Several residents told the Village of Manteno Board of Trustees on Oct. 1 that the village should stop allowing private logos on police vehicles and that the department’s recently received Rivian marked “powered by Goshen” creates an appearance of undue influence and additional safety and liability risks.

The concerns were raised during the public-participation portion of the Oct. 1 meeting, where Michael Swartzenbauer said he was “deeply troubled” to see Goshen logos on the department’s new Rivian and called the presence of corporate branding on a squad car an appearance problem if a Goshen employee were involved in an incident requiring police response. He said, “It would be very hard to argue that when their logo is on the responding squad car,” and asked village leaders to use “discernment” before allowing similar sponsorships.

The issue matters because residents said sponsorships on police equipment could create a perception — whether accurate or not — that a private company has influence over law enforcement responses. In a separate public comment, Anne Gates displayed photographs she said show electric vehicles on fire and asked who would pay bills or settlements if an officer were injured in such a vehicle. Gates said, “A free gift does come with strings,” and urged trustees to consider officer and taxpayer liability.

Chief Swinford, speaking during a later committee report, said the department did not choose sponsorships and did not expand on procurement details at the meeting; he did not dispute the facts about the vehicle’s branding. Trustee Peggy Vaughn and others said the board will continue to discuss the matter at committee meetings; Vaughn said she was “not a big fan” of logos on police vehicles and suggested removing sponsorship markings from all patrol cars.

Public commenters also linked the branding question to a broader concern about Goshen’s presence in Manteno: speaker Sandy Chish said she had searched property records and asserted that only one property — 333 Spruce Street — was in Goshen’s name while other addresses cited in prior discussions appeared under a company named New Energy Property Holdings. Chish said that raised questions about how village staff issued building permits and inspections.

There was no ordinance or formal board action at the Oct. 1 meeting to change vehicle-donation or sponsorship policies. Trustees and staff said they will bring additional information to future committee meetings. Chief Swinford and village staff said they would look into the specific public-record and permit questions raised by commenters.

Trustees and staff did not provide new written policy at the meeting; discussions were framed as topics for further committee review and, where applicable, for the village attorney or staff to clarify in future agendas.