Which is it?
Was the village clerk playing a game of semantics when he sent this letter
advising me that there was no documentation of an acknowledgement of Mr Dickman receiving
the "sexual harassment" policy? He did have a copy of the Village's "Discrimination, Harassment
and Retaliation Prevention" policy.


I then requested an acknowledgement of Mr Dickman receiving the village's "Discrimination,
Harassment and Retaliation" policy thinking the clerk was playing a game of semantics and the village clerk found
an acknowledgement of training in the DPW records.


Was it a game of semantics or did Dickman just recently get his sexual harassment training?

The timing of the clerk's response is questionable