No effect on Village business?

Interesting news over the weekend about the impound ordinance that was passed October 2, 2007 … a hearing process was never provided for or established, so the ordinance was unable to be enforced — potentially costing the Village $110,000, according to Daily Herald calculations.

Trustee Paul Humpfer, a co-sponsor of the measure with Trustee Judy Sigwalt, said he was unaware of the requirement.

It seems readily apparent that this was another ordinance that was put forth by Sigwalt and Humpfer without enough information, forethought or follow-up.

But, maybe we should cut Humpfer and Sigwalt some slack. After all, they’ve had a lot going on in the last 8-10 months.

Humpfer has had plenty of legal troubles in his personal life (and could be facing up to a year in jail), in addition to living out of state for the better part of a year. All this appears to have had an effect on his ability to be involved with Village business; even things he was responsible for enacting.

This is one very significant reason why Paul Humpfer needed to resign his position, or his position be declared vacant. Both his presence and his absence have affected business (as well as revenues and expenses) of the Village.

And, what about Judy Sigwalt?

Why didn’t she follow up on something she said was an important safety issue and part of enforcing the law?  Perhaps she was too busy defending Paul Humpfer, or holding pseudo-Board meetings privately with a group of supporters, or consulting outside attorney’s to act on a vendetta against Village President Bill Sarto that began with actions that took place even before Sarto took office in 2005?

What was that about this being a “personal matter” that has no effect on the ability of these Trustees to conduct Village business?