The censure of Dick Furstenau

I contiue to be disgusted with our Council for allowing a severance package for an employee who voluntarily quits!

I disagree with Mayor Pradel’s description of Burchard's resignation letter as courageous --- any document that highlights your shortcomings in your job role while also asking for a Golden Parachute is more graceless than courageous!

It would appear that the Council never questioned the timing of the letter (right after Fursteneau took the stance of denying a severance package). Also, from last night's comments by the Councilmen themselves it was apparent that little to no investigation occurred and instead anecdotal information was acdcepted as the Gospel truth.

Was Fursteneau against approving a severance package (IF SO, THANK YOU COUNCILMAN)? Did you even question the timing of this letter prior to moving forward on a censure?

In the matter of the censure -- he was and is an effective councilman.

Is there more to the story?

Where was and is the mayor in all this?

If this had been going on for some period of time, why did the mayor not step in? Was someone asleep at the wheel, as it were?

Either he did not know about it and this is worrisome.

Or he did know about it and did nothing -- this is very disturbing.

Regarding the severance package for Peter Burchard, that is ridiculous that he would get anything considering he quit. I have never heard of getting a severance package after you quit...I am in the wrong business.

Regarding Dick Furstenau's censure...it is was is, the censure has no teeth and it is a slap on the wrist...that is not the real issue, the real issue is the amount of money this lawsuit will cost the taxpayers in the end...I can't wait for my refund check from Councilmen Furstenau...he shouldn't stop at refunding just people who supported him in his failed senate bid...he should refund all of the tax paying citizens of Naperville for costing us money on this lawsuit if he wins. Only then can he continue to say he is the taxpayer's councilmen!

First of all, Burchard getting a severance package is a joke. 90% of the community was STRONGLY against it, yet only 2 councilman's votes reflected the wishes of the taxpayers who are paying for it. (Furstenau's being 1) Don't bother to give me the story that we need his advice going forward, or that the council was "enlightened" to do the right thing is this case. Do not insult me by telling me we "need" Peter T. Burchard. Naperville was doing just fine before he got here and Naperville will do great long after he is gone. The only significant difference in the before and after of Peter Burchard is our streets are more crowded, we lead the world in DUI's, and we have turned the once quint, family-oriented downtown into the suburban equivalent of Division St. in Chicago. In my opinion, the "Golden Age" of Naperville was the Late 80's and early to mid 90's. Peter Burchard has done nothing to deserve walking away with over 100k of our taxpayer money after he quite.

Secondly, it is my opinion, that we haven't seen the last of Peter T. either. I predict that we will see his name come up in ways that are very damning as to what his role has been in this Federal Lawsuit fiasco. It is only my opinion, and I don't intent to argue about it or defend it. Time will tell as it all plays out, but I do find it VERY curious that he suddenly announced his resignation a week after the lawsuit was filed to take a job, in an unrelated field to his life long career, OUT OF STATE, with children high school age attending one of the best high schools in the country. He then sent out his "open letter" 3 weeks after the lawsuit was filed just as he was leaving his position when he no longer has anything as stake. Nothing could appear to be a more clear cut case of someone getting out of dodge before the law arrives. Any he's leaving with a pocket full of our money.

I also think it is clear that the council had their mind already made up. They all had their prepared speeches and they were all wearing suites for the first time. But I do have 2 comments in general:

1) I found it insulting to Mr. Furstenau when Mayor Pradel, while giving his excuse for supporting the censure, stated, and I paraphrase, "the council is a family, and sometimes when one of your children does something wrong, you need to discipline them." Are you kidding me? Referring to COUNCILMAN FURSTENAU as your son? How demeaning.

2) I would like the sun to write and article about the exchange that took place between one of the speakers in the open session, Councilman Rosanova, Councilman Wherli. Those of you who weren't there or didn't see it on TV, it was appalling. A speaker referenced the sham article in the SUN based on an ANONYMOUS letter abuot Councilman Krause's and Furstenau's business dealings. He then gave two examples of conflicts of interest certain council members may have had in dealing with family members involved in projects the council was voting on.

He named no names, but councilman Rosanova and Wherli spoke up and said it was in reference to them. Both of them screamed and pointed their fingers at the man and berated him, while nearly standing out of their seats, denied any wrong doing and demanded to know this man's source, and an apology.

Why is this interesting to me? Well maybe now those 2 know how it must feel for Mr. Furstnau being publicly accused of wrong doing when much of it wasn't true. The accusations against them came in one 3 minute speech, and they went crazy and demanded an apology. Furstenau's accusations against him have gone on nearly 2 years, and have been smeared all over the newspapers, and all he wanted before the suite was filed was an apology.

It would be fair and balanced reporting if the SUN looked into the allegations against Wherli and Rosanova the same way they did the allegations against Furstenau from an anonymous source.

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'.

The censure is an HR matter. Council did the right thing, hopefully everyone sits up and takes notice that every employee needs to be treated respectfully whether you agree with them or not.

The level of public support for Furstenau during last night's council meeting was impressive. Two hours of public comment, thirty different people with specific praise for different instances where Furstenau went to bat for them - often against silly city policies or proceedures. In the face of all that praise, the other councilmen jumped in and verified the Furstenau impressive record as a defender of taxpayer and a champion of the "little guy".

What's really ironic here is that in trying to embarrass Fustenau, the City staff is inadvertently turning Furstenau into a folk hero! One guy (who said he didn't know Furstenau very well) actually pointed to him and said - "you just became my hero" and then walked up to the dias to shake his hand!

You cannot buy that kind of galvanized public support.

It also did not escape anyone who watch the proceedings that the City Council had made up their minds and written their speaches before entering Council Chambers. Num-nuts Wherli actually read a canned speach about the latest work place "syndrome" - The EMPLOYEE BULLY SYNDROME. Or, Employee B.S for short. What a politically correct bag of dirt. (wherli & the syndrome).

Anyway, because Councilmen came in with their minds made up. Each one said how they would be voting on the censure. Then they turned to Furstenau and asked if he would like to say anything in his defense. Well - when your on trial, like Furstenau was, you are suppose to have a "impartial" jury.

The city made serveral mistakes. By not appearing to give Furstenau a "fair trial", they galvanized his supporters. By not appearing fair, they destoyed any real value that a valid censure might have had. It simply looks like a political retribution against Furstenau. Unfortunately, if there was any truth to any of the claims against Furstenau, that was lost in the politics.

The only winner last night was Dick Furstenau. His political supports and many others have found a new hero. I think the guy could win a race for mayor at the moment. What's more, by appearing to have retaliated, the city just raised the damages that Furstenua could win in his Federal Lawsuit by a factor of ten. So... by next election... Furstenau has money from the City to run his campaign and galvanized public support to win the race.

A question for city staff, how will you like working for Mayor Furstenau? Maybe you should try to work with the guy and do your job to best ability if you want to keep it. You efforts to "get Furstenau" thus far, seem only to have made him politically stronger.

Bob S.
Indeed Furstenau and Krause were the only two councilmembers to vote against Burchard's severance. To answer the moderator's question: yes, it appears that it is business as usually at City Hall. Seven "yes men," One Councilman (Furstenau) who isn't affraid to say no, and Krause who typically follows suit (ratherly quietly) with Furstenau.

I didn't attend the meeting, but I'm wondering if Furstenau said "NO" to Burchard's severance in a nice enough tone for the other spineless councilmembers. How, on God's green Earth, do 7 elected officials vote to give severance to a guy that quit?? I agree that Burchard did a good job...but if you quit, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out!!! This vote is proof that these Councilmembers (excluding Furstenau and Krause) think that tax dollars grow on trees. They don't care one bit about John Q. Taxpayer. If I was a betting-man, I'd bet that one of these other moronic councilmembers gets recalled long before Furstenau does.

Mr. Furstenau harassed city workers who in turn filed grievances with their bosses. Let's just be happy that the woman "with the husband" has not sued the city for sexual harassment and being forced to work an unsafe working environment.
This censure chapter is over, let's move on.
My only lingering concern is now Mr. Furstenau will name the City Council members who voted for censure in his civil lawsuit.

Mr. Furstenau just drop this and move on too.

To the moderator:

Before the council meeting, the Sun reported about the severance package and stated that Burchard would be responsible for the taxes on the $32,000 payment. That suggests someone else is responsible for the taxes on the loan forgiveness and the cost of the health insurance, both of which are taxable income to the recipient. Was it just something I misunderstood, or is the city picking up the tax liability, as well? (It likely amounts to another $15,000 to $17,000.) Anyway a taxpayer can find out?

Well, I watched my first City Council Meeting on TV in over 5 years. I just could not believe what I saw. The residents and voters almost unanimous in their support of DF. I can't say unanimous because I had to change a few diapers and maybe there was one in opposition that I missed.

But I am sure the council was unanmimous in the censure. It was very surreal. City Council going against the voters who elected them. It is as if they were not listening. It is as if their minds were made up before they came. Why invite speakers if you are unwilling to consider a word they say?

It reminded of the days the Napergate Man called the City Council a Stepford Wives Council. I am sure most old time residents have seen that classic movie.

I was very impressed with DF's demeanor thru out the council proceedings. He showed complete control and no anger. He was calm, cool and collected while containing his emotion.

I was involved with about 50 other people in selecting the Napergate Slate in 1995 of which DF was ranked top candidate. I was again involved in 1999 with Napergate people in a second push to get DF elected and we were so proud when he was finally elected.

And last night I called all my friends from those Napergate days and they were all so proud of DF. He has never wavered from the man he told us he was in those Elections Forums of the 1990s. He was true to his word.

I was tickled with happiness when I heard DF attended 60 boring water commission meetings and saved the taxpayers over 8 million dollars. Wow! What an accomplishment! Boy did that Napergate Man make a discovery in 1994 when he found DF.

If the Napergate Man was still around he would consider the Censure that DF receieved as the Highest Honor of Valor that a councilman could possibly receive from his city. That censure is proof that DF has not let us down and kept all his promises he made to us in 1994.

As a mother of 4 children, I am so proud to be living in Naperville knowing we have a DF that fights for the rights of the citizens and one day hopefully their children too.

As far as the recall motion, what a great idea! How ironic that they would dare pass this! The residents nearly unanimously support DF. So who do they think would be recalled? The city council member they support and who fights for their rights or the others who do not even listen to a word they say when they appear before them in the council chambers.

Yes, I can see why you can not beat City Hall before a Stepford Wives City Council. So DF has no choice but to fight his case in the courts just like the Napergate Man did. And I have no doubt DF will win just like the Napergate men did in the 90s.

Yes, the Napergate Man made a great discovery when he found DF. Even after he lost his first election he never wavered in his support for DF, continuing with his relentless full page ads, until he helped get him elected 4 years later. We must never waver in our support for DF as NM never did. We must never believe any of these false allegations about him. We must continue to stand by him as he stood by us for the last 13 years.

And yes, even though he lost that 1995 elections he still always helped any resident who needed help.

DF is truly a Naperville Hero! Being censured by a reactionary Stone Age City Council is truly a Badge of Honor. Wear you badge with honor, Mr. Furtenau. I am sure those 4000 residents who signed a petition of support for Mr. Napergate would all agree with me in my support for you.

And if one man in one liquor store can collect 4000 signatures I beleive we can all collectively collect the 8000 signatures needed to oust DF's fellow council members now that they paseed the RECALL ORDINANCE. All 8 of them for daring to CENSURE you for attending 60 boring water commission meetings to save us citiznes 8,000,0000 dollars or nearly 200 dollars per household.
Yes, you did it all by yourself and we did not even know until this Censure Proceeding. Congradulations Dick! You are the BEST thing that ever happened to Naperville. No need to say more.

I wish you all a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

==================================================================

And to Dick's wife Connie, keep your chin up and look at the Censure as a Badge of the Highest Honor a City Council can bestow on your husband just as the Napergate Man would have. You have nothing to be ashamed of, but so much to be PROUD of. I wish they would CENSURE me one day for daring to write this letter and expressing my TRUE FEELINGS. I would honestly consider it a great honor to be personally CENSURED!

Just yield to Mr. Furstenau EVERYTHING: have the council members apologize and remove their censure, have Chief Dial apologize to him on bended knee, and pay him everything he wants. If Peter Burchard deserves severance then Richard Furstenau also deserves some naperville money and “understanding”. Hey, at least Mr. Furstenau was chosen by the electorate!

Yup, I guess Mr. Burchard deserves naperville taxpayer money more than the naperville taxpayer. Either the Sun was negligent in its reporting of the councils’ decision to steal the naperville voters money or the council didn’t even bother to offer an explanation for their gift. Politics as usual in naperville?

The good news, Mr. Furstenau was one of the two council members that voted nay for severance. There may yet be some hope.

michele b. you continue to amaze me. are you sure you are writing about DICK furstenau ? the same person the city council censured last night. you cannot be as ignorant as you seem ? maybe you are one of the 30 or so friends and family of DICK ? could you be the tearful CONNIE ? my god, it was the most embarrassing display of rehearsed bullcrap i have yet seen ! not one person could attest for his actions with any city employee's complaints not even DICK. how could they ? as i stated before, DICK IS NOT IMPORTANT ! THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY AGAINST HIM ! he brought this upon himself. the council decided that. would you like to accuse the council individually of some infraction ? i think dr. phil is on now, you better go.

Why have good people come out on a cold night to speak if the council isn't going to listen? Council answered with prepared statements -- prepared before the people spoke. Their constituents could have said anything and none of it mattered. Mayor Pradel even had the audacity to refer to Councilman Furstenau as a child who needs discipline.

Did you note the shakiness of the voices speaking at the public podium? How upsetting it must have been to get up before council and the camera and speak their hearts. Such a shame that Mayor Pradel and the others pretended to care and then dismissed the needs of the people to be listened and heard.

Thank you to the 8 well-informed, and professional councilmen for their votes last night on censure. They were clear in stating the reasons for their actions, and we all hope Furstenau changes the kind of behavior that brought this about. The council also indicated they need to do a better job, as one councilman mentioned, policing their fellow councilmen to avoid continued problems of this kind. It is their obligation to vote their conscience based on the facts, and they did it.

It was also made clear at the meeting that Burchard's contract, despite Furstenau's attempts to misrepresent it, was written to allow severence at council's discretion should his contract be terminated. The fact is the contract was terminated, regardless of who terminated it. It wasn't based on what "everybody else" gets when they quit. It was HIS contract, and COUNCIL'S discretion on the proper release. Again council is obligated to vote their conscience based on the facts, and they did.

These actions witnessed by fair, balanced, and informed observers will renew and strengthen faith in Naperville's elected officials, not undermine it.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL, FOR HAVING THE KNOWLEDGE, COURAGE, AND UNDERSTANDING TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISIONS ON THESE MATTERS. THAT'S WHY WE ELECTED YOU.

From moderator Jim Lynch to the question posed by Sam: To our knowledge Burchard will, indeed, be responsible for the taxes on the $32,000 payout as well as the $50,000 loan forgiveness. I'm not sure I'm getting you on the health insurance question. As far as I know, that's not taxable and presumably after the designated period of time his health insurance will be covered by his next employer. I hope I've answered your question.

i have to write just one more time. it is hard to sit idly by when i am witness to such stupidity. i guess there are about 5 people 10 at the most who write letters in favor of the censured DICK. they may change their name, maybe they don't i am not paying much attention to them. but anyway, it is known that DICK'S family does indeed write into this blog. that would account for roughly 30-40 percent of his positive spin. now the rest of you are somehow beholden to this man, maybe he did some favor for you ? got you a permit, which is not his business maybe you are one of the 30 knucklehead neighbors who waddled up to the podium last night and talked about NOTHING pertaining to his censure accusations anyway, i will no longer write to or respond to this blog. it is a complete and utter waste of my time. if you feel better about yourself after you write your municipal law, your pseudo intellectual arguments, even your crass comments then keep on writing away. you are only fooling yourself. good bye DICK.

Mr. Lynch:

You have answered my question, thank you. As a point of clarification, I understood that the city was continuing Mr. Burchard's health insurance benefits for 6 months. Since Mr. Burchard is no longer an employee, the value of his health insurance coverage would be considered taxable income.

No need to respoed -- or post.

thanks

D. Bone,
You are very mistaken in thinking that only Dick's relatives and neighbors support him. Dick has very deep grass roots support in Naperville that goes back to the 90s and before.

Over 4000 people supported the Napergatge man who endorsed DF in at least 2 elections and possibly 3. If I recall correctly the petition was only availale to sign on the south side of town.
DF, I believe lives on the North side of town. This petition is part the court records in the Napergate vs Naperville city battle.
I doubt you will find more than 5 relatives of Dick on it. So that leaves 3995 outsiders, d.bone, assuming you know how to SUBTRACT. If you find that insulting let it be. I find your remarks that only his relatives write letters of support very INSULTING!

Most of these people never met DF but many attended those heated forums of the 90s and believed in his platform and obviously still support him since he honored his platform agenda with relentless conviction.

At least 30 people came out to speak on behalf of Dick yesterday at the Council Meeting!
How many people cared to speak against him....not one that I can recall.

Let us not forget that nearly 10,000 residents voted for Dick in each of the 3 elections HE WON! Are these all his neighbors and relatives?

Dick has never done me a favor and would not recognize me if I walked by him. But I adore the man and his courage. He has honored everything he has ever promised in any of his campaigns.

Dear d. bone,

Good-bye and good riddance. It's total jerks like you that disrupt blogs like this. Next time you wish to make a point try doing it in a way that is persuasive, without being antagonistic, at some other blog.

I have learned the hard way that the only way to deal with jerks like you is to get down in the mud with you and slug it out on a level you can understand. That is, fight fire with fire, name call, insult and generally act in a way that would normally get you punched in the nose in any high school lunchroom.

I don't even know whether or not your points were valid or a load of crap, but you just couldn't believe that people had ideas other than yours. I never agree with all that is said on these blogs, but I do enjoy a good argument that makes sense and is the complete opposite of my opinion. I may not agree with the comments, but I am always willing to read and digest them. Sometimes I can actually change my opinion. But your goofy insults and lack of coherent arguments means that, sadly you must not be as smart as you think you are.

These same comments go for the jerk named Joe who frequently contributes to these blogs. I even agreed with him on all-day kindergarten, but my agreement was short-lived when he started attacking people for no reason other than to get a rise. Some people rose for the bait, others knew to leave him be as there is no sense in arguing with a jerk.

So, as this year ends I say, again, good-bye and good riddance to d. bone and Joe.

To all those who think that having a contract that ALLOWS you to ask for severance means you get severance ---- you are unconditionally wrong. Burchard had the right to ask, and the Council had the right to say "No". They didn't for one reason: it isn't their money and they are weak. It is simple. Remember ---he terminated the contract.

For d-bone and others who so quickly jump on Fursteneau and insult those who don't subscribe to his point of view, it is clear you have issues with the man. However, I would suggest you do 2 things:

First, read the actual documents for N-1 on the City's website. If you actually read them (and don't just listen to others), you will find them to be what is referred to in law as "anecdotal". No one ever researched the charges, including the Council. Clearly, since they find Fursteneau abrasive, they just took it as fact. There was no inquiry, no data gathered.

Second, look at tapes of last night's meeting. You will find one of the most offensive displays of intimidation & bullying I have ever seen in a public format, and somehow it WASN'T Fyrsteneau. It was Rosanova! And yet, not only didn't he get censured by the Council, he had the audacity to give a speech condemning Fursteneau for being a bully!!

I will be shocked if the citizen he attacked does NOT file an official charge with the Council for the abhorent way he was treated last night.

Dough Boy,
I would like to second your motion which is:

"So, as this year ends I say, again, good-bye and good riddance to d. bone and Joe."

While these 2 yoyos are constanting accusing people of posting under different names I think these 2 bozos are the same person. I just don't think God could have created 2 of these creatures in 6 days before he took Sunday to rest.

I am much more impressed with some of the bloggers who worked with Napergate and can guide you to facts in newspapers, ads and court documents than these 2 yoyos who babble like the clowns they are!

Again, I second your motion Dough Boy! And I agree with you that this Joe/Bonehead character gets a real rise out of an ARGUMENT!

On another thread he has the audacity to imply a girl should have known that an improperly labeled parking spot was a cab spot because Google Satellites reveals that. One day he says the paint can be seen...the next day he seems to say the paint can not be seen thru google. He was so insulting to this poor girl who had her car towed.

I am not surprised they want to leave these blog sites I hope they do! But I suspect they will reincarnate themselves so they can come back and get their RISE!!!

DF suing the City reminds me of the Coke Zero commercials. In one, the litigious Coke employees who want to sue Coke Zero (THEIR company) ask a skeptical attorney how she thinks it will end. She states, "you will be humiliated and you will get fired." The former has certainly occurred to DF. Unfortunately, the latter can't.

Burchards contract may have said he could ask for severance if he left on his own, but it didn't say he was ENTITLED to any. There is nothing in his contract that said the council had to give him anything if he left. The problem is when he asked for it, 7 of our councilman proceeded to give it to him anyway. Despite the fact that the taxpayers who are paying for it clearly expressed they didn't want him given any.

Now that the council has censured Furstenau to show their support to city staff for the bullying they endured, are they now going to censure Wherli and Rosanova for the way they lashed out and bullied the taxpaying citizen who spoke out against them. They sat up out of their seats, yelled and pointed their finger at him and demanded an apology. Isn't that the very type of behavior from Furstenau that every councilman insisted required censure? Oh, waite, they don't care about the taxpayers being bullied, they only care about protecting the government machine that serves them.

Robert H @ 5:51 pm.

I have to respectfully disgree with you. I agree with Cynthia above. The Censure he received was truly a Badge of Honor coming from this City Council who did not even bother to listen to the residents as evidenced by their prepared remarks.

I somehow feel the city is making DF a folklore hero of sorts. Just like they made the Napergate man before him.

They are really achieving the opposite of what they are aiming and attempting to accomplish. Really that statement of him attending 60 boring water commission meetings to save us taxpayers over 8 million bucks was the highlight of the entire meeting. That is all I needed to hear to understand who is truly watching out for me, a TAXPAYER!! And he was not paid an extra penny for going to all those BORING meetings. And who gets the parachute....City Manager Peter Burchard. Go figure!!!

Blake...

Debbie, you are incorrect in your 'summation' of the other blog and what I actually told the lady.

Please visit http://blogs.suburbanchicagonews.com/newsblog/2007/12/is_naperville_states_no_1_spee.html#comments

and search for my post on December 18, 4:23 PM regarding what I really said about google. It is there on Street View, when others claimed it was not there on 'satellite view', which I agreed with it not being visible on that aerial shot because of not enough resolution. That was first mentioned Dec 14, 11:15am

Unfortunately Blake's and Maryann's statements in there are the ones that say I told her she should have checked google first before parking. I did not. In fact it was Ameena that said she didn't check it first. She said "I did not have access to Google right before I parked. "

I merely provided a reference to her as a way to see that indeed the street markings actually are present and are visible from 'street view' at 30 W Chicago Ave in downtown Naperville.

If you would actually read what people post instead of reading other people's interpretations/version/twisting of it and accepting it as fact, it will save a lot of confusion in the future.

I'm sorry for being nit-picky about this detail, but I'm merely correcting the incorrect details as they were stated.

Of course, I'm sure you might see this as 'being difficult' or 'attacking people just to get a rise'.

...

Sorry DoughBoy, you're not even worth a response anymore. Anyone can go back to September and read your D204 posts and see your 'character' in all its abusive glory with your wonderful use of colorful metaphors to everyone who held a different opinion than yours. Not that I would recommend anyone doing it because it's pretty despicable. ( http://blogs.suburbanchicagonews.com/newsblog/2007/09/now_what.html#comments search for Doug Boy )

Dear Joe,

It's spelled Dough Boy, not Doug Boy! C'mon, at least get it right.

And, yes, I can be as nasty as you, but I have repented and changed my style. Apparently you are a one trick pony and, like a leopard, cannot change his spots.

It's a pity that you are so affected, when did you go over to the dark side? You are probably a nice guy during the day, but when night time comes...Well, Darth, I mean Joe, have a great holiday anyway, and I'll meet you back here after January 1 to resume my fight against your evil empire!

I have to tell you, I was rooted to my television last night. The performances of DF and his supporters were stunningly embarrassing.

First, we are forced to endure a parade of cohorts, cronies and neighbors who seemed bent on canonizing DF. Please note: Just because someone is a good youth football coach doesn't make him a wonderful all-around person.

Things really got interesting when these people started spouting bizarre pseudo-conspiracy theories about how certain people in the city are working to smear and destroy Mr. Furstenau. My gosh, the way they were going on about the Naperville Police Department, you'd think we were living in Nazi Germany, where people were dragged out of their cars and clubbed by jack-booted fascists.

Then DF himself spoke up and promised to treat staff with respect -- as long as they treat HIM with respect. I guess that Mr. Furstenau's definition of respect is clear-cut: If you respect Dick, that means you must agree with him. If you disagree with him, then you are disrespecting him, and all bets are off.

Look, you can't run roughshod over people. Mr. F. got what he deserved. Now let's move on, for goodness' sake.

How disappointing .... If there was any doubt about why Naperville has taken a turn for the worse over the last few years, it was embarrassingly revealed by the sad performance of its' mayor and city council members last night. These people have lost their minds.

The zeal with which they have pursued development at the residents' expense, the arrogance with which they have ignored taxpayer desires, and the "I know better than you" attitude has finally reached the point of absurdity. The two big issues of the night prove the point.

DF is abrasive, combative, and maybe his own worst enemy, but he is a tremendous asset to this city. He is the only one who is not afraid to speak the truth in public and exercise common sense in most of his decisions, and he has remembered for whom he works and why he was put there. He does the preparation to make prudent decisions, brings his considerable skills and experience to the job and is truly an advocate for the residents. He's not always right, but he gives it his best shot. DF wasn't elected to be a diplomat.

The censure and the exhibits offered to support this sham, are representative of the poor quality of work and flawed decision making that characterize too much of the city staff's work. I am beginning to see why DF might have been frustrated with these people.

Anecdotes, innuendo, no evidence of an objective investigation, no remediation process, alleged failed attempts to curb DF's behavior in early stages; these are signs of a failure of leadership and bad management. A few of the council members claim executive experience in the private sector, but I see no evidence that they brought it with them. What was Peter Burchard doing? At the end of the day, the staff doesn't like DF because they think he was "mean" to them.

Angry e-mails were drafted, meetings were held, feelings were hurt, yadda, yadda, yadda. Where were the grown-ups to say "Dick behave yourself, staff stop whining. Stop this bickering everybody, and get back to work?" Was any of the taxpayers business getting done? Now they are deciding if $400,000.00 is enough to cover the legal expenses! What are they thinking? Where was the Mayor in all of this? He is a charming ambassador of goodwill, but his lack of leadership, management and administration skills are glaringly deficient. He's in the wrong job. Where were the other council members and Peter Burchard? These private sector "Masters the Universe" who know better than the regular taxpayer, have committed to massive development projects, and committed the taxpayers to tremendous financial burdens, can't figure out how to manage a simple HR problem. No wonder we now have twenty five bars downtown and no place to park. No wonder people who have lived beside the hospital for thirty years have lost tremendous equity in their homes and may have to move. No wonder we don't have the money to buy the parcel of land at Hobson Ponds and make it the park that everyone knows it should be. Something is terribly wrong.

The second act of last night's performance was even more boneheaded than the first. We are now going to pay tens of thousands of dollars to Peter Burchard? For what? The only value I heard for this payment is an agreement signed by Peter waiving his rights to sue the city. Sue us for what? He quit. Pay him for his time, call the loan, send him the COBRA papers and wish him well.

What possible justification for the decision to pay him this money can there be? If we want to access his "institutional knowledge" as referenced by GW, then hire him by the hour. (I would like him to come back and explain why he failed to settle this spat between his staff and DF when it was doable with out spending $400,000.00) Will he even be available to do this consulting work under the terms of his new employment? Most employers prohibit such arrangements. The careless manner in which this council hands out our tax dollars is absolutely breath taking. All the while, sighing and telling us about the tough decisions they've had to make. This is a no-brainer.

While this mayor and council are busy redesigning the Naperville skyline, planning the "mallification" of the central business district and promoting every lame idea a developer can dream up, the tax payers interests get pushed further down the list. The Naperville that we have known and loved becomes a shadow of its former self. The best part of the community gets pushed down for the benefit of the new, the bigger, the higher, the more dense. These officials fancy themselves visionaries and stewards of our future. They are busy planning the urbanization of our city and ignoring the wishes of those who humbly pay the bills. Last nights' show was a wake-up call, a rare moment that reveals the truth of a situation. The truth is that this mayor and council have completely lost touch with reality. And now everybody knows it. The question is ....what do we do about it?

Dough Boy,

Many people are passionate about their opinions. There was a city council meeting that had a section about that last night, in case you missed it. Luckily, some don't have to resort to calling people 'jerks' in order to express theirs.

Have a great Holiday and New Year.

JOE,
I took your advice and read all the blogs posted on the subject of Ameena's car being towed. You were the first to mention the Google Satellite photo(not Ameena) of that cab parking spot implying the proof was there that it was a very visible cab spot. All she said is when she backed into it, she could not see the street paint, something very believable! And the sidewalk signs were not postioned properly causing her to be towed unjustifiably.

And just for curiosity, I visited the google site you mentioned to see if I can see this cab parking spot and the white paint. You could in fact see the spots but the paint was certainly fainted and almost invisible as Ameena stated. And you could clearly see that the sidewalk sign for the cabs was E. of the cab spot in question indicating it ended before that 4th spot.
And don't blame the google satellite picture as it was so clear you could read the word "ONLY" painted in white in the middle of the street very clearly as opposed to any paint on the cab spot in question.

So once again Joe, as all these bloggers are saying one after another, all you do is make up stories in order to start an argument, try to be right and get your rise! All you do is twist facts and slice bloggers' words.

Attorneys are not writing briefs here. It is just bloggers giving their general thoughts in a quick manner. If a blogger is not 100% specific or detailed, you jump on any error or non-error you can. Do you have small man's syndrome or some kind of inferior complex that you need to put your fellow bloggers down on every detail you can split apart...it seems like you have a mental disease of sorts.

Why not be creative once in a while and ceate a post that is not an attack on another blogger. Give us some information about a specific election, about an ad, about Napergate vs Naperville past litigation, about a Sun article, about water commission meetings.....anything Joe other than an attack on another blogger with disinformation would greatly be appreciated.

Why don't you start by not responding to me. Let the viewers judge for themselves. Here is what Joe posted in regard to Ameena's car being towed on the other THREAD!

******************************************************************
Do this:

http://maps.google.com

Enter in: 30 W Chicago Ave Naperville, IL 60540

Now, zoom in and hit STREET VIEW and look SOUTH. See the 4th spot and the white paint? Yup, that's it right there.

If someone can't see this from a vehicle they are driving then maybe they are driving a vehicle that is not safe to operate with so many blind spots, especially in a 'Kid Friendly' town such as Naperville.

******************************************************************
I urge all bloggers who want to test Joe's credibility to google the site with the address he gave and see if you can even see any fainted paint. You will see almost no paint and nothing that looks like writing. But in that same pic you will clearly see an arrow in the middle of the road painted in white. So the quality of the picture was there, but Joe's head was in the gutter as usual.

Once you can see that Joe makes up stories and fabricates facts, we will all know he has no CREDIBILITY. The only thing left is for the moderators to remove him in an effort to maintain some CIVILITY and CREDIBILITY on this blog.

I suspect the moderators want this blog to grow, but I seem to feel Joe is chasing many bloggers away with his circus antics.

I hope some corrective action can be taken soon so we can have controversial but honest discussiona and debate.

I am sure Joe will come back and say I wasn't saying you could see the painted cab spots but I was talking about seeing the ARROW in the middle of the street. Sure Joe, and I will sell you that Brooklyn Bridge for a nickel!

Many of Furstenau henchmen on this blog seem intent to disrupt it by continuing to lie, twist the truth, and psycho-babble through long rants about NaperGate, and other irrelevant or erroneous banter. More diversionary tactics to divert attention from the real issues, and make it difficult for others to express their views. You don't seem to know, or care to know about the facts. When you can't win an argument, you make absurd comments, or make up false accusations. Lines and lines of wasted blog space won't win an argument.

Regarding the Rosanova, and Werhli exchange with one of Furstenau's henchmen when he threw out false accusations without substantiation (sounds like Furstenau trained him), the two councilmen responded appropriately by denying it, albeit vehemently. I didn't see Furstenau deny, or give different versions of any of the events submitted to document his misconduct even though he had every opportunity to do so. If it wasn't true, why didn't he deny it? What does it have to do with circular driveways? Maybe you know.

Question for Jim Lynch.

The censure vote and the Burchard severance vote got there fair, and certainly due, coverage by the SUN. But I thought that those 2 very important issues, in the end, weren't the highlights of the meeting. For those who were there, there were 2 things everyone was talking about after the meeting.

I thought it was very clear that the highlights were:

1) The outbursts by Rosanova and Wherli that have been alluded to by several people on this blog (not just me), especially when it happened right before they censured Furstenau for intimidating behavior. Those 2 outbursts were the definition of defensive (angry) and intimidating behavior.

2) The account, which was shared during the open session by a citizen, of how Mr. Furstenau single handedly recovered an $8 Million lump-sum check of taxpayer money from the DuPage Water Commission by attending 50 or so Water Commission meetings, on his own, over a 4.5 year period and the low water rates we now benefit from.

Considering all that Councilman Furstenau has gone through with the coverage of everything negative, it would only be fair to cover those 2 stories. First because of the irony with Rosanova and Wherli, and second, because many of the significant, positive things Furstenau has done have gone unreported. Does the SUN have any intention to report and cover them?

Debbie, I will keep this brief.

My first mention of 'google' was because Ameena said previously:
"I had no way of knowing anything was written on the street unless as you indicated I had crawled under my SUV."

I merely pointed out 'street view' to show that it could be visible from another angle before even getting to the spot; without having to crawl under your vehicle. From there, everyone took that out of context and out of proportion, so much so that this is now bleeding over into a DF blog because some people feel that pointing out the fact that the paint is indeed visible is being a 'jerk'.

To Taxpayer:

The "outbursts" as you call them, were simply sideshows to the main issues at hand during the council meeting. Both Rosanova and Wehrli were - in my mind - well within their rights to show their tempers in response to unsubstantiated claims of "conflict of interest" accusations. Also, later in the meeting, they both apologized to the individuals involved. The democratic process is always prone to human emotions coming to the fore - all you have to do is watch C-Span and see what happens on Capitol Hill. As for Furstenau's contributions to the city, his fiscal acumen and his watchdog approach to city government, no one is questioning that. Indeed, that's the reason the SUN endorsed him in the last election. I hope I've answered your question.

Jim

Thanks for your response. I will respectfully disagree with your opinion of the Rosanova and Wherli outbursts. Furstenau was censured for showing his temper and emotion in very much the same way.That was the irony of the whole night. Many of the things Furstenau was accused of are unsubstantiated. If he and Krause had responded the same way to the article about them in the SUN, they would have been crucified. Furthermore, how do we know that the claims weren't true? Maybe they were. The only difference was that Rosanova and Wherli were defending themselves, and in nearly every instance Furstenau was trying to defend a taxpayer.

Jim

One final thought. In many of the allegations against Furstenau, he too later apologized to people on his own. That is documented in many of their own reports in the meeting agenda. That didn't justify his behavior with the staff. Why should Rosanova's and Wherli's apology make their behavior justified against a taxpayer?

Taxpayer,

I agree with you on the outbursts by the other Councilmen. That incident should go in their HR file as well, especially when it's against a member of the public. Luckily, it's on video for everyone to watch and watch again and pull up later whenever it may be necessary to refer back to it.

They talked about holding themselves to a higher standard. Now the door is open, they have to live up to those standards (and rightfully so) or taste their own medicine.

What this all boils down to is less than 1% of the population of Naperville actually care about this issue. Having 30 people speak on your behalf is not impressive for a town of over 140k people. It is just as unimpressive if 30 people spoke saying we should censure DF. Either way, this whole situation is a embarrassment to the city, the council and the taxpayers of Naperville. Is it me or does this seem like Naperville has turned into a fraternity or sorority?

Jim Lynch,

Now I must respond to your comments.

I am the person who talked about the "conflict of interest" points during the Public Forum at the last City Council meeting. You state above that my comments were not substantiated. That is not totally accurate and taken in the context of your intentions to write off my comments as " unsubstatiated accusations" makes it seem like an intentionally false statement on your part.

Only one point that I said was "refuted" by Councilman Rosanova; that being his son (who works for a law firm that represented a petitioner on a matter in which Councilman Rosanova voted on) as having worked on at least one matter that had come before the city. I had been told that the son had done so. So, I did appologize to Councilman Rosanova that I "may" have been misinformed about that point.

(Note, the comment about Councilman Rosanova's son, is as you said above, a "sideshow to the main issue at hand." Also, it was not a point directly about Councilman Rosanova himself. I raised the point about Rosanova's son in context of the comment that the City Attorney had made previously in relationship to conflict of interest. And, I prefaced my comments about Councilman Rosanova's son by stating what the city attorney had stated.)

Now, I made no "unsbstatiated accusations" about either councilman that I used as examples. I will get to that below.

First, my main point about my conflict of interest discussion was that, at the prior Council meeting, several Councilmen made a big deal about their beliefs that Councilman Furstenau had a financial interest in a vote about where funding ($400,000) would come from to set up a reserve to pay for outside lawyers to defend against the lawsuit he has against the City. And, I stated why I do not believe that was a conflict of interest issue as any funds used by the City to defend against Mr. Furstenau's lawsit against the City would not be funds used in his favor. That is, the funds would be used against him. Thus, on this point perhaps you could explain how logically one could say that he would have a financial interest in the outcome of the vote and that he therefore "must" recuse himself from the vote.

The entire point of my discussion was about when persons should recuse themselves from voting on a matter before them. And, I believe that demanding that Mr. Furstenau recuse himself from that particular vote was unfounded and improper. Certainly, the City Attorney should have spoken up and said so. (In fact, related to this incident, one might say that a majority of the City Councilmen successfully "bullied" Councilman Furstenau into not voting.)

Now, related to the two items that I cited as, in "my" estimation, were more appropriate examples of where councilmen should have recused themselves. (Before I explain them, it should be stated that I never have accused, nor inferred, that either Councilman had any direct financial interest in the outcome of their votes.)

And, Mr. Lynch, in the following discussion, please respond and be specific about where I had made "unsubstantiated accusations."

In the first example, I stated that a Councilman's son was a lawyer employed by a law firm that represented a petitioner before the City Council. Before a vote was made on the matter, I asked the Councilman to recuse himself from the vote. I did not demand that he recuse himself.

(Mr. Lynch, any "unsubstantiated accusations" in this statement?)

Also, the lawfirm was acting as the agent of the petitioner as the lawfirm was representing the petitioner before the City Council. That makes the law firm the "same" as the petitioner in this regard. And, the son was working for the law firm. That is why I believe that to vote on the matter was an issue where there was possible "conflict of interest." This is aside from the fact that I would never have voted on an issue where my son had some connection.

In the second example, I stated that the Councilman, when he was a member of the Plan Commission, had voted against a proposal made by the petitioner. Before his vote, the then Plan Commissioner, stated he would like to see the developer, if he so chooses, come back, answer the questions, "lower the density, then at least give us something that we would have the possibility of conidering." (During my presentation, I repeated the words that were in quotes in the prior sentence.)

Now should a Plan Commissioner be telling a petitioner what to do to get his vote?

After another attempt to get approval from the Plan Commission, which failed, the petitioner decided to take his proposal directly to the City Council. Now, at this time, the former Plan Commissioner was now a member of the City Council.

Before a vote on the matter, I also asked, before the entire City Council, that this Councilman also recuse himself. Note, I did not demand that he recuse himself and again I did not say that he had a financial interest in the matter before him. Instead, it was indicated that the Councilman's first cousin was an owner of the petitioner (a developer). Before his vote, the only reason the Councilman said why he was now supporting the petitioner's proposal was that "the facts had changed." Which facts he did not say. The major change from the proposal that he voted on as a Plan Commisioner and the one when he was a Councilman was that the density was lower. And, this was the thing he told the petitioner to do when he was a Plan Commisiioner.

Mr. Lynch, any "unsubstantiated accusiations" in the statements related to this that were said before the City Council? If so, please be specific in describing them in your reply.

I also made the point that conflict of interest is not all about legalities. I said that I believe it is also about "morality and intgrity."

And in general, in the public eye, the appearance of conflict of interest is very upsetting to the public.

That is why I had previously "asked" the two councilmen to recuse themsevles in that particular vote. Also, I used these two examples in my discussion during the Public Forum session as examples of two items that I believe were more likely to be conflict of interest than the item about Mr Furstenau's vote on the funding source

Rod Randall, a resident of this fine community

Taxpayer,
That is one of the reasons Fustenau was censured. He repeatedly slandered members of staff with false accusations without substantiation, just as Furstenau's supporter did to Councilman Rosanova, on video for all to see. Our councilmen are no longer going to sit by, and allow that to happen. That was one of the points of the censure resolution.

Southwest Naperville Taxpayer,

I would like for you to state just what specifically, in your mind, I said at the City council meeting that "repeatedly slandered Councilman Rosanova".

In addition, why do you say I am a supporter of Councilman Furstenau? What is your basis for saying so (regardless of whether I am or not)? I used the incident related to Councilman Furstenau and the funding source vote to make a point about what, in my opinion, is and is not a conflict of interest.

Related to your prior statement that "regarding the Rosanova, and Werhli exchange with one of Furstenau's henchmen when he threw out false accusations without substantiation (sounds like Furstenau trained him), the two councilmen responded appropriately by denying it, albeit vehemently.", please response to about the following questions.

Why did you call me "one of Furstenau's henchman?" What specifically are the "false accusations without substantiation" that you accuse me of having made? While Councilman Rosanova did deny that his son has ever worked on matters that have come before the city (and I did appologized to him if I may have been misinformed about that), Councilman Rosanova did say his son worked for the lawfirm. Also, Councilman Wehrli denied something of which I did not accuse him of (nor infer about him). He denied he had any financial interest. I never said he did. So, what did I say falsely about Councilman Wehrli? I only stated facts about him, his cousin, and what he had previously said.

Also, Councilman Furstenau did not know that I was going to address the City Council and he did not know what I had to say. Thus, he did not train me to say something. Therefore, please be careful yourself about making false accusations?

Rod Randall, a resident of this fine community

Kevin @1048am today,
Thirty people is a lot of people. For every person that speaks almost 1000 feel the same way. To me those 30 people represent 30,000 people.

Do you really expect 150,000 people to show up and speak. At 3 minutes a piece that would mean the council meeting would last 7500 hours or 313 days. Almost a year!!! Mayor Pradel would not put up with that and I don't blame him.

To my knowledge no one spoke on behalf of the city except for the Council Members who had prepared speeches and ignored the residents. Many residents were in the council chambers in support of DF who chose not to speak in order not to be repetitive or possibly because they were shy. Mr Pradel likes short speeches and does not like people repeating what others already said in order to try to get the meeting over by midnight. I don't blame him but please don't underestimate 30 people who spoke on behalf of DF.

Even if these people were neighbors, they would never come and speak on his behalf if he was arrogant or hostile. They would be speaking against him. So it says a lot that he has a great relationship with his neighbors assuming they were all neighbors.

He seemed to have a great relationship with all the parents whose kids he coached. If he had uncontrolled anger a parent of an opposing team would have showed up before the council and blasted him for yelling at him/her or their kid.

He seemed to have gotten along with a group of 4000 south side Naperville residents who fought the city during Napergate days. So much so they were running full page ads at their expense for him and even continued after he lost his first election until they got him elected 4 years later. To me this shows his support is widespread, very deep rooted and with relentless conviction.

And I am sorry if I have to repeat this one. The man attended 60 boring WATER COMMISSION meetings and saved us 8,000,000 dollars as mentioned by "Taxpayer" above. Yes, the moderator responded that they know of this and that is why they supported him in the election. But I have to say anyone who goes to this effort to save the taxpayers money should receive a FRONT PAGE FULL PAGE article in the Naperville Sun upon his success. He needs some recognition for his UNRECOGNIZED boring work. Did any other council member even go to any of these meeting one time to help??

So I ask Moderator Jim and host Ted to see what they can do to get DF his proper recognition for what he does for the citizens. He deserves it!!!

Blake...
PS. I am not a neighbor, friend, or relative of DF. I only met him twice in election forums and I doubt he knows who I am or even remembers me!!! I was not at the City Council meeting but did watch it on Channel 10 TV and thought it was very educational. I did talk to one person who attended that said that DF had supporters there who did not speak. So if I attended I would have been speaker No. 31, and I would have asked the Mayor for an additional 30 seconds, and he would have to finally tell me my TIME IS TRULY up to queit me down. I am really proud of DF and I am glad he represents me. I was shocked that Mayor Pradel, a man truly loved by the residents, did not side with Mr. Furstenau over his fellow council members.
I honestly can see Mayor Pradel shifting sides one day and the whole town will turn as Mayor Pradel turns. Mayer Pradel unlike the other City Council members does have a great heart and conscience but is being misled by SOMEONE!!! At least he called DF like his "child." I did not take that as an insult by Mayor Pradel as other have stated. Possibly an innocent slip of the tongue. Mayor Pradel does not insult anyone. He may have slipped up with the wrong word, but he was not insulting DF and his intentions were GOOD! I believe he cares about DF and truly wants to see a reconciliation. Doug Krause does to! As far as the remaining council members I was really disappointed with their comments that were full of anger and hostility.
Rosonava and Werhli need to attend anger management classes....not DF who was very calm under such a ferocious attack. I have never seen anyone in my life so CALM in such CIRCUMSTANCES!!
Sorry about the lengthy e-mail but I got carried away about this emotional issue.

Taxpayer,

1)Your comments at the meeting indicated you support Furstenau.

2)You stated that Councilman Rosanova's son was directly involved with city projects through his employment. Councilman Rosanova eloquently answered your accusation. Your assertion of Councilman Werhli's alleged "conflicts of interest".

If you are concerned about conflicts of interest, take a look at the fact that we now have a councilman involved with, and voting on the business of the city he is suing.

Joe,
Sorry, the painted street sign is not visible on this 4th cab spot thru Google Satellite. You continue disemanating false information.

I guess the only way this could be resolved is if the moderator or host would check the Google site you posted and inform us if they can see a painted sign on that street spot thru a Google Satellite picture.

That would end the debate that has been jumping from thread to thread unnecessarily as you correctly point out!!! And it would end your CREDIBILITY or MINE! I am fine with that and awaiting the VERDICT.

It is not irrelavant because DF was fighting towing in that area as mismarked or signs not being posted in a timely manner. It is all about the same thing but a different day!!

Rod Randal,
My previous email was directed to you. I may have addressed Taxpayer. My statement that "He repeatedly slandered members of staff with false accusations without substantiation ... on video for all to see." was in reference to Furstanau.

blake

To answer your question, no other councilman attended 1 single Water Commission meeting. The Mayor may have attended 1 or 2 (I think that is what was stated).

Blake,

I appreciate your blog and your passion for this topic, but you only have met DF twice, so you really can't talk about him like you know him personally especially since your interactions with him were at an election forum where candidates usually don't make it a practice to be a jerk to the voters who are attending.

I have known DF for many years now as I have played sports against his kids where he was the coach and now as an adult I am involved in the community where those organizations I volunteer at have worked with DF directly while he has been on the city council. DF is who he is, a blunt politician who gets results. Honestly, I don't have a problem with that type of personality as it is refreshing to see someone who speaks their mind and is not so political when they talk all of the time. However, he can soften his tone at times as his communication style doesn't always work for everybody. Don't paint him to be this teddy bear of a politician...that is probably an insult to him personally as that is not who he is. I am sure he likes his image, he likes being the tough politician who asks the questions no one else will. If you know him well, that is very clear in your dealings with him.

Every board, council and organization needs someone who does what DF does. Yes, they can be a pain at a meeting and yes they can make the meeting run long, but they serve a purpose and they make sure that everyone in the room has thought through the issue so they make an informed decision. So keep him on the board now and vote him in again and again...as the city council needs someone to play his role during the meetings. DF is a unique kind of politician, but let's be honest...he is not a teddy bear!

Thanks,

Kevin

To Rod Randall:
I stand by my original post regarding the "unsubstantiated claims." If you had proof of any conflict of interest regarding Rosanova and Wehrli, then why didn't you put them on the table instead of relying on what was clearly hearsay - thus unsubstantiated. Your post to me is just parsing words - a lot of them - that do nothing to back up your prior assertions. Having said that, thanks for being part of this spirited forum.

SNT,

You post "Regarding the Rosanova, and Werhli exchange with one of Furstenau's henchmen when he threw out false accusations without substantiation (sounds like Furstenau trained him), the two councilmen responded appropriately by denying it, albeit vehemently."

Actually, in Rosanova's case it was way betond vehement -- it bordered on psycho violence. Also, just as the Council, you, and many others don't like it when Fursteneau loses his temper (thus the censure), they should be consistent with all members. In this case, they not only were silent, as hypocrites they went on to pontificate on how such behavior could not be tolerated!

Don't even try, dude --- there is NO defense for Rosanova on tis one (or the Board for their silence). As I stated at the Counsil, their silence represents consent.

Jim L.

Why are they within their rights to be bullies and Fursteneau isn't? Also, as I recall, the citizen did NOT mention them by name, and Rosanova's visceral response was rpefaced with "I don't THINK my son..."

I know many wanted to see Fursteneau nailed because of the cumulative body of work as we say, BUT the Sept 4th rule was very vivid going forward.

Again, there is NO excuse for the outburst by Rosanove, and he cannot really be defended using the data (only the beliefs and emotions).

JOMO.

Peace.

Jim Lynch,

First, my statements about what I perceive to be conflicts of interest are my opinion. I did state facts about things that are or things that were said as my reasons why I believe that the two Councilmen should have recused themselves. I did put them "on the table."

You may disagree with my conclusion that those were valid reasons for persons to recuse themselves, but nothing was heresay (except again for the one point where I was told that the reason that Councilman Rosanova did recuse himself in the recent past on an issue was because his son was involved; again, I did appologize for that one point because I personnaly did not ask the son if he did work on any matters that have come before the city).

Again, to emphasize my point