BY DAN CAMPANA
If you see only one debate this mayoral campaign season ... well, then you'll just be shortchanging yourself as a voter.
In a joint effort to put the candidates -- Mayor Tom Weisner, Alderman Stephanie Kifowit and Alderman Richard Irvin -- in front of residents ahead of the April 7 election, The Beacon News and Aurora University announced plans for a March 12 forum at Crimi Auditorium.
The best part? You, kind reader and Aurora resident, get to submit the questions you'd like to hear answered.
The audience/reader questions will be part of the forum's second half. To kick things off, after the obligatory introductions, each candidate gets a chance to pick the topics they want to focus on most.
Without getting too bogged down in the format, each candidate will have a chance to talk about two things -- jobs, economic development, campaign finance, how good the water tastes, whatever they want -- in the so-called "Agenda for Aurora" portion of the program.
Then the other two candidates get time to respond.
In a race that should be focused on issues, this is pure campaign stump time. Get on that soap box and say what you'll do about something.
Of course, actual readers and Aurora residents with questions is also a key part of all this. Keep your eyes on The Beacon and beaconnewsonline.com for more details.
Can't wait that long? Never fear, drop a question in the comment section here and maybe you'll hear it on March 12.
Chicago is the most corrupt city in Illinois, (thanks to all the recent problems in the news, the whole world is now aware of that). It is followed in a close second place by Aurora.
What are the candidates going to do to rid Aurora of all the patronage????????
Ms. Kline could you please elaborate on your comment in regards to 'all the patronage'. What 'patronage' are you referring to? Please provide factual examples. Could you also explain why you think Aurora is the most corrupt city after Chicago. Once again please provide your facts. I am very curious why you have these opinions.
Thanks, Wes
When people are losing their homes right and left, and the entire world is waiting to see just how deep the recession will go in the United States, Aurora's 2009 budget sits at $434 million dollars. This budget number is up 29.9% from 2007 and is currently about $2,580 per man, woman, and child.
In these tumultuous times, what will you do to bring the city's budget under control and ease the tax burden on Aurora's citizens?
Wes,
Try doing a search of the Beacon and find the story they did on Weisner's campaign contributors and how much business they do with the city. Then come back here and tell me Bonifas, Mundy, Cordogan, Geneva Construction, Wegman, the unions and others aren't in the pay-to-play game? We won't even get into Mr. Nayak, who seems to be of some interest to the feds.
Want more examples? It won't look good for your guy if you go down this road.
Ahem,
I'm well aware of the baseless 'pay-to-play' innuendo that is being thrown around like it's factual. First of all do you know how the City of Aurora approves contracts? I don't think you do. No official, elected or otherwise, can authorize a contract in excess of $10,000 without the entire city council first reviewing and authorizing the purchase. The Mayor does not vote unless there is a tie. So tell me how campaign contributions play any part in Aurora's contract approval. You can read the D2 as well as I can. Mayor Weisner's D2 statement indicated that the campaign raised nearly $74,000 in cash and in-kind contributions from July 1 - December 31, 2008. Of contributors who gave more than $150, only five had contracts with the city of Aurora and none of those gave more than $1,500. They have as much right as you do to contribute to the candidate they choose. In my opinion this whole 'pay-to-play' is nothing more than desperate politicians using negative campaigning because that's all they have to offer. And no I don't want more examples, I want facts. Show me your facts, not innuendo. What doesn't look good here is people like you who jump to conclusions without doing any basic research and totally disregarding logic.
Wes