Why these two should never be let near an ethics probe ever again

From left, Deputy Mayor Pete Lachapelle, Rochester Mayor Paul Callaghan (City of Rochester streaming screenshots)

The Rochester Voice values our readers' time, so we're not going to go back and rehash the stunning, unprecedented attack by Rochester Deputy Mayor Pete Lachapelle on three Rochester City Councilors that occurred on April 18.
During Lachapelle's vicious 12-minute tirade he berated and castigated the three and called them a cancer on the council. Two of the three that were targeted voted against removing former city councilor Chris Rice during a May 2022 trial. The other councilor who was attacked, Steve Beaudoin, voted for Rice's removal, but later said on Facebook he wished he hadn't.
So we don't want to waste your time, but if you've got a few minutes, it's worth watching to gain perspective of the meanness and mendacity of Lachapelle, who as chairman of the codes and ordinances committee spent more than a year drafting an ethics policy he violated over and over again during his mournful April 18 soliloquy.

Links will be provided to the two meetings at the end of this editorial.
Now, let's take a look at how this sordid little morality play resolved itself.
First City Councilor Jim Gray filed a complaint with Rochester Mayor Paul Callaghan, which he acknowledged at the start of the final agenda item during a regular City Council meeting on July 11.
The agenda item was titled: "Review: Status of alleged ethics policy violations by Deputy Mayor Peter Lachapelle."
Callaghan told the council that after Gray filed the complaint, he, the mayor, hizzoner "looked into it" and didn't believe "it rose to a level of ethics violation, because it wasn't repeated conduct."
So Lachapelle, who on April 18, as the sole investigator into allegations that Callaghan violated the ethics policy, gets a pass from the mayor because his stunning public rebuke of three sitting city councilors wasn't "repeated conduct."
I guess the mayor never read the part of the ethics policy that says an aggrieved party, in this case Lachapelle, who called the three councilors a cancer, is supposed to first meet with the individuals he's in conflict with before going public.
So from the mayor's reflection, we would surmise that if Lachapelle is caught urinating outside City Hall, he wouldn't be subject to the ethics policy if it wasn't repeated conduct? If he just did it the one time?
But it gets better, actually worse.
The mayor then goes on to say that he spoke with Lachapelle about the complaint and they talked about maybe "hashing it out" with the three aggrieved councilors, but then Beaudoin requested an agenda item for July 11.
After the mayor prefaced the reason for the update, he turns the podium over to the deputy mayor, not Beaudoin, the councilor who requested the agenda item.
Why, Mr. Mayor, didn't you know the person who requests the agenda usually gets to address the council first to explain why he requested it?
Hmmm. A little bass-ackward
Then Lachapelle comes out and apologizes. He says he was representing himself on April 18 and no one else on the council.
But on April 18 when Beaudoin called a point of order to stop Lachapelle's speech this is exactly what Lachapelle said.
"Your honor, I'm going to proceed because this ... as the deputy mayor I was appointed by my peers to give my point of view on this and I will continue to read." Does that sound like's he's talking just for himself? It sounds like he's talking in an official capacity as he was appointed by his peers to make his opinions known.
City Councilor Dana Berlin by this time had seconded Beaudoin's motion to stop the deputy mayor's attack, which should have then gone to discussion.
In fact, the mayor should've said - according to Robert's Rules and normal City Council policy - "OK, discussion from the council," which would've been followed by a vote to stop the speech or let it continue.
But the mayor went mute and seconds later Lachapelle says, "Do you want me to proceed, your honor?"
Miraculously hizzoner gets his voice back.
"Yes," he says.
During Lachapelle apology on July 11 he admitted his words to the council were strong but "I let my emotions get the best of me."
To that we say Hogwash! Lachapelle was reading from a prepared speech, a prepared speech he's probably been working on for days.
Now we can see someone letting their emotions get the best of them if they're having an argument over something they feel passionate about, but not in a written speech. Lachapelle's intent was unmistakable.
What are the two takeaways?
First, if Beaudoin doesn't request an agenda item, you would never hear the apology from Lachapelle.
The other takeaway, hizzoner and his deputy hizzoner should never get close to an ethics probe again.
We need an ethics board. We can't have a single person investigating and adjudicating ethics complaints.
We hope the codes and ordinances committee - ironically headed up by none other than Lachapelle - can begin to repair the damage and forge a more workable ethics policy beginning on Thursday.

For link to April 18 meeting (1:24:16 mark) click here.
For link to July 11 meeting (1:42:05 mark) click here

- HT