In January of 2014, Andrew Londre (Past Chair of the La Crosse County Democratic Party) completed the filing to run for election for La Crosse County Board District 9. In February of 2014, Mr. Londre placed an offer on a house outside of the district. It was clear in February of 2014 that Londre intended to move and would be unable to serve on County Board but, Londre kept silent. In March of 2014, Londre closed on the house, leaving no doubt that he could not serve on County Board but, Londre kept silent.
In an April 25, 2014 report the La Crosse Tribune reported that Londre properly lived in the district when nomination papers were due Jan. 7. He says he and his fiancee didn’t begin looking for a new home until after that, and held out hope through most of the process they would remain in District 9. I will repeat, “held out hope through most of the process.” By Londre’s statement we are to believe that he didn’t start looking for a home until after January 7, 2014 and that even after he had made the offer in February, knowing the home was not in the district, that they “held out hope” that they would remain in District 9? After closing, on the house, in March, leaving no doubt that Londre couldn’t serve, he still “held out hope” they would remain in District 9? The Spring 2014 election cycle was twelve weeks long, and for at least 1/2 that time Londre knew he wanted out of the district. Add in the time it takes to find a realtor, arrange a showing, and prepare an offer, and it is clear that Londre knew, through most of the process, that he would not be able to serve directly contradicting the statement given to the Tribune at that time.
At the May 5, 2014 County Board Meeting, Democrat Tara Johnson acknowledge concerns and stated, “whether or not you think it passes the sniff test, no laws were broken,” before appointing Democrat Nancy Stoll Caucutt to the County Board rather than allowing the citizens in District 9 to actually have a vote. Caucutt was rejected by the citizens of District 9 and voted out of office at the next election.
Fast forward to December 17, 2016 and there is another article in the Tribune questioning the integrity and ethics of Democrat Andrew Londre. This time detailing how he redirected more than $10,000 of ”civic improvement funds” to pay for a video promoting a handful of local businesses, including his own. ”We wished we would have had the opportunity to work with him on redirecting the funds,” said Cheryl Dutton, vice president of marketing. “We did the match and donation based on what the original purpose of the funding was for. … We would certainly have helped redirect the funds in the community to do good projects like the UWL students were proposing to do.” Again, Londre kept quiet and did not inform Dutton or take any input from her.
When we look at the the totality of the circumstances, one cannot help but wonder about the trustworthiness of Democrat Andrew Londre and those that choose to associate with him.