Ethics in Kronenwetter –the Real Issues

 

Ethics in Kronenwetter –the Real Issues

by Ken Charneski

There are two types of behavior currently being discussed at the APC committee which I chair, both under the heading of “ethics”.

There are statutory ethics (improper personal gain or advantage) as one type.

Then, there is the more subjective personal behavior kind of ethics which is not ethics at all, but simply an individual's behavior that someone else wishes to determined as unacceptable.

The true statutory ethics violations can always be reported to the police for prosecution, which to my knowledge has never been done, or had reason to be done in this Village. There is a basis for enacting that kind of Ethics Code, though past experience shows that it is easier said than done.

The Problem

The problem with a proposed enforceable personal conduct kind of ethics, is the question of the ethics and integrity of those who would presume to enforce it. There is a small group (about 8 core members) of “ethics activists” led by Village newcomer Alex Vedvik. They say that the Village Board can't be trusted to fairly enforce anything like this.

The logic seems to be that voters of the Village trust the elected Board members to run the Village in all other respects, but somehow these same Board members cannot be trusted to deal with bad (ethics) behavior.This group's assumption has already been proven to be wrong with recent discipline being carried out by the Board against a Board member, as an example.

On the other hand, this group of ethics activists attempt to claim the moral high ground, saying that their intent here is not a political “witch hunt”. The behavior of their members however, both in person and on social media indicates otherwise.

Leaders of the core group have shown themselves repeatedly to be openly biased, disdainful, and dishonest in their effort to create and exploit this contrived ethics issue and to vilify Board members unjustly.

The Reality

We have a Village Board elected by the People of this Village. The goal of the activists however , is to form a commission to act as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner with authority over all Village officials. In effect, circumventing the democratic process with a new system, very similar to that in China.

While they wish to sit in judgment of other's behavior, they have rejected the idea that they too, be held to a similar standard of conduct. In other words, my question would be - “Who will watch the watchers?”

According to them – no one.

The Solution

The best, perhaps only way for this Village to have an ethical government is to elect ethical people with the moral compass to self-police their own personal behavior, and to deal even-handedly with any such issues in others.

With ethical people elected we will then have an ethical government either with, or without an ethics code.

Without ethical people, you will not have ethical government no matter how many ethics codes you come up with.

It is that simple, and that point has already been well demonstrated both with the failures under the old Ethics Code, and in the time since it was eliminated in 2020.

Mr. Voll as a prime example has repeatedly been indifferent to the unethical and allegedly illegal behavior of some Village Officials, while at the same time going out of his way to hang others for frivolous reasons (all apparently based on his personal friendships and biases).

Background

With all the thousands of words of denigration, disparagement, false accusations and outright slander from Mr. Vedvik's “ethics group” against selected Board members over the past year or more, I have yet to hear from the accusers a single specific verifiable example of actual wrongdoing that can be examined and found to be legitimate, even though I have asked for this repeatedly.

As Chairman of APC, I invited this group to bring their issues to the table to talk about examples of what they are trying to prevent, and/or accomplish with their petition. I got very little response, except for Mr. Vedvik who spoke up and gave only 2 examples.

The first was about himself and his excitement to be on a committee, only to have his feelings somehow hurt by committee discussion on some issue that he didn't elaborate on. According to Vedvik, the debate went on for an hour, and he felt that was unnecessary. I would point out that if it was “unnecessary”, then Chairman Voll should have stopped it, and if Mr. Vedvik dislikes, or is to fragile to handle being disagreed with, then perhaps public life is too much for him.

"Death Threats"

The second example that Vedvik provided as a reason to institute an ethics commission was the “death threat” meme that Mr. Voll created with Administrator Downey last year as a political weapon for use against an outspoken committee member. I have a one page write up on that effort called “My Public Input” at www.kencharneski.com

The ethics activists have gotten many miles out of throwing this “death threat” term around, but have never actually quoted the basis for the claim, and some apparently have never even seen it.

The real, factual background to their trumped-up accusation is this:

After years of dealing with bad tap water, Mr. Jaeger was upset because now, on top of all the other issues with bad water in the village, apparently someone on that committee didn't want to pay the cost of testing the water for PFAS.

Here is the entire unedited text of Jaeger's input,including the alleged “death threat”:

Sashe, please forward this to the utility committee.
I checked with Rothschild about pfa testing. At a recent board meeting, the board agreed to testing at a cost of $650 per well.
Cost for our 2 wells would be $1300. Where did the $3300 come from for kroney tests? Who voted against that?
Pfa's are dangerous. I didn't know village policy was to put a price tag on a person's life. Whoops. Yes it does. Years and years of manganese, bio film, excessive poly phosphates poisoning. Whatever else is Downey not paying attention to? Why aren't you guys paying attention? At least those who are on municipal water. To you, I say, "drink more water."
Whomever said it's only a bucket of water taken to lake view, I suggest at the next utility com meeting, his head be submerged in that bucket until the bubbles stop. At that point make him drink the whole bucket.
That's how I would write the editorial or next door posting.

Mr. Voll then wrote this to the Village Clerk, the Board, and other Village officials:

3 threats of drowning.

Sashe, please add this a formal complaint against Mr Jeager.
Thank you.

I replied:

Chris,

Why are you filing these complaints? This isn't making sense.

Thanks,

Ken Charneski

Voll said:

 Ken, it’s my opinion that he has threatened 3 members of the UC committee.

You didn’t get that?

How would you interpret that?

I said:

Chris,

Come on, Chris. We both know you don't really believe that. Nor do I see how you can really believe the "stalking" accusation.

Have you ever heard of rhetoric, hyperbole, or literary license?

I know that you are irate at Jaeger, but do you think going about it this way is a good idea?

Thanks

That was the end of that conversation.

A point to notice is that while in his frustration Jaeger's comments may not have been very well chosen, they could hardly have been viewed as a credible threat by any reasonable person.

Notice that Jaeger does not threaten to do anything to anyone. His suggestion to the others is intentionally absurd, and obviously there to make a point.

Jaeger ends his email with “That's how I would write the editorial or next door posting.” which clearly identifies the non-literal intent of the comment.

As my email indicates, Voll's actions did not make sense, other than as a vindictive political move, as indicated in my public input letter. Mr. Vedvik's repetition of the “death threat” canard is just as non-sensical and dishonest.

Double-Think

If Mr. Voll sincerely believed that this was a real threat, then why didn't he, or Mr. Downey, or anyone else report it to the police?

In my opinion, Mr. Voll was clearly personally and politically motivated by animosity, not facts or concern for safety. This is a good example not only of how things have been done under the Voll presidency, but also a sample of what can be expected (and worse) on a regular basis with Mr. Vedvik as a trustee, or with his proposed ethics commission.

It is also an indication of how politicized and unfounded this ethics “problem” is. Don't forget – this is their main, flagship example of why we “need an ethics commission”.

An ethics commission would need to be appointed and approved by the Village Board. The dichotomy is, that the activists seem to think that the Village Board is moral and wise enough to select moral and honest commission members, but the same Board is somehow not moral or wise enough to deal with an ethics issue, if one ever arises. The reasoning here doesn't make sense.

Practical Ethics and Rules

As for myself, I have always supported ethical behavior in both public and private life.

In December of 2019 I wrote a 20 page white paper on constitutional ethics and presented it to APC and the Village Board.

In 2020 I presented a revised version of Chapter 54 Village Ethics Code to APC and the Board.

I wrote an 11 point Standards of Conduct for Village Officials and Employees based on Chapter 54 and State Statutes. I recently updated it to 15 points.

In 2022 I wrote a more extensive Code of Conduct for Village Officials and Officers based on the oath of office and principles of respect for others.

The point is that I am no stranger to the concept or value of ethics in this Village.

What I see currently however is that virtue signaling of a small group of people on an issue that sounds noble, but they have done nothing other than use it as a reason to disrespect others as a political tactic.

  I see candidates Voll, Vedvik, and now Coyle, signing on to the diversionary ploy of “ethics” as a means of avoiding the fact that none of them have said or done anything constructive about the real issues that the Village needs to be dealing with.