.

Aldermen From District 5's Past Ask for A Change For the Future

John Engelhardt should replace Dan Soltysiak, say several former aldermen from Muskego's 5th District.

To the Editor/District 5 Residents,

We are writing you to give our strong support to John Engelhardt for District 5 Alderman.

John Engelhardt possesses the maturity, ethics, fiscal restraint and has the leadership qualities to represent District 5 on the common council. For the past 23 years John Engelhardt has made Muskego his home. He has raised a family here, built a church and devoted his life to serving our community. As a fiscal conservative, John knows the value of a dollar and will make sure that each taxpayer dollar is spent wisely. More importantly, John Engelhardt will not simply vote “No” or “Yes” on proposals, simply based on whose idea it is. He will analyze issues, give input and alternative solutions and vote how his constituents want him to. John knows that he will be working for you, the taxpayers of District 5.

John Engelhardt is also committed to building our business tax base, to help relieve property taxes for families and homeowners.

We believe John Engelhardt will help end the dysfunctional working relationship that a few members of this current city council have fostered over the past two years. Government is about lively, vigorous debate of the issues, but when all is done, it should not be turned into personal attacks and political alliances at the expense of those you were elected to represent. We believe John Engelhardt will put an end to those tactics and move Muskego forward in a positive direction.

Please join us on April 3 in voting for John Engelhardt for District 5 Alderman.

Respectfully,

Rick Petfalski, District 5 Alderman - 2001 to 2004          
Common Council President – 2002 to 2004

Bob Melcher, District 5 Alderman - 2004 to 2008
Common Council President - 2005-2006, 2007-2008

Bill Schneider, District 5 Alderman - 1992-1994, 2008-2010

Rick Petfalski March 20, 2012 at 10:47 PM
If you are inferring that Bob Melcher, Bill Schnieder and I form a "Good old boys" club, you clearly didn't follow our aldermanic careers. All three of us had very different views, styles and opinions. We almost never had contact with one another, and none of us made public support of the other during elections that I am aware of. We were honored to serve the 5th District, and when we were done, we stayed out of the aldermanic election process. I think the fact that all three of us find common ground in the belief that John Engelhardt is better suited for the job speaks volumes to character of John Engelhardt.
Lib Hater March 21, 2012 at 10:42 PM
For the record, I dont have an official stance on the Lake Park. Dig a bit further on each of the candidates backgrounds before you decide. It will be crystal clear if you do your homework.
DB March 22, 2012 at 06:20 PM
I have issues with a religious leader running for public office. It is not that I have issues with a candidate being a member, even a very active member, of a "flock," but that in this case he is the "SHEPHARD" of a "flock." By the very nature of his job Mr. Englehardt holds a position to influence the hearts and minds of his "flock." This Nation was founded on the concept of separation of church and state, and I believe it was ill-advised for Mr. Englehardt to throw his hat into this ring. An Alderman should be led by the needs and wishes of his/her constituents, and in this case I believe Mr. Englehardt has too much opportunity to influence the beliefs of others. If he were elected, I would wonder who is leading who?
The Warrior March 22, 2012 at 06:34 PM
Interesting thought DB. However, anyone with strong spiritual or religious beliefs and in any position of power--political or not--could use them to influence others. Maybe his beliefs and the person John is can help mend our community?
The Anti-Alinsky March 22, 2012 at 11:01 PM
Actually DB, there were two mains reasons for the separation of church and state. First, as stated in the clause make no law respecting an establishment of religion was to prevent congress from collecting taxes to support a state religion that others wouldn't support (Thomas Jefferson's main argument). The clause "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" was intended to allow ministers. priests... to practice the tenets of their religion uninhibited. In neither of these clause is "separation of church and state" actually stated. Having a minister as an elected official is not a bad thing. The 20th president was an ordained minister. Many of our founding fathers were deacons or church leaders. As an alderman, I would hope Mr. Englehardt to use his Christian values to bring a semblance of civility back to the common council. While I am not surprised the common council has differences, there are better ways of fostering dialog than what has been going on.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »