Introduction to Public Input Issues

Readers, 

   This is a quick note to tide over until I can post something more detailed, which should be by this weekend. 

   At the May 13 Kronenwetter Village Board meeting, we saw an organized, deliberate political attack consisting of lengthy accusations, conclusions, defamation and slander, but missing anysubstance or facts to support their campaign.

    It appears to me that Village clerk Bobbi Birk LaBarge organized her subordinates Jennifer Poyer and Kim Coyle, wife of Trustee Kelly Coyle, joined by account clerk Sarah Fisher, and Trustee Alex Vedvic and his wife, to conduct some kind of hateful derogatory blitz against myself. 

   Apparently, this outpouring was as a result of Vedvic's, Coyle's, and LaBarge's dismay and anger that a conservative, populist trustee could be re-elected after all of their pre-election defamatory efforts to affect the election in the other direction.

   There seems to be no other logical rational purpose for the May 13 theater that they put on, as I barely ever have any contact with three of these employees, and minimal contact with the clerk, and that being practically all in writing. 

   If there really were legitimate issues with my performance as a trustee, they would have: 

  Followed procedure and filed a detailed complaint, and then we could sit down and address it. This was never done by any of those giving public input. 

  They would have had specific accounts of what they witnessed, as a basis for their public input. This was not done either. The closest we find is that they witnessed someone telling them about what they heard had happened in the past somewhere. 

   So, the question is - who is telling these workers these stories for which there is no factual basis?

    Village clerk LaBarge is the only one of the five (counting Trustee Vedvic's wife, who would have no first hand knowledge of any of these matters) that claims I actually did something to her. She is very liberal with her accusations, but like the rest of those giving input, provides no specific evidence other than a reference to a 2021 email to Randy Fifrick, and even that being out of context. 

   So, where is this "barrage" of harassment, and "verbal cruelty" that they are talking about? As one Kronenwetter aptly said: "The evidence presented would seem rather damning except for the fact that there was no evidence presented." 

    I will go through all 5 of the diatribes that these women presented, along with my comments in upcoming posts, so please check back in a few days to get the facts of the matter, and my viewpoint as to what is really going on in Kronenwetter politics. 

 

 Here is something from an article in  Psychology Today, about what "Cancel Culture" is and how it works:

   

 "A core characteristic of canceling (relative to other rejections) is that to many (but not all) observers, the canceler's punitive actions appear disproportionate to the magnitude of the transgression. Relatedly, when canceling someone, the canceler bypasses the legal due process. There is no complaint, no trial, no prosecution, no conviction, and no presumption of "innocent until proven guilty." The canceler's judgment that the transgressor is at fault is sufficient to trigger punitive action."

   That sounds just like the May 13 public input, and trustee Alex Vedvik's attempt to "censure" me based on that input. However, any of them have yet to identify an example of a "transgression" that i might be able to respond to.

 https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-science-behind-behavior/202007/what-is-cancel-culture

 

 

Thanks!

 Ken Charneski