Residents of Deforest Deserve to vote on such important health issue! 
Sign and demand the board answer these questions and they allow us to vote to keep or remove fluoride from our water! 

We are calling on leaders to answer the following questions and to allow the community to vote on the removal of fluoride!  

Given the significant public health and financial implications of this decision, and we respectfully request clear and transparent answers to the following questions, and that the community  is allowed to vote on fluoride removal, putting it in the community's hands, rather than 3 board members:

1. Origin of the Motion: How did the motion to remove fluoride from our water supply begin? Who initiated it, and what was the process that led to it being brought before the board?

2. Influence of external influence: Why was an anti-fluoride activist, who is not a resident of our community, granted such extensive access to board members on this issue? As evidenced by months of emails to the village council and dozens of comments on the "Engage Deforest Board" page.  Do you limit an individuals access after a certain time/number of emails?  What is the process to assure community best interests when non-residents are engaged with lobbying  local board members? (We acknowledge those who have children in the district or work in the district may have a vested interest in the community wellbeing. We seek clarification on those who do not live, work, or have children in the district, etc.)

3. What was the rationale behind allowing a non-resident, known anti-fluoride activist, to have significant influence over a decision that directly impacts the health of our community?

4. Lack of Public Health or Medical Expertise: The individual who played a key role in advocating for fluoride removal is not a public health expert, medical professional, epidemiologist, or researcher with relevant credentials. Given the weight of this decision, why was a person without the necessary expertise given a platform to direct the conversation, rather than deferring to professionals trained in public health and evidence-based policymaking? While it is true, one does not need to be a medical professional to have an important position, there should be credible expertise considered. There was no counter voice, only months of emails from one individual who knowingly disparages public health officials and healthcare providers who support current evidence based guidelines.

5. Emails to the board reveal this individual was allowed to disparage healthcare professionals, including name calling, without any board members moving to stop this behavior. Is this type of behavior typically tolerated? 

      5a. Intimidation of Medical Professionals: Records indicate that this activist shared medical license information of fluoride-supporting professionals with some board members. Text messages to some board members she went on to say "I want to chop them off" This raises serious ethical concerns, as this practice appears to be a deliberate strategy to intimidate and target licensed professionals who support fluoride. What any steps, if any, were taken to ensure that decision-making was free from undue influence, harassment, or intimidation tactics? Where emails sent to the board from healthcare professionals forwarded on to this individual? If yes, were public health officials also forwarded on emails from the individual moving to remove fluoride, to allow fair and transparent review?

6. Review of Submitted Articles: Were the articles that were repeatedly submitted by one individual reviewed by independent experts in epidemiology, toxicology, and public health to ensure they met scientific standards? If so, which experts or institutions were consulted other than one individual anti-fluoride activist? Where health professionals that have shared the importance of fluoride allowed to offer a fair critique, which is standard in medicine. Many, if not all of the studies that was shared have generated significant criticism from the medical community due to the lack of scientific rigor, were these comments reviewed and shared with the board for consideration?

7. Financial Impact on the Community: The Wisconsin Department of Health has reported that fluoridation saves DeForest approximately $336, 000 annually in dental care costs by preventing cavities and other oral health issues. How does the village intend to account for this financial loss and the potential increase in dental-related expenses for residents, particularly for lower-income families and children?

8. Alternative Fluoride Access: If fluoride is being removed from the water supply, will the village provide free fluoride supplements to all residents to ensure continued dental health benefits? If not, what alternatives are being considered to mitigate the impact on community dental health?

9. Lack of a Public Vote: Given the contentious nature of this decision, why was it not put to a village-wide vote, allowing residents to have a direct say in the matter? Was there any discussion about deferring the decision to a community referendum, and if not, why?

10. Conflict of Interest Concerns: Email records indicate that the anti-fluoride activist was actively coaching board members on emails to send to medical boards and during Q&A sessions. This level of involvement suggests an inappropriate level of influence over a governmental decision-making process. Does this constitute a conflict of interest? Should this individual’s involvement disqualify her from influencing the board’s decision, and should board members who coordinated with her recuse themselves from this issue?

The removal of fluoride from our water supply is a decision that will have lasting consequences for our community’s health, particularly for children and vulnerable populations. Transparency and accountability are essential in a matter of this magnitude. We urge the board to provide clear, evidence-based responses to these concerns and ensure that public health decisions are made based on sound science rather than the influence of one individual. 

LET US VOTE!

Members of the community do wish to express thanks to board members l who: expressed support for the community, voting based on the community response, those who have refrained from publicly criticizing residents that they disagree with, and those that believe in the importance of maintaining bipartisan ethical leadership