Nice to see the 'anti-everything' crowd did not win the mayor's seat. However, their antics at council meetings that include making unsubstantiated accusations is sure to continue. Perhaps they think if they simply say people are corrupt, etc., enough times, it will become the truth or at least believed by those paying only cursory attention. Reddy went negative and got rejected by the majority. I'm sure she'll blame it on everything but herself.

Election over things go quiet,
but not for long. We'll find a new venue.
Research discovers that the ADL group who illegally contributed to p4gg but had the money returned, turned around and wrote checks on personal accounts. Omtt didn't mention that.
I think they may be the North Shore Plaza group that Mr Bell spoke about at the council meeting about making a $2,000,000 profit after city actions with out turning a spade of dirt. What was city input and at what tax payer cost that created that increased value of their property????
Let me know if everyone has moved on.

Where was the party?

Hi there everyone! I am for growth and common sense. I do think the P4GG is about the tif. I have done my homework! I read between the lines! It is not too difficult to see what really is going on. I do know that one should not spout off publically unless they have something to back it! Put your cards on the table. We will see if P4GG contributions make a big difference, we will see if there is voter fraud and to whomever wins...we will see where the party is!

Dear DrawnToBlog,
I am curious if you are upset that people supporting Reddy with time, $, etc., are doing it because they want her to advance their agenda. My guess is you are not, but I would be happy to be corrected. One advantage of our Republic is that there are opportunities to participate, regardless of financial means. For some reason, you seem to be advancing the idea that someone who donates money is trying to corrupt politics. Could it be that they are simply supporting an organization which supports candidates they prefer. Why should that be disallowed? Financial support does not stink any more than other support which is worth money. It is but one way to participate in the political process. For example, unions often flex their political muscle through membership numbers, voter turnout, direct mail and e-mail to members, volunteers for literature delivery to homes and sign locations. Unions, like any special interest support candidates they believe will be favorable to them. Many public employees are unionized and paid with tax payer dollars. Others work in the private sector but are still governed by state and federal collective bargaining laws. Where is your outrage for union participation in elections? Churches may promote a member of their parish. Why don't wyou want to investigate what that may be worth for either candidate? It is clearly worth something and may actually determine the election. Should members of a church be prohibited from organizing votes on behalf of a member of their church? Banning participation in the political process based solely on $$ is a slippery slope and unnecessary in Wisconsin due to very strict laws and rules. Finally, the USSC is not on your side, particularly with recent campaign finance rulings both before and after McCain-Feingold.

right...not unlike sense, courtesy ain't so "common" anymore. like I said, I apologize when it is warranted, as I wear my heart on my sleeve. If I feel I am wrong, I first must acknowledge it to myself, admit it, and apologize for my actions. Because I would appreciate a heartfelt apology from someone who has wronged me, I don't even want one if it is not genuine. That's just me.

it stinks

An apology is not a necessity, just common courtesy, and in this case very telling about how those in power will treat us little people if they get even more power.

What's wonderful about open records requests and the law, is that they tend to treat everyone the same. We can all make requests concerning Nieuwenhuis and Reddy as well as third party groups. That's how elected officials or those running for office usually get busted. They are careless or arrogant and think that the rules, law or even common courtesy doesn't apply to them. I encourage anyone to make records requests on all these candidates and groups. Sunshine is a wonderful disinfectant.

I don't have any opinion on this matter, but who said an apology is a necessity? I apologize when I feel it is warranted and not before that time. If an adult cannot accept that some people apologize and some people do not, it may just be nap time. (read: get over it, and perhaps you are not as adult as you would like to portray.) not that big of a deal imho.

Can you say ad hominem? On money in politics, there is tremendous study in this area and legitimate arguments on all sides about how to limit, control, redistribute, and track it. We can probably agree that policy decisions should not be bought. That is why we have disclosure requirements, very specific ethics and conduct laws, restrictive (in a good way) camaign finance laws, and the ability to make open records requests, etc. However, disallowing those who have any financial interests from participating in politics makes no sense whatsoever. Everyone has financial interests; unions, churches, individuals, corporations, employees, families, retirees, etc., the list is endless. Those who may not have significant financial resources (like me), may volunteer for a campaign and provide 'services' that if purchased by the campaign would be worth hundreds or even thousands of dollars. (And before you ask, let me make it clear that I am NOT a volunteer for any campaign nor have I been paid by any campaign). Yet, no one complains about that. Business interests always seem to be the target. Better yet, job-providers always seem to be the target. Of course, attackers have different names for them such as 'Big Box' stores or anything else that they can think of with a negative connotation. Now I guess I will wait for another disparaging remark or personal attack that has nothing to do with REDDY'S FALSE ACCUSATION AND REFUSAL TO APOLOGIZE.

Sorry I got PO'd (not really)
Who do we contact for this information.
Don't groups like P4GG need to report details on who contributes to them.
whatever536 help out here, you seem to know something. you hinted at the tif area by the dog track. I don't want to duplicate effort.

I am not Reddy and you have pushed me to sound like whoshonest. Except he seems to keep an even keel and I want use some expletives here.
This is what I expected, you are clever, I don't really want to know about the $5,000 but the company/persons behind it. So thanks for your literal answer. Doesn't an elections board get records on contributors. Any way I am geting motivated to investigate.

Why a request for the mayor to recuse.
BECAUSE IT SMELLS, IT STINKS. Money from vested interests in a political campaign stinks.
Why no apology, my guess, IT STILL STINKS, IT STILL SMELLS. 6 DAYS DOES NOT MAKE SOMETHING THAT STINKS SMELL BETTER.
May I make a personal attack:
I rename you "onemanSTINKtank"

I'll try to follow the logic:
1. Reddy accuses mayor of conflict of interest without getting legal opinion.
2. Gazette prints accusations, including Special Counsel saying no conflict exists.
3. Reddy proven wrong, but refuses to apologize.
4. Reddy supporter posting here wants legal opinion.
5. Election where a Mayor is re-elected or a Queen is crowned.
NOTE: I use the term Queen because monarchs make their own rules, just as Reddy and her supporters have done. I guess the analogy falls apart because royalty have been known to exhibit some manners and courtesy.

We get it, Whoshonest. You and yours don't take anything seriously, including legal opinions from those hired to protect city interests. Now you can write another rant about $5,000, but still have no answers about why Queen Reddy, when proven wrong based on the law (I know, you don't respect the law), the Queen won't apologize.

Hockeyjockey
I shouldn't stack a joke on a joke.
Sorry for being obtuse.
If I thought you were serious, then "by Omtt's logic" I might also have to take him seriously.
See how funny logic is.

I have no idea about the $5,000. I am not a member of that group or any group. Based on news story, what does that have to do with Reddy's false accusation. These are two separate issues. Are you actually saying that because some group accepted a donation they should not have, then returned it, that Ellen Reddy can say whatever she wants, and then, when proven wrong she doesn't have to apologize. I guess it will be Queen Reddy, not Mayor, if she makes the rules to fit her agenda. Now, I challenge you to answer the following questions; Why did Reddy make an accusation before getting a legal opinion? Since a legal opinion was issued that contradicts her accusation, why won't she apologize?

OK, I absolutely love it that Whoshonest thought the "I Am Woman" comment was serious! Maybe I should have said it was "I Don't Know How To Love Him" and she was singing about Nieuwenhuis!
Viva humor!

I am new to this blogging so that is why I chose the ID. I have been almost screaming at the computer. Actually at onemanthinktank.
thinktank (yes this is a personal attack so please say so in your response). Sounds like two sides trying to make political points on who should get elected but I am seeing a difference.
thinktank comes to conclusions about Reddy's anti-business/Development and her non apology which are not a subject of the article.
I have begun to notice that after all onemans blogs that his issues has been smokescreening the $5,000 Illinois Corporation question. Someone else mentioned/blogged that other developers in the area around the dog track may be part of this People 4 Good Gov.
If there is "more to the story" then maybe we should wait on that $5,000 info that oneman can provide us to decide if if Reddy owes an apology. We need more info to see how legitimate the request that the mayor not chair the meetings in question.
The reason I scream at the computer is because I got this feeling oneman is going not answer the $5,000 question. I think it may be crucial to the legitamcy of his apolgy demands. I love a good debate but for once can you give tell what you know know. Rumor has it that fresh checks were written from personal accounts after the corporate money had to be returned. Is that true? Same money just different paper? we want to know if this is Good Government or bought government. P4GG/P4BG (hey the "B" may be the opposite of the first "G". clever huh)

I know oneman this may be difficult but please just answer the $5,000 question first then tellus about barren store fronts and no growth in dead Delavan. We are watching if and how you respond.
by the way I am criticizing you oneman so I must be a Reddy mouthpiece.

Whatever536: Your comment about victory party location is funnier than mine. I am glad we can keep a sense of humor about all this. It seems many on this blog are more reasonable than what we have seen from the campaigns. On a more serious note, I am concerned about how whoever becomes mayor views economic growth and development. Too many who back Reddy seem to have portrayed it as evil and Nieuwenhuis could have done a better job explaining positive aspects of growth to counter the Citizens Opposed to Growth and their constant drum beat of 'No, no, we don't like it or want it', whatever 'it' is. That is not realistic and there is a happy medium.

Whatever536, do you think Ellen's party will be at an empty storefront, since that will be one of the results of enacting her backer's anti-business, anti-jobs, anti-growth agenda?

DAY 6 and no apology. Whoshonest also thinks there needs to be interpretation over the following words from the story: "there is no conflict of interest"
I guess it depends on what the meaning of the word is, is. What is unclear about that statement from the attorney and why won't Reddy and Whoshonest (one in the same?) do the right thing and apologize for falsely accusing the mayor?

Whoshonest wrote, "a guy who gave a 1,000 bucks towards the mayor's election,"
WRONG. Donation was given to a PAC that supported numerous candidates in numerous races throughout Walworth County, the mayor being just one of those candidates.

Whatever- Your last post is by far the best of this whole thing

If Mel wins, do you think his party will be at Lake Lawn resort?

People! People! Helen Reddy did the song. Ellen Reddy is going to be the new Mayor in Delavan.
Whatever536 you should also read the article. Lakelawn's biggest owner is a big contributer to p4gg. Would make sense that the company across the street getting money from the city would be in too and want the mayor making decisions too.

Onemanthinktank accidentally disclosed in his blog intimate details about the illegal $5,000 corporate contribution. I've asked him to tell us more about the company involved but he won't answer. Just demands apology over and over. Maybe you can loosen him up.

Go to a City of Delavan meeting or watch it on cable....it is very interesting to say the least! I do like that song!! Haha!

Hey, didn't Ellen Reddy do "I Am Woman"? I love that song!!

whos'' question for you...do you think I am close for who I think P4GG is?

Wow. Oneman has a problem. I thought this was a dead horse. I'm concerned about corrupt politics and he wants apologies for thin skinned politicians. Not much more to say. No way to bridge that gap

I don't need any legal opinion. I don't care if Reddy apologizes or not thats Oneman's obsession.

My point was maybe Omeman's interpretation of the reporter's interpretation of the lawyer's statements might not be the end all. I can and will wait for clarification if the mayor ever decides to preside over meetings and vote on issues for a guy who gave a 1,000 bucks towards the mayor's election. Oneman believes he knows all. Thats why he needs no other members in his think tank.

I accept for the sake of ending this that he knows all and his legal analysis is flawless.

Please onemanthinktank no more broken record.

Lake Lawn Resort, The Geneva Lakes Kennel Club and the land surrounding it might equal P4GG... Hmmmm

Does anyone really care about the three people on this blog argueing about nothing?

How telling that before apologizing, Reddy and her spokesperson on this site need a written legal opinion. But to make serious charges against someone, no legal opinion was sought.

Who cares what they all say!!!!!!! I do not know city hall or what goes on there. I do like Delavan. Mayor has done good things and is nice from times I saw him at places doing city things. The person against him I dont know. If she did wrong or said things not true or nice then to say sorry is best. That is what I learned at home and school but out of school now and work 5 years in job I like. All of us do or say bad things some times, but should say sorry. Maybe Im not right. If Im not right, I will say sorry to who Im not right about.

Onemanthinktank
I think we have exhaused our opinions.
Just a little cleanup.
Alright:
A. Lawyer legal opinion said no conflict.
Reddy, no apology.
B.You are not part of People for Good Government(P4GG)but..
C. You have shown knowledge of the $5,000 corporate contributor.

Regardless of who P4GG supports in the elections in Delavan, could you tell me who is this company and what is their interest or affiliation with Delavan?

It would be great if you could help us out on this Illinois company's backgroud.

Nothing has changed. Reddy accused Nieuwenhuis of conflict of interest. Attorney for city said no conflict exists. Reddy won't apologize or prove attorney is wrong.

whos = reddy, oneman = not reddy?

Part 2
We don't have Reddy's press release and we don't have the Attorney's exact opinion so we should not go off the deep end in claiming what she said or turn a snippet from the attorney into the equivalent of a Supreme Court decision. The facts will come out soon enough.

At this point it all we seem to know is, based on facts #s 1., 2., 3., that Reddy seemed to have an opinion that the Mayor should recuse himself and that the attorney apparently is of the opinion that unless the quote in fact #4. is proven the Mayor doesn't have to recuse himself. That would not necessarily the same thing as the attorney saying Reddy was wrong to “request” the Mayor to recuse himself. Maybe the lawyer thinks that maybe the Mayor should consider recusing himself or that given the facts Reddy may have legitimate concerns. But based on the little information in the article I won't pretend I can stretch the comments into a legal treatise. Likewise, regardless of his arrogance, it is overreaching by Omtt to make broad claims and demands upon Reddy based on a short and incomplete article.

Lets wait until we see what the actual press release said and look at a more comprehensive attorney opinion. I assume if the canceled meeting is rescheduled the issue will be discussed fully along with clear attorney advice in public. Omtt can attend express his outrage and demand justice. This is as it should be. I think Reddy and the Mayor can defend themselves in public in an open debate. Onemanthinktank should not be judge, jury and executioner. Maybe the attorney will issue an opinion that says elected officials should not make any comments with out a legal opinion from him or that will criticize Reddy for publicly bringing the matter to the attention of Delavan citizens. I doubt it, but we'll see. Maybe Reddy will need to apologize. My bet is it will be the Mayor who will have explaining to do.

Seems Onemanthinktank (Omtt) is a also a one man blogger . Wow 6 posts to himself. I bet he is the smartest guy in his think tank. He has no connection to the group making illegal donations? Why no explanation of Ommt's apparent intimate knowledge of the history of the illegal corporate check (stuff that wasn't in the article)? If he wants to deny it, I don't care. It is irrelevant to the issues anyway, but may be relevant to explain his rage.

LETS LOOK AT THE UNCONTESTED FACTS.

1. If amspeterson's blog below is true none of the officers or contributers to the People 4 Good Government group supporting the mayor live in Delavan, but at least 6,000 bucks has been given with at least 1,000 bucks from a guy with pending business before the council and plan commission chaired by the Mayor.

2. The only direct quote in the article attributed to Reddy is “…(His) campaign for re-election is being supported by a partner at Lake Lawn at the same time he is to preside over and vote at meetings where his campaign supporter has pending business,”

3. There is no denial by the mayor that he has a connection with Mr. Nelson and it is probably safe to assume they know each other real well as Lake lawn has had matters with the city for years. The article says that the mayor claimed only that he had no “affiliation” with People 4 Good Government. But if the Mayor is connected to Nelson, and Nelson is connected to People 4 Good Government, the connection between the Mayor and People for good government is not very indirect or remote.

4. The only direct quote in the article attributed to the attorney was “There is no request for action in exchange for a contribution, which is what the state statutes and city ordinances relate to,”

5. There is no explanation how the attorney made the factual determination quoted in fact # 4.or what authority he has to make factual determinations or whether he was simply indicating he had no proof to the contrary.
end part 1

Whatever is posted next by Whoshonest or any other Reddy mouthpiece, remember the following:
REDDY ACCUSED NIEUWENHUIS OF CONLFICT OF INTEREST. ATTORNEY FOR CITY SAID NO CONFLICT EXISTS.
REDDY WON'T APOLOGIZE OR PROVE ATTORNEY IS WRONG.

Another excuse offered to delay an apology is they have not seen a written legal opinion from the attorney. Oh, now they want the attorney's opinion. Wouldn't that have been a nice thing to have before making the accusation? Oooops, first disregard for the law and now logic is the enemy.

Monday, March 31 will be Day 5 from the day Attorney Mark Schroeder stated unequivocally that Reddy's accusation was unfounded in that pesky little thing Reddy supporters don't care for, the law. We're much too close to the election for Reddy to express common courtesy. She apparently doesn't have an alternative, qualified legal opinion supporting her false accusation or we certainly would have heard it by now.

I actually think people are really smart and have a shared sense of common courtesy and fairness. Even if you equated Reddy's false accusation as someone accidentally stepping on your foot, you would expect an apology. Not from Reddy.

Local law enforcement personnel may find a Reddy administration distasteful as well. Why? Well, based on the posts below, the law has little if any meaning. Reddy's accusation of Nieuwenhuis has legal criteria which were not met. We can only think that legal criteria, upon which those accused of crimes are measured, will have little place in the Reddy Administration since it is unwelcome in the Reddy campaign.

Ahhh. Now the Reddy defender's tactic is the exact same as Reddy's, make false, unsupportable accusations. Nice try, but I have no connection to any group, formal or informal. FACT: Reddy claimed a conflict of interest. The law disagrees. Four days have passed since Attorney Mark Schroeder (special counsel to the City of Delavan) said Reddy's accusation was unfounded. Still no apology from Reddy and nothing but, 'our opinion counts more than the law' as a defense. Great. At least Delavan voters know they won't need to pay any legal bills to any attorney if Ellen Reddy is elected. Why use an attorney if their opinion and legal counsel means nothing? I also never said Reddy broke the law. But that's okay, just like Reddy's accusation, Reddy's defender just makes things up to suit their illogical position. More and more this is seeming politically motivated, though I thought Reddy was above that. Perhaps not. At least her supporter posting here isn't. Reddy made an accusation that has legal criteria. I know that the Reddy crowd doesnt' care much for legal criteria, but that does happen to be a foundational element of our society. Rule of law, etc. Again, very good that Delavan voters know Reddy and her supporters have no intention of respecting the legal opinion offered by the attorney paid to protect city interests. Now, anyone reading this can wait with me while another non-sensical response about a third party group, more conspiracy rhetoric, etc. is crafted. Common courtesy might also suggest that when one public official falsely accuses someone of having a conflict of interest, they apologize when proven wrong. Oh wait, that's right, Reddy and her supporter don't rely on silly state and local laws.

I assume Onemanthinktank (Omtt) must have yielded on the clean government issue and his apparent connections to People 4 good Government. As the DA and County Clerk nailed the group, and even the group admits illegal activity, Omtt certainly has no legal basis to defend them.
Legal basis for Reddy? Maybe the first amendment. Is Omtt saying Reddy broke the law? If not, why would she need a legal defense? Again,if I was in a group caught in an illegal activity to influence an election I would try to change the focus. But Omtt must think people are really stupid if he thinks people will follow the call: “Forget the groups’s illegal activity, we and the mayor are owed an apology." WHO is trying to distract Voters?

Where are all the other legal opinions Omtt is talking about? The article talks about only one opinion, and the opinion seems narrow and does not say Reddy has made false accusations. Her claim that the mayor “indirectly has received campaign support from a partner of Lake Lawn Resort” is not in dispute and is not exaggerated. Her common sense opinion may differ from the attorney’s technical legal opinion (maybe not, as we have not seen a detailed opinion) but it does not follow that Reddy owes an apology. By Omtt's logic, the the Goldman and Brown families owed O.J. Simpson an apology after his criminal trial because his lawyers’ opinion was that he was legally and technically innocent.

Watch for, but don't expect to read, an apology from Reddy OR a qualified legal opinion supporting her accusation and request of Nieuwenhius. Until then, Reddy remains wrong while her supporters attempt to distract voters.

I don't wish to limit your posts and understand you have no legal basis to defend Ms. Reddy, therefore prefer to veer off-topic. Reddy accused Nieuwenhuis. Speical counsel to city said Reddy was wrong. Let me know when you want to discuss Reddy's false accusation or have some legal basis that contradicts all current, qualified legal opinions on the matter. However, based on your last writing, I am confident you will continue avoiding the FACT that Reddy falsely accused Nieuwenhuis and now refuses to apologize.

Wow! Onemanthinktank (omtt) thinks he gets to set limits on my posts. Don’t think so.

The root issue is clean government. The illegal donation was made on the 17th, not returned until the County Clerk caught them red handed a week later. Omtt didn’t respond to my question why he knew so much about the check. (what ommt described in detail wasn’t in the Gazette story). Then he makes up a story that the check was returned immediately. Like I said, it looks like he is in the group. Looks like the group all have problems with the truth. If I were in the group that received an illegal contribution and filed false oaths, I would change the subject too.

If I was Mr. Nelson and gave 1,000 bucks to a group helping get the mayor elected a few days before a city meeting on my business, I would hope that anyone that knew about it would keep quiet.

As far as Omtt’s issue, there is nothing further for Reddy to say on the subject because the Mayor or Mr. Nelson must have figured the meeting wasn’t such a good idea and canceled the meeting. My guess is that the attorney’s opinion was simply that the mayor didn’t have to recuse himself without evidence of a direct connection and not that Reddy’s request was illegal or inappropriate. Maybe the mayor was afraid discussion at a meeting would show evidence of just how close his connection with Mr. Nelson was. If there is a rescheduled meeting we will see if the attorney chastises Reddy. Maybe Omtt can ask the mayor to get a written attorney opinion and publish it so we don’t have to speculate.

As the saying goes “ we are all entitled to our own opinion, but not our own facts.”
Omtt is apparently of the opinion that big money and illegal money in City of Delavan politics is Good 4 Government and that Reddy is out of line for having an opinion that there might be a problem. Bizarre. All I can say is – I disagree.

Dear Whoshonest redux: You seem not to want to discuss the root of the issue at-hand, yet criticize my responses, claiming they are off-topic. Let's remember what started all this and perhaps we could agree the topic should be limited to the following for subsequent posts. ***TOPIC: Reddy accused Nieuwenhuis of having a conflict of interest and requested a recusal. An attorney said she was wrong.***

Dear Whoshonest:
From the Gazette- (Attorney Mark) "Schroeder said there is no conflict of interest because Nieuwenhuis didn’t receive campaign contributions from Nelson or People 4 Good Government." That's the main point at the end of all of this. Reddy jumped the gun and made accusations. I would not presume she made them for political reasons related to her campaign. I think Ms. Reddy is above that. However, I am disappointed that she failed to determine if her accusation and request was valid before making it, issuing statements to the media, etc. To date, all legal opinions rendered say it was not, as no conflict exists. To date, no apology from Reddy for falsely accusing Nieuwenhuis has taken place, something I thought she would do when it was determined she was wrong. I guess my worry is that if elected, Ms. Reddy seems to have no respect for legal opinion and is more than willing to take action based on her own opinion, and then stick to her position, even after being proved wrong. Again, I mistakenly presumed Ms. Reddy was more reasonable and thoughtful than that. A simple apology from her in the same medium (the newspaper) she used to make what we now know are unfounded (at least in law or ordinance) charges, would have prevented me from questioning her judgment. Or, she could say publicly that the attorney who rendered the legal opinion is just wrong, and then explain why. Doing neither of those things only demonstrates that she can't prove she is right, or is wrong, and is too stubborn to admit it. My protest has turned to disappointment in Ms. Reddy for failing to follow-up in some form that doesn't leave people wondering why she has suddenly become silent regarding her false accusations.

Dear onemanthinktank,(omtt)
WHAT!!!!!!

Gazette:"Reddy had ASKED Nieuwenhuis to recuse himself as chairman of the plan commission and chairman of the city council for their meetings..."

That is a request.
If a citizen during public comments at a council meeting expressed the same concerns from the facts in the article,I am not sure how democracy would be thwarted nor state law involved. Candidate Reddy as a coucil member has an even greater responsibilty to make the request. The mayor is free to make his decision on his course of action.
Readers, please re-read onemanthinktanks's inflated off topic response to my earlier comment.
Should we think that Reddy will trump the law because she points out a potential conflict in interest when millions of tax $$ are involved.
onemanthinktank's(omtt) helterskelter shotgun blast response to my narrow issue gets me wondering.
I don't know who this IL Corporation is but by "omtt's" familiarity with the form of the check and the groups response, he/she seems to be in the know. Could he give us the scoop on what this corporation is and what is their connection with Delavan and their interest they might have in an out of their state election?
onemanthinktank, methinks thou doth protest too much.

'Whoshonest' clearly has a problem with Democracy and current state law. Reddy's actions included a demand that Nieuwenhuis recuse himself from decisions concerning Lake Lawn Resort. Such demands must be based in law, not any one person's opinion. So yes, we do need lawyers, etc. so that everyone plays by the same rules. Of course, 'Whoshonest' doesn't seem to care that many of Reddy's backers have been antagonistic toward development. Using their logic, I guess Reddy should recuse herself from all questions concerning development. Then again, we know they hope the public doesn't notice their double standard. Regardless, state and constitutional law do not support their or Reddy's position on this matter. That's okay, they have THEIR "common sense," and apparently don't care what a lawyer or for that matter, the law says. Ignoring counsel is cavalier and creates exposure (potential liability) for the city. Again, this incident is very instructive about the Reddy group's approach to government. In this case, their course of action translates to; 'Whatever we say goes, not what the law and constitution say.'
On the second matter, the Gazette also reported when the group received and noticed that a donation was on a corporate check, (not a personal check which it should have been), they immediately returned it. Again, tell half the story, ignore the facts and hope the public doesn't notice.
If 'Whoshonest' is representative of the proposed Reddy Administration, we know the law will be trumped by whatever Ms. Reddy and her supporters opinion is. This should scare everyone.

What nonsense from "onemanthinktank"
The basis of Reddy's claim was that Nieuwenhuis indirectly has received campaign support from a partner at Lake Lawn Resort.
The above article confirms these FACTS as true. If anything she understated the power of this partner. Apparently he is the Chairman, President and holds a controlling interest in Lake Lawn Resort.
Mr. Nelson seems to be saying he is willing to pay 4 Good Government that is pro Mr. Nelson. That is why he contributed to the group that supports Nieuwenhuis.
The Gazette also reported the group received a $5,000 illegal corporate contribution from an Illinois company. Do we need a lawyer to tell us if there is a technical conflict of interest, how about common sense? Amazing, the story breaks about Mr. Nelson and the illegal campaign contribution and the meeting is canceled. Looks like Nieuwenhuis agreed with Reddy that things didn't look right. She looks like a leader that has concern for the integrity of the Mayor's office and her City Council. If this is how she would approach being Mayor, then she IS the right person for the job!

At least property owners, residents and voters in Delavan now see the real Ellen Reddy. She jumps to conclusions and calls reporters without the facts, truth or knowledge of the law. Mayor Mel Nieuwenhuis consulted with experts before deciding what to do. Even though he was the one attacked, falsely by Reddy I might add, it appears he remained calm and handled the situation maturely. So much for Reddy's 'formal' education and promise to bring the city council together. I'm pretty sure jumping to conclusions and falsely accusing your peers is not in the 'Handbook of Cooperation.' Leadership isn't about being right, it's about doing what is right. In that regard, Nieuwenhuis gets and A+ and Reddy gets a failing grade. If this is any indication of how she would approach being Mayor, then she is the wrong person for the job.

I agree with amspeterson Being some what politically active and a little bit out spoken. I would be interested in joining a group like People 4 Good Government. First I would need some answers. 1/ Who are your members and which have donated money? 2/ What is your mission? 3/ Since I do not live in the City of Delavan are you going to address issues in the Town of Delavan or the Village of Darien? I would think a press release with these facts would be a great help to those of us who are baffled by local government.

Regarding the March 27 article concerning People 4 Good Government, may I ask who belongs to the organization? In The People 4 Good Government Campaign Registration Statement of March 24, 2008, the president, treasurer, and all contributors live outside the City of Delavan, and ADL & Associates is from Illinois, yet they are advocating for certain City of Delavan candidates, and recommending opposition for others. This is curious. Civic minded citizens might like to join People 4 Good Government? The name sounds interesting. Perhaps they can let people know when the next meeting is, members who belong, and who to contact to become a member.

So Reddy never bothered to ask Atty Schroeder for an opinion before throwing out the accusation? Is this her idea of being fair and responsible? I don't suppose we should hold our breath as we wait for her to apologize to the Mayor and the taxpayers.