.m. The Pantry advised no check had been received by the Village.


(7) April 23, 2015, at 12:52 p.m. Shawn Marshall asks Village Clerk if he received a payment voucher from Dawn, who assured him ( Marshall) on March 10 that a voucher was submitted.


(8) April 23, 2015, at 1:26 p.m. Village Clerk responds to Marshall that he would check with the office staff, but that he did not believe that voucher was received.


(9) May 7, 2015, at 1:23 p.m.Dawn apparently submits the voucher to Village Clerk Stegmeier. She said that she "wasn't aware that a voucher was needed." She said that in 2013, "it was just paid to Trinity."


Apparently, it took AT LEAST SIX MONTHS for the "paperwork snafu." to be ironed out.


(9) May 21, 2015, at 12:48 p.m., The Trinity Pantry acknowledged receipt of "the check yesterday (May 20, 2015) adding that it"was a great surprise."

Kindly respond to the voters of the Village and Town of Lancaster.

[mark blazejewski]

Are you saying the resident wasn't a reliable source?

I strongly suggest that the comment bracketed above is BS, and that you need to read more carefully, because this is what I said:

Perhaps the resident and Ms. Dawn were both concerned, unwitting victims of a rather problematic VOL voucher system, with all of its insidious components?

The bracketed comment is a speculative question, not a settled assertion. If that question does in fact have merit, then this comment...

It now seems to me that the light that was shined on the "problem," honorably led to needed, implemented reforms. These reforms appear to have well served the Lancaster community...

...would suggest a historical perspective, and not a contradiction contemporaneous to 2015.

Those of us who actually had skin in the game, may have come to appreciate the viewpoint(s) of the other, with an empathetic understanding of, and appreciation for, what might be termed "mutual missteps."

That Ms. Gorja, is a valid speculation, and not a complete conclusion.

Ergo, this just may be a successful, albeit awkward, application of "working together."

The bracketed above suggests an unintended consequence, and not a calculated outcome.

Simply put, if the impacted, opposing participants in the bracketed matter can put aside their differences to work for a better Lancaster, what in Hell is your beef?

That is a just the simple truth.

I do remember how upset that resident was.
The person was very descriptive of the situation and hinted at being very appalled that a FOIL request
to the Village administrator resulted in a trustee and events coordinator at the person's door step which is
not the protocol to respond to a FOIL request.

That is a very supportive, sympathetic comment, which I truly value, but must in my mind, necessarily yield to the pursuit of what I perceive to be the greater interests of the town.

Now, Gorja, Shortstuff, and the presumed instigators from Ms. Gaczewski's bi-partisan opposition:

In America, we select our leaders for a term of office; we do not install them for life. As such, we cast our votes as citizens at the polling place, not as Cardinals in Sacred Conclave.

As such, I reserve my rights to re-evaluate the suitability of each and every office holder, on the occasion each and every election relevant to their service, and to do so without constipated obsession linked to past issues.

This is 2019, not 2015, and the perceived issues about which you are apparently obsessing, were litigated by the voters four years ago, and have no relevance in this election year.

So, you may tell the assumed bi-partisan instigating current and former power holders to chew on someone else, because I don't acquiesce when pressured, and detest attempts to intimidate voters.