The Truth Behind the Hemlock Unfair Debate You be the judge.. Myth Jim Szczesniak is credible.

Fact Szczesniak issued a public statement in the wake of the debate debacle claiming that Tom backed out of the debate. He never mentioned: That his campaign was secretly planning this event for several weeks, but failed to inform Tom until days before the event was scheduled to happen; That the event was described as a meet and greet when they were actually hoping and planning for a confrontational debate; That a member of his campaign team, was in charge of arranging for the moderator, the format and the panel of questioners (and possibly the questions!); That the Livingston County News printed the article announcing the event without confirming that Tom could attend the event;

Tom and his opponent had equal time to prepare for the event.

Tom was tipped off that this whole event was an idea of a fella named Robert Scott. It had been in the planning stages for several weeks before Tom even became aware of it. Who is Robert Scott? He is the person who designed the opponents website and wrote his only endorsement appearing on the site; He is the marketing director for the proposed venue of the debate; He is on the opponents payroll (see below)!

Tom backed out of the debate.

Tom was told that it was a meet and greet then, at the last minute, he was provided a debate format. Toms initial response was to question whether an actual debate should be held in the beer barn of the Hemlock Fair. The obvious answer is NO. He later discovered that he was at a severe and disadvantage.

The organizers were fair and impartial.

Tom was provided and has available to share with anyone who asks - emails between Robert Scott, Jim Szczesniaks campaign team and the Editor of the Livingston County News discussing and planning the event. Here is one example of an email that was only provided to Tom after his campaign demanded to see it (Livingston County News in black; Szcznesiak campaign in red): I've kind of been using "Meet the Candidates" and debate interchangeably, but does one reference suggest something different than the other? Should we be sticking with one thing, and what should it be? In my opinion, we are better with the "Meet the Candidates" approach. Presenting their platforms. Debate suggests a confrontation. It is better if this happens naturally rather than suggesting that is what to expect. This entire discussion is happening without Toms knowledge. The opponent himself and his campaign team are recipients of this email. It is clear that the opponents campaign is trying to describe one thing to Tom and the public, while planning for something totally different.

This event was an actual debate.

To this day, nobody knows for sure! Tom was originally asked (in a passing conversation) on Tuesday June 25, 2013 by Fair Board Member Faye Schneider if he was interested in a Meet and Greet at the fair. It was described as an opportunity to briefly discuss his platforms and then meet the crowd. Tom said yes. (Mr. Schneider later became outraged when the LCN printed the article announcing that it was a debate.) Then, an email was received by Tom from the Livingston County News on Sunday June 30, 2013 at 1:51 PM, outlining a debate format. Not a Meet and Greet. The very next day and without receiving confirmation from Toms campaign the LCN went to press with the original article about the debate. The LCN ultimately admitted that they were using the word debate to describe an event which was never intended to be a debate (we were confused too!)

Bottom line: Would Mr. Szczesniak take part in a debate where he had no participation in the planning, location or format of the original event? Would he participate if Toms campaign were planning the event for months and he never knew about it? Tom felt that it was inappropriate to have a debate in a beer barn at the Hemlock Fair. An event for families and fun. He never backed out of a debate. Like a true cop and seasoned professional, he did his homework and found out that the deck looked stacked against him. Tom is happy, ready and willing to debate his opponent anytime, anywhere on a moments notice so long as the rules are fair and the people involved are impartial. In fact, Tom is eagerly awaiting to participate in an actual debate on August 29, 2013. By not disclosing the full details of the events leading up to the debate debacle, Toms opponent is misleading the public. It is ridiculous that he is now trying to equate Toms unwillingness to participate in an unfair debate with his inability to handle the job of Sheriff. This type of conduct is just one more reason Livingston County is ready for a positive change.

LASTLY, WE ASK THAT TOMS OPPONENT AND HIS CAMPAIGN MARKETER, ROBERT SCOTT, PROVIDE A STATEMENT, UNDER OATH, TELLING THE PEOPLE OF LIVINGSTON COUNTY (A) WHEN THEY BEGAN PLANNING THE DEBATE (2) WHO THEY DISCUSSED THE EVENT WITH AS THEY PLANNED IT AND (3) WHEN THEY MADE THE DOUGHERTY TEAM AWARE OF THE EVENT. If Mr. Szczesniak is credible and has told the voters the truth, this should be easy. Tom remains steadfast in his pursuit of becoming Sheriff by being honest, credible and professional. He now challenges his opponent to do the same. We simply ask for a spirited, yet honest and clean campaign.

From Szczesniak website (under the About Jim tab):

.[testimonial]

Robert M. Scott From Board of Elections Financial Disclosure Report Filed by Opponent:
BOB SCOTT PRODUCTIONS 241 SHORE DRIVE ROCHESTER, NY 14622 BOB SCOTT PRODUCTIONS 241 SHORE DRIVE ROCHESTER, NY 14622 818.52 OTHER ADVERTISING 22-MAY13 SZCZESNIAK FOR SHERIFF 2013 July Periodic F Sheriff N/A

700.14

FUNDR

26-MAR13

SZCZESNIAK FOR SHERIFF

2013 July Periodic

Sheriff

N/A

From Robert Scotts Website (www.newcustomersolutions.com)

Featured Clients