Editorial: At last, public knows of deception in Lisle merger drive

Voters certainly got it right in Lisle when they elected Kim Brondyke village clerk in 2017.

Not to diminish Brondyke's 207-vote victory, but voters now know they dodged a bullet when they rejected candidate Dave Nelson.

Nelson was outed last week as a liar. For someone whose slate ran on an "improve transparency" mantra, Nelson's efforts to hide his role in a proposal to merge four suburbs into one makes us and should make everyone else wonder how he and the Prosperity for Lisle slate of 2017 defines transparency.

"I'm not sure what to believe anymore," Trustee Mark Boyle said after Nelson's role in the referendum push was revealed in court documents. "It may be possible that one of your ticket members acted alone. But wouldn't you know this?"

Great question. And the answers are murky at best.

Nelson's slate included Mayor Christopher Pecak and trustees Marie Hasse and Kelly Dixit, all challengers who beat incumbents in the April 2017 election.

Meanwhile, tax dollars were spent in the last year first to challenge the petitions and then to figure out who was behind the proposed referendum that would have asked voters in Lisle, Warrenville and Woodridge if they wanted to merge with Naperville. The petitions eventually were blocked either because they didn't have enough signatures or for procedural reasons.

Mayors in all four towns opposed the idea, saying combining towns would be costly and complicated and would likely affect other units of government and the way services are delivered.

There's nothing wrong with seeking a referendum and consolidation as an idea has had merit in some cases. State your case and see what voters think. But to do so without saying who you are and then to deny involvement when asked directly is deceptive and the furthest thing from transparent. As one mayor said last year, it seemed like a "political stunt."

Nelson, in a story written by Daily Herald staff writer Robert Sanchez in February 2017, said he knew who the people were behind the annexation effort but "they asked me not to say."

Now we find out he apparently told himself not to say.

"It was an individual action," Pecak said of Nelson. "I did not have firsthand knowledge of anybody participating in that action."

Is the key word firsthand? And if you had secondhand knowledge, why would you not ask your slatemate? After all, consolidation was a position the slate said it was opposed to. Did it have to take almost a year in court to find out the truth?

We expect better from our elected officials and those who want to be elected. Facts do matter. In this case, the facts took too long to be divulged but the public is better off knowing the answers