DeForest recall committee turns in 1,500 signatures, eyes September election – Madison365

Report on the Recall Effort Against Trustee Bill Landgraf in the Village of DeForest

A citizen-led committee in the Village of DeForest has initiated a formal recall process against Village Board Trustee Bill Landgraf. The effort, which has surpassed the required signature threshold, highlights significant community concerns regarding governance, public health, and institutional accountability, aligning with several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Procedural Status and Timeline

The recall committee has submitted over 1,500 signatures to the Village Clerk, exceeding the 1,392 required to trigger a recall election. The required number represents 25 percent of the voter turnout in the last gubernatorial election, a key tenet of democratic participation.

Key Procedural Points

• Signatures Submitted: Over 1,500
• Signatures Required: 1,392
• Challenges Filed: Trustee Landgraf has formally challenged 192 signatures, citing issues of legibility and alleged “circulator issues.”
• Verification Deadline: The Village Clerk has until August 9 to certify the validity of the signatures.
• Potential Election Date: If the petition is certified, a recall election is tentatively scheduled for September 16.

To streamline the process and avoid the additional public cost of a primary election, the recall committee has endorsed a single candidate, Alicia Williams, to run against Trustee Landgraf.

Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The recall initiative and the issues driving it directly intersect with multiple SDGs, particularly those concerning health, sustainable communities, and strong institutions.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

This goal is central to the recall effort, which serves as a mechanism for ensuring accountable and transparent institutions. Concerns raised by citizens point to a perceived erosion of trust in local governance.

• Accountability: The recall process itself is a democratic tool for holding elected officials accountable to the populace.
• Institutional Integrity: Allegations against Trustee Landgraf suggest conduct that undermines the integrity of his office. These include:
  1. Attempting to intimidate critics by contacting their employers.
  2. Using a pseudonymous email address to solicit information from a resident under false pretenses.
  3. Engaging in conduct perceived as threatening during a political campaign.
  4. Posting inappropriate content on social media.
• Access to Justice: Reports from petition circulators indicate that numerous residents expressed fear of “retribution” for signing the petition, suggesting a climate that impedes free expression and civic participation, which are fundamental to peaceful and inclusive societies.

SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

The initial catalyst for the recall movement was the Village Board’s vote to remove fluoride from the municipal water supply. This decision has significant public health implications.

• Public Health Policy: The debate over water fluoridation is a critical public health issue directly impacting the dental health and well-being of the community, a core target of SDG 3.
• Community Health Advocacy: The strong community reaction, including Alicia Williams’ initial write-in campaign and the subsequent recall effort, demonstrates citizen engagement in local health policy.

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

The recall effort also encompasses broader goals for creating a more inclusive, safe, and sustainable community.

• Inclusive Governance: Candidate Alicia Williams has stated a goal of bringing civility to the board, fostering a more inclusive and productive environment for local governance.
• Affordable Housing: Williams has identified affordable housing as a key issue she intends to address, which is a critical component of Target 11.1 of the SDGs (ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing).
• Grassroots Engagement: The “real grassroots effort” described by Williams reflects a high level of community participation aimed at shaping the future of the village.

Candidate Positions and Outlook

Alicia Williams and the Recall Committee

Alicia Williams, who garnered 1,739 votes as a write-in candidate in the previous election, is the endorsed candidate. Her platform is built on restoring fluoride to the water supply, improving civility on the Village Board, and addressing community needs such as affordable housing. Organizers report strong public support and express high confidence that the recall petition will be certified and that their candidate will be successful in the subsequent election.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

   • SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • SDG 5: Gender Equality
   • SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

   1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

      • Target 3.8: Achieve universal health coverage, including … access to quality essential health-care services…
        
        The article’s central conflict began when “the village board voted to remove fluoride from the village’s drinking water.” Community water fluoridation is a public health measure designed to prevent tooth decay, and its removal can be seen as a decision impacting access to a quality, preventative health service for the entire community.

   2. SDG 5: Gender Equality

      • Target 5.2: Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres…
        
        The article notes that Trustee Landgraf “has also posted jokes about sexual assault featuring images of Bill Cosby.” This action contributes to a public culture that normalizes or makes light of sexual violence, which is contrary to the goal of eliminating all forms of violence and harmful attitudes against women.
      • Target 5.5: Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making…
        
        The article highlights the political engagement of Alicia Williams, who “launched a write-in campaign,” received “1,739 votes,” and is now the endorsed candidate in the recall effort. This directly relates to women’s participation and pursuit of leadership roles in local political life. The intimidation of a female dental hygienist who spoke out on a political issue is also relevant, as it represents a barrier to women’s full participation in public discourse.

   3. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

      • Target 11.1: By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services…
        
        Candidate Alicia Williams explicitly identifies a key community need, stating she “hopes to bring civility to the board, and to address other issues like affordable housing.” This directly connects her political platform to the goal of ensuring affordable housing within the community.

   4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

      • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
        
        The entire recall effort is an exercise in holding an elected official accountable. The article states the recall is due to the fluoride vote and “some concerning behavior from Landgraf,” including alleged intimidation. The fact that citizens feel a trustee is not acting appropriately and are using a legal process to challenge him is a direct reflection of this target.
      • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.
        
        The recall is a form of participatory decision-making. The article details that a committee submitted “more 1,500 signatures of citizens in support of a recall election.” However, the article also notes a barrier to inclusive participation, as volunteers encountered people who “wanted to sign but feared ‘retribution’ from Landgraf,” indicating that decision-making is not perceived as fully safe or inclusive.
      • Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms…
        
        The article describes actions that threaten fundamental freedoms, specifically freedom of speech. Police records indicate Landgraf admitted to “calling the workplace of a dental hygienist who’d sparred with him on social media” and that the hygienist later received a letter about a complaint filed against her. This can be interpreted as an attempt to intimidate and silence a critic, thereby infringing on her freedom to express her opinion.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

   1. For Target 3.8 (Access to quality essential health-care services)

      • Implied Indicator: The status of community water fluoridation. The article’s central issue is the “vote to remove fluoride from the village’s drinking water,” making its presence or absence a clear indicator of the provision of this specific public health service.

   2. For Target 5.5 (Women’s participation and leadership)

      • Indicator: Number of votes for a female write-in candidate. The article specifies that Alicia Williams “received 1,739 votes,” which serves as a quantitative measure of public support for a woman seeking a leadership position.

   3. For Target 16.6 & 16.7 (Accountable, participatory institutions)

      • Indicator: Number of signatures on a recall petition. The article states that “more 1,500 signatures” were submitted, against a required threshold of 1,392, quantifying the level of citizen participation in this accountability process.
      • Qualitative Indicator: Citizen perception of safety in political participation. The report that “every one of the 30 volunteers circulating petitions encountered at least one person who said they wanted to sign but feared ‘retribution'” serves as a strong qualitative indicator of a hostile environment for participatory democracy.

   4. For Target 16.10 (Protect fundamental freedoms)

      • Indicator: Number of reported incidents of alleged intimidation by a public official. The article provides specific examples that can be counted, such as Landgraf calling a critic’s workplace and confronting a campaigner, which police records document.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

   SDGs	Targets	Indicators Identified in Article
   SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being	3.8: Achieve universal health coverage, including access to quality essential health-care services.	The decision by the village board to remove fluoride from the public drinking water supply.
   SDG 5: Gender Equality	5.2: Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres.	Public official posting jokes about sexual assault online.
   	5.5: Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership.	The number of votes (1,739) for a female write-in candidate (Alicia Williams).
   SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities	11.1: Ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services.	The identification of “affordable housing” as a key campaign issue by a candidate.
   SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.	The initiation of a formal recall process against an elected official.
   	16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.	Number of citizen signatures (1,500+) collected for the recall petition; reports of citizens fearing retribution for signing the petition.
   	16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms.	Police records documenting an official calling a critic’s workplace and filing a complaint against her in response to social media comments.

Source: madison365.com