Report on DeForest, Wisconsin Special Recall Election and Its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

A special recall election in the village of DeForest, Wisconsin, resulted in the removal of Trustee William Landgraf and the election of challenger Alicia Williams. This event highlights critical intersections between local governance, public health, and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Election Results and Mandate for Public Health and Governance Reform

Official Outcome

The special election, which saw a 31% turnout of registered voters, produced a decisive victory for challenger Alicia Williams, indicating a strong public mandate for change.

• Alicia Williams: Over 78% of the vote
• William Landgraf: Approximately 11% of the vote
• Stacey Petersen: Approximately 11% of the vote

Implications of the Result

The landslide victory for Williams, who campaigned on a platform of “civility and kindness,” signals a community desire for more accountable and responsive governance. Her commitment to revisiting the village’s water fluoridation policy directly addresses public health concerns that were central to the recall effort.

Direct Relevance to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being & SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

The core policy dispute concerned the cessation of water fluoridation, a proven public health measure. The election outcome represents a significant step toward realigning local policy with global health objectives.

• Public Health Initiative: Water fluoridation is supported by major health bodies, including the American Dental Association, as an effective method for preventing dental cavities and promoting lifelong health, a key target of SDG 3.
• Sustainable Water Management: The decision to manage the public water supply to include fluoride is an application of SDG 6, which calls for the sustainable management of water to support community health and well-being.
• Community Mandate for Health: The election result empowers the new trustee to potentially restore a critical public health safeguard, ensuring access to preventative dental care for all residents through the municipal water system.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions & SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

The recall process itself serves as a case study in the functioning of democratic institutions to ensure accountability and maintain civil society, which are fundamental to SDG 11 and SDG 16.

1. Citizen Participation: Over 1,500 residents initiated the recall via petition, demonstrating active participation in local governance.
2. Accountability Mechanism: The recall election provided a formal, peaceful process for residents to hold an elected official accountable for policy decisions and alleged misconduct. The petition cited a failure to uphold “core values for civility and conduct” and the creation of an “atmosphere of fear, division and mistrust.”
3. Strengthening Institutions: By removing a trustee accused of unprofessional conduct and intimidation, and electing a successor who emphasizes civility, the community has reinforced its commitment to effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at the local level. This action promotes the development of a safe, inclusive, and resilient community as envisioned in SDG 11.

Background of the Recall Initiative

Catalyst for Action

The recall was triggered by a combination of a specific policy decision and broader concerns over the trustee’s conduct.

• Water Fluoridation Vote: Trustee Landgraf was part of a 4-3 majority that voted to cease adding fluoride to the village’s water supply, a decision that prompted significant public opposition.
• Allegations of Misconduct: The recall petition accused Landgraf of unprofessional behavior, including personal attacks against residents and actions perceived as intimidation.

Future Outlook

The election of Alicia Williams is poised to have a direct impact on public policy in DeForest. Her pledge to “support restoring the fluoride if a majority of my constituency says they want fluoride back” indicates that the public’s health concerns will be reconsidered. This event underscores the power of local democratic processes to advance global sustainable development objectives by ensuring that community governance is responsive, accountable, and aligned with principles of public health and well-being.

Analysis of the Article in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

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

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The central issue of adding fluoride to the village’s water supply is a public health measure aimed at preventing cavities and strengthening teeth.
• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation: The article discusses the management and quality of the public water supply, specifically the decision to add or remove fluoride, which relates to providing safe drinking water for the community.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article details a democratic process, including a petition and a special recall election, which are mechanisms for ensuring accountable, responsive, and participatory governance at the local level. The recall was initiated due to concerns about a trustee’s conduct and decision-making.

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

• Under SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being:
  • Target 3.4: “By 2030, reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being.” The debate over water fluoridation is directly linked to the prevention of dental cavities, a common non-communicable disease. The article notes that the American Dental Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics support fluoridation as a preventative health measure.
• Under SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation:
  • Target 6.1: “By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all.” The article’s focus on the village’s water supply and the decision-making process regarding its composition (adding fluoride) is a matter of managing the quality and safety of drinking water for the entire community.
• Under SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions:
  • Target 16.6: “Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.” The recall election is a direct example of a mechanism to hold an elected official accountable. The petition accused the trustee of failing to follow “core values for civility and conduct,” highlighting a breakdown in institutional effectiveness and accountability that the election sought to correct.
  • Target 16.7: “Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.” The entire process described—from the petition signed by over 1,500 residents to the special recall election where over 2,400 voters participated—exemplifies participatory and representative decision-making. The newly elected trustee vowed to “revisit the issue of fluoridated water… if a majority of my constituency says they want fluoride back,” further emphasizing responsive governance.

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

• For SDG 3 and SDG 6:
  • Indicator: The presence or absence of fluoride in the village’s water supply. The article’s central conflict is the 4-3 board vote to stop adding fluoride and the potential for the new trustee to restore it. This is a direct, measurable indicator of a public health intervention related to water quality.
• For SDG 16:
  • Indicator: Number of signatures on a petition. The article states, “More than 1,500 residents signed a petition to bring the recall to the village-wide ballot.” This quantifies the level of citizen participation in initiating an accountability process (Target 16.7).
  • Indicator: Voter turnout in a local election. The article specifies that “More than 2,400 DeForest voters cast their ballots in the special election, representing 31 percent of the village’s registered voters.” This is a direct measure of citizen engagement in decision-making (Target 16.7).
  • Indicator: Outcome of an accountability mechanism. The successful recall of a trustee, with the challenger receiving “more than 78 percent of the vote,” serves as an indicator that an accountability institution (the recall election) is functioning (Target 16.6).

SDGs, Targets and Indicators Table

Source: wpr.org