Canceling Brookfest shows regression
When my husband and I moved to Brookfield back in April, we knew it was a quaint, quiet family community. We figured it’s generally an “everyman” kind of place and it seemed to be on the brink of undergoing a transition to a more forward-thinking place. We were excited to become part of that idea.

When we spent our first weekend at Brookfest, we were certain we had made the right choice moving to this town. Brookfest showed that the town was alive and had a charming spirit. With the old-school carnival, artist vendors, fireworks, bands and festival food, Brookfest was a diamond in Brookfield’s rough. We are 30, without kids and we were looking forward to next year.

But it seems with the canceling of Brookfest and Oktoberfest, Brookfield isn’t about community or creating a lively, thriving place to live. Instead, it seems to be oppressive and resistant to change for the better.

In the months I’ve been here, I get the impression that those in charge are playing their own game of “whack-a-mole” by beating down every positive effort that Brookfield tries to offer (with the exception of the zoo).

I thought Brookfield was going in an up-and-coming direction, but, apparently, it’s regressing and those in charge are not interested in making Brookfield a great place to live. They’d rather keep it a sleepy hollow. What a shame.

How sad that the board has decided to cancel a solid event like Brookfest. Instead of finding all the faults with Brookfest and using those as an excuse to cancel, find solutions to the problems and keep these wonderful fests running.

If the carnival is such a problem, charge admission to help alleviate the “trouble.” Those that complain will get over it and learn it’s for their own safety. The police department voiced concerned that they actually have to work a little harder three days out of the year. That should be expected with any big event. Why has a little ruckus ultimately decided Brookfest’s fate?

Brookfield should not be defined by the zoo alone. There’s a lot of potential here, and I look forward to seeing it on the rise. The problem seems to be in whoever is in charge?”they rely on excuses instead of actively trying to make a difference. It’s just plain lazy.

I wish the people that have control over what happens in this town realize this and make changes for the better and prevent Brookfield from being a land of realty companies and barren auto body shops.

Carla Paciotti

Still questions about D103 board’s actions
A standing ovation to the article by Joe Trost (“Bid to renew superintendent’s contract defeated,” News, Oct. 19). Of all the local newspapers covering the ongoing drama concerning Dr.Lauk’s contract with District 103, his is the most accurate.

I myself had questions regarding how the board, the same one who approved a pay raise would now vote not to renew Dr. Lauk’s contract.

I attended the meeting on Oct. 17 with all intentions of possibly receiving some sort of answer or reason for this vote. After observing the same scenario as Mr. Trost reported, I was sent home still clueless and even more aggravated and concerned with the future of our district.

I still would like to know why? I still have yet to see any reason, other than personality conflicts, for this outrageous decision. There needs to be some form of intervention from higher up. We need to contact our state representatives or the Illinois Association of School Boards to intervene on the behalf of the betterment of District 103.

Certain board members need to put their own personal feelings and advancements aside. The board members need to remember the initial promises they made to the voters of the district. If they fail to do so, they must remember theirs is only a limited term and we are almost halfway there. I only hope the damage that they do in their terms is not permanent.

Kimberly Elliott

PEP board failing at fiscal responsibility

The Brookfield village board is failing miserably in their attempt at fiscal responsibility. The PEP Party made financial prudence one of the major planks in their campaign platform, but the planks are decaying earlier than expected.

After inflating projected expenses for fiscal year 2005-06 with numerous items that were never intended to be purchased or accomplished, the only recourse to balance the budget was to layoff Public Works employees.

Now, incredibly, after laying off [four] Public Works employees, the village is working some of the remaining employees at one-and-a-half and two times their pay on Saturdays and Sundays because they don’t have enough employees to handle the workload during the straight-time hours.

Leanne Digan

Still curious about tree removal, trimming
In the Oct. 12 issue of the Landmark, former Brookfield Public Works employee Anthony Yacovacci made some interesting revelations about favoritism for Brookfield politicians as to work being done in their neighborhoods.

He relates instances of tree removal and tree trimming at Village President Garvey’s new residence and trustees Ketchmark and Hall’s block. He reveals this first hand. He worked on both requests.

The editor of the Landmark put an editor’s note at the conclusion of Mr. Yacovacci’s letter and states that Brookfield Public Works Director William Brandt “said that the request to remove the tree in front of Michael Garvey’s house was initiated by the home’s previous owner months prior to Garvey purchasing the home. Kit Ketchmark and C.P. Hall live on the same block. Brandt said the private firm that trims trees in the village works off of a block list and that the timing of any tree trimming there was coincidental.”

The first scenario could be possible, but I find it very curious that the tree is removed within days of Garvey moving into his new residence. The second scenario is false by the Public Works director’s own admission. He states that a private tree trimming company works off a block list, when Public Works employees trimmed the trees on Ketchmark and Hall’s block.

I would think that if the Landmark is going to explain letters to the editor they should fully investigate the facts. Or do they have motivation other than reporting?

The Landmark was awarded the printing of the Brookfielder Magazine Newsletter for the next three printings, two days prior to their seeking to explain Mr. Yacovacci’s letter to the editor. This contract was awarded to the Landmark at the Brookfield Village Board meeting on Oct. 11. The village board voted to give the Landmark the printing with no printed financial information as to cost or benefit to the village. Talk about coincidentally.

Art Miller

? Ed. note: The Brookfield village board voted at its Oct. 10 meeting to have the Landmark produce and print the next three issues of its recreation program guide. For details, see News.