I’m on a local government board. At the beginning of the meeting we all have to state our names and positions for the transcription. It is, by far, the most stressful portion of every meeting.

Running an 84 year old incumbent is the dumbest idea. Switching him out four months before the election when it’s clear to everyone he’s not up to the task is the second dumbest idea.

Allegations that sexual harassment were ignored or not addressed were false.

The only way to read this, assuming the lawyers wrote the statement, is that sexual harassment did happen but was “addressed”. Otherwise they’d just say the claims of sexual harassment were unsubstantiated.

I’d like to know more about how those claims were addressed before making final judgement.

Is that not a normal thing to do?