Since Winfield United entered the debate over the police share of the Village budget, sponsoring printed yard signs in support of retaining the Winfield Police Department, the civic group has drawn more attention and political attacks.
by Barry Dredze
Zoning and development issues are a common point of friction in Winfield’s political discourse, variably pitting factions in support of revenue-generating development or preservation of an attractive village character, supporters of commercial development of the Roosevelt Road corridor or an accelerated Town Center development against each other.
When Trustee James Hughes resigned from all of the committee liaison appointments that he shared with Trustee Erik Spande shortly following Spande’s release of a summary of nearly a year’s worth of closed executive sessions regarding the Winfield Police Department’s share of the Village budget, Hughes echoed sustained efforts to characterize local civic organization Winfield United for a Better Community (WU) as having an unfair and outsized influence on Village zoning and development polices.
Spande was ejected from the regular Village Board meeting in a 4-2 vote on May 17 and unanimously censured for violation of the Village Board Code of Ethics following his ejection. Trustees Hughes and Spande had shared liaison appointments to the Riverwalk, Bikeways, and Communication & Technology Committees and the Environmental Concerns Commission since April, 2011.
“I believe Trustee Spande’s actions have been nothing but a sad Political Game that has ended in my loss of Faith, Confidence, and Trust in Mr. Spande,” Hughes wrote submitting his resignation from four of his seven liaison appointments in an email to Village President Deborah Birutis on May 19. “How is this NOT some sort of sad political game by Mr. Spande for his own personal agenda and/or that of WU?”
The effort to portray an extraordinary influence by Winfield United on Village policy escalated during Trustee Tim Allen’s opposition to the 2010 Village-backed road maintenance referendum campaign. Referendum opponents relied heavily upon associations linking WU and the Village’s attempt to issue bonds and temporarily lift the property tax cap to fund a 20-year road maintenance policy. The referendums were defeated in 2010 and Allen was elected to the Village Board in April, 2011.
During the referendum campaign, Allen circulated pamphlets and published information on a local political weblog including a map identifying the homes of WU contributors, mostly on the south side of town and nearby unincorporated areas in the vicinity of Roosevelt Road. Allen’s materials described the attempt to raise revenues through the road referendums, “so that non-Winfield home owners can have back yards that are splendid, leafy green and lovely.” The materials also featured a graphic characterization of Roosevelt Road as “Rosie the Cow” eager to be milked of its potential commercial revenues.
In his email of resignation from liaison appointments, Hughes also assured Village President Birutis of his intention to remain liaison to those committee appointments that he did not share with Spande – namely, the Fire District and Library Boards as well as the Economic Development Task Force (EDTF) for which Spande’s liaison nomination was rejected in a 4-2 vote by the Village Board on May 17, prior to his ejection and censure.
On February 16, the Village Board had expanded the scope of the EDTF from its original focus on implementing the 2008 Town Center Marketing and Capacity Study to the Village as a whole, including unincorporated areas in the greater Winfield planning area.
Trustee Tim Allen had sought to expand the scope of the Task Force since December, 2011. A heated January, 2012 email correspondence between Allen and Village President Birutis revealed further insight into the effort as Allen expressed frustration over a reference from Birutis to DuPage County Board Chairman Dan Cronin regarding a County Board vacancy appointment of former Winfield resident Bill Bedrossian over former Winfield Village Trustee Chris Levan
“It’s also clear that we have built a coalition that wants development and they are interested in working on Roosevelt Road,” Allen wrote. “Stalling the expansion of the vision of the EDTF is a perfect example. It may have taken 4 meetings but I will have what I want. After that we do the Marathon & Fire Station. After that we revise the Comprehensive plan. Then we start changing zoning. Then we start making sustainable revenues. You can try to stop us but it will only work for a little while.”
On May 17, following the expulsion and censure of Spande, the Village Board of Trustees sent the matter of the rezoning of properties at the northeast corner of Roosevelt and Winfield Roads to the Plan Commission, including the Marathon gas station, the floodplain property to its east and the currently unstaffed Fire Station no. 2 to its north.
Years before the emergence of “Rosie the Cow,” Winfield United for a Better Community was organized to compete with the highly effective political fundraising by development interests focused on the Winfield planning area Roosevelt Road corridor. Citizens for Winfield raised significant funds for candidates who shared that vision with development interests in the Winfield area and beyond.
Launched in 2001, Citizens for Winfield funded campaigns of Village officials including former Village Trustees Chris Mackowiak, Dale Bianco, Tom McClow and Chris Levan with contributions from regional development interests such as Louis Ruffalo Construction of Naperville and Gary Weber & Associates of Wheaton to diversified financial interests such as Greenberg Traurig of Miami, Florida.
Winfield United for a Better Community was incorporated in August, 2004 as a 501(c)(4) not for profit corporation.
“The distinction,” WU President Steve Romanelli said, “is that a (c)(4) corporation can get involved with endorsing political candidates, which makes the donations to this type of corporation non tax deductible.”
WU has a 3-team concept, Romanelli explained, consisting of Community Projects, such as providing children’s activities during Village events like the minnow races at Good Old Days and an inflatable Moon Walk during the Criterium bicycle races and implementing the outdoor classroom at Winfield Primary School; Communications, focusing on members and residents with a website, weblog and periodic newsletters; and Civic Involvement, including the vetting of candidates seeking endorsement and support.
“The Civic Involvement team learned of Illinois Election Board requirements that specifically required any organization who will accept or contribute more than $2,500 to be registered as a local political committee,” Romanelli said. “In our efforts to remain up front and transparent, the committee was registered as Winfield United Political Committee and has a separate chairperson and separate bank account so we keep all finances independent.”
According to State Board of Elections data, Citizens for Winfield raised $21,795 to fund the slate of candidates for the April 5, 2005 consolidated election campaign with then-Trustee Levan for Village President, reelection of Trustees McClow and Mackowiak and the election of Jennifer Saylor outdoing the $17,640 raised by the slate funded by the Winfield United Political Committee with then-Trustee Rudy Czech for Village President and Christine Petitti, Jack Bajor and Joel Kunesh for Trustees.
Since that time, the popular support for WU-backed candidates has been somewhat effectively eroded by attacks against its political fundraising as Allen and former High School District 94 Board President Tony Reyes have advanced a populist narrative of Winfield United as a fundraising powerhouse of the moneyed elite.
On September 1, 2011 Allen opposed the appointment of WU member Rock Rockett to the Public Works Committee.
“I don’t necessarily have a problem with Rock Rockett, per se,” Allen said. “What I do have a problem with is the excessive population of card-carrying, dues-paying and political activism-contributing members of Winfield United who seem to make proactively every commission without fail.”
As Winfield United has entered the issue of the Winfield Police Department’s share of the Village budget, sponsoring printed yard signs in support of retaining the Winfield Police Department, Trustees Allen, Hughes and Reyes have attacked the organization’s effort head-on.
“That $5 sign may cost you $1,000 per year,” Reyes wrote in a widely circulated June 14 email message. “You lo$e –WU win$!”
The cost of a single sign is $3.87, Winfield United member Karen Skillman said. Including the $1.54 cost of a wire frame, the total cost of a yard sign is $5.41.
“We are selling [a yard sign] for $5.00 and covering the rest,” Skillman said.
Spande’s defiance of protocol for closed executive sessions appears to have opened up an opportunity for Trustee Hughes to add his voice to the attacks on Winfield United, alternately accusing Spande of giving personal directions via email to Village committees that he serves as Trustee liaison and advancing a WU agenda.
“Erik’s email provide special comment and direction from ONE board member – was Erik directed by the board to send ES [executive session] information to the RW [Riverwalk Committee]? Did board direct him to tell RW in email direction from his censure and to tell them to go to his personal YouTube site, was that Village Board Direction?”
Hughes remains most concerned with Spande having leaked his summary to Village committees.
“I am told I was in rare form with my speech, which demanded honesty and open and transparent government,” Spande wrote in an email to the members of the Riverwalk Committee the day after his expulsion and censure at the May 17 Village Board meeting. “Look for my speech on speaking truth to power on YouTube soon.”
“It’s hard to deny Erik didn’t provide his person [sic] actions to the committee (including his saying his YouTube channel is coming) – that is not board direction,” Hughes said via email messages following his trustee liaison resignations.
There remains no YouTube account under the name of Erik Spande at presstime and Spande insists that he is not now, nor has he ever been a member of Winfield United. While State Board of Elections data shows that Spande had contributed $300 to the Winfield United Political Committee during the 2011 campaign, Hughes had contributed $500 and received the endorsement of Winfield United for Village Trustee. Spande ran for office in 2009 on a slate named “Winfield 4” with Angel Oakley for Village President and Jay Olson, Tim Allen and himself for Village Trustees. Olson was the sole winner from the slate that year.
Spande petitioned for a place on the 2011 ballot and initially received the endorsement of Winfield United along with Hughes and incumbents Glenn VadeBonCoeur, Cliff Mortensen and the late Joel Kunesh but withdrew his candidacy before the deadline to file petitions. Spande was appointed to the Village Board by Birutis in March, 2011 to serve out the term of Trustee Kunesh who passed away in February, 2011.
“We have always been accused of just being a PAC, which we are not,” Romanelli said. “We are a not for profit corporation whose main purpose is to provide benefit to Winfield by volunteering our efforts in ways that improve the quality of life for residents, while also supporting open and honest village government that seeks to encourage residents to get involved and informed in the community.”
Great article, Barry! You’ve done an outstanding job of tracing the history of the electoral battles and the underlining reasons for them. This is history that more people need to understand and appreciate.
Rock
“Spande insists that he is not now, nor has he ever been a member of Winfield United.” This is the problem, Spande claims he isn’t a member of Winfield United? Well the Illinois State Board of Elections link proves otherwise. Spande was a supported candidate for Winfield Trustee by the PAC Winfield United. The real problem in Winfield is and continues to be the constant lying and misleading of the public by Winfield United by the people who claim to just be “associated” with Winfield United but not so called members.
http://www.elections.state.il.us/CampaignDisclosure/CommitteeDetailCandidates.aspx?id=18758
Where is Spande’s integrity? How about some honesty for once. I have seen pictures of Winfield United events and Spande is front and center. It’s no surprise his fellow Winfield village board members want nothing to do with Spande.
You know what Barry, why don’t you write the true story of Winfield United?
Instead of some convoluted story to make Winfield United look like they are good for the town. Could it be because you are a card carry member of Winfield United, even if like Spande you won’t admit it?
Billy, this is Barry. Your information is consistent with the facts presented in the story as Trustee Spande had contributed to Winfield United Political Committee and accepted the organization’s endorsement before withdrawing from election. In fact, I myself have volunteered with Winfield United in the past as well, but I have not been active for perhaps five years (and I do not believe the group ever issued membership cards). But so what? Since when do residents need anyone’s approval to organize and participate in civic affairs, whether it be Winfield United, Citizens for Winfield, Winfield Junior Woman’s Club, Winfield Area Gardeners, etc.?
Why is everything always about WU with these guys? Because it’s a smoke screen to keep people from catching on to their tricks.
When WU comes out against these guys’ pet plan to get their developer buddies seated on Roosevelt Road, it’s time to attack WU.
When WU comes out against getting rid of our police force, it’s time to attack WU.
The pattern here (there are many more incidents than those listed above) is that when an issue comes up, these guys take the voters’ eyes off the ball (the issue) by attacking WU.
I believe there is an old saying in politics that goes something like this: “When you know you can’t win, attack the opponent.”
Barry, I agree with Rock. This is an excellent historical perspective on the political activities in Winfield, IL.
And, in the interest of full disclosure, I am WU board member. and I volunteer with the Village of Winfield (Communications & Technology Commission).
Thanks again, Barry. rjp
Hi Barry -
I didn’t mean WU issued membership cards literally, I was just making a point as to individuals who share or have been swayed by Winfield United.
Citizens do not need approval to organize but citizens should be made aware of PAC’s that hide their true motivation and do not serving the citizen’s interests.
Winfield United is a listed political action committee with the state of Illinois all the other organizations you listed are not.
Check out Winfield United Political Committee’s status here:
http://www.elections.il.gov/CampaignDisclosure/CommitteeDetail.aspx?id=18758
Here’s my argument against Winfield United, which is shared by many in town. By design PACs activities are dominated by the perspective that PAC contributions are an investment in political candidates.
Why does Winfield United make this investment? Well the why is easy, that investment yields some valuable payoffs and decisions for Winfield United. PACs buy access to officeholders and their votes on important issues. Given this morally suspect premise, why do we need a PAC, (Winfield United) operating in Winfield?
The endorsements and/or financial contributions by the PAC, Winfield United has over the last 7 years influenced, created bias, controlled future decisions made by village board members and caused a great deal of disharmony within our community.
Wouldn’t you agree, Winfield needs a principled approach which rejects the morally repugnant interpretation of the relationship between PACs and politics?
One More Point:
As a resident, I am embarrassed and disappointed.
I am particularly disappointed in the inability of Winfield President Birutis and Winfield United President —Steve Romanelli as well as the rest of the village board Winfield United has hand-picked over the last 7 years — to accomplish any of the promises they made to us in 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011.
1. open and honest government;
2. to continue the Towncenter revitalization effort; and
3. to re-build the infrastructure.
4. to uphold our village services.
5. To maintain strong fund balances.
6. Not to increase our water rates.
We are a community in decline — not terminal, not irreversible, but in decline.
I fully recognize we are at times subject to the volatilities and fluctuations of the market and the responsibility that lies with our elected officials, but I am equally conscious of a small cabal of self-serving individuals that poisoned our community with toxic and unwieldy officials – the kind of elected officials who are not looking out for the interest of the town but are fostered by the complicity of the self-serving political action committee, Winfield United.
Our town’s healing will only happen once the entrenched special interest of Winfield United is expelled from our community. That having been said, our town’s rebuilding must start with bold moves, not in vilifying new ideas and initiatives. Importantly, we need an independent, intelligent and effective board to elevate Winfield which is now at an economic tipping point. Winfield United’s plan for Winfield’s future has failed. Arguably, they haven’t even tried.
I view Winfield United’s control of Winfield as a depressing event. With the current inactivity in Winfield and Winfield United’s self-serving agenda weighing so heavily on the town, the potential to pull out of the tailspin Winfield United has thrust us in, is unlikely.
Winfield has lost its way. As a community, we are more divided than ever before. After reading the the Winfield Register it’s clear that some have lost their moral compass. Our once celebrated sense of community, is now corrupted by personal agendas and the self-interested political action committee, Winfield United’s presence. Other towns that used to envy us, now just shake their heads. We have lost our sense of ourselves.
Hi Winfield Scott. There is a very good reason why WU is being attacked on the police issue: They are being inconstent, for no apparent reason. Deb Birutis, who we all know started WU with Steve Romanelli in 2004, started the discussion on police outsourcing in 2009, well before Allen, Reyes or Hughes ever took office. So WU has a problem with police outsourcing now, but not then? The only difference between then and now is that WU does not have control of the Village Board.
The land issue along Roosevelt Road is the key issue, and it is not about developers. The abusive zoning of vacant property along a highway penalizes landowners, and deprives government entities of tax dollars when that property is not allowed to be used to its potential. That is an abuse of taxpayers and landowners, plain and simple. We all know where WU stands on this issue, and since they are inconsistent on anything else, it is all about zoning and starting fights to divide the community, nothing more.
Tom,
I understand where you are coming from when you say WU is being inconsistent. BUT – There is one fallacy with your logic.
Under your way of thinking, one member can speak for an entire group. Deb Birutis’ actions in ’09 can speak for all members of WU, if I understand your logic correctly.
(Bear with me for this analogy):
So, under that logic, one member of the Republican Party (any random Congressman, let’s say) can speak for the entire party. So, if that Congressman were to say that all defense spending should be cut, under your logic that means that the entire Republican Party thinks that all defense spending should be cut.
Lumping all members of a group together is never a good idea. That is called stereotyping.
Do you see where that logic just doesn’t work?
There is nothing wrong with standing by something that you believe in. If Winfield United was really a group of plain old concerned citizens I personally would have no issues. Unfortunately WU is a group of political activists. They are no better than the group they pit themselves against. Not long ago a founding member and current village board president met with the sheriff to discuss consolidation. No more than two years ago they were screaming in the streets “NO MORE SIGN POLLUTION!” now they have WU branded signage in 200 plus lawns. Talk about hypocrisy. Nobody wants to see the village lose its police force but sometimes hard decisions need to be made in order to sustain a working village. I have yet to hear any ideas from them about creating new revenues. Raising taxes is not an option. From my perspective the idea of consolidation, as sad as it may be, is the only real form of an idea anyone has come up with. So please WU give me some ideas or do you not have the courage to come forward?
First and foremost, I would hope everyone was a real person posting, rather than an alias who has no accountability. I think there is plenty to discuss on the police issue and it was wrong for this issue to be discussed behind closed doors. Probably 99.99% of residents find this appalling, especially on this issue. Plenty of options can be discussed in the open, with full disclosure. It already appears that our vllage and PD has worked hard to streamline and reduce their costs. Have them be part of the discussion as well. Most important is to listen to what residents have to say rather than try and slam something down our throats. There are plenty of intelligent people with great ideas, even though they do not sit on the board.