Could Furstenau sue the City Council?

The city has every right to censure (reprimand) Furstenau for his behavior, and hopefully the TRUTH would win in a court of law. At the time City Council voted to consider censure, the Sun, and many of us in the public supported and encouraged action by the Council to reprimand Furstenau for his misconduct. Although I completely support it, if lawyers are going to try to imply it is somehow related to the lawsuit, I would just postpone the final vote until the suit has been decided.

I think the City Council is playing with fire at taxpayers expense by inviting unnecessary litigation. It seems quite obvious that DF would sue if they censure him. He may have every right and obligation to sue especially if he is innocent of all allegations against him. A City Council member is an elected official. He should not be subject to censure! The citizens have a right not to re-elect him. The council has no right to remove or censure him. This is a citizens' prerogative thru election polls.

Furstenau's lawsuits should not be taken lightly. While doing some research on old Napergate ads, I ran into an interesting Naperville Sun article about the cost of the legal defense against the Napergate man, a battle that lasted over a decade.

In this article dated January 3, 1995 on page 3 in Sun, city officials stated that city's cost in the lengthy legal battle with the Napergate man do not exist and if they did exist they would not be provided to newspapers or lawyers, in response to a Freedom of Information request filed by the NAPERVILLE SUN.

The Napergate man admitted spending $200,000 and alleged in his full page Napergate Ads that the city who had used 2 large Chicago law firms including Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Cope @ Bush in addition to a large in-house legal staff exceeded a million dollars in costs and the odometer was still running.

SUN senior managing editor Tim West responded, "The city seems to be saying that it doesn't seem to know how much money it has spent in litigation with Extra Value Liquors and even if it did, it wouldn't tell us because it's privileged communication between a public body and its attorney."

"I find the first statement surprising and the second absurd," West said. "If the city does not know how much it is spending on litigation, it jolly well should. As for the second statement, we're not asking for what the city's attorneys are communicating to their clients, just how much all this work is costing taxpayers."

"It is, I maintain, a reasonable request to make of a public body," Tim West said.

This allegation of "over a million spent" that the city refused to deny was before any appeals were filed in the Napergate legal battle. And appeals were filed by both sides until the city finally surrendered and chose not to head to the Supreme Court after losing at the Appellant level.

We are in 2007. Not 1995! Lawyers are charging twice as much! A million means 2 million in today's dollars. For city officials to continue rambling and allowing DF to bring additional litigation is unconscionable.

This case is much worse than the Napergate case that cost the city well over a million and possibly 2 million after all appeals were filed. The Napergate man was on the defensive as the city was denying him liquor licenses that he and the courts felt he was entitled to. The only damage to the city, besides the exuberant legal fees encountered, was granting him a 2nd liquor license, that ironically ended up generating substantial revenue for the city and still does to this day!

In this case DF is suing numerous city officials and police for damages. And city employees and officials are almost jokingly jumping in the frying pan allowing DF to add their names. The more personnel in the pan, the better probability DF has of winning and collecting large judgments at taxpayers expense. City officials do not seem worried as they know these battles last 10 years and they will be all gone leaving the burden for the taxpayer's children to bear, while they escape accountability again, as they did in Napergate. How unfair!

It appears the Napergate may have cost the city close to 2 million bucks. If the DF case is similar it will cost 4 million bucks in today's equivalent dollars since attorneys charge twice as much due to cost of living increases, inflation and the serious devaluation of the US dollar. If it is worse than the Napergate fiasco, it could cost much more and city officials seem to be determined to make it worse as they are unable to maintain any semblance of silence in the face of very serious litigation. If the city loses and a verdict of damages is awarded to DF to the tune of one million dollars, we could be facing 5 million in total damages and litigation costs!

With 45,000 households in Naperville if one was to divide 5 million into 45,000, we would each be assessed an additional $111.11 in R.E. Taxes per home.

My analysis is based on fact and a study of a similar case that does not seem to have been quite as serious. The 2 million dollars of the Napergate days could have been avoided by giving the man his second liquor license. The potential loss of 5 million dollars due to COPGATE that we are currently encountering, could have been avoided by simply issuing DF a simple apology that he requested and deserved. Better still not arresting him in the first place! Anyone who hits a cop is arrested immediately...dah!!! All citizens know that, so DF will have a slam DUNK win in court simply for the reason he was not arrested immediately and the case smells worse than a SKUNK!!!

I urge city officials to learn from past mistakes which are well documented. I urge the city to apologize and consider giving DF a settlement of a 100k which is more than reasonable and I have reason to believe he would accept. It would cost each household $2.22 instead of a hefty $111.11 to litigate aqainst him. A big savings to each and every household in Naperville!

This is a New Era! If the city believes it can tell the taxpayers as they did in the Napergate Era, "we don't have records of how much we spent and if we did they would not be provided," this would seem to indicate our City Officials are continuing to live in the Stone Age Era.

Let us get a reconciliation and end this nonsense of escalation!
Taxpayers must wake up and demand this battle be ended or face the music to the tune of $111.11 per household because they refused to speak up. Your choice TAXPAYERS!

Please show up at the City Council meeting this Tuesday at 7:30pm as was suggested by the moderator of this blog. I plan to be there and hope to meet you all. Time to act to stop the bleeding!

June
PS. I have done thorough research and I stand by what I wrote. The Sun has permission to publish my letter if they so choose in their newspaper.

The City Council will be making a costly mistake if they vote to censure Furstenau based on the information contained in the City Council Packet for next Tuesday night.

Here's why:

1) The City has not conducted an independent investigation of the facts alleged against Furstenau. The "investigation" to-date has been fully handled by the same City Staffers that are making the allegations.

2) Furstenau has not been given an chance to respond to the allegations, question the people making the allegations, or present "his side" of the story in a "fair or unbiased" setting.

3) The City's approach, thus far seems like a blatant attempt at retaliation or retribution against Furstenau for having the nerve to file his suit in the first place.

Furstenau will not need to "sue" the City Council for the censure. The censure, as it's currently being pursued, will simply result in larger damages that the City of Naperville ultimately pays to Furstenau under his existing lawsuit. Courts hate it when someone in power takes retribution against anyone seeking the Court's intervention.

The Former City Manager (Burchard) and soon to be former City Attorney (Ely) are serving the taxpayers quite poorly in this fiasco. Furstenau started out asking the city to reimburse him for his attorney's fees that he spent defending himself against a questionable criminal investigation conducted by his political rivals at the Naperville Police Department. Burchard and Ely seem to be intent on paying Furstenau millions of dollars instead of the one hundred thousand he was originally seeking.

I tend to fully agree with the analysis of blogger June above. Based on similarities to the prior case of NAPERGATE vs. CITY OF NAPERVILLE that she has very well documented and substantiated, I tend to believe we are indeed heading down an irreversible slippery slope.....UNLESS, OF COURSE, WE REVERSE IMMEDIATELY!!!

Michele,

I thought the majority of the initial $100K amount was mostly for campaign contributions for his failed election attempt. How much of that was attorney fees and how much was the campaign contributions? Did he ever break out those numbers separately?

I am shocked after reading what June wrote above assuming it is true. The city could engage in a 10 year long legal battle against this Napergate guy and then refuse to dislcose the massive cost of litigation to the doomed taxpayers after losing. Am I missing something? Is this possible? Like many taxpayers I would like to see a coming to the senses and a quick reconciliation amongst the feuding parties.

i find it incredibly insulting, as a taxpayer, that furstenau is being censured for what appears, in many cases, to be sticking up for taxpayers and demanding better service from the city for them. if you eliminate those type of instances from the cities' "evidence" (and i use that term loosely) there are only 2-3 examples of ALLEGED poor behavior that remain. is that enough to censure him over? the city continues to refer to the officer hull incident as part of their proof so lets use it as an example.

in january 2006, when councilman furstenau "interfered" with officer hull "in the performance of his duties." over cars being towed, he was standing up for several taxpaying citizens who were very upset about being towed, and ticketed, from a temporary No Parking zone without proper notice from signs. NO PARKING signs were supposed to be put out by the city early that morning. im not aware if the NPD is responsible for putting up temporary NO PARKING sings, or if some other city dept is. either way, the signs were not put up. many people drove downtown and parked, in a legal zone, to watch the bears game and prepare for the parade. the signs were then posted later in the afternoon while many people were inside watching the game. then 15-20 minutes after the sings were posted, the towing started, and people came outside to find their cars gone or in the process of being towed.

furstenau told officer hull that they shouldn't be towing cars without fair notification (his own car wasn't one of them). officer hull replied by saying he, "could do whatever he wanted." furstenau was merely sticking up for the taxpayers who were being treated unfairly, and asking the NPD to allow people time to move their cars. but of course, the city is using furstenau's "interference" of police business in this incident as an example of "inappropriate behavior" and as a reason to censure him. what a crock of ----!

could it be that no other councilman is being censured because none of them have ever had the guts, or taken the chance, to confront "people in power" and stick up for the citizen who is at their mercy? after all, the government doesn't have free market forces to keep it in line and motivate it. someone else has to. furstenau seems to be the only one willing to try. could his tactics use some improving? maybe. but at least he's actually trying to do something while the rest of the council sits on it hands and does nothing.

why doesn't he just sue every single resident in naperville

tom, how 'bout just one example of bad behavior, is that not enough for ? why do you think JUST 2-3 examples are not enough ? what would you like to see ? 100 examples before before YOU decide there is a problem. after tuesday nights meeting, after the censure, let's chat some about some of these examples. remember my brothers, march on the council on tuesday, accept nothing less than censure ! demand recall ! RECALLFURSTENAU.COM

The city council does and should have the right to censure one of its members, as does Congress. It’s a reprimand and not evidence of a criminal matter, just as you may be reprimanded for causing a hostile work environment at your place of employment. However, that doesn't mean that the city council should exercise their right to censure.

Surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with something Michele B wrote when she said that the allegations were made by and also investigated by city staff. This is hardly the ideal situation. I disagree, however, with her contention that DF hasn't been given a chance to respond. He has responded, however, he has chosen a lawsuit instead of defending himself in public. I think he should make some sort of public statement regarding this matter, lawsuit or not.

June, while I can see from the number of exclamation points that you feel very strongly about your position, many people are not arrested immediately for minor offenses until the officers consult with their supervisors and possibly the States Attorney's Office regarding whether or not the case should go forward. Plus, I believe the charge was simple battery (touching) and not assault.

You may want to check out the judge's ruling in which he acquitted DF, but also found that an "incident" did in fact occur and that Ofcr. Hull appeared to show restraint. Hardly a slam dunk for a false arrest.

hey tb

are you aware that the npd's story of a simple "touch" and misdemeanor battery actually started out as a punch in the chest so hard that it stunned officer hull? and they originally used this story to file for felony aggravated assault on an officer? that would have put him in prison for 15 years. so which version of the 2 stories documented by the NPD is actually true? the punch in the chest worthy of felony aggravated assault or the misdemeanor "touch" that he was eventually cleared of?

the npd's own investigation files show 2 versions of the story. when the judge told them no to the felony charge because they had no evidence, they went back and changed their story (now a touch with the back of the hand instead of a punch in the chest) and filed for misdemeanor battery. sound fair to you? so which version were they lying about?

to further clarify your own misunderstanding of the judges ruling, the judge, at not time, says that furstenau did, IN FACT, touch hull. when the judge refers to the "incident" he is referring to the fact an argument took place. he didn't say that contact did, in fact, occur. he stated 2 things in his ruling:

1) there was no evidence to prove that contact was made.

2) he stated IF contact was made, it was clear that the contact was incidental and non-threatening in nature.

Forget the "suing" question.

The real question we need to ask ourselves is "Why would our Mayor and council even CONSIDER censoring before they actually investigate the charges?"

At this point in time, the charges are simply the ramblings of a hopefully failed shakedown attempt.

The Council, if they are serious, need to get off of their big behinds and actually do some physical labor --- they themselves need to talk to the employees, and Fursteneau, and get specific charges (whinh included time, place, and who was involved). They need to ask these questions about ALL in charge, not just Fursteneau. Also, they will need to explain to the voterd and taxpayers exactly WHY they intend on paying Buchard ANY severance. If they are concerned about really needing his advice moving forward, allocate a dollar amount to it and allow Burchard to charge the City for any advice the city actually asks for. Of course, the City will have to create a purchaes order AND a method of making requests to Burchard. Documentation just like is required for any vendor. If the city spends more than set aside for this, they should have to answer to us in council.

Bottom line: if the City is not prepared to move on without Burchard, then Burchard & the Council & the Mayor have done a lousy job of setting-up personnel and running the city!

This guy is wacko. If he does not get his way he cries like a little baby. He is a bully and should be kicked off the city council.

tom w.,

Yes, aware of the orig charge or comtemplated charge. Could be some states atty over-reaching. The bottom line, tom w, is there are always two sides. Changing your report or story is never good police work, but DF has a proven record of being a hothead. That's why we let judges decide--and the verdict was not guilty. Good for DF, but hardly proof of a city-wide conspiracy. I guess they should have just charged something like disturbing the peace?

If DF has an issue with the police report being changed then he should pursue perjury charges against Ofcr Hull (and others) and not involve the city and all the others he's tacked onto his lawsuit. That smells like over-reaching on his part (along with his attorney).

Though everyone else does, I do not connect the censure and Burchard's comments to the NPD incident. At best, an outgoing employee is finally speaking up. At worst, an outgoing employee was angling for a higher severance. Like Michele B, I would hope that the city council can independently verify the comments made by Burchard before a censure, but that does not mean the censure is related to the New Year's incident and everyone in city govt is against DF. DF may (repeat may) have a defamation suit against Burchard, but that should be a seperate action from what DF currently has on the docket.

T.B.,

I agree with you. DF was found not guilty. It should have been left there or at best filing of perjury charges w/ the States Attorney against the officer. Looping in the rest of the city and tacking on campaign contribution refunds smells of a tantruming childish antic.

Regarding TB post

**************************************************************
I wholeheartedly agree with June's analysis. While what you say is true regarding many investigations, (that there is a delay of an arrest until a supervisor is consulted), this is not the case here.

When you punch a cop, the cop either tasers you, punches you back, shoots you in the legs, or calls for back up to assist in arresting you. There is no investigation if you PUNCH a COP! Please TB, you are really insulting the bloggers' intelligence. Call any legitimate police dept. and they will tell you the same. Now, if Chief Dial has told his cops not to arrest people that punch them, than maybe he needs a psychological examination. But I doubt Chief Dial would ever tell his officers not to arrest citizens that punch COPS. No one should punch a COP!(TB, you should know the touching was after the fact and the initial charge was punching and a felony...don't distort the facts to confuse the COMMON SENSE...PLEASE!)

Cops usually go ballistic if you talk back to them and say one comment they did not want to hear. No cop doing his duty would take a punch from an unarmed citizen and call his supervisor for a week or two weel long investigation. That really is ridiculously preposterous and I do not believe any citizen believes that.

I think it would have been wiser to address June's desire to want to move forward instead of backward as you are doing.

What I understood from June is that she wants reconciliation. She does not want a 2 million dollar legal bill like in NAPERGATE vs. NAPERVILLE which she articulates will be 4 million dollars in today's inflationary climate. She does not want to see a judgement against the city for another million dollars. She seems to understand a judgment against the city is a judgment against her and each household for $111.11. She was very precise and clear as to her calculations and theme.

The hitting or not hitting the cop is now an old story. We need to settle this case with mininum damage to the taxpayers.

I was around in the Napergate Era and I saw the cover-up of the legal fees and the cost to the taxpayers. Even the Naperville Sun could not pressure the city for the legal costs and apparently huge damages to the TAXPAYERS! June documents it with a dated article in our local paper and quotes the editor. I am sure the moderater and Sun would not allow this to be printed on this thread of blogs if it was a BLATANT LIE!

So really as June says why do we want to go there again because egos are involved. Yes, DF does have somewhat of a chip on his shoulder. But so do the Police and City Officials. So what is the difference! Are we as taxpayers suppose to foot a huge tax bill because of egotistical behavior on both sides.

I am tring not to take sides. But I think both parties should learn something from the Napergate Chapter and reconcile immediately. All parties lose if this proceeds down that path, and of course the taxpayers get eaten up alive.

I say we vote each and every city council member off the council in the next election, unless they show us they can reconcile such a petty matter quickly and not lead us down the path of another NAPERGATE. ONE IS ENOUGH FOR ONE CITY!

Thank you!

Hey Marshall

There's allot that could have gone into the events of the DF arrest which we don't know and all I'm saying is it's mere speculation. Yes, if you or I hit a cop we get arrested on the spot. But one could easily speculate that a cop didn't want to be seen as over-reacting with a councilman and gave him the benefit of the doubt only to think it over later (or be ordered by his boss not to show special treatment to council members). Nobody really knows, but a judge has made the final call on the matter.

I'm trying to go to great lengths to show my displeasure with both anti-DF and pro-DF posts that are just speculating on the incident. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of DF and haven't been since he decided to vote for taxpayer $ going to the ugliest bell tower I've ever seen.

All I ask of the council is that they don't censure DF without an independent investigation/review. I'm not asking the city to cave in to DF in case he is the egomaniac being described by some, but where's the harm in taking a step back and evaluating the situation?

The key is you have to find out. The city can't aford to guess wrong. Pursue this legally when DF is right and we're doomed financially. Cave now for no good reason and DF will run roughshod over the city and the council for years to come with threat after threat and lawsuit after lawsuit.

Oh, but you're right to want to vote them all out.

There are obviously egos involved on both sides. I have had dealings with the various city officials including Mr. Furstenau. Everything considered, I'm on the side of the city here. Furstnau seems to exibit the behavior of a classic bully who in this case threatens everyone and in the end is just hoping to get richer of cousrse, at the taxpayers expense. It is also a classic example by some here to try and frighten everyone into wanting to settle this case because of the cost of defense. Mr. Furstenau most likely would not win monetary damages based upon the current filing and allegations. The claim that it somehow was the defendants fault for him losing the election is hilarious. I want to be in court when this case is tried to hear that evidence. As a taxpayer, I would gladly pay the stated $111 for defense costs than to see the plaintiff get a nickle. If the plaintiff wants a settlement, it better be in range of a nickle or two.

I agree that people are being frightened into remaining quiet. The citizens are being frightened to settle before all the facts are known, and the city is being frightened into submission by the threat of another lawsuit.

Regarding Jim post at 4:14pm.

I understand you are willing to pay the $111 dollar per household to fight DF that was very well documented by June. I feel it is as close to an accurate estimate we are going to get at this time.

I would speculate that 90% of taxpayers would disagree with you. I would like to suggest that the Naperville Sun run a poll to see if they would rather settle the Furstenau suit for 100,000k or $2.22 per household or fight it to the bitter end at a cost of $111.11 per household.

Sorry Jim, but my pockets may not be as deep as yours with all due respect.

I am assuming you were not in town for the long Napergate vs. Naperville battles that cost us old timers dearly. We know the consequences. You may not know or be aware of that era!

If you accept this fight for $111.11 per household you are telling city officials to continue in their behavior and we don't care if you have 10 more suits like this. Suddenly you have $1,111.10 per household per year. This nonsense litigation is a result of both sides and has to be nipped in the butt before it grows like a cancer in the colon!

The litigants aren't bearing the expense. The taxpayers are! I think those Napergate ads of the past woke us up to the massive litigation costs that take place when the city needs to be right whether it is wrong or right.

They assured us they were right in the Napergate Days. That they knew what they were doing. That everything will be alright. That the guy is a trouble maker of sorts. In the end both the District Court and Appellant Court disagreed with the City. And the city knew they were so wrong, they did not want to appeal it any further.

So let us not jump the gun and be so sure DF is so guilty. The city was very wrong in case of the Napergate guy and could be wrong again. I agree with the many bloggers who have indicated they do not want another drawn out battle like Napergate and the cost that comes with it.

Offer Dick Furstenau $200,000 instead of $100,000 and ask him to resign. We get rid of DF completely instead of partially for
$4.44 per household instead of $2.22. That is my recommended solution! I am willing to pay $4.44 but not a nickel more.

And I am not siding with City Officials either! They need to respect dissent, debate, discussion and differing opinions or else they should resign for FREE!!! I have no MONEY LEFT to offer them. Sorry!

hey tb

the city did add an additional, lesser charge to furstenau's case, and it was something to the effect of disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct. i can't remember the exact charge i read, but they did add one, and he was cleared of that much smaller charge as well. maybe you could look that up and fill us in.

you say he should go after hull about the perjury, well that is exactly what the lawsuit is about. when a cop lies and tries to put a man in jail with it, it is a violation of his civil rights. officer cross and chief dial are a part of the lawsuit because they were aware of the changes to the reports as well as the other inconsistencies and irregularities with the investigation and reports, and they ignored them and proceeded.

furthermore, it wasn't some over-zealous states attorney who tried to file felony charges and throw furstenau in jail for 15. it was officers hull and cross themselves who lobbied the county district attorney for felony charges, and the DA said no. all these facts are listed in furstenau's statement he released to the public when he filed the suit. he and his attorney say they have documented evidence of it. i guess we will see it in court.

bottom line is this; we can argue all day about whether or not the arrest or investigation was a sham, but the truth is we don't know the facts. the truth will come out in court and a federal judge and jury will decide if it was a sham or not. until then, arguing over it is pointless.

the additional people are added to the suit because they were stupid enough to continue to write, and release to the public, documents that publicly declare that furstenau has committed crimes for which he is already been cleared of. that may be ok if they shared this as their own opinion, but they didn't. they wrote and released the statements on city letter-head while using city property and resources. they can't release such statements in that way as official representatives of the city and expect the city to not be held accountable. especially since no one else at the city seems to be doing anything to try and stop them from doing it. that is why the city is in the lawsuit. everyone going after this guy, from the cops to burchard, is a city employee, acting on the cities behalf. the problem with that is, if their actions are illegal or inappropriate, the city will pay for it as a result.

again, whether or not their actions are inappropriate or illegal will be determined by a federal court. until then, arguing is pointless and a waste of time. since i have waisted so much time arguing on this blog, i am officially retiring from blog writing. we will see what the court decides.

on a more serious note: we should all be able to disagree without being disagreeable. everyone have a very merry christmas and a safe new year!

Marshall,

What the heck is Napergate?

This is nothing more than a liberal witch hunt. Welcome to Salem, IL.

tom w (in case you come out of retirement)

Without rehashing the entire incident ad nauseum, what I'm trying to say is that if what DF describes happened to him then the actions are criminal in nature and should be handled appropriately and not in a civil suit. If the states atty refuses to handle it in this fashion, then either he's in on the conspiracy too or DF's case isn't that good.

I don't blame the cops for pushing for the felony charge. Not because it was DF, but because I would hope they would advocate for the stiffest charge in any particular case. Seems the system worked here and the asst states atty assigned to the case said felony charges weren't warranted against DF.

City employees allegedly acting inapropriately.... Isn't ironic that they are accused of the very thing that they accused DF of doing? Is DF the only city employee allowed to throw around allegations of wrong-doing? What if the city employees are actually telling the truth? Silencing DF's critics because he's sued the city just gives him freedom to do as he pleases without recourse.

Too bad this won't see a courtroom for months or years. The suspense is killing me.

Tom,

Out of curiosity, what civil rights were violated? He had a speedy trial, he waived his right to a trial by jury and he did not spend time in jail that I am aware of (due to posting bond). So, exactly what 'civil rights' were violated in this case?

TB - just like many areas of the law, if you are injured by someone you can pursue them under criminal statues (if for example someone intentionally punched you in face) or, you can pursue them under a liability claim if someone intentionally, accidently or negligently caused you harm. If you have been injured, you legal recourse is not necessarily limited to one or the other.

Marshall,

What the heck is Napergate?
******************************************************************
Bob S.
Your question was asked and answered before on older threads. I copied and pasted one question/answer I found on a blog 11 days ago dated Dec 7. I assume you were not bloggin' at the time. On that thread and many other threads much was posted about NAPERGATE. I am only posting one blog in order not to hog too much space on this new thread. If you read all the old blogs you will get an idea who Mr. Napergate was... June mentions something about him on this thread of blogs too, that seems very enlightening as to what our legal costs may be based on a comparative analysis of Napergate vs Naperville! Please review and come to the council meeting tonight as suggested by the moderator of these blogs! We all need to communicate better with each other and the City Council!
******************************************************************

Posted by: Eyes Open | December 7, 2007 11:58 AM

Can someone tell us who Mr. Napergate was and what went on?

*****************************************************************

You are asking a tough question, that no one can answer with a short answer. I think if you read all the blogs above some writers mentioned him. I think I saw him mentioned in Virginia, Amy and McFarland above which pretty much all said that he was fighting corruption in City Hall. I think he started doing that at a later date, though!

As to who he is, I do know. He was an owner of a liquor store on Bailey Rd. for about 20 years. I use to go there to shop and saw him often. He use to plaster his latest Napergate Ads all over his store instead of liquor ads. Obviously that got my attention and I started buying the Naperville Sun just to read his ads. I never seen anything like that. He fought everyone in the City and he just kept coming up with hard facts that they could not dispute. He would run graphs with legal dept.waste of money so when I saw that $400,000 needed to fight Furtenau, I literally flipped out. It reminded me of Napergate days when graphs in his Sun ads would show exponential increases in the city budget of the legal dept year after year so they could quiet their number 1 enemy....that being the Napergate Man!!

Is Mr. Napergate still around? I am not sure but I think he left town. I am sure he sold his liquor store in 2002 as I have never seen him since and my guess is he left town with the sale of his store. I suspect his fingers were killing him from all those Napergate ads he wrote. Sometimes 3 full pages in the Sun in one week. Most of the times one or two!!

I am guessing "Curious" you were not around in the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s or you did not subcribe to the Sun. It started with the City accusing him of being lax towards minors but he stating he was very strict and it took off from there in all directions like a 4th of July fireworks show! I recall ads in his store and in the Sun, showing he won the top national award for the toughest program in the country against minors. And the city would continue to say he sold to minors. And he would publish ads with hundreds of confiscated IDs of minors each documented with a police report number. And the city would keep saying he sold to minors. It never ended!!! Until the courts ruled in his favor and then everything ended regardng this issue.

As a customer of the store I know he did not sell to minors and even carded old people. But the city did not like him for other reasons. Possibly because he was not a "YES" man, kind of like Dick.

Anyway to make a long story short he went from the defensive on the issue of sale of minors, to the offensive from exposing city corruption within the police dept. especially, city manager's office, he hated some prosecutor(can't remember his name), and he attacked every Mayor day and night with the exception of the current Mayor(Pradel) who he once told me he liked, respected and even admired. But he hated former Mayors Price and and Macrane. I mean he hated them! One time I heard him cussing on them in his store. And the next day he would have a full page ad letting out steam. It was weird!!!

He ran a petion against the city and some 3 to 4 thousand people came to sign it in just a few weeks. It was the size of an Encyclopedia when I got around to signing it.

That is what I remember first hand. The rest was all published in 10 or 12 years of full page ads in the Naperville Sun. I am sure they have them in their achives. They could probably tell you more than I can. I never saved any of his ads but enjoyed reading them and they were informative but very incriminating towards the city. The city seemed to be unable to deny his allegations against corruption all over the place. I don't think they ever experienced anything like that before so they were not ready for him. They seem more prepared to fight Fustenau than they were Mr. Napergate. Maybe they got some experience from the Napergate days. I don't know!!!

I can't remember specifics about all the corruption he found. He filled over a hundred ads with it but most of it was rather well documented. The other bloggers described some it in the above blogs.

Unfortunately, I do not think he lives in Naperville anymore. I have never seen him since 2002. So Mr. Furstenau may have to fight his battle without Mr. Napergate. It appears he is very capable and intelligent just like Mr. Napergate, as the bloggers above indicated.

In the meantime, I am worred about my tax bill from all these legal expenses and parachute severance pay-outs. It just seems hilarious that a resigning person can get severance pay. I have never heard of that ever. And forgiving a 50k loan!!! My bank would never forgive me on my mortgage. Never!!! How could the city do such an outrageous thing with my money. It really is getting expensive to live in Naperville. I don't know how much longer I can afford to live here. And with the city council not controlling the city manager, I may have to follow Mr. Napergate and leave town. I love Naperville but I can no longer afford to pay for this corruption. I hope the citizens rise to help Mr. Furstenau stop it.

Blake...
******************************************************************
Copy and pasted from another thread(full disclosure...no plagiarism) by Marshall to answer a question posed by Bob S.

Michele,
Yes, Furstenau did break-out his legal fees and other costs in his initial letter to the City Coucil requesting settlement. These numbers are not exact, because I don't remember them to the penny, but they are very close. He was asking for roughly $135,000. This consisted of $120,000 in campaign contributions paid back to those who supported his State Senate campaign; $6,000 in legal fees; and $10,000 for his time to defend the battery charges. (I know my doesn't add up exactly...I've done some rounnding...so D.Bone don't suggest I don't know the facts becuase my math doesn't add up).

Michelle B.

You do seem to make sense, and you also seem to be pretty well informed about what the law states. Of course, much of it can be left up to interpretation; never-the-less, you do seem well informed and in support of Furstenau.

Are you planning on attending the council meeting tonight and addressing any of the agenda items with the points you have made here? I think you should. Your arguments go beyond the typical opinion and could be valuable to the discussions that will take place tonight for either side.

I agree with the many bloggers above that we must learn a lesson from the past. Napergate vs. Naperville is so eerily similar and the escalation that took place then is taking place now. The taxpayers took it on the chin then. Do we have to take it on the chin again because our public officials that we pay are "dickering" about everything?

DP was wronged in his arrest! He deserves some compensation! Why the city would rather engage in another Napergate type like battle at taxpayers expense instead of settling quickly belies common sense and simple logic. This case is about EGOS on both sides! Strong EGOS!

If the taxpayers are made to pay, I have to believe all officials will be elected out of office without exception. This is like the nonsense classroom dispute of 6th grade girls fighting over an IPOD and wanting to spend 100,000 dollars in court instead of going to Wal-Mart on Black Friday and picking up 8 MP-3s for $23.95 to replace the missing IPOD.

I hope our City Officials show more wisdom then the little girls who actually took their case to court and retained lawyers...lol.

As blogger June stated above so succinctly, it would be a travesty of justice if each taxpayer was saddled with $111.11 per household. That is enough to buy 4 MP-3s for each family, pay the sales tax, and have $8.84 cents left to buy 4 Happy Meals from McDonalds for the kids on the way home. I know Mayor George Pradel loves kids so I hope he is thinking about them as he contemplates the proper course of ACTION that is required with his leadership!

Let us not deprive the kids of their MP-3s and Happy Meals, just so our City Officials can butt heads in a court of law. If they insist on fighting let us set up an Ultimate Fighting Ring in the Chambers of City Hall and let them fight to death or surrender. Just like in the Roman Days at the Colisieum. We can sell tickets and the winner can have the proceeds of the ticket sales. But City Officials must spare the taxpayers at all cost, the expense of this childish litigation!

I'd gladly pony up $111.11 to get a whole new council.

As Sally Struthers would say:
"that's less than a nickel per day per councilperson for a year."

That would actually be worth it, IMO.

Michele B--

Like most people, I know that actions can be initiated both criminally and civilly. Thanks for thinking I was an idiot. I was merely expressing where I think this particular action belonged, not what rights DF may have.

The actions DF describes relating to his arrest, I think, are clearly criminal in nature. If true, those responsible should be prosecuted so this doesn’t happen to someone else. If false…hey, then what? Oh, the State’s Attorney does nothing like he’s doing now. DF still has the right to sue, even if I and others think it may have been best that he not exercise that right.

The added-on defendants to his lawsuit are the red herrings that make him appear to be the paranoid wacko people are describing. I think he would come off as much more sympathetic if he kept his lawsuit narrow in scope and pressed for an independent review of the rest of the garbage we’ve been writing about for too long now. People aren't going to be happy either way since he's suing the city he represents, but keeping it small would help mitigate the public backlash.

If cost of defending the suit is an over-riding factor, why not take the money out of the Culture Fund since this is just a city council slush fund anyways? Oh, wait. Who would pay for the "free, donated" Carillon? And who would pay for the NPD overtime for the many money-generating fests we have each summer?

Every time I see the Carillon all I can think of is the Simpson's Episode with the Monorail.

That should be a concrete suppository for every person that voted to use taxpayer money on it.

Despite what everyone is writing about a reconciliation, I would be willng to place a bet in Las Vegas this scenario is following and mimicking the footsteps of Napergate. We may as well call it Napergate II and tune in for the next 10 years. Will there be full page ads in the Sun placed by the opposing parties again? Who will pay for the ads this time? I assume the TAXPAYERS since the opposing parties are all City Officials and Employees!!!
Is that cost going to be an addition to the $111.11 June calculated in the 2nd blog or is it already included??? I hope it is inclusive. May God Have Mercy!!!

Posada705,

With regards to the $120K in campaign contributions DF wants refunded to his contributors.

Since he feels they are owed a refund due to him losing his election bid, I do hope he fully intends to pay them all back in full (all $120K) with his own money if he loses his lawsuit with the City.

Is that his intention?

Joe,
I understand your question and the point it is trying to make. The $120k in campaign contributions was a suggestion by Furstenau to give the City an easy way out of this fiasco. I thought it was actually admirable that he only wanted $10k for himself (which adds up to about 1 month of property taxes for all his real estate holdings) after all he'd been through. Now, with the lawsuit (since the City denied his suggested settlement), it is no longer about the campaign contributions. It is about his civil rights as a taxpaying, law abiding citizen. I would bet if he is awarded any money he would probably go ahead and reimburse those contributors, but I won't put words in his mouth.

Now go ahead and say "Well...if he thinks it's so important to pay back his contributors, then he should do it out of his own pocket if he loses." That makes a lot of sense.

For everyone concerned about our tax money going to defend against Furstenau's petty suit, talk to Dick. I know he can single-handedly save us all that wasted taxpayer money.

For everyone like uninformed bloggers like Michele B., the censure has NOTHING to do with his lawsuit, or his defending tax payers, or standing up for citizens. It is the result of his own misconduct, and totally justified.

TB
I don't disagree with the small scope idea. I think the other staffers named was just a shot accross the bow to get staffers tone down the smear campaign. Like you, I would like to see that background noise go away.

I sided with the Council on N1 Censure, but disagreed with the majority on the recall measure (siding w/ DF and DS; not sure if there was another 'nay' or not).

A recall option is not something they want on the books in the form they were talking about. It hands a loaded gun to the public and you'll never know when or how they will use it. Implement the spirit of recall on election day. That's what that day is for.

The recall option should only be allowed for convictions of a crime or some gross ethical lapse. Recall should not be a public sentiment thing or else councilmen will be afraid to make the tough, necesary decisions.

Today's Sun said that DF's censure was based on memos and "confidential e-mails", but that only redacted versions of the memos were released. Why are we to be kept in the dark regarding the e-mails? If they're part of the censure motion, they should be public record.

i have to commend the council. they were professional, honest, and even courteous to man who shows nothing but contempt, and dishonestly to this city. i found it completely embarrassing the amount of misinformed, rehearsed, and downright dumb people DICK paraded in front of the council. "remember, i am a man of the people, i work hard, and blah, blah blah..." the council was very succinct in the reason for CENSURE. he is accused by MANY for various infractions, there is no CONSPIRACY to get DICK. he is not important enough ! all you defenders who bring up your hair-brain theories, please MOVE ON ! i think the real issue now is how can he be REMOVED. i think he should be evaluated by a court ordered psychiatrist. his denial, lack of remorse, and belligerence all point to a severe psychological deficit. it is time to put this old man out to pasture.

I have to disagree with d.bone. I certainly believe that Furstenau can be abrasive and difficult. I admit that I have no knowledge of his dealing with staff. On the other hand, if his behavior was a s bad as now claimed, why and how was it kept quiet for 10 years? Everyone was afraid to speak up? Furstenau is an outsider on this council and always has been, if things were as bad as now claimed, someone could have dealt with it and SHOULD have dealt with it.

It's only become a problem because of the lawsuit. I like having Furstenau on council -- and I wish the lawsuit would go away, but the city can make it go away as easily as Furstenau can. But they won't. Instead, they are circling the wagons, attacking him in public, pressuring those who support him.....it's big city style politics, right here in River City, folks. And, eventually the entrenched interests will win, but the taxpayers will pay the price -- no one will dare question our leadership in the future-- the cost is far too high.

For some time, I've been embarrassed to tell people where I live. I've been here for 20 years, but the quality of life has declined, taxes have increased and now, our government is involved in a campaign to silence dissent and criticism. I no longer wish to call Naperville home.

Sam,

I don't think it's the dissent and criticism that's the problem (trust me, I'm a huge fan of that in and of itself). The problem is the WAY that dissent and criticism is conveyed. Pick this problem up and plop it in a fortune 500 company. Employees file complaints to HR about how another employee's conduct makes them feel in the workplace with specific examples and accounts. At some point HR is obligated to do something about those complaints if they are found to have basis. The offending employee is given a verbal or written warning and/or is put on a PIP (Performance Improvement Plan) depending on the nature and extent of the offenses.

That is the context of what happened and in that light, Council did the right thing (finally). I hope they continue to do the right thing WHEN (not IF, but WHEN) these things come up in the future, regardless of who the person is that is causing the problem or creating a hostile work environment even if it is Mr. Pradel himself.

i have a simple solution to save us taxpayers all some money. email furstenaur@naperville.il.us and urge him to drop his lawsuit, and to resign. if he is a" man of the people" he will do this. this what i predict though. he will not resign, he will vow to fight on with his thirty brainwashed friends standing behind him, he will name new people to his lawsuit and HE will cost this city alot more than 100K. and by the way, did anyone listen carefully to DICK talk about how he singlehandedly got a permit for a residents driveway. is this the role of a councilman ? i think i will ask him for a few favors too.

Joe:

I agree with your point and your analogy. But, in my opinion, it misses a few salient points. If, and it's a big if, Furstenau was so bad, why did our hypothetical HR department ignore it for so long? Why did the city manager responsible for bringing it to the attention of the council in a timely manner, get the perfect performance reviews Mr. Rosanova described and why on earth was he given severance, disguised as consulting. (Does anyone at his new employer know he's on call to the city of Naperville for 6 months at full pay?)

This is a message to all of us: "The nail that sticks up, gets pounded in."

Sam,

All valid questions on the 'why did it take this long' parts. I concur. Ultimately the man responsible for it is gone. PB's CENSURE for that managerial 'dereliction of duty' should have been what I outlined above :) Rewarding him for a crappy job done in the HR department is insulting.

Sorry Sam, this is what I feel should have been done w/ PB that I was referring to.. (posted/copied from another similar topic)

I think PB would only be entitled to a severance package if it was explicitly stated he could have one in his contract if he voluntarily left. He should have been made to pay back the 'loan'. It was a 0% interest 'loan', not a 'gift'. It takes 5 seconds of watching Judge Judy to know the difference between a 'gift' and a 'loan'.

Definitely pay him out any unused and accrued vacation pay. Sick time goes byebye. He can pay for COBRA insurance coverage out of his own pocket if he qualifies.

That's called 'fair'.

DBone - You must not have been watching last night's council meeting or you would know that we are all now living in the "enlightened & politically correct Naperville."

Therefore, Dbone, while I commend you for your diligent efforts and tireless work toward postings on this blog, I must point out a major infraction in your last blog. You recklessly, with malice and forthought have referred to the age of an individual that in in a protected class of people (over 55 years). By saying "out to pasture" you have offended the sensibilities of everyone on this blog, and probably caused severe emotional damage to Mr. Fursteanu.

Unfortunately, DBONE, I must now make a motion:

I, Michele, hereby move that the honorable bloggers on this topic vote to censure DBONE for making an "age slurr" against Councilmen Furstenau in violation of the new and improved politically correct codification of political interactions as set forth herein and in the meetings of our city council. I further move that DBONE be encouraged to take at least a 12 hour course and sensitivity training by certified therapist that in order that DBONE receive the help so desperately needed.

Please cast your vote.

I, Michele, hereby move that the honorable bloggers on this topic vote to censure DBONE for making an "age slurr" against Councilmen Furstenau in violation of the new and improved politically correct codification of political interactions as set forth herein and in the meetings of our city council. I further move that DBONE be encouraged to take at least a 12 hour course and sensitivity training by certified therapist that in order that DBONE receive the help so desperately needed.

Please cast your vote.

Posted by: Michele B

AYE!

I believe 'out to pasture' means simply to retire from work. It makes no direct age reference, only the stoppage of work. The term preceding that: 'old man' does make an age reference. Perhaps DF is considered a 'young man'. Perhaps if the city were to post signs along every street near every parking space and paint it on the streets as well what the exact age cut-off is that delineates 'old man' from 'young man' then the conspiracy to suck money from innocent people's wallets can finally be put to an end.