Reader says Ms. Hauck has a long and close involvement with Valley Hospital and should recuse herself on any Valley vote
A perceived conflict of interest by legal definition need not entail any financial or business relationship to make it appropriate for an elected or appointed official to recuse on a vote.
Ms. Hauck accepted over $800 on the day of her election from an officer of Valley Hospital. So there’s a little financial hit–not much, but it’s telling. She says she paid it back–so what? It’s on her official campaign contribution list that must be submitted and is posted online.
Before Aronsohn tapped her, no doubt to her amazement, to run for council and become his lapdog in exchange for a vote on Valley, she spoke publicly at a village council hearing, saying that she would trust Valley implicitly to do whatever they wanted.
There are many more indications of her long and close involvement with Valley, notably when she was vice chair of its women’s auxiliary, fundraising to the tune of millions of dollars–a financial relationship that did not put money in her pocket (she didn’t need it) but did put a ton of money in Valley’s. Suddenly she was running for council and abruptly ceased all Valley fundraising and social events. Very convincing.
In short, this was hardly supporting AIDS funding or any real charity, although Valley continues to call itself nonprofit with a treasure chest of many millions.
Officials have recused themselves from votes for much, much less. She may yet see the wisdom of doing so and should be so advised by the Village attorney–he’s paid to advise the council for the good of the Village, right?–since a vote on Valley from her would have serious ramifications, including opening the Village to lawsuits.