The State Board of Elections basically set a hurdle that is impossible to clear short of filing a court action and getting subpoena power – that being the onus on you (the complainant) to provide proof that $3,000 was spent. It is also a long shot that you would win – any adverse ruling with the word “newspaper” will get picked up by corporate interests and taken through the courts… it’s not politically expedient to the Democrats and Republicans on the Board of Elections to take that on for such a small campaign.

The good thing is that the content is so slanted to a particular viewpoint that I see him winning over few converts with this approach. The good news is that people are on to him, and his efforts failed in last year’s election cycle. I don’t see that changing.

What you have here is all good information 99.8% of Winfield is outraged over Zegel’s twisted and catty writings. [Sorry couldn't resist]I would send all the information you have gathered (which is all factual)to Zegel’s so called advertisers and let them decide for themselves if they want their businesses associated with a political tabloid and someone as challenged as Zegel.

PS: The SBOE ruled on Zegel’s behalf not because they believe Zegel is right but because they don’t want a fight from legitimate news organizations. This is Zegel once again gaming the system for his own twisted personal gain. The mere fact the SBOE stated and acknowledged Zegel’s paper is a TABLOID is all anyone needs to know.

Every day that fighting continues, it becomes more difficult to find anyone willing to put his or her person through the insanity of being a trustee.

It is useful to remember what brought us to this day. As noted before, in earlier years Stan pushed districting (the first attempt). When Tim wanted to run for Trustee, the road as an independent, running against WU, was significantly harder. He had to run initially on his own strength. Tim’s loss resulted in the second attempt at districting in part because he recognized how hard it was to run, and he wanted better odds. Then Tim ran again, and won; however, with this an informal organization began to form to support him, in addition to greater awareness of the mess within the Village. I believe that the process made Tim a better candidate the second time around. Now, fueled by success and in a reaction to unique style of the Village board, we find ourselves in the third attempt at districting.

As a group and as a community we have deep frustration with the state of our community, and therefore we support the need for change; however, change does not mean that we all support districting. I have many concerns that I believe we should consider. First, if the districting initiative fails, it can be touted as a loss, a weakness in the drive for change, a thing to exploit. Therefore, when we discuss the initiative our stance should be that here are the pros and cons, it has come up several times and we will trust the peoples’ opinion expressed through their votes as to the outcome. Second, we need to address the core issues a) making it easier to run b) strengthen and formalize the organization c) practice positive strategies for working through the issues of the Village including supporting research.

What is of greater concern is that I believe that we are breaking the basic rules of the strategic problem solving process? When you seek to solve a problem, one sets an initial hypothesis and then sets an alternative – if not A then B. After setting the hypothesis, one determines the data required to prove the hypothesis. Tim’s initial hypothesis is to use districting as a strategy to fix the problems of overriding proprietary interests and the former problem of the physical difficulty of running. The test is the vote of the people. However, if A fails, then where is B? We need a B strategy, and it needs to be comprehensive, positive and accomplishable. Might I propose that we think toward how we as a group move to find ways to fix the problems regardless of the outcome of the districting vote? In my view of strategy, this is more important than the vote itself.