Cindy,

How many days in jail did DF spend?

Joe,
There was no evidence in the Kevin Fox rape case and it was not dismissed by a grand jury or the state's attorney. The poor guy spent 8 months in jail until DNA saved him. Without, DNA, he would have hung.

You have to accept that the system fails at times... There was 0 evidence it that case and look at what happened. You can argue this one as it went further and he was awarded 15.6 million for the stupidity of those who carried on this injustice. Try to put yourself in Kevin's cell and see how you would feel after 8 months!!!

Cindy

Posada705,

Perhaps there is a misinterpretation of the word 'stunned'.

There is physical stunning (from force) and just plain mental stunning from the viewpoint of "I can't believe he even did that?!"

Before that, however,
Who actually said "A punch so hard that it stunned Officer Hull" ? I doubt Officer Hull gave that quote as most officers don't talk in the third person. If it was anyone else stating that and not the officer himself then that statement itself has no credibility and should not be factored in because I doubt it was Officer Hull making that third person quote.

The following two sound pretty much in sync with each other: back hand slap/touch to the chest.

Is this (backhand to the chest) what really happened and what was presented into evidence or did the prosecution have nothing presented other than a charge and no written testimony in front of the judge? I would think it would have been halted and dismissed by a grand jury or the state's attorney if there was 0 evidence to present for the trial, don't you?

I believe you misspoke when you said: "...based on no evidence..."

Joe,
As outlined in Furstenau's lawsuit, the only "evidence" was Hull's testimony of the events. When an Officer of the Law claims he was battered that is all the "evidence" needed to proceed with charges, in the Court's eyes...which I agree with by the way. However, during the 18 month lawsuit against Furstenau, the charges went from "a punch so hard it stunned Officer Hull" to a "backhand slap in the chest", then to "touching with the back of the hand in a non-threatening manner." By the time it got to trail Hull didn't even show up to testify. One major detail in Furstenau's case now is that Hull never had to testify UNDER-OATH as to the events of that day. Since he wouldn't testify...the prosecution had NO EVIDENCE that anything happened. In fact, the only evidence was eyewitnesses that saw the entire incident and said NOTHING HAPPENED.
Furstenau got drug through the mud for 18 months based on Hull saying something untrue ("a punch so hard that it stunned him"). I'm only assuming that to be untrue because Hull himself changed his story as to what happened.
There is something very wrong with the way this whole thing happened, and Furstenau wants an impartial jury to figure that out.

Posada705,

If there was 'no evidence' the State/District Attorney would not have moved forward.

There can be disagreement as to the validity and strength of that 'evidence' but there had to be 'some' to move it forward to trial.

Moonrunner,
Good Job!! You're last blog actually made sense and your comments were actually directed towards the issue. Shame on you for telling me to stick to the issue when you're first comment had NOTHING to do with the issue. Although I 100% disagree with your comment regarding "lawsuit abuse," I appreciate your opinion.

I'd like to see what you would do when you're wrongfully arrested, based on no evidence, and charged with felony battery that could put you behind bars for 15 years. Whether you or I like it or not, it is well within Furstenau's right to sue. I don't understand why you'd think your right to express yourself in this blog is more important than Furstenau's right to sue.

i am going to have come out of my short-lived self imposed retirement to write on the continuing saga of "DICK, the man who was wronged by everybody." o.k. so, the police are out to get him ? the city council is out to get him ? the city manager is out to get him ? the city attorney is out to get him ? the city of naperville employee's are out to get him ? it seems as if the only people NOT out to get him are the 30 friends who showed up for their rehearsed babble at the last council meeting. i think the SUN was less than impressive in this latest reBUTTal by DICK. the weak questions put to DICK were NOT answered. " i don't remember" ? is that a good excuse ? most of the questions that were answered were by his hired gun attorney, and i bet you almost everything he said as gospel truth will be proven wrong ! peter burchard wrote a letter warning people about this man, DICK's attorney has answered back, where is DICK ?? now, i would ask, if you are not DICK, his wife, his sons, his tabernacle choir, how can you stand for this man ???? according to december 25 naperville sun, DICK says, I DON'T CARE IF THIS THING COSTS 5 MILLION DOLLARS, THE TAXPAYERS WILL UNDERSTAND. I DON'T UNDERSTAND!!! all you people WHO ARE WITH ME. get on your email, send 10,000 emails, FURSTENAUR@NAPERVILLE.IL.US tell him you are NOT FOR IT !!!! YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND !!!! remember DICK there is NO conspiracy against you, you are NOT as important as you think you are.

Concerning the comment that Posada705 made about how I "... probably never spoken to Furstenau or looked the man in the eyes...", I am sure that the majority of people posting here have not had the privelage to sitting down to tea with Mr Furstenau either, nor would they right about now, as the man now seems to want to sue anyone who even so much as looks at him the wrong way. And I am not only basing my opinion of Mr Furstenau on his picture, but on his words and now on his actions. The man is fast approaching the fine line between seeking justice and lawsuit abuse. The fact he is now researching the possibility of suing any councilman who voted for his censure is a clear demonstration that this whole thing is rapidly spiraling out of control. I think that maybe an independent negotiator should be brought in, sit all the parties involved here down and try to settle this thing, before Naperville winds up the receiver of a rather large and messy opened can of worms.

Oh, Posada705, I do happen to have a clue what is going on. I would appreciate it if in the future, you would direct your comments towards the issue, and not at someone who happens to be exercising their right to express an opinion.

To Michele B.: I would hardly call them 2 journalistic standards. As for the anonymous tipster, that information was verified by the SUN after we received the tip. The relationship between the 2 councilmen was outlined and we simply posed the question of whether there was a conflict of interest. As for Rosanova and Wehrli, that situation - if you would even call it that - was brought forth in public comment by someone who had just "heard" things that were totally unsubstantiated and when asked by Rosanova had no proof and nothing to say. I don't blame him or Wehrli for defending themselves and would hardly call them tantrums. If memory serves, they both later apologized as well as the citizen for bringing up the unsubstantiated hearsay. There's a big difference. I hope this answers your question.

Jim Lynch,

With regard to the Rosanova & Wherli "conflict of interest" question: Please explain the rational for the Sun using two different journalistic standards when commenting on Furstenau and his supports vs. other Councilmen.

For example:

The Sun shines a bright light on the perceived conflict of interest facing Doug Krouse due to his $500 of business dealings with Furstenau. Here the Sun gave front page press to the anonymous tipster that questioned Doug Krouse's having a confict of interest in supporting Fursteanu a week before the censure vote.

On the other hand, in this blgo, you seem to diminish and even justify the public tantrum and unchecked anger demonstated by Rosanova and Wherli.

Why the different tone / treatment of the issue? I would think that as a member of the press you would insist on any public official clearly explaining and/or defending him or herself when a conflict of interest question arises. I cannot understand how you can justify a public official becoming angry and berating a citizen who "dared" ask a reasonable question. Since you seem to have sided with Rosanova / Wherli - please let me ask you:

1) If you have an immediate family member working for an influencial law firm that routinely has matters before the council - a) should you disclose this fact? b) should you offer to recuse yourself if either the council or another party in interest has an issue with the "appearance" of a "potential conflict of interest" or c) should you get mad and scream at anyone who dares to question your integrity?

2) If you have an extended family member with the same surname that holds an ownership stake in a matter before the council - a) should you disclose this fact? b) should you offer to recuse yourself or c) should you get mad and sling insults at anyone that mentions the issue?

I'd enjoy hearing your answer.

efense of Wherli and Rosanova when your paper published a much more damning

Moonrunner,
Are you kidding me? You're basing your opinion of this whole thing on Furstenau's picture in the paper? You've probably never spoken to Furstenau or looked the man in the eyes. He has an "open-door" policy...why don't you schedule a meeting with him and get an idea of what he's all about...in person.

Maybe then you'll have a clue!

I have a puzzlement also and it has to do with the 'stipulated bench trial'.

From the interview, it sounds as if DF and his Lawyer are saying that the city insisted on it because they lacked evidence.

From my understanding, only the defendant can ask for it in a criminal trial. The way they explained it in the interview leads me to believe they are saying the city forced it that direction.

Is there any lawyer on here that can clear that distinction up because I was under the impression that only the defense can waive that right to a trial by jury (a civil right). Now, DF did say he signed it (waived that right) because his lawyer advised him to, but still made it sound like it was the prosecution's doing/initiation.

I have one question that has just been nagging at me since this whole Furstenau thing exploded. If Mr. Furstenau is the bold, two-fisted, fights-for-the-guy man that he claims he is, fighting for the residents, fighting for the taxpayers, fighting for the Average Joe and Jill, then why it is every time I see a picture of him in the paper, or anywhere else for that matter, he looks like an abused puppy who has been told to stand in the corner for piddling on the rug? He wears this tired, beaten, oh-please-feel-pity-for-me/I-have-been-so-wronged look on his face that would be more appropriate for the face of a child who has just gotten caught with his hand in the cookie jar, not for a courageous hero who is fighting the good fight, as Mr. Furstenau would like to portray himself as being. Ever since this whole story broke, it is as if Mr. Furstenau has taken off his hero outfit and has now donned the garb of the victim, as if that is going to win him more support. In the end, it just may wind up working against him in ways he never even dreamed of. If the man wants me to believe he is only there on the Council so as to defend and fight for the rest of us, instead of coming across as just another politico who feels that pouting draws more sympathy, then perhaps he should start acting as a grown-up and portray himself as one, instead of wearing a look on his face that should have a cartoon balloon with the words "BOO-HOO! WOE IS ME!" above it. Then maybe I would have a little more respect for the guy than I do right now.

I am embarrassed by our city council for not listening to the taxpayers who voted them in office. If they vote to establish a recall amendment, I know a lot of them are putting themselves in that very position. Citizens of Naperville are paying attention to their actions. I'm shocked by their approval of P.B.s severance and the censure of D.F. I am not related to Dick F., but I totally support him and after this is over, you can bet he will have many many more supporters. I agree that the bloggers like 'd.bone' should not be allowed to post, his cruel comments only make himself look bad. It will not change anyone's mind about councilman Furstenau.
Peace be with you all, especially to the Furstenau family.

Ted,

8 months? OK, thanks for the correction. What I read last night said 2 months, obviously that was wrong; again thanks for the correction.

That makes it around $64.5K per day.

How many days did DF spend in jail? 1? none?

Rod Randall

No, I don't think I missed the point at all. I don't think a councilman needs to recuse himself every time a citizens asks him to do so, unless there is sufficient basis to show a conflict. If there is no financial benefit to the councilman or a relative ("speculative", as you put it) then I don't see a problem. If a councilman recused himself every time he was asked to do so, especially when there appeared to be no basis for recusal, then nothing would ever get voted on.

I think it would be highly unethical for DF to vote on anything to do with his case against the city, funding or otherwise. How nice it would be for a litigant to be able to help shape the legal defense against him, even if only with the purse strings.

Perhaps the Commissioner you mentioned recused himself for the very reason you stated--he lived in a sub-division near the development. Without asking him why he did so, one could speculate that the development may impact the value of his home, the traffic in his neighborhood, or both. This example is just a red herring.

I also don't understand how you can say that a Plan Commissioner telling a developer to redraw their plans to be less dense is somehow unethical. You say it's OK for the Commissioner to state why he voted as he did. Isn't that one way of telling the developer how to change their proposal? In your own words, the Plan Commissioner didn't state that a lower density project would definitley be approved but would be "something that we [the Plan Commission] would have the possibility of considering".

T.B.

You're right, no direct financial interest likely for either of the two Councilmen. But for both of them there is possible financial benefit for relatives. The son may get a bonus from the firm, etc. or some other financial reward (I know that is speculative, but is possible - and that is the point about possible conflict). And, in the case of the developer he already is likely asking for a large amount for the property in question and is likely to reap a huge profit directly due to the rezoning change that was made and voted for by the Councilman. By the way, I did not suggest these senarios either.

The point that you seem to miss is that I asked both of them to abstain from voting on the issue (for the reasons I have noted) and that I believe that these examples were better ones than the bullying action taken by the City Council to have Councilman Furstenau not vote on the funding source issue.

Also, I believe that conflict of interest is not only about a direct financial interest. There could be many examples of this. And, that is why I believe the two Councilmen should have abstained from voting.

Are you aware that a Plan Commissioner abstained from voting related to one of the petitioner's proposals when it came befor the Plan commission. He had no financial interest. He just happened to live in the subdivision near (his home is not in close proximity) the property.

Again, you missed the point about my quotes of what the Councilman said. It is definitely okay to give your reasons for a vote. I never would have a problem with that. It's a good practive and I encourage it. However, it does not seem propoer to tell someone what to do to get your vote. Maybe, the Councilman did not intend to tell what should be done, but in fact he did.

Rod Randall, resident of this fine community

Joe,

Kevin Fox spent 8 months in jail.

Liebert,

I believe I read that Fox spent 2 months in jail.
That equates out to just over a quarter million dollars per day spent in jail.
How long did DF spend in jail? Knowing that number perhaps we can calculate out the 'damages' and see what the cost would be.

Rod Randall

I'm lost. How is there a conflict of interest if, as you said, "...I never have accused, nor inferred, that either Councilman had any direct financial interest in the outcome of their votes." With no direct interest, there's no conflict.

And I see no harm in a Plan Commissioner telling a developer why he voted against a project--the density was too high. Sounds like it was in the best interest of the city to lower the density of the development.

Liebert

I don't think the parallels between the Fox case and the DF case are valid. The $15 million figure appears included only as an attempt to scare people into wanting to settle.

However, I agree that the money needed to successfully defend the DF lawsuit is going to be much higher than anyone on the council is willing to admit at the present time. $400K is not going to cover the litigation costs.

Everyone on the council needs to take some time over the holidays and figure out how to back away from the edge of insanity here and come to some sort of resolution.

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.
Posted by: Southwest Naperville Taxpayer | December 19, 2007 10:45 PM
******************************************************************
1. Furstenau does not have any henchman on this blog. Point out one to me with a name and tell me who lied or twisted the truth regarding when and about what? You are just having wild hallucinations. Are you on some kind of psycho-medication?

2. Napergate was discussed by most viewers as an example of what could happen if we don't settle with Furstenau quickly. Many bloggers see a comparison! In both cases the City rushed to hire 2 outside law firms to assist the sizable in-house legal staff.

3. I believe bloggers who have been in town for a while, realize the devastating consequences to the reputation of our fine city after that Napergate battle. They are simply wishing not to see another such battle and hoping our city officials can learn something from the past and settle quickly and inexpensively.

4. Not only was the cost of the Napergate legal battle so expensive, but so horrendously above the highest expectations of cost, that when it was all over city officials embarassingly stated to Sun Editor Tim West, we don't have any records and if we did we would not give them to you. That sounds more arrogant than anything DF has ever said.

5. If the city feels it is on the losing side of litigaion, it has a pattern of triple lawyering up instead of settling and getting it over with. They triple lawyered the Napergate Man and lost. Now they are triple lawyering DF and will likely lose! Does anyone see any similarities?

6. Will County wanted to fight Kevin Fox despite wrongfully charging him for the rape of his daughter. He walked off with over $15,000,0000 dollars yesterday. Does anybody see the risk we are taking by trying to fight DF instead of settling him??? Is there nothing to learn from the Kevin Fox or Napergate cases about falsely charging innocent law abiding citizens?

I am sorry Southwest Taxpayer but I just don't see Dick's Supporters as henchman. I don't see Napergate vs. Naperville as a psycho-babble rant. It is actually a very long legal and political battle documented in ads, petitions, and court records.

Ironically it is you who seems to be pyshco babbling about DF, his henchman and ranting about Napergate documented facts! Name the henchmen and dispute the facts in the Napergate ads....it is time to end your HYSTERIA @ RAGING ANGER!!! Maybe it is time for you to join Rosonava and Werhli in Anger Management 101!!!

Debbie,

You: "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. " -- Posted by: Debbie | December 19, 2007 09:42 PM

I'm afraid you are the one playing semantics now. You threw down the gauntlet and I simply handed it right back to you.

I posted a picture that shows the fainted paint using the information and link I previously gave multiple times that you kept insisting showed nothing. I never claimed it was clearly readable; only that paint in the parking spot was visible. Parking spots only have pain IN them like that when it indicates some sort of restriction to parking there (Compact only, Taxi, Handicap, Reserved, etc). ANY indication of paint in a parking spot means you better find out and understand the restriction before you leave your vehicle there. That is the driver's responsibility to ensure they are parking in a valid legal spot. If you want to run the risk that you can talk your way out of a ticket later by claiming ignorance because it wasn't sign-posted or fully properly painted fluorescent pink with flashy neon to catch your attention then by all means, leave it parked there and assume that 'risk'. Sometimes that 'risk' results in your car remaining there. Sometimes it doesn't. It's an expensive lesson to learn. I still doubt anyone who's complaining about it even bothered to send the form letter I posted to the TAB or even plans to show up at a meeting to get this 'issue' downtown properly addressed. Maybe you find it more fun to argue about it on a message blog instead of doing something about the injustice that the city of naperville is thrusting upon its downtown parkers.

First you call me a yoyo then a bozo, now you want to take this and add a sexual santa twist. I believe you truly are a sick individual and I want nothing further with your obsessive clingy games on here. I'll even say 'You Win' if you stop with this sick childish nonsense.

Joe,
That is the exact picture I was looking at. I was looking at the street view and to me that meant a zoomed in statellite view....you are just simply playing with SEMANTICS to maintain a semblance of CREDIBILITY of which you have none!

The bottom line is I agree with all the others including Blake and Ameena that the painting on this spot is very fainted, hardly visible, and not legible at all to be identifiable as a Cab Spot based on this STREET VIEW you are advertising to prove yourself RIGHT when you are obviously WRONG.

Don't try to take specific words or sentences out of context to make your point. I think anyone who read those blogs understands what Ameena was trying to say.

So by giving the bloggers the exact place to look, they can see exactly what you are all about... Trying to be RIGHT when you are clearly WRONG. Trying to play with semantics to prove you are RIGHT when you are WRONG. Hoping your fellow bloggers will not make the actual effort to look to verify how WRONG you are. I hope some will care to look to understand what you are ABOUT. A picture is worth a 1000 words and I think the picture this time will put the final nails in your COFFIN of CREDIBILITY! Yes, no other than the picture you want us all to look at!

Joe, you have been playing your game of semantics since you started blogging months ago. You have been battling anyone and everyone for no reason other than to get your RISE to be RIGHT.

You really need to get a life. You are the number one blogger regarding number of posts, by far, which indicates you have no other life and most likely no job/business or a job/business that allows you to blog thru out the day. Which is it? Please tell! I say you go get a hobby that gives you RISE other than arguing with people who are trying to have civilized debate and discussion on both sides of a controversial issue.

Merry Christmas Joe!!! Have you considered trying to be Santa Claus in a mall. That may give you a different kind of a RISE!!! And in case you have not heard adult ladies sitting in Santas' laps have been giving Santas BIG RISES lately! Just a suggestion, Joe!!! Go for it!!! You need a REAL RISE real bad!!! Of course you would probably follow suit and sue them for giving you a RISE you actually enjoyed. You are truly the hypocrit of all times!!

Debbie, I will remove the guesswork for you.

Here is the link to the STREET VIEW I have repeatedly been talking about. The cars are parked in spaces 2 and 3. The space to the right is space 4. Note the white paint in the space.

http://img406.imageshack.us/my.php?image=svjpggm7.png

That is all I told Ameena in the other thread, that the paint was visible on this view after she said the only way to see the paint was to crawl underneath her vehicle.

Thank you, and have a wonderful evening.

Debbie, do you not read my posts but instead make up your own version of it.. or are you purposely trying to restate incorrect information over and over again that's been corrected many times over?

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

I said time and time again that the painting on the street is visible on STREET VIEW and *NOT* Satellite view.

You misrepresented satellite view in this blog on Posted by: Debbie | December 19, 2007 05:39 PM
I corrected you on: Posted by: Joe | December 19, 2007 07:20 PM by stating:
" 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"

You then said I said Satellite view again on Posted by: Debbie | December 19, 2007 09:42 PM
but quoted me actually saying STREET VIEW. (Go figure?)

I'm tired of your games. I don't care that you don't like me, but constantly posting false accusations is really wearing thin and no one on here really cares to read them anymore, so please, just stop. I think you are simply embarrassing yourself now.

The point to my first blog was that beyond this forum here and the 30 people who showed up to the city council meeting, no one really cares about this issue...in fact some people think it is a joke that a city of our size is spending valuable time discussing this matter.

The point to my second blog was to say regardless of what you think about DF's methods, he gets results. He is not a kind and gentle man, he is tough and sometimes rude. That is who he is...when I read people say he is a kind man, etc...I laugh and think to myself...do you really know this man??? He is anything but calm and in control all of the time...he has lost his temper during meetings and he is rude at times. That is his personally, instead of getting upset by it, just learn to deal with it and move on. I am not for or against DF, I see both sides of the discussion. Really if you think about it, after the meeting on Tuesday...this issue is dead. There really is nothing you can do about it anymore. Hopefully that clears things up...

Kevin,
Your 2 posts seem to be confusing and contradictory. In the first one you seem to be againt DF. In the other one to Blake, you seem to be suddenly supporting him. I think you confused the bloggers from your remarks!! Could you please try to CLARIFY!!!

Kevin,
Your first post that 30 people speaking on his behalf, not being impressive, was my reason for addressing you.

I never said or implied DF is a "teddy bear" and of course he is not. You are insulting him by referring to him in this manner. Not me!! I never said that or insinuated that! I like him being tough! I admire his TOUGHNESS!!!

I disclosed I only met him twice personally where I actually spoke to him. But I was one of the NAPERGATE 4000 and seen him in action many times. If he was not a fighter that group would never have supported him and ran all those expensive full page ads for him.

I have followed him for long enough to know he is tough and good man. I would dislike him if he was a "TEDDY BEAR." Why you would make that comment is beyond me. I just said he knows how to control his ANGER. That is not a sign of a "TEDDY BEAR." That is a sign of a TOUGH man who knows who to do business and fight for the taxpayers while controlling his temper unlike Rosonava and Werhli...who need to attend anger management classes!

I really don't know where you are coming from. For the most part I agreed with your 2nd posting but I did not like your first posting in which you were knocking down the number 30. I just again think 30 people speaking on his behalf is very impressive. Mayor Pradel had to allot extra time to get the speakers in. If 100 people spoke there would have been no time for discussing the agenda or finishing the meeting. So I think it was handled just right as pertaining to number of speakers by all sides!!!

I watched it on TV and I got a chance to really get a pulse of what was happening. Any more than 30 speakers would have destroyed the meeting.

I can assure you if DF wanted a hundred speakers he could make a call to the Napergate Man and he could send him a 100 speakers alone. DF does not have to stage anything. He is well rooted in this community and probably did not ask anyone to show up. I think his support is very natural and real. I must say you made me regret not being there and being Speaker #31. After reading your first blog, I feel I made a mistake and should have been there. I did not know people were COUNTING!!! Well, I guess you live and learn.

Blake...

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, I did not accuse either of them of any wrongdoing, I said that I had asked them to recuse themselves from voting on an issue where they had possible conflicts of interest. And, in my opinion, were more of a conflict situation than the funding source vote.

Therefore, nothing else I said was unsubstantiated. If you believe anything else was not substantiated in my statements to the City Council, please (as I requested before) be specific.

If there was anything I said was untrue (other than the comment about the son working on a matter that came before the City Council, which to my knowlege may or may not be true as it come to me by another source and when Councilman Rosanova denied it, I did appologize should I have been misinformed).

Now, I had previously asked them to recuse themselves because of those points ("facts") that I stated. Which fact is not true.

Does not Councilman Rosanova have a son that works for a law firm that was the law firm for the petitioner.

Is not the cousin of Councilman Wehrli an owner of the petitioner?

Did not Councilman Wehrli say, when he was a Plan Commissioner, that "lower the density, then at least give us something that we would have the possibility of considering?"

Did not Councilman Wehrli say he was in favor because "the facts have changed?"

These are the reasons for my comments about possible conflict of interest. Each one is a true fact or statement. So what is my "unsubstantiated claim? If you disagree with me, that is fine. Just say so.

But, do not say what I have said is unsubstantiated. I said what I said and did not parse words. I said what I said to let the Council know that in the Furstenau vote on funding sources, it was not an item where he was "required" to recuse himself and the other two examples were where two Councilman should, in my opinion, have recused themselves.

Again, "conflict of interest" is not just a "legal" thing. It relates as well to morality and integrity.

Rod Randall, a resident of this fine community

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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!!

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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'.

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?

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.

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!

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.

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?

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.

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!

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 )

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...

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.

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.

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!!!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?