City's attorney hits back at Furstenau

Editors,
I found the following question during the interview was misleading: "What do you make of the fact during the Dec. 18 council meeting Furstenau offered to give his defense of the individual issues that led up to the censure, and in a perfunctory way, was cut off by the mayor, and they went into the vote? Why do you think that he wasn't able to respond?"

Right before the censure vote Furstenau was given the opportunity to respond to the misconduct claims, and asked if he had any different recollections of the events in question. He did not answer that question, or respond to the claims. He instead responsed that he helped people with their circular driveways, that the censure was just retaliation for his federal lawsuit, and other comments irrelevant to the misconduct claims, other than stating he would try to treat people with more respect. After Furstenau completed his statement, he turned the floor back to the mayor saying he might take more time to prepare a response, as suggested by Rosanova before he turned the floor to Furtenau.

To Anonymous: You're right about that exchange. However, shortly after (right before the censure vote) Councilman Furstenau clearly indicated he wanted to address the issues and was cut off by the mayor and then the council went right into the vote. That's why the question was phrased that way. So, I take issue with your characterization "misleading." I hope this offers further illumination to th events.

Moderator,
What was misleading was that it leaves the impression that Furtenau did not have an opportunity to address the specific issues. He had every opportunity to do so. The mayor did not cut him off. He turned the floor to the mayor to indicate he might take more time to prepare his response, in the context of Rosanova's comments.

To Anonymous: Seemed to me it was more in the timing than anything else. Why don't we just agree to disagree.

Hello

This is the peoples money the coucil is playing with.
Stop this merry go round right now.
Another reason why government can't govern.
Why don't we just fire all of the council and start over.
It would be more fruit.

I went to a couple of City Council meetings in the last year due to a particular item to be discussed. Prior to these meetings I did not really know any of the Council Members. It quickly became evident to me that Furstenau had some gripe against the Police as he would constantly make negative comments regarding the Chief's report. I was surprised as I figured the Chief of Police deserved some professional respect even if you disagree. It is the respect to be shown the office. In other issues, again Furstenau was inappropriatley obnoxius in "attacking" presenters. If Furstenau is this digusted with everything about Naperville why does he not just leave? The ego is too big and Furstenau feels he has power over all of Naperville because he is a City Council member. Time to grow up Dick, you are just a City Coucil member of a town and NOT President of the United States!

I live out of the Naperville City limits, cannot vote but have been following the proceedings of the City Council and get the overall feeling that the "self rightous" grouping in the council and possibly the former City Manager are out to "get" Fursteneau but the big question in the back of all this is WHY? Something is going on and hopefully this will being it all out in the open

Moderator,
Jim Sotos probably has no interest in settling this case especially when he states it will cost upwards of a million dollars. He has a great opportunity to make BIG BUCKS since he knows taxpayer money is almost limitless. Making a quick settlement with DF makes him 10k at most. Dragging this case in court makes him upwards of a million bucks. On the 3-part DF interview blog, Martha seemed to have a solution. I will just post the end of her blog. I have to wonder if Jim Sotos was one of those outside attorneys retained to help fight the Napergate Case that cost us a few million more??? Of course, I don't know for sure! City Attorneys should not be allowing outside attorneys to control this case. More so, when he talks to the Naperville Sun, he is billing us taxpayers for more likely than not for his time as is typical. Do we need to pay to hear his SPECULATION THAT HE PLANS ON HITTING US FOR A MILLION BUCKS OR MORE??? NONSENSE! The Naperville Sun should only grant interviews to attorneys who promise not to charge the TAXPAYERS! The Sun also has a duty to protect taxpayers from potential sharks!

Anyway here is the end of Martha's blog that offers a very inexpensive solution that allows all parties to save face.

"Settling this case by learning from the expense of the Napergate experience is really the smartest thing to do. With all due respect, DF does not have the talent or support that the Napergate Man had to deliver a knock-out punch against City Hall in court and public opinion. And the city does not have the credibility or righteousness to deliver a knock out punch to DF in court and public opinion. It seems the public is evenly divided and thus the parties should settle...logic on occasion does make sense!

In the Napergate case thru a series of 100 full page ads loaded with facts, the Napergate Man was able to rally almost all the residents to his cause. If you successfully rally the residents to your cause with hard facts, you somehow rally the jury to your cause. If you rally the jury to your cause with hard facts, you will get a favorable verdict. The Napergate man had video surveillance in his store that helped prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt, in addition to facts he accumalated and obtained from many sources. (Unfortunately there was no video in the punching/touching case which will make this case difficult for both sides to impress their points of view on a jury)

Neither party in this case has the needed ammunition to win. It will be a weak verdict for either side or a hung jury wasting even more taxpayer money. I think both parties should come to their senses, swallow their egos and settle this case quickly and efficently. I know no one is listening but I had an urge to write!

Finally, my suggestion is no apology but $100,000 to DF. The apology is implied with the settlement but yet allows the city to save face by not issuing a FORMAL APOLOGY! All the city has to tell the residents, is we chose to give him 100k to avoid paying the attorneys 400k. We chose to save the TAXPAYER 300k or 75% of the potential legal costs. The residents will buy this as it makes sense and EVERYONE WILL BE A WINNER!!! Is that really so hard to do....???"

I guess Matha's letter is already obsolete as Jim Sotos is stating the city misled us when they stated the case will cost 400k in legal fees. So it seems in the end the city will one day tell us we did not keep records and don't know what this case cost us just as in the NAPERGATE CASE. History does seem to repeat itself! It is very frightening!

PS. I suggest bloggers read Martha's entire blog as it explains possible conspiracty theories and how they occur silently.

To Moderator and Bloggers,

Sorry I was quoting Elizabeth and not Martha in my previous blog. So many bloggers blogging I am getting all the characters confused. I will try to be more precise in the future.

My apologies.

Ameena

I don't live in Naperville either, although I worked there for many years so I have always paid attention to what's happening there. I hope no one minds if make one observation. I have always been amazed that a community as large and economically active as Naperville has only at-large city council members. For years and years there has been speculation both within Naperville and by outside observers that developers wield a great deal of influence over city council decisions. It isn't necessarily that they are on the take. It't just that when you are at-large, you can take campaign money from anyone in your community with a lot fewer questions as to why. The totally at-large situation seems to fuel the notion that influence can be bought to a certain extent in large part because there isn't a specific group of constituents that council members have to answer to. If I lived in an area of seemingly rabid growth without thought to quality of life, and all my council members lived far from the areas being affected, I too would probably be overly skeptical of some of the decisions they make and why they make them. Has anyone ever attempted to go to a district form of representation? I think it would go along way in preventing some of what is going on now. To anyone who doesn't live there the situation you are facing right now makes one wonder how your local government can function. I can't imagine how people who pay taxes there must feel.

I believe DICK should probably move to Cicero where he could finally secure the title of President of a town. There he could have the freedom to parlay his strengths: Force and Coercion, Harassment, and profiting from multiple conflicts of interest. He could even dabble a little bit in personal loans and garbage collection. The mafia could use a stand-up guy like you in high places...DICKY LAUREN-MALTESE. It has a nice ring to it!

To Ameena: With all due respect, your statement.... "The Naperville Sun should only grant interviews to attorneys who promise not to charge the taxpayers"is nonsensical. When have you ever heard of lawyers not charging in a case like this? Me, never. Also, The Sun does not have the duty, in your words, "to protect taxpayers from potential sharks." We just tell the stories in a fair and balanced manner.

Anonymous,
The answer to what is going on, as I see it, is that we have a city councilman (Furstenau) who is upset because the city would not pay him close to $130,000.00 of taxpayer money to pay his legal fees, election campaign expenses, and to pay off his campaign suppporters who donated money for a state election he lost. He was refused, so Furstenau is retaliating through the court system. I support the city's decision not to meet his demands. That is the bottom line.

Never, ever settle with DF. I don't care what it costs. Can you imagine the look on his face if he thinks he WON? I can't bear to.
No apology, No money. He will never be able to rally citizens behind him, because he's absolutely WRONG. Even most supporters of the ogre are beginning to see the psychosis involved here.

The real question here is "What will the City let us know while it's happening?"

Being a fan of the legal system and cases as they settle, on the surface it appears that DF has a great case --- period. No matter how much some folks dislike him, or how much he does or doesn't buly others, the City's case against him fell apart like a house of cards. Newsflash for all taxpayers: juries do NOT like to hear stories like this!

In other words, will they keep us informed as to the ongoing costs, including the time of employees (being paid by us) while they attend depositions and trials? The settlement (which, IMHO, is inevitable) will be public, but the drain on the public trough of the logistics will not be unless our wonderful council saz so.

To Jim: Unfortunately I can't post your comment. You, yourself, admit that it is not directly tied to the matter at hand. The problem is that in all conscience without verifying the alleged incident that took place - and at this juncture I don't see how it could be independently corrobarated - I have no way of knowing whether it's true or not. Not doubting your word, but ethically, I can't post it. Maybe it was mistaken identity etc. I hope you see my point. I welcome your further thoughts and posts on this thread and any others. Thanks.

To Jim: Unfortunately I can't post your comment. You, yourself, admit that it is not directly tied to the matter at hand. The problem is that in all conscience without verifying the alleged incident that took place - and at this juncture I don't see how it could be independently corrobarated - I have no way of knowing whether it's true or not. Not doubting your word, but ethically, I can't post it. Maybe it was mistaken identity etc. I hope you see my point. I welcome your further thoughts and posts on this thread and any others. Thanks.

Jim Lynch, Moderator
With due respect also to you, the Naperville Sun is also a taxpayer. You have a very large building located on Ogden Ave east of the tracks within the city limits of Naperville. You are not exempt from Real Estate Taxes to the best of my knowledge. Some gal earlier on these blogs computed these attorneys are costing us $111.11 per household. I am sure your taxes are many multiple times that of a home. So your newspaper has a duty to participate and help us keep real estate taxes down for both homes and business. I am assuming the Sun is a good corporate citizen. Also, I assume many of your employees are tax paying Naperville citizens.

Many attorneys do not charge in high profile cases that are heavily publicized. Example in the 2 Peterson cases(California and Bolingbrook), the attorneys took the case free of charge because they knew the publicity would get them new clients and 15 minutes of fame. Many attorneys do not charge their clients for media interviews. It benefits them by promoting their names...not their clients who are benefited mostly by silence! How is Jim Sotos benefiting the Naperville taxpayers by blabbing about this case and probably tipping off the defense? You would think for a million dollars the city could get an attorney who could keep his MOUTH SHUT until the proceedings, unless he is working towards getting a settlement behind the scenes and not in the media glare which is always counter productive. Attacking DF in the newspapers just decreased the chance of a settlement substantially and increased Mr. Sotos chance of cleaning our pockets for upwards of a million dollars he is counting on. I am sure Mr. Sotos is a smart man and that was his goal.

Most attorneys have a major internal conflict of interest between representing their clients to the best of their abilities as opposed to fattening their wallets. A quick settlement in any case means the attorneys makes little to no money. Attorneys like to make big bucks as evidenced by what we are seeing right before our eyes.

Did the City of Naperville bother to CAP Jim Soto's fees? Probably not!!! Did they bother to ask him NOT to talk to the media at their expense? Probably not!!! Did they give him an incentive to settle this case quickly and out of court for less than the million he is contemplating??? Probably not!!!

Yes, it is NOT the primary duty of the Naperville Sun to watch our legal expenses. If I was not having my second glass of wine I am sure I would have indicated correctly it is the primary duty of the City of Naperville to make sure their hired guns are not roaming the newspaper circuits giving interviews and charging us taxpayers 300-400 dollars an hour to learn such things that the city estimate of 400k for legal expenses is wrong and it will be UPWARDS of a MILLION dollars. Can anyone blame me for having a second glass of wine when I realized the impact on my property tax bill? I doubt I can go to my boss and ask for a raise because of the WASTEFULNESS OF MY CITY to cover my higher RE TAX BILL!!

And for those who don't know Attorneys like Jim Sotos probably charge for TRAVEL TIME. So if his round trip was for a little over 2 hours and he met with the Sun for an hour, he charged us TAXPAYERS 1000 dollars. How insane that the City of Naperville would give him the GREEN LIGHT for such a WASTE of TAXPAYER money. More is on the WAY! Watch out TAXPAYERS!!!

I was around in the Napergate Days and I see a complete duplication with every mistake made there made here. That was a little worse because they had an 8 or 9 person legal staff and they chose to hire 2 large Chicago legal firms while there was no Conflict of Interest in the Napergate Case. Apparently here the justification is a Conflict of Interest to retain 2 outside legal firms. The damage is EQUIVALENT though in both cases! How many bloggers in the last 2 months warned us that this sounds like Napergate dejavu as related to expense to fight the battle? Easily over a 100 and now we have Attorney Jim Sotos telling us the NAPERGATIANS were right all along and the city estimate of 400k was BLATANTLY INACCURATE if not DELIBERATELY MISLEADING!!!

In the Napergate the city would not lick its losses at some point and settle. Yes, they finally did not go the Supreme Court but that is because everyone knows the Supreme Court takes less than 1% of the cases and if the case was taken the chance of winning was 0 to NIL. Here we have the same scenario. The city is not willing to lick it's losses to the tune of a 100k and move on. THE 1OOK COULD BE MADE CONDITIONAL TO DF SHOWING A NEW RESPECT TOWARDS EMPLOYEES AND I AM SURE HE WOULD AGREE TO THAT. An apology to DF would not be necessary as people can read that 100k settlement any which way they want to, allowing both sides to be PLEASED by interpreting it differently! If this proceeds to litigation, whether the city wins or loses, the taxpayer is going to take a bath. That is a FACT and both sides confirmed it to the Sun.

If DF had some anger issues, he showed he can control himself upon being warned. I watched the last City Council meeting and paid extra attention to DF. He showed no anger despite having all his fellow City Council Members against him on top of everyone heading a City Dept. If he had no control, he would have blown up right then and there. It was the ultimate test and DF passed his Anger Management 101 Final Exam.

If there was a lesson to learn, it was learned by both sides. So what is the point of making us taxpayers pay for egos on both sides.

The Naperville Sun has a duty in this case. I recall vividly in the Napergate Era the Sun was writing Editorials asking both sides to "Bury the Hatchet." I think the editorials influenced the City to come to its senses and avoid a final battle in the Supreme Court.

In this case with all due respect, the Sun is pouring flames on the fire on a daily basis. Blogging is at all time high and I am sure readership is skyrocketing. At what point are we going to have an editorial titled, "Bury the Hatchet" as we did in Napergate. The Sun was very late then as the taxpayers suffered millions of dollars before the editorial finally came that helped both sides smell the Java beans instead of the fermented grapes.

Can the Naperville Sun do a little better this time and run the "Bury the Hatchet" editorial before the taxpayers including itself, take irretrievable losses.

Ameena
PS. I apologize for drinking and writing earlier. I quoted Martha instead of Elizabeth and blamed the Naperville Sun primarily instead of the City of Naperville. At least you can not get a DUI for writing and drinking!!! Thank Goodness!!!

PS II. Finally, I would like to point out all these bloggers who are gunning for a legal battle till death do us apart, were not around in the Napergate Era and did not see the tax bill increases that we saw and experienced.

Moderator,

Thanks for responding saying you won't post my comment about my wife and I witnessing Furstenau's bullying behavior. You are correct, it has nothing directly to do with the current legal issues, but it ties in directly with why there are legal issues and censorship (Furstenau's behavior pattern).

Further ... yes ... it can be independently corroborated. You ask for an email address to post; you have mine. You can contact me as I know who the manager was (and is, as she's still employed in the new incarnation of Brickhouse).

Not sure what you mean when you say "ethically, I can't post it". It wasn't mistaken identity. Clearly, it's one person's story (mine) on an internet blog. If people want to believe it, fine. If they don't, that's their right. It's the same as everyone else's post, except mine was an eyewitness account of the behavior of an elected official. To me, that's as valid or moreso than someone's opinion.

The people of Naperville should have the right to know what kind of elected officials they have. To be sure, I know and my wife knows. As does the female manager who was subjected to Furstenau's abuse.

Bob S. wrote: "Being a fan of the legal system and cases as they settle, on the surface it appears that DF has a great case --- period. No matter how much some folks dislike him, or how much he does or doesn't buly others, the City's case against him fell apart like a house of cards."

How do you figure? The criminal case against DF "fell apart" because the prosecution could not prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard for a civil case though, is a preponderance of the evidence. This means that DF will now have to prove that it is more likely than not that he did NOT strike the officer. If he can produce credible witnesses who saw the entire altercation, well, bully for him---especially given that the other side apparently has no eyewitnesses;
but if Furstenau also has no witnesses, then he will be out of luck.

I said it once, and I will say it again...Lets have DICK and Ofc. Hull submit to a polygraph test...I bet Mr. "I never slapped, touched, belted, punched, backhanded, strangled, choked, karate chopped that officer" Furstenau comes out as the LIAR!!!!

I went to a couple of City Council meetings. It quickly became evident to me that Furstenau had some gripe against the Police as he would constantly make negative comments regarding the Chief's report. I was surprised as I figured the Chief of Police deserved some professional respect even if you disagree. It is the respect to be shown the office.
Posted by: Chuck Mackey | December 27, 2007 12:51 PM
==================================================================
Dear Chuck Mackey,
Asking the police chief to control his costs in order to save taxpayers money, is not a "gripe" against the Chief. Furstenau is firm in wanting cost reductions. He was firm before the water commission and saved us over 8 million dollars.

When police have as much "legitimate" overtime as Furstenau is alleging, one solution would be to retain more officers to avoid overtime. It is alleged that 50% of the top paid city employees are cops. This raises concerns for me and all taxpayers.

I live in the downtown area and I see an excessive police presence in the downtown area especially on Friday and Saturday. Sometimes you can see a dozen cops just W. of Washington on Chicago Ave. For the most part doing nothing but observing! There is really no need for all these cops as there is rarely an altercation. And if there is one, I am sure 2 cops can handle it assisted by security guards or doormen at the clubs until back up shows up if needed on a rare occasion. So here is an example of paying 10 cops unnecessarily. Eliminate 10 cops including their benefits and overtime and you just saved a million dollars to TAXPAYERS.

If Chief Dial feels a need for a lot of security downtown because of the bars, I suggest he ask each bar owner to provide an outside security guard at his/her expense for each 100 patrons, since it is their specific problem and not the taxpayers in general. One downtown bar owner in Council Chambers once claimed his patio generated $80,000 of revenue during each summer weekend while protesting some patio seating regulation. Well, if he is making this kind of money, he should provide outdoor security as well as indoor security at his expense...not the taxpayer's expense!

In other towns the bar owners provide both indoor/outdoor security with policemen doing their normal rounds. Not camping on Chicago Avenue full time, giving around the clock security to bar owners and their patrons at TAXPAYER EXPENSE.

I am sure DF's police overtime complaints are due to incidents such as these. As a taxpayer, I have been notified that my tax bill is going up 1300 dollars this year despite a decline in the value of my home. This police overtime as well as this nonsense litigation all contribute to my TAX BILL. I am fed up, needless to say!

We all commended DF for going after the Dupage Water Commission to save us over 8 million bucks. But if he asks a Police Chief to cut his expenses, somehow he is "GRIPING" and not giving the Police Chief professional respect. Chief Dial is a tough man and can handle constructive criticism. If he could not he would not be Chief. But I agree with DF that the Chief needs to reduce his expenses. And he should start by asking downtown bar owners to provide their own outdoor security if in fact it is needed to the point of a Police Army being out there on weekends.

Downtown bar owners generating 80k of revenue on weekends from their patios are being subsidized by the TAXPAYERS. This must stop! We built huge garages that allow their patrons mostly from out of town to park free of charge with TAXPAYER funded garages. It is obvious that downtown businesses and especially the bars don't pay their fair share of taxes. The least they can do is take over outdoor security and free the taxpayers of unnecessary police overtime.

Security guards only cost bar owners $10 an hour. Police officers cost taxpayers $50 an hour or more when counting benefits and overtime. Not only does it cost 5 times as much, but it is not the responsibility of the TAXPAYER. It is the responsibility of the clubs jointly with thousands of patrons to foot the bill for this security.

Maybe DF does not know how to articulate himself very well. Maybe he is a little angry because he feels he keeps repeating himself to the Police Chief and never gets any results. I am sure he repeated himself and showed "anger" towards the Dupage Water Commissioners until we got excellent results.

DF is not about squeezing money from the taxpayers. He is about saving the taxpayers money. Yes, he went to 60 water commission meetings without pay. Does this sound like a man who worships the DOLLAR BILL in his pocket? Not to me! Those who claim he is suing to line his pockets are so misguided.

DF is suing so future residents can disagree with City Hall without fearing repercussions. DF was around in the Napegate Era and undoubtedly worked with that group. He knows from that experience what City Hall will do to you if you don't agree with them...if you are not a so called "Yes Man!" He obviously came to the conclusion that nothing has changed since the Napergate Days and plans on doing something about it. It is unfortunate that the only way he feels he can bring change is thru the court system.

In summary, I would personally and politely like to ask Chief Dial to consider making some cuts to his budget for the NEW YEAR of 2008 which is right around the corner. Let us see if POLITENESS can get the budget cuts that DF's "GRIPENESS" could not. Maybe, it is all about how you ask! Let us see! And with the city installing cameras to ticket drivers at intersectons, I am hoping we will need less cops and not more to compensate for cost of these ROBOTIC COP CAMERAS. Robots in car factories replaced many factory workers! Will robotic cop cameras replace many police officers or is this an additional expense to the TAXPAYER? Only Chief Dial has the answers for now...but at some point he needs to share his answers as he will be held accountable by the TAXPAYERS!

Todays headline tells it all about Councilman Furstenou A GRADE SCHOOL BULLY.
A person who's elected job is to establish policy not enforce it.

This man should not be elected to any public job every again.

To expect an apology and payment because of this incident with the police officer is ridiculous. Innocent people are arrested every day, they have their day in court and are given a judgement. Why should DF be any different? He should have left well enough alone with the conclusion of the court in this case. I don't know any of the parties involved, but at the time was glad when DF won. How wrong I was. Now after the verdict, he has managed to prove his aggressive stop-at-nothing personality which makes me question the courts original verdict. His recent behavior makes me sure he did mess with that officer. I truly hope it was worth it to him to tarnish his reputation beyond repair. He presents himself as a champion of the taxpayer, but will stop at nothing when it benefits himself. How sad. Get over it DF. You should have left well enough alone after the court verdict.

Marilyn,

Having been a frequenter of the Friday/Saturday nights in DT Naperville for almost a decade, I can tell you that the reason things rarely get out of hand down there is directly a result of having so many officers all over the place. DownTown would be a place no one would want to go to (or live in) without their numbers in full force. A ratio of 2 officers to thousands is a very bad ratio to have especially with some of the types that drive in and hang out down there. This includes Ex cons on their custom stretched 2 wheeled Vroom Vroom's and overly hormonally charged high schoolers/college kids trying to cop a feel on anything female that comes within a certain radius to them not to mention the lovely testosterone demonstrations of inexperienced drivers thinking that doing burnouts right near hundreds of people on a crowded street is a smart thing to do.

To John Q.:

For the civil case, DF does NOT have to prove he didn't hit Officer Hull--- that has already been done for him in the criminal case! In short, he does NOT have to prove a negative. His case will be based on two issues, I suspect: false arrest (knowingly), and retaliation.

IMHO, the criminal case data would appear to hand DF the first issue (right or wrong --- I am NOT commenting on what happened, only on what the results of that case will mean to the civil case). The second was a much tougher sell BEFORE the Council went ahead with a censure (and the little Mayor's move of NOT letting DF speak on his own behalf was an especially arrogant move).

To Jim & Wife,

Newsflash! As a clarification, there are no legal issues anymore with DF's behavior ---- only censure issues!. The remaning legal issues are with the City's behavior.

Given the season, my cockles are certainly warmed by City-hired gun Soto's assertation that he will fight the lawsuit to the bitter end!!!

Of course, he does NOT mention he will be using OUR hard-earned money and that he will be charging US around $375 per hour for the whole ordeal!

He glibly reminds us it will cost at least $1 MILLION just to get through the court system (remember! This number does NOT include the cost ot city employees beieg deposed, etc.) He never tells us what it will cost if he is wrong and the case is lost (again, OUR money)

He liberally drops references to "the taxpayers money this, the tax[payers money that", yet he neglects to point out that the largest portion of this taxpayer money he references will be goping to him and his firm.

Domo Arigato, Mr. Sotos. Has the Bentley catalog arrived yet?

Ameena -- Maybe you should have had a third glass of wine and relaxed a little bit? You start out by saying many attorneys do not charge for media interviews, and then say that Sotos probably charged the city $1,000 due to his travel time. So which is it?

And your assertion that he should not speak with the media assumes he’s tipping his hand and also assumes his clients (the city et al) didn’t know he was going to give the interview. You’re just making too many assumptions here to be credible.

Sotos isn’t necessarily tipping his defense but he is getting his message out to the public and potential jurors, just as DF is doing. The city can't let DF's message be the only one out there if the city truly believes they have a defensible position. You can't let DF be the one to (paraphrasing) "tell a lie, tell it big enough, tell it often enough, and it becomes the truth".

Also, Ameena, I agree with Jim Lynch and while I believe the Sun does pay property taxes in Naperville I prefer to have my news sources acting as objectively as possible.

Marilyn -- It’s clear you have a major issue with the restaurants and bars downtown. The same ones that pay sales taxes. The same ones that pay into the Culture fund (which got us one ugly bell tower). The same ones that will likely fund the new parking decks via a new 1% food and beverage tax. And the same ones that likely drove your near-downtown property value up the past five years. Like it or not, the bars and restaurants are part of the economic engine pumping money into the city’s economy. You said it yourself--many of the cars parking here are from out of town. So I guess our taxes are actually soaking outsiders as well a Naperville residents.

And police presence? Please. The more the better, if for no other reason than deterrence. Maybe the reason there aren't more fights downtown is because of the very police presence you deplore. I'd rather pay more for safety than skimp on the NPD and have gangs running the Riverwalk and fights after the bars let out every night.

You want to save money? Cut city services such as the Christmas tree pick up. Cut curbside leaf collection. Cut the Christmas lights in downtown. Cut some parades. Cut some races and runs. Cut some fests. Cut the nice, but unnecessary services. But don't cut police manpower.

While Dick F., as a citizen, certainly has the right to sue whomever he chooses, isn't there something in his oath of office that he is violating? I don't see how he can be keeping any oath to faithfully serve the citizens while creating this million dollar temper tantrum. At the very least, shouldn't he have to take a leave of absence from the council?

Can the Sun please clarify? (or have you already? and I missed it?) What is the oath of office for city council? And how is DF not violating it?

Bob S -

The criminal acquittal does not hand DF the false arrest allegation/claim. All the acquittal says is there was not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict DF. To win the false arrest part of a civil case DF has to go further and prove that there was no probable cause for the arrest, or that the probable cause was knowingly false or manufactured.

And to those complaining about the potential cost of litigation - I think you need to relax a bit. You know, lay off the exclamation point on your keyboard before it breaks. What Sotos said was he and Collins agree the litigation could cost more than a million, not necesarily that it would cost one side a million. Don't get me wrong, I think it will be costly. But I also don't think that based solely on cost you should accuse an attorney of dragging a case out. And I also don't think it would have been good legal strategy for Sotos to come out and say the city's not willing to spend whatever it takes to win. If he did, then Collins and DF could win simply by attrition.

T.B.
With all due respect you missed my point. I am all for police security. Bot not 6 car cops including gas guzzling SUVs, two decked out police motorcycles, and 6 bicycle cops on the same intersection observing and socializing. If they were concerned about security they would spread out to other areas that encompass Rizzs, Potters, Jilly's and Hugos instead of all being in the same place almost all the times.

One cop car at an intersection with 2 officers is plenty to send the MESSAGE OF DETERRANCE. Additional security should be private and provided by bar owners who we are subsidizing.

You probably may not be aware that only 1.25% of the 6.75% sales tax collected is for the City of Naperville. The rest is mostly for the state. So are you telling me a bar patron who spends 20 bucks(near DUI level) and generates exactly .25 cents (1.25% of $20) for the City Budget is actually contributing to our tax base in a postive way.....sorry but he/she is a NET LOSS when you consider the massive police presence, the wear and tear on our streets, the clean up crews for the downtown sidewalks that don't exist in our neighborhoods, the massive cost of the parking decks paid by all taxpayers and not bar owners, and on and on.

And cutting Christmas tree pickups and curbside leaf collection in order that we subsidize bar security sounds rather stupid to me. I deserve something for the $11,300 in RE TAXES that I am expected to pay on May 1 and Sept. 1.

My property value decreased the last 2 years while my RE TAXES shot up indicating out of control expenses as a result of governmental incompetence such as in the well documented Napergate mess and most likely in this DF case which is unraveling.

Sorry TB but you sound like a downtown bar owner enjoying being subsidized at TAXPAYER expense unwilling to pay your TRUE FAIR SHARE!!! Plus, it sounds like you are not a Naperville resident because no NAPEVILLE RESIDENT I know wants to carry his Christmas Tree to the nearest landfill!

And finally you must be missing Joe Citizen at the City Council meetings documenting that some bars pay less in REAL ESTATE taxes than a homeowner. Now try to tell me that a homeowner needs more City Services than a bar owner. Either you have no common sense or you are a bar owner? Which is it T.B.?

Bob S., Furstenau's acquittal in the criminal case does not prove he didn't hit Officer Hull. All it means is that the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he DID hit the policeman. An acquittal is not proof of innocence. To win the civil trial, though, Furstenau is going to have to convince a jury that there was no cause to arrest him. He doesn't have to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, but he does have to convince the jury that his version of the events is closer to the truth than Officer Hull's. The outcome of the criminal trial probably won't be of much benefit to Furstenau---just ask O.J. Simpson.

Joe,
You obviously don't read before you write. I am for security big time. But I am for the bar owners hiring security companies at 10 dollars an hour instead of taxpayers paying for excessive police at 50 dollars an hour. My posting pertained 2 cops per intersection is more than enough once supplemanted by Private Security paid for by the bar owners who claim to generate 80k in revenue per weekend just from patio sales.

It is well known that you are a police officer on these blogs so thanks for your BIASED OPINION in order that you can continue reaping a 100k in salary, benefits, and overtime at taxpayer expense. And then you retire with 75% of your salary in pension form while the rest of us TAXPAYERS who do not work for government receive no pension after 30 years of service. After 45 years of service to our corps we are lucky to get a $100 dollar watch! Is that fair, Joe!

I wish Napergate was still around to expose all this waste of taxpayer money and inequities between TAXPAYERS and GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.

Southeast

that is absurd. dick f. has the same civil rights as an elected official as he does any private citizen. when he was elected to office, he didn't surrender any of his civil rights. therefore, he isn't violating any oath by exercising his right to sue.

i have 2 points to make this time around:

1) people continue to argue over whether or not furstenau hit hull, and, at this point, it has no bearing on this case. furstenau was cleared of all the charges against him, including disturbing the peace. that has nothing to do with this lawsuit. furstenau, in no way, has to reprove anything about not hitting hull. he was found innocent. (i understand that doesn't mean he may not have made some contact with hull, but it failed the burden of proof. all im saying is it doesn't matter either way) what took place between hull and furstenau will not be retried at all. he is suing over what he and his attorney believe to be a flawed and shamed investigation that lead to his arrest. the incident itself is over and has nothing to do with it from now on. i guarantee that the incident itself will not be retried. it is the investigation, and the investigation only, that will be on trial.

furstenau said something in his comments at the council meeting that's very telling as to why he is suing. he said, npd charged him with a crime and lobbied to make it a felony charge and put him in prison for 15 years, and that's what he had a problem with. there is a requirement that must be meet for an assault on a police officer to carry felony charges, and from the beginning, this case wasn't even close to it. in the end, there wasn't even enough evidence to convict him of misdemeanor battery or disturbing the peace. i believe that if any of us were charged with something well beyond an incident and they attempted to throw you in jail for 15 years, we would have a problem with that also. the cops had one witness, who wasn't even an "eye" witness, who was sitting in his car 30 feet from the incident, windows rolled up, who said he heard the slap but didn't see it. there were at least 3 witnesses who came forward to testify that they saw the entire conversation and furstenau never touched hull. (for all of you who say it was his sons or relatives, they weren't. the streets were filled with people for the parade) the cops ignored the 3 eye witnesses and went with hull's uncorroborated story and filed for felony assault. you can't be a reasonable person and say that sounds fair. the fact is, we don't know all furstenau and his attorney know. furstenau's attorney specializes in this, and he seems to be very passionate about the unusual circumstances of the investigation. we don't know all the circumstances behind the investigation. all of this on this blog it pure speculation. we will see what comes out in court. we all know that they know many things about this situation that we don't.

2) those of you who keep referring to furstenau's "anger management" issues have to get over yourselves. have any of you never got upset and yelled at anyone? are you naive enough to believe that the other councilman or peter b. never have either? in his remarks, furstenau admitted to having some heated or "pointed" conversations, but then he also said, "he has witnessed the same behavior from other councilman and managers over the years." he wasn't saying he was totally innocent, he was saying he is being censured by people who have behaved in many of the same ways. he stated that was his problem with the censure, and frankly it is mine to. that tells me the motivation for the censure was political and not to support the staff. he relayed stories to the sun about how mr. perfect, peter t., has lost his cool and went ballistic in executive session. i know enough about executive sessions to know that it gets very heated from time to time with everyone taking their turn to be upset, and all of it is recorded on tape. when the time comes, im sure furstenau and his attorney will be able to document several of those incidents with other councilman and peter t., and it will make the censure look more like a railroad job than a display of support.

i have said it before and i'll say it again, im certain we don't know all the facts. furstenau and his attorney do. all of it will come out in court. you may believe this lawsuit is ridiculous based on what you know, and you may believe furstenau yells at people and no one else does, but we will see what comes out and how everyone else looks in the end.

Marilyn,

You are wrong on several things. I am not a police officer but I do know and have known many in my lifetime. So please, stop embarrassing yourself as others have by perpetuating the inaccuracy.

Bar 'security' has 0 power to do anything immediately off their property and in most cases are powerless to do anything physical with a patron without opening up a legal can of worms on themselves. They can certainly throw their muscle around, but there's no legal backing to it when push comes to shove. Also, how are they going to stop the *ahem*hole drivers from doing burn-outs near crowds of people or break up a fight 2 blocks away?

When you see many officers congregated together, they are in most cases, exchanging information about the situation of the downtown area. Some are stationed, some have a 'beat path' to follow and some are the responders to incidents as they happen. Often times multiple incidences happen at once. Your 2 officer patrol would be tied up with the first call leaving no other coverage that could respond as instantly as they do with the blanket coverage they do have currently. Most of the time there are about 2-3 simultaneous incidents happening each requiring multiple officers.

Starting in June, try parking yourself on one of the benches at Jefferson and Main and then try keeping up with the officers as they respond from call to call. Better yet, get yourself a police scanner from Radio Shack and tune it into the trunk system and listen in to what they have to do/put up with because it seems rather obvious that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about when you think Private Security can replace real officers on the job. A Pro-94 from Radio Shack would work perfectly for this. When you get one, let me know, I'll even program it for you.

tb

your last point was right on the money. i agree with you 100%. you have said what i have been trying to tell many people all along, and i think this is a point many people misunderstand about the lawsuit. you obviously are an attorney so you have a much better way of explaining this legal stuff. im just a lowely salesman. lol.

just because furstenau was found innocent that is not legitimate reason to file suit for false arrest. that is 100% on the money. unfortunately, i believe many people think this is the reason he is filing suit. i don't believe that it is. from his interviews, he is suing because he believes, as do his attorneys, that they can prove the probable cause in this case was false or manufactured. that, in essence, furstenau was a target, and the npd used this incident to "go after him" and remove him from office.

that is why i say that this lawsuit isn't about retrying the incident. he was found innocent. that cannot be changed. this is going to dig into the investigation and how the evidence was gathered. were there any inconsistencies in hull's story? did they overlook or ignore evidence that would have cleared furstenau? were witnesses properly questioned? where there any inappropriate uses of power at the states attorneys office? did chief dial direct hull on what to say or to change his story or alter reports? did any illegal or inappropriate conversations take place? did the npd hide anything? was any part of his due process denied or abused? those are the types of things that are going to be tried in this suit.

tb, i know my explanation in this last paragraph was lay-man's terms and explanations for what kinds of things this lawsuit will investigate. so please don't tear me apart if i mis -stated something unintentionally. i think you and anyone else understand the general point im trying to make. maybe you could use your expertise to clarify, analyze, or elaborate on, or add to what i have said about these being the types of things this lawsuit will investigate.

i am only trying to make the point that many people think furstenau is suing just because he was found innocent and therefor got screwed. that isn't the case. he is suing because he and his attorneys believe there is evidence that his due process was violated in some way during the investigation that lead to his arrest.

Hey T.B.
It was moderator Jim who assumed this attorney was being paid by the City for his interview. It was his assumption and I agreed with it. I calculated that he billed for 2 hours of travel time and the one hour interview time and I am pretty certain that is what he did to the tune of $1000.00. If you have an argument subpoena the records from the city. Good luck! In Napergate we all know the city buried the records and hid them from the taxpayers. If you have an issue with that argue with TIM WEST, editor in Chief of the Sun, who uncovered the CORRUPTION. Not me on my 3rd glass of wine!!!

By the way I did not have a 3rd glass of wine and went to the Library and researched old Napergate Ads posted by moderater Jim Lynch for us by date making the job easy.

1. Jim Sotos tipped the defense by pointing out 2 alleged lies DF stated in his interview with the SUN. If these in fact were lies he should have saved them to use before a jury to ruin DF's credibility and not tipping him off. This guy does not sound like a million dollar attorney and it is a shame the TAXPAYERS are paying for his sub par performance.

2.You must have not been around in the NAPERGATE DAYS. A city using high priced Chicago laws firms to get its message out to the public does not work. They attacked the Napergate Man constantly in all local papers to get the message out he was a bad guy. They even had a Kangaroo Trial of sorts for him inside of City Hall in which they convicted him beyoned a reasonable doubt. The judge, commisioners, prosecutors and witnesses were I assume all city employees and the hired Chicago law firms. They went to the media with their Kangaroo Conviction. And made sure the Sun published it.

In the end all that nonsense was for nothing. The Kangaroo Verdict was overturned by a jury in a Dupage Courtroom before Judge Bonnie Wheaton according to both Napergate full page ads and Naperville Sun articles all still available in the libraries. The jury verdict was also uphled by the Appellant Court dealing another severe blow to City Officials!

I did my research after having my wine, T.B. I am not making assumptions. I was researching case history. You are the one making invalid assumptions!

If you are half the man or woman you pretend to be, you would CONDEMN the City of Naperville for losing, disposing, or hiding the legal records in the Napergate Case to hide the information we were seeking then and seeking now. Show us your Manhood or Womanhood instead of your ignorant BIAS!

In reveiwing old Naperville Sun editions there was an onslaught by both the Napergate Man and Sun Editor Tim West to get these legal costs and both failed despite numerous attempts. Maybe I am not credible for having a glass of wine, but are they also not CREDIBLE!

And finally I would estimate 75% of the employees who were involved in an attempt to lynch the Napergate Man are still gainfully employed by the City to this day. So beaware T.B. and don't be so naive! To me this appears Napergate Round II and the city has learned nothing about controlling and monitoring outside high powered law firms.

When attorneys start talking in the millions of dollars for a petty case involving touching or bumping a cop, it is time to terminate their services.

taxpayer,

You obviously misread my comment. I clearly stated that DF has the right to sue, as does any citizen. My question regards the oath of office of city council. If it includes anything like "do my best to serve the people of Naperville", DF would certainly be violating that oath. It really depends on the wording of the oath whether a sitting councilman has the right to sue the city.

Since I have not been able to find the oath on the city's website, I was suggesting that the Sun might be able to clarify the issue, and possibly provide the text of the oath.

To Southeast Side Dad: Honestly, I have no idea what the oath of office is and given that it's late on a Friday afternoon of a holiday weekend, there's no way we're going to find out today. We'll try next week. In the meantime, maybe you could do a little research. Thanks.

Marilyn,
I would like to suggest that you sign up to go on a few ride-alongs in a squad car, especially on a Friday or Saturday night. Summer-time is particularly interesting downtown when a hot summer evening allows for the bar fights to spill out onto the street and I dare you to say that two officers and a couple of bouncers could control it. Then be sure to stick around for closing time when all of the drunks get behind the wheel to go home. I bet if something happened to one of your loved ones because of this, you would see this all very differently. Look at the AAIM website and read the testimonials. Oh, and why is it that Naperville is such a great and safe place to live anyway??

Mrs. Police Officer,

Thank you to all of NPD for keeping this a very safe town.

mrs. police officer and joe

lets be honest, naperville is a safe place to live, first and foremost, because the vast majority of the people here are good, hardworking, law abiding citizens.

the npd also does their part keeping the city safe. i don't blame what goes on downtown on friday or saturday on the npd. the npd are needed there because the leaders of our city, including peter b. and many of the councilman, have seen fit to turn our city into division street. a drunken beer festival every weekend which results in a dangerous amount of driving under the influence and an environment contrary to the family friendly town for which we all fell in love with naperville to begin with. i don't feel like i can take my kids downtown anymore on a weekend. that is what a have a problem with. that said, that doesn't mean that there haven't been times that some cops have abused their power or verbally mistreated people. i also believe that the ones who do represent a minority of the force, but don't suggest that the npd as a whole is perfect and never goes to far. all of us here could list many examples of when they have.

though i believe that the npd generally does a good job, that doesn't mean that a discussion about their pay practices or the size of the force they employ which results in massive amounts of overtime pay, at time and a half, isn't a valid topic for discussion. i believe it is a very valid point for discussion that could save taxpayers millions. that topic isn't about attacking the npd, its about "tightening the ship" and making it more efficient.

Taxpayer,

It can be a topic of discussion, but when one starts throwing out 'solutions' that actually would make situations worse, expect some corrections with facts.

If you honestly believe 2 cops can do the job of 10 then let's take a ride to Torrence and 103rd some night on the south side at 11PM and see how 'safe' you feel with little to no police presence around you. Make sure to go up to the groups of people hanging around the structures for directions and be sure to tell them you're not from around there. The reason this town is as safe as it is is directly due to the number of police on the beat at all times. They watch, they respond, they're not constantly backed up with 5 calls ahead of yours when you call for an emergency and only able to respond 50 minutes later.

You house alarm goes off, how many hours do you want them to take getting to you because their skeleton force is busy with 6 things ahead of your 'emergency' that may very well be a false alarm... but then again, maybe it's a legit alarm ? I bet you'd want a response within minutes or sooner, right?

Honestly, I've not heard this much police bashing since High School.

joe

read my comment. im not the one who said only 2 cops were needed downtown on weekend nights, someone else did. i actually stated we need the cops there because downtown has turned into a drunken beer-fest and the cops are needed to keep order.

i merely suggested that the cops get paid incredibly large amounts of overtime and end up making large amounts of money. i was suggesting that looking into a different way has merit. i wasn't suggesting taking any off the street. whether it is hiring more officers so less overtime is billed or redistributing officers on the clock, whatever.

your blasting me for arguments and comments someone else made. reread my post and you will see i supported npd presence downtown on weekends. i also commend them for doing a good job overall. i just think we pay out way to much overtime at "time and a half" and we can find away to continue to keep street safe and not bill so much overtime. we spent like 5 million in overtime pay last year for npd alone.

Joe,
No one is bashing the cops. You are a bully trying to instigate trouble by accusing people falsely.

Taxpayer, Marilyn and Ameena unlike your self do research before they write. They go to libraries and read newspaper articles before they write. One of them studied old Napergate ads and the case at the library.

All you do Joe, is sit on the threads bullying bloggers. And you have the audacity to say DF is a bully. If he is a bully you are 10 times the bully he is!

They are simply asking the Police Chief to review his spending practices and make some cuts. Very politely! What is wrong with that?

Is Chief Dail some kind of Pope or Saint that can not be questioned and asked to improve his spending practices and reduce his budget?

I am sorry but you sound like a wanna be cop who never made the cut and is attempting to live a fantasy on these blogs.

Mrs. Police Officer,
You don't have to dare me. I already said more than once that 2 police officers and 10 private security guards on Chicago Avenue and Washington is more than adequate. I did not say for all of downtown Naperville. If a big fiaso develops which rarely happens, NPD officers know how to call for back-up. That is normal police procedure to keep expenses down as police can not be everywhere at all times. This could potentially save a million bucks. As a police officer you are biased and would like your overtime pay at the expense of the TAXPAYER.

Downtown Naperville is relatively safe whether there are a few cops roaming around or a dozen socializing on Chicago Ave. Bars in the winter are sometimes busier than on summer days. There does not seem to be a need for a POLICE ARMY on Chicago Ave in the winter....why the sudden need in the summer! If you ask me those 10 bike cops in the summer are a waste of money. Even if they saw an intoxicated driver, I am sure they will chase him down with their bikes...lol...

I spend much much time in downtown. I rarely see a fight. So 2 cops at busy intersections is plenty. 12 at one intersection is ridiculous. It is an example of wasting money because we are the wealthiest town in the USA with over 100,000 population and seem to have a sick need to burn 100 dollar bills as if they grow on trees.

I have only seen a large group of trouble makers come to downtown during one 2 week period this last summer. A specific bar owner had a promotion catering to the wrong people, played gang banging music and brought us gang bangers from the south side of Chicago and the rough neighborhoods of Auroa. I am sure the police had a few words with this bar owner. He changed his music and the gangbangers never returned.

So there are ways to keep trouble makers out of town without having a POLICE ARMY on duty. Bar owners must take responsibilty for the music they play. A liquor license is a privelege and they should not be allowed to play songs promoting the killing of cops. They should have their licenses revoked for playing and promoting gang banging music. How disgusting? And then as a TAXPAYER I have to pay for this huge police presence because of the stupidity of a bar owner.

As far as your offer for a ride-along on a Friday or Saturday, I will pass up. I would rather be sitting on a bench on Chicago AVE, than stuck in one of those 6 police vehicles that are parked in the middle of Chicago Ave. and never seem to move or ever get called....a strong indication of over staffing!

I have observed heavily and I stand by my assertion one cop car there with 2 officers is enough assisted by outside private security and doorman paid by the bar owners. If private security is so terrible why does the City use it or require it to support the police during Ribfest and the Last Fling. They do a great job at a much cheaper price. No one is saying we need to fire cops. We are saying we need to stop the ridiculous overtime by using private security to supplemant the cops.

I wish I knew how to get information like the Napergate Man and publish graphs and charts indicating what I am talking about. Unfortunately I don't have his sources, abilities or money to make my point as he once did.

I am only kindly requesting Police Chief Dial to consider my proposal. I will not be intimidated by anyone into making a reasonable request of my Police Chief.

Police Lady,
Is Naperville really as safe as you say with over 800 DUIs last year leading the state excluding Chicago? How many slipped by NPD if they got this many?

If these heavy DUIs are because of our downtown bars then are City Officials having us going down the wrong path.

While Naperville was once considered a very safe city, I beg to differ with you as I believe it is gradually losing its Safe Town status.

Marilyn--

I read your 1:15 post today and altered between dismay and laughter.

I am very aware that the city does not get 100% of the sales tax, but that's not to say that the city is in a deficit from my or others' spending in the city. Tell you what, I'll try to eat and drink more during the Bears game this weekend, OK? By the way, I have a designated driver so I doubt I'll be abusing my allotted police presence. I'll be grateful they are there keeping me safe from some idiot.

Joe's post at 2:30 hit the nail on the head regarding the police presence (as well as those from Mrs Police Officer) so I won't even go into it now.

Next-your property went down the last two years? Have you done no maintenance, woman? My property may not have appreciated in the last year, but it hasn't decreased. Anyways, housing is a long-term investment like stocks and there isn't a parcel in the city that hasn't benefitted from our strong city economy.

Hmmm...I either have no common sense or else I'm a bar owner sponging off the city? Are you and Ameena sisters? Seems the two of you fail to argue on logic at times and thus feel you must lash out at people individually. For the record, I am neither a bar ownner, idiot, Naperville cop, attorney, councilman, friend of any councilman, Santa Claus, or the Boogie Man. I'm just someone who happens to dissagree with you, think you're logic is lacking in some areas (but not all), and deserves the same respect you seem to think you are owed.

To Ameena--

First of all, see the paragraph above regarding personal attacks when you can't make a logical argument. Also, Federal court is no Kangaroo court and just because the attorney speaks out does not mean it is a bad thing. How many times have you seen attorneys on TV, such as Dan Webb or Eddie Genson, and nobody has ever accused them of being poor attorneys. They have an agenda for their clients and, I would hope, know more about what they are doing than you do. One example I can think of is the very fact this will be in Federal court in downtown Chicago so it never hurts to have the cities version of events in the news for potential jurors who will come from far and wide for this trial.

Taxpayer--

Thanks. I'm not an attorney. I just happen to agree with you that this isn't about the acquittal, but is about what lead up to DF being in court to begin with. It's going to come down to what was th eprobable cause for the arrest, legitimate or bogus?

Marilyn, Taxpayer, etc...

Okay, I don't think that anyone has said that NPD or all of its employees are perfect. We all know better - show me perfection in any business, in any job or office.

The point I was trying to make was that the solution to saving money or tightening the ship as it were, is probably not to cut jobs - on the contrary. Why IS there so much over-time? Perhaps it is because there are not always enough available officers to patrol, so others get called in on their day off? Even though you say you see congregations of officers downtown, I bet you would be shocked to find out how few officers are actually on the street at various times throughout a shift. (and usually in the summer, there are more officers downtown, as the department utilizes the officers that are based at the schools during the school year, downtown in the summer)

Over-time is not handed out on a silver platter as a money making scheme for officers to fatten their wallets. Working over-time is not something my husband sets out to do on a given day, or when we have extra bills or when he feels like it. He doesn't ask his boss for more over-time, and he doesn't hang around at the end of the day and clock out late to pad his time card. He gets called in when a need arises. The patrol division falls below minimum numbers and they make phone calls.

Marilyn, please note that my husband chose to do this job - just like you chose your profession (with no pension, etc...) Yes, he does make a comfortable living and will have a decent pension (but keep in mind, is not able to collect Social Security). BUT, his (and his fellow officers) life expectancy is probably 20 years less than those of other occupations, after 20 something years of working nights, fights, stresses of arrests, suicides and dead babies, working 12 hours shifts, drinking bad coffee and having a disjointed sleep schedule. He has missed countless school plays, kids sporting events, family gatherings, birthdays, anniversaries, holidays, graduations and other important events - the NPD is open and operating 24/7; 365 days a week.

I am not asking you or anyone to feel sorry for him or his co-workers ~ but let's be realistic about solutions to the problems. While I know that some (probably plenty) officers like the over-time and the paycheck it provides, I agree that the city spends a lot of money paying over-time. But, cuts are not the way to fix things. I am not even saying they need to hire a lot of new officers either. A patrol person or two per shift may eliminate the need for over-time and would possibly cost less than the dollars in over-time pay.

You know what? I don't pretend to know all of the answers, but I sure would not feel happy about having fewer officers in my town, and I certainly would not feel happy about having to be protected when I go downtown by a $10 an hour security guard who would have no more authority to do anything than you or I, if someone was committing a crime.

Naperville does have a great citizen base, which makes us have a great and safe community. It does take a police presence to help keep it all in check though.

I challenge any of you griping about how much of your tax dollars are spent on the police protection, to do some research and find out how many officers most communities our size have per capita, and what they spend for it - versus their crime statistics compared to Naperville. That might make for an interesting topic at a future city council meeting, and maybe we might find a way to tighten the ship that makes sense.

Thank you Joe.

Bar 'security' has 0 power to do anything