I received an e-mail Monday morning from the young man that was Dave Marcello’s battery victim in 2002. Like me, he is confused by a community that throws millions into the safety of their children and elects to the school board Marcello, who has a history of abusing children, on the same day. He’s not writing to “get even” or anything. He is truly concerned that Marcello is governing a school board, considering what Marcello did to him, a student.
Whine all you want, Dave Marcello, but the fact that your lawyer got your conviction expunged does not mean you weren’t convicted. Or that you didn’t do it. You get to live with the fact that you were caught abusing another mother’s child forever.
Especially since you never apologized.
Marcello’s on the Elmbrook school board now; that’s a fact. But he’s going to be watched like a hawk. He has a well-known temper and a history of late-night drunken phone calls to his real estate clients. I have a couple of e-mails he sent – one he’s ripping me to shreds and the next he’s begging that we “reconcile before God.” He’s big for harassing families he dislikes, telling them HE forgives THEM and asking to “reconcile before God.”
I’m pleased to report the young man is doing very well. He endured a few tough years locally, but left to enjoy a popular southern university. He’s the vice-president elect for that student body. He acknowledges it was tough going at times, but what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. He wants everyone to know the Dave Marcello he remembers should not be trusted.
School board members, I have permission to read you the full letter I received. You need to know this kid’s side of the story before you are swept into the magic Marcello will try to create. You all know my number.
Dave, there’s really no way you will ever earn my trust. This community deserves a warning before you start on your personal agenda to move back into politics.
—
Update – Be sure to read David Marcello, convicted of battery in February 2003.
19 responses so far ↓
1 Matt Thomas // Apr 9, 2008 at 1:17 pm
It sounds terrible what happened to that child. I’m glad the child was able to move on and make a success of life. One question I have is, why didn’t anyone ever run against him this time? I understand that someone was on the ballot who dropped out, but why didn’t anyone else run?
2 Cindy Kilkenny // Apr 9, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Initially three planned to run. The incumbent was still a favorite choice, so no one wanted to file against him. He dropped out at the deadline. Even though the district extended a few days for filing, it was nearly impossible to gather the signatures in time. (Brookfield is designated a 2nd class city and the filing signatures required are much higher now.)
Even then, there was a second candidate, so no one really worried. It was after this candidate said he couldn’t serve that voters were stuck without an alternative to Marcello taking the seat.
3 Winegirl // Apr 10, 2008 at 9:58 am
There are a lot of wails about lack of candidates for local offices, but with the filing requirements and the cost to run a campaign even in the school board races, a person really has to love making school board policy and must be willing to devote personal financial resources to run for office. Along with the innumerable meetings and study required outside the meetings, these “voluntary” offices require as much time as a full time job if you want to do the job right.
I did not cast a vote for Marcello, not that it made a difference, but I don’t trust him. He is affiliated with Shorewest realtors. As I recall, the “Vote Yes” group used a Shorewest realty office to make phone calls to voters during the last referendum. Consequently, I would not use Shorewest to market a home in the future for this reason–businesses should take care when using their premises or resources to back a political position. Potential future customers will remember that.
4 Brookfieldmom // Apr 18, 2008 at 4:00 pm
As a mother of a 3 year old who will be attending Elmbrook schools, and a graduate of the Elmbrook School District, I was appalled when I read the Brookfieldnow.com article on Marcello’s criminal past. My husband and I returned to Brookfield after living in New Berlin for several years.
I have several questions on this.
Why wasn’t this Brookfieldnow.com story published before the signature deadline?
Shouldn’t it be the responsibility of the Elmbrook Schools organization to fully inform voters of any potential school board candidate who has been convicted (even an expunged conviction) of child abuse? Disclose all details, and let voters decide.
If this was common knowledge in the Brookfield community, I was not aware of it until reading it in the Brookfieldnow.com article. By then, it was too late.
It looks like Elmbrook parents need to do their own background checks on potential school board candidates, since the school organization and press aren’t doing enough in my opinion to give us the information we need to make smart voting choices.
In my opinion, no responsible school district should let any candidate who has been convicted of child abuse to run for a seat on their school board.
I did not vote for Dave Marcello. I believe if more Elmbrook parents knew of his past, they would have put forth greater effort to find a credible candidate to run against him and get that candidate elected.
I may not agree with you, Cindy, on many issues. But on this one, you are 200% right.
5 Concerned Parent // Apr 28, 2008 at 7:19 pm
I was out of town and had just recently read the BrookfieldNow article regarding Dave Marcello’s kicking of a fourteen year old boy where he arrogantly states that ” there were mistakes made on my part and there were mistakes made on the part of the kids.” My first question is, does “kids” mean that there were more than one child involved? My next question is; what mistake can a fourteen year old boy make that requires him to be kicked by an adult to the point where he requires medical attention. What mistake did the physician make by reporting a nearly fractured tail bone to the police. What mistake did the police make by arresting Mr. Marcello and charging him with aggravated assault to a minor.
What mistake will the Elmbrook Community and fellow board members make by allowing Mr. Marcello to remain in a position of governence over young adults.
What guarantee do we have that Mr. Marcello will not once again loose his temper and attack , from behind, another young and unsuspecting child?
Mr. Marcello needs to be removed!!
6 Concerned Parent // May 2, 2008 at 3:38 pm
I was reading the Fox 6 Blogs the other day and came across this:
”
Dave Marcello, newly elected at-large Elmbrook School Board member was charged with battery against a minor in 2003. As a parent of two children who are students within the Elmbrook School District, I find this to be outrageous. Upon doing further research, I found two more very distrubing elements of the situation. Marcello has been convicted of others crimes as well, including aresenal. Secondly, according to court reports, Marcello not only assaulted a 14 year boy, beating him so bad that he had to seek medical attention but he beat up his own son as well. Finally, it is my understanding that Meg Wartman, the now school board president is friends with Marcello and knew of his battery against a minor charges.
It is illegal for Marcello to have even won. According to the Elmbrook School Board bylaws “The elector shall include in the declaration of candidacy a statement that he/she has not been convicted of a felony which has not been pardoned or of a misdemeanor involving a violation of public trust which has not been pardoned.
Wis. Stats. 8.21″
Marcello cannot be around high school children, as he has a history of abusing him. Elmbrook parents lets do something about this. .
Below is a link to the court record but in case you do not want to read the whole thing here is the most important line, “Defendant David Marcello in court with attorney Michael W Steinhafel. Margaret Zimmer appeared for the State of Wisconsin.
Defendant waived rights and pled No Contest. No Contest Plea Questionnaire received and filed. Defendant examined as to the plea. Parties stipulate to the facts of the complaint as a basis for a No Contest plea. Court found the defendant guilty as charged in the complaint. ”
Marcello does not only deserve not to be on the board, his being on it is simply illegal.
Here is the link to the court record
7 BrkfldDad // May 2, 2008 at 4:06 pm
You have to read the entire record to understand why it’s legal for him to be on the board. I didn’t say it’s right, but it’s legal. He wasn’t charged with arson (or arsenal as the blogger put it!), he was charged with Negligent Handling of Burning Material. He plead that down to a non-criminal (i.e. not a misdemeanor) fine for Criminal Damage to Property. The battery case, I had never heard be beat his son, and his was accused and convicted of Battery for what I heard was a swift kick in the butt for a friend of his sons. Almost broke the kid’s tailbone it was so had. Any way, in that one he plead, was sentenced, was a ‘good boy’ for a year and the pleas and judgement were thrown out for good behavior. So, there’s is no conviction on his record… See the 1/23/04 entry…
01-23-2004 Dismissed Defendant David Marcello in court with attorney Michael W Steinhafel. Adam Levin appeared for the State of Wisconsin. Defendant has successfully completed all terms and conditions as outlined in deferred prosecution agreement. On motion of the State, Court vacates previous plea and judgment, and orders CASE DISMISSED.
8 Cindy Kilkenny // May 2, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Yes, the but the case was prosecuted and judged guilty BEFORE it was dismissed. So, he was guilty for a year of a crime that violates the public’s trust. It doesn’t mean it never happened. (I also have a good source that says he beat his own son that evening, too.)
Marcello wasn’t a “good boy.” He was in court for the burning materials issue while he was supposed to be good. I guess it didn’t register because it was a different county.
He’s a creep that needs to be stopped. But, he’s also very cunning and will show an appealing amount of charm until his next incident. The problem is he leaves very threatening messages for anyone that stands in his way, so people are unlikely to cross him.
His erratic history suggests we’ll see fireworks before his term is over.
9 BrkfldDad // May 2, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Agree 100% it violates public trust, was just pointing out that he’s not on the board illegally. Like I said, that doesn’t make it right. Good boy was probably a bad term, he just didn’t get sideways with the law during his ‘probationary’ period. Cunning says it all…
10 Concerned Parent // May 4, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Maybe Meg Wartman needs to answer some questions and state her position on Mr. Marcello.
Was she aware of Mr. Marcello’s background prior to him taking a position on the school board?
Is it Ok with her that a sitting schoolboard member has a history of assaulting a 14 year old child.
What assurances can she give the ElmBrook community that Mr. Marcello will not once again loose his temper and attack and injure another unsuspecting child?
I feel that her position as President of the Elm Brook school board dictates that she is obligated to answer these questions.
11 Kathryn // May 4, 2008 at 6:08 pm
CP–Your concerns about Mr. Marcello are valid, but I’m unclear about what the school board President or other board members can do. They didn’t choose him, we did. Apart from answering your questions, what would you like to see happen? What legal options do we have?
12 BrkfldDad // May 4, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Good point Kathryn. Elmbrook voters elected Mr. Marcello. Neither the board nor Meg Wartman in particular can keep him in check when it comes to whatever he may do outside of a board meeting. I would hope they denounce any questionable actions by him. But he was duly elected and the voters are to blame. I don’t think anyone on the board is reasonably obligated to answer those questions.
13 Cindy Kilkenny // May 4, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Marcello works by intimidation, so nothing will happen here. It’s completely fair for someone to air concern, though.
It’s also fair to ask if the board inquired as to Marcello’s eligibility based on his criminal record.
14 BrkfldDad // May 5, 2008 at 7:44 am
Agreed – but the question I meant to take issue with was… “What assurances can she give the ElmBrook community that Mr. Marcello will not once again loose his temper and attack and injure another unsuspecting child?” I contend that’s not a fair question.
15 Concerned Parent // May 9, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Well, lets just sit back and be fair. Lets just wait till an incident occurs again before we ask the Board President or any other member of the school board what there thoughts are about Mr. Marcellos actions. When it comes to the safety of our children, being fair is not an option. Every school board member including the president should be obligated to answer any question regarding the conduct of any of their fellow baord members especially when that conduct involves the assault on a fourteen year old child. The issue here is that a school board member with a felony assault to a minor charge, sits on the school board making decisions about regarding our children. Is that fair to the parents of the Elmbrook community?
16 Kathryn // May 9, 2008 at 7:18 pm
So we blame the school board for his presence there? Abandon the rule of law? Do you want us to egg his car? Your indignation is justified, but the target is a little off.
17 BrkfldDad // May 9, 2008 at 10:02 pm
CP – you miss the point. I am as torqued off as you are, but I agree with Kathryn. To ask Meg Wartman – “What assurances can she give the ElmBrook community that Mr. Marcello will not once again loose his temper and attack and injure another unsuspecting child?” is off base. You know what the answer will be, it will be NO. How could she reasonably prevent anything? Her opinion of Marcello being on the board is fair game for questions, but there was nothing she could legally have done to prevent him from being elected, and she does not control his future. When you know the answer is going to be NO, why ask her about assurances you full well know she can’t give? You’ve also changed the game in your response. You argue the point of whether or not they should be questioned about a board members conduct (which I believe if fair game), but the point you were driving home was you wanted assurances they could control his future conduct, which again I don’t think is a reasonable question.
18 Kathryn // May 10, 2008 at 3:06 pm
So what are the rules about recalling a board member?
19 Cindy Kilkenny // May 10, 2008 at 3:21 pm
They have to be in office for a year before a recall can be filed. Then it takes a gazillion signatures to do so. Not likely to happen.
Leave a Comment