Winfield United’s Failed Self-Serving Agenda

Like the Dukes who tried to corner the market in frozen concentrated orange juice in the film Trading Places, Winfield United is getting its comeuppance now.

Today, as Winfield is in disarray and continues to slide, the directors of Winfield United have taken over from their board members. And those directors are running from the realities of their agenda all the while trying to minimize the damage their organization has done — just as the movie’s orange traders did 27 years ago.

We have long known Winfield United would put our community at great risk with their anti-growth, self-serving agenda and Winfield would face the difficult times we are now experiencing. And we remain of the view that a renewed level of instability is upon us because Winfield United’s control is exacerbating our current situation.

All the way back in 2004, we were cautioned that Winfield United’s dirty little secret was absolutely no-growth, no progress, and no new ideas, which displaced old-fashioned tried and true methods of building a viable, successful and happy community. Further adding to Winfield’s woes was Winfield United’s Deborah Birutis’ stated position that development would sow the seeds of our own destruction. Read Deborah Birutis’ flawed “White Paper Report”  True Cost of Development.

Since the beginning of Winfield United in 2004, we have witnessed the morphing of the town into a shell of itself. As Randolph Duke reminded us in Trading Places, they took a “perfectly useless psychopath like Valentine, and turned him into a successful executive. And during the same time, we turned an honest, hard-working man (Winthorpe) into a violently, deranged, would-be killer!”

In 2004, we were warned about the consequences of allowing the special interest group Winfield United to control and unwind our town and the volatility that would follow.

The Dukes traded in orange juice; Winfield United has an overzealous love affair for power and their own agenda. Winfield United convinced as many people who would listen their agenda was the right one and they, Winfield United would take Winfield to the big dance….that is until the music stopped.

Over the last few years, the pain in Winfield has become as thick as the fog rising from Shinneock Bay in the Hamptons this morning. Fear of rising losses, higher taxes, a depletion of essential services, the lack of new ideas and a loss of community has many residents nervously biting their finger nails hoping and praying for change.

Where’s Stanley?

I am looking for a little help to win an argument. You may not know but I am in frequent contact with Steve Romanelli President of Winfield United and we have long rambling emails that go back and forth for days. He mentioned to me today that he wants me to know that Stanley Zegel is NOT, REPEAT NOT part of Winfield United.

Stanley Zegel is clearly a destructive wing-nut and has been like a toxic sludge coating everything political in this town. We all know that Stanley’s propaganda tool, “The Winfield Register” was carrying the water for Winfield United in this last election. We know it was largely comprised of misleading lies with a veneer of plausibility and unfortunately was an effective tool for the election and re-election of Winfield United preferred candidates. We found out that Winfield United had $32,000 it raised from a two block radius on Washington Street and Marion Street that it spent, in large part, with Stanley and his (intellectually) bankrupt news-rag. I also know from my close association with Erik Spande, that Stanley Zegel was at the annual fundraiser before the 2008 election for Winfield United. Erik Spande also tells me Stan Zegel was at the victory party at Caliendo’s after the election.

However, Steven J. Romanelli wants us to believe that Stanley Zegel is persona non-gratta at Winfield United events. Further, he wants us to believe that Stanley is not now and has never been a member of Winfield United. Remember, this is the same guy who is very concerned with people “Lying” about him and Winfield United.

Because Steve Romanelli is such a huge fan of www.winfield411.com he reads it every day. I was wondering if you could point out any times you have seen the WU-tang Clan (Winfield United) in the presence of Stanley Zegel, in and around town. I am thinking places like Einstein’s Bagel Shop on Saturdays or what you have heard through the grapevine. Any anecdotes you share in the comments below will be much appreciated and remember, keep it anonymous, Steve loves that.

Muwahahaha.

Politically Districting Winfield

To all that have been following the movement to politically district Winfield:

It is with great sadness that I have to report we have a setback in our quest to have Winfield districted for fair representation across the village. The question will not be on the November ballot and it is not because we did not meet the proper number of signatures on the petition.

In May of this year we kicked off the drive for districting with a direct mail piece showing the locations of current and past trustees that all resided in the southwest quadrant of Winfield. All of these trustees were within about a four block radius. In May, we consulted with two attorneys skilled in municipal law and had them craft our petitions and write the question that would appear on the November ballot. On the first of June we started gathering signatures with the intention of turning them in by August 16th, the date that has been historically the turn in date for citizen sponsored referendum questions. On July 6th, Governor Quinn passed a bill that changed the dates to turn in our petitions from August 16th to August 2nd. The DuPage County Board of Elections first posted this information to their website on July 13th. On August 4th we asked to meet with the  village clerk and found out we were two days late to turn in our 500 signatures.

Five Hundred signatures represents the work of many people working behind the scenes to make this referendum on districting possible. Signatories of note were current Trustee’s Jay Olson and Joel Kunesh. We also had the signatures of past Village President Rudy Czech, and past Trustee’s Cliff Mortenson, Tom McClow, Angel Oakley, and Chris Levan. Five hundred signatures represents 20% of the people that voted in the last Winfield election. Five hundred signatures was 8% of the registered voters in the entire town of Winfield. I can tell you from having collected many of those signatures myself, that 9 out of 10 people who were presented the petition signed it. Of the 1 in 10 that did not sign the petition, the reason they gave was they did not understand the issue well enough. About 1 in 30 people understood the districting question and refused to sign.

The signatures represent 500 people who were petitioning our government to have the right to ask themselves the question on the November ballot of whether or not the village of Winfield should be districted into six districts with one trustee coming from each of the districts. In a certain way what we did was a beautiful thing. The citizens used their constitutionally protected first amendment right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. When we departed on this journey we had a perfect understanding of where the destination was and when we would get there. Unfortunately, the destination was moved while the mission was underway.

On Thursday August 5th, I came before our elected officials to speak at the village board meeting. The Winfield village board still has the opportunity to place the question on the ballot as their deadline remained August 16th. I asked them to do the right thing for their town and to vote to place the question on the ballot because it was what the people wanted and it was the right thing to do. When I held in my hand the 500 signatures, what I held was the voices of 500 of their fellow citizens who asked for and deserved the right to to see the question on the ballot.

That night, the village board failed to hear the voices of their 500 citizens.

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=399002

Where Special Interest Ends and Our Elected Officials Begin

Our village faces more challenges today than ever before.  And yet at the very moment when we most need our elected officials to come together, Winfield has been drawn to a standstill by special interest and nothing is getting done.  Why?  Because our village board today serves special interest, and personal ambition, rather than the people they are suppose to represent.

The consequences are devastating.  In the last six years we’ve witnessed our community fall further and further behind because the village board is locked into special interest’s narrow-minded ideology. Every year we struggle to find adequate funding for police protection, roads, infrastructure repairs and flooding as personal egos and special interest take center stage.  We need to be investing in our community – a moral and economic priority – and we need to make Winfield more attractive for new businesses.  But we’ll never make any progress on these or other priorities without decisive change at two levels:  our institutions and the individuals we elected to serve us.

Yesterday was just another glaring example of the divide that continues to hold our town hostage. The village board and Village President Birutis refused to even discuss putting the question of ‘Districting’ on the November 2 ballot. In doing so Birutis and her board refused to give the people a choice in November. Why?  At the institutional level I’m more convinced than ever that we need to control the flow of money in politics if we’re going to have a village board accountable to the people. Our current village board is beholden to the special interest group Winfield United and ‘Districting’ scares the hell out of them. ‘Districting’ strips them of their power, their control.

Winfield can no longer operate within a system that is a charade: hiding who holds the influence from the people while concentrating power in the hands of special interests.  We need to identify the monies given too or on the behalf of candidates. This money far too often translates into unlimited spending to favor or defeat a candidate.  If the candidate wins, the message is clear:  a debt is owed.  Over the last six years of the special interest group Winfield United’s money and control our community has been subjected to their undue influence and heavy-handedness.

We need to send the message to our elected officials that they should serve the people, not special interest and not themselves.

But let me be clear: institutional failures do not excuse Winfield’s gridlock.  At the end of the day every elected official has a choice to serve the common good and the people they represent, or to serve the special interests and themselves.  Money corrupts when politicians choose to let it determine who has their ear.

We must return politics to the people and there must be compromises. Finding workable solutions by talking with one another and finding alternatives that benefit the entire village. Winfield United’s big donors will not embrace such an approach. Compromise forces elected officials to confront difficult decisions. The votes our village officials cast affect the lives of real people.  Hopes and dreams are at stake – ours, our children, our neighbors.  Winfield has been ground to a halt because our elected officials have voted for a big donor’s interest instead of listening to the people, the entire community suffers.

Old-school politics has to go. Winfield United has to go.  Now is the time for a new generation of leadership.  It’s what our village needs and our community deserves.

Aloof & Disinterested in Winfield

At the June 17th village board meeting the details of bond issuance for the $18 Million Road Referendum were presented for the public. This sparked an exchange between me and the village manager, Curt Barrett. The exchange clearly had Trustee Robert Mrugacz agitated as can be seen from the end of this video clip. I apologize but you will have to wait until after Bob Bersodi helps village manager Curt Barrett realize that he has no “Plan B” for raising the revenue to fix the roads.

I was disturbed by the comments of Trustee Robert Mrugacz at the end of the video clip. He mentioned something about being on somebody’s payroll. I had no idea what he meant so I fired off a very polite email, the exchange can be seen at the end of this post. What I got in response was silence. This is not entirely surprising to me. Trustee Mrugacz was appointed to the position by Village President Birutis. I have to assume that his disinterest in responding to me is borne out of not being elected by the people. There is a different level of commitment and accountability to the office when you are put in your position by a popular vote than when you are appointed. I thought it was possible that I had put myself on the “Pay No Never Mind” list through my many critical interactions with the Birutis Administration.

However, as I started walking around and talking with the citizens about Politically Districting Winfield, I started to hear the anecdotes of an aloof and disinterested village board that is too disinterested or too disconnected to return phone calls or answer their emails. While up in Klein Creek, I heard about the frustration of the people regarding the golf course that had their very own double-secret-Klein-Creek-Only-noise-ordinance written for them and how they felt they were being ignored by the trustees. When I was stomping around Fred-Farms I heard about the sexual assault and the glacial response of the village in getting out composite sketches of the perpetrator or even communicating with the the people the fact there had been an assault in the first place. I have written a pithy parody the village’s stunning use of 17th century technology to communicate here.

Two out of six of Winfield Trustees are unelected to their positions. A majority of the Birutis administration hails from the Southern most reaches of Winfield. A sexual assault in Fred Farms may as well be in Milwaukee. Noise at 5:00 in the morning in Klein Creek may as well be noise on Mars. Why respond to an email or phone call when if they are ignored long enough they will go away.

Politically Districting Winfield would help in all these situations. The Frederic Farms trustee would be held accountable for the blase response to a sexual assault. The Klein Creek Trustee would have pounded the tables for the Klein Creek residents, and my trustee would have pounded on the unelected and unaccountable Trustee Robert Mrugacz for a measured response to my very polite request for further clarification of his comments.

My quest for better, more caring and more customer centric government is the rocket fuel that drives me on my petition drive for signatures for Districting Winfield. If you feel as I do and if you have had less than acceptable interactions with our government please share your stories here at www.Winfield411.com. By working together we can make sure that customer service as practiced by the Birutis Administration never happens again.

Bad Time for Two-Month Vacation for Winfield Village President

Note: This is a cross post with the Daily Herald. The links provide below will take you to the posting in the Daily Herald. Interesting enough the Daily Herald posted the article under two different titles. Even more interesting are the reader comments made under the post titled, Bad time for two-month vacation for Winfield Village President made by none other than Winfield’s own Citizen Pain, Stanley Zegel.

Mr. Zegel’s comments left us scratching our heads especially since Mr. Zegel was the owner of the “Slam Publication” The Winfield Register. The Winfield Register with Zegel at the helm operated on half-truths outright distortions and a barrage of personal attacks against public servants and well-meaning citizen volunteers. The “Slam Publication’s” entire context was written by Zegel or tendered by proxies recruited by Mr. Zegel masquerading as “concerned citizens.” The hypocrisy of Zegel’s comment is incomprehensible but then again you have to look at who you are dealing with. The real question is: Where is our village president?

Bad time for two-month vacation

Bad time for two-month vacation for Winfield village president

While most people would agree, everyone is entitled to a vacation, Village President Deborah Birutis gives new meaning to the expression “a little time off.”  Ms. Birutis is once again out of the country on a two month vacation, a sojourn she takes every year.

A public official needs to be accessible almost all the time to respond to the resident’s concerns or in case of an emergency to provide assistance and help.  Most people who run for office understand that part of the bargain.  But Village President Birutis does not yet seem to understand taking a two month vacation is overly excessive and irresponsible.

Missing Winfield Village President Deborah Birutis

If being village president is job number one as Ms. Birutis has told everyone, then why is she off on a two month vacation?  Especially when back home Winfield is struggling for its’ economic life. As Birutis underachieves her way through managing Winfield’s future, attempts to prop up Ms. Birutis’ leadership makes the opposite point intended: Good leaders are a very rare thing, and Deborah Birutis isn’t one of them.

Birutis has a lackadaisical attitude, evidenced by the fact she is out of the country for two months and not here working towards a solution for Winfield’s revenue shortfalls.  It’s not leadership when you try and shove all the problems facing the community onto the backs of the residents.  Furthermore, does a good leader abandon the residents in a time of need?

When Birutis was elected the residents didn’t choose for her to have a eight week vacation.  Given the challenges facing Winfield, Birutis’ two month vacation can only be view for what it is, an abandonment of concern and a gross failure of her responsibilities.

The residents are looking for leadership during these tough times, not pathetic schemes to force through yet another unpopular tax increase that would unfairly burden the residents.  More importantly, the residents are looking to their village president to be working on solutions in these difficult times, not off sunny herself for two months.

Political Districting Update

I would like to thank everyone that has helped out over the past several weeks in getting signatures for the petition to district Winfield into six separate neighborhood voting areas.

Up until this point the petition has been brought door-to-door by people that have been selected because of their leadership rolls in their neighborhoods. We have one month to get as many signatures as possible and we need help. I would like to ask you, the concerned citizen of Winfield and reader of Winfield411.com to download the petition to your computer, print out a copy Winfield Ballot Initiative and walk around your neighborhood and get as many signatures as you possibly can.

Not only would additional signatures help our movement to bring FAIR REPRESENTATION to all parts of our village but it would also help the cause by starting very important dialogs and conversations about the desperate need for local representation among your neighbors. If you don’t feel comfortable in asking your neighbors for their signatures on their petitions, then please, just have a conversation with them if you see them out cutting their grass or tending their gardens. At the end of this month we are going to have a Barbeque and Ice Cream Social where you can turn in your signatures and have them notarized. Keep reading Winfield411.com for details.

Districting is probably the most important political change that can happen to this town. It will make for more accountable politicians and give you and your neighborhood a voice in village government.

If you have any questions or would like to get involved with a group that is walking the streets for signatures, please contact Tim Allen @ 630.344.9354 or email me at TimAllen57@gmail.com

Five Reasons to Politically District Winfield

President Bill Clinton began his second term in 1997 with an optimistic inaugural address in which he urged Americans to “keep our old democracy forever young.” He went on to say “as times change, so government must change.”

This is why I’m advocating for electoral reforms to make our village government more democratic and more representative. The rules governing citizens’ choices and voting power have a great impact on who runs, who votes, who wins and who controls our future. Unfortunately, here in Winfield we still operate under the antiquated “winner-take-all” voting structure, that all too often undercuts accountability and reduces representation. I also believe that having village trustees elected at large causes some symptoms within our town that are not constructive or beneficial to our community.

I would like to take a moment and explain my top five reasons why I believe Winfield would  benefit from Districting our politicians, giving us, the residents representation from all parts of the village. We are now well into the 21st-century, isn’t it time we change our archaic and unavailing electoral rules?

1. Greater Accountability - Our current village trustees are technically responsible for all parts of the town. But as the old saying goes, if everyone is accountable to you, then no one is accountable to you. Each part of our village can be very different from other parts. Residents of a local area deserve to have someone on the inside of the village board meetings that can advocate for them, someone to be part of the closed door meetings, emails and negotiations where our futures are decided.

2. Distributed Power – Our American democracy was founded on the dispersal of concentrated power. In 1776 we rejected the King in favor of the elected representative. It is time to recognize that the only proper way to run a democracy is to have all areas represented by their own trustee.

3. Less influence by big money donors and special interests in our town’s elections – Districting protects the citizens against the corrosive influence of money in our elections. Regardless of how much money a candidate or group spends on a local election Districting forces political groups to build bridges regarding issues that concern the electoral district. It doesn’t matter how much money is spent, if the big money candidate can’t find issues that are relevant to the district, the big money candidate will lose.

4. Lower Barriers to Run for Office – It is a daunting task to find the time and money to campaign across Winfield, to ring doors of 4000 households and shake the hands of Winfield’s 9000 residents. By Districting, we allow people who may be outstanding leaders but who otherwise would not run for office due to time or funding constraints the opportunity to run. A lot of campaigning can be done inside a district for the cost of some ink and some shoe leather.

5. More Continuity in  Winfield Politics – If you have lived in Winfield for any part of the last 10 years, you have seen the whip-saw effect of the village board being elected in and voted out three separate times by one angry group of voters or another. There is a strength in a peaceful village board that has continuity over the years.

Over the next two months you will have the opportunity to sign a petition to put the question of Districting on the November 2010 ballot. The question will read as follows:

“SHALL THE VILLAGE BE DIVIDED INTO 6 DISTRICTS WITH ONE TRUSTEE ELECTED FROM EACH DISTRICT”

I hope you will take the opportunity to sign the petition and I hope you feel as I do, that Districting is the best way to have equal representation and a harmonious village with trustees accountable to the people.

Why I Like Districting

Editors Note: Readers were encouraged to briefly explain why they like ‘Districting.’ Following is a representative collection of the many fine responses we received.

Districting brings more power back to the people.

Districting allows the people to choose their own representatives — rather than the representatives choosing who gets to vote for them.

Districting is a step towards getting the responsibility for government into the control of the residents and its true public servants and out of the hands of the self-serving special interest.

There should be some representation for all people in town — not just the one group that could turn out the most votes.

Campaigns ought to be issue-driven by the residents and not money-driven to capture the most votes. We are becoming a monolithic tyranny of special interest.

Voter apathy stems from feeling unrepresented and that real change can’t happen. With Districting, voters will see the possibility of change.

Districting will encourage more people to become active voters and believe in the politicians because a range of views could be represented.

Districting gives everyone representation. It is representation based on issues and beliefs, not arcane geographic representation.

Districting allows everyone to participate in the political process, not just those with enough money and clout to sway voters.

Districting will encourage greater voter turn-out and in the long run our village will be closer to equal representation, for the people, meaning all the people.

Districting allows all members of the town to be fairly represented. A winner-take-all system, like we have now, will never produce a village board that is truly representative — politically or otherwise.

Districting offers all voters equal representation and a real stake in making Winfield succeed and is an essential step in building a sane Winfield where all are respected.

Districting would decrease the power of special interest political organizations, such as Winfield United. The voice of all resident would be heard.

Districting offers a pro-active and common sense solution to the ills that have plagued Winfield’s elections.

Districting can increase participation, not just in election, but in politics in general. It will increase the integrity of the political discourse. It is a real solution to past election bad blood.

When Districting is used, better qualified candidates run. Also better qualified candidates get elected.

The winner-take-all system guarantees that at least some and possibly 49% of the people go unrepresented. Districting forces the village board to be much more representative of the people.

Districting decreases the dominance of moneyed interests in our elections. It also gives a voice to committed residents who otherwise feel alienated, and thereby encourages more resident participation in village government.

Districting is a method of voting which most effectively reflects the wishes of the voters.

Districting gives me a chance to have a voice in village government and I know my vote will count — it’s a chance to choose the candidate I believe in rather than the lesser of two evils.

Districting is more democratic in that very few votes are wasted — all votes go to elect someone. It provides We the People with justice, not the status quo’s just us.

I like Districting  because it more adequately represents the needs and hopes of the people of the community. I feel wider representation would make for a more honest village government and a more flexible village government.

Districting will allow for political representation of areas which our presently excluded. Also, it will encourage voter participation among the majority of Winfield residents who presently feel they have no reason to vote.

Districting can help change the dynamics of electoral politics to concentrate on the issues as opposed to trivialities and mudslinging.

Districting makes it much more likely that most voters will have representatives who represent their most important interests. Many more people will vote, “Fat Cat” special interest will have much less influence over our community and public policies will meet the needs of many more people along with promoting the common good. We will be much more closer to having a village government of, by and for the people.

I would be represented in village government by a person that holds the same views as I do. It would be someone I could hold accountable on specific positions.

Districting allows the greatest number of people the best opportunity to elect a representative that best represents their views. The winner take all system is inherently unrepresentative because they exclude so many people from representation.

Districting can give every potential voter the hope that they can have some representation in village government.

Districting encourages voters to vote for candidates whose beliefs and values are like their own.

Districting allows everyone’s vote to really count for something meaningful.

Districting is the fairest method known under which people may vote. It unifies, rather than divides the electorate and it ensures a diverse leadership representative of all the people who vote. It encourages voting — the one thing which makes a community work.

The current system encourages an ignorant populace that can be easily manipulated by the best controller of their image.

Districting would allow for an election that allows more ideas to be represented as well as more sections of town. It is time for our village to consider an elections alternative that better represents all the people.

Fair Representation

51% of the Vote Should Not Mean 100% of the Power

A simple, winner-takes-all system seems so normal to us because it is what we are used to. Many cities and villages have moved to some system of proportional representation of representing voters. The reason they have moved to alternative election systems is because they have learned, the people want a greater voice in electing the representatives that affect their daily lives.

Our current election approach allocates power collectively across town. It fails to group people together based on where they live and assign them a single representative. We then have an election, people vote, and whoever gets the most votes in that particular election gets all of the power.

Technically, then, 51% of the people in the community can get 100% of the power. The assumption is, the 51% of the people who have the most votes and therefore, elect the representatives, are going to elect individuals who will represent all of the residents in town, including the 49% who did not vote for him or her. That assumption is based on the “golden rule,” or principle of reciprocity, which says whoever is in the majority today will not be permanently in the majority but has to worry about potential defectors who may join with today’s minority to become the next governing coalition. Therefore, in order to ensure the members of the current majority will be treated fairly when they are in the minority, the current majority treats the current minority fairly. Of course this isn’t the case in Winfield today.

However, there are other ways in which you can justify simple majority rule if you think about the town as a geographic unit which is simply one unit within a much larger area. If the area is subdivided in a way that is “representative,” then presumably (and the simple majority, winner-takes-all rule rests upon this presumption), the 49% in one part of town may be a majority in another part of town. It is therefore assumed this group gets direct representation of its interests from people who are elected by like-minded voters.

There is a second assumption: that the 49% in our hypothetical sample is treated fairly by the governing majority, and is directly represented by majorities that were elected by like-minded voters. The group that is in the minority does not have to wait for a time when it becomes a majority in the town in order to be treated fairly. But it is essentially a principle of virtual representation, or vicarious representation, to claim the present minority is represented or has surrogate representatives who, though not elected by it, are responsive to its interests.

A third assumption that supports simple, winner-takes-all majority rule is the town itself represents some kind of group that is cohesive or has enough similar interests that a single representative can fairly provide constituent service. Certainly not the case in Winfield over the last six years. However, for arguments sake, I live in Illinois and I am assumed to be represented by two Senators even if I did not vote for them because, as a resident of this state, I have certain interests that they are going to represent regardless of our respective politics.

Now those three assumptions about simple, winner-takes-all majority rule, are flawed when you have a permanent majority or a majority that monopolizes power. Such as what is present in Winfield today with the special interest group Winfield United. If you have a system in which the majority in power is furthering only their interest, then the 49% minority is not really represented. It is represented on the hope or promise of “the golden rule,” but it is not represented in terms of that second assumption I described as the virtual or vicarious representation principle.

The problem in Winfield today is the political action committee, Winfield United. Winfield United does not apply the “golden rule” and exists solely to further its’ own self-serving agenda. Based on this evaluation, ‘Districting’ of Winfield is the only way for the residents to receive true representation and remove Winfield United’s undue influences from the community.

Please let us know your thoughts on why you would be in favor of ‘Political Districting’ in Winfield. All correspondences should be sent to www.seventurnsproductions@live.com – No names or email address will be used, just your comments. Thank you.