The Naperville City Council has approved a resolution to place a referendum on the November ballot establishing term limits for city council members. It passed 7-1 with Richard Furstenau casting the only "no" vote. Have City Council members stayed too long? Are you happy with things the way they are?
UPDATE: Now it's official. The term limit question will be on the ballot in November. Read the story here.
I have a few question for those of you who defend NOT having term limits by saying we get a chance to enforce term limits every election day and if there isn't enough voter anger to vote the bums out, then so be it.
"Why is it the President is held to just two terms?"
"Are you aware that current campaign finance laws heavily favor incumbants, thus rigging the game against turnover and change?"
You are correct, though, that we get the government we deserve.
My next question is for the councilmen, etc., that are against even having the term limits question on the ballot:
"What are you afraid of?"
Anon -
No, DF should have worked though the police chief or the watch commander even if he was in the right. His interjection into the chain of command was an outside his authority. Your argument is hallow.
T.B.
Anonymous on June 26, 2010 3:02 AM (Who sounds a lot like someone else--and probably is!)
First, let's remember what the question was. It had nothing to do with clout. The question was chain of command for the police department in Naperville--which is a managerial form of government. The chain of command for the police department in a managerial government does not include the city council. The "buck" stops with the city manager.
Second, clout is a different question and, as you ably noted, a political animal. We saw exactly how much clout the city council has over the police in the Furstenau case. Let's not try to compare Naperville with Chicago as Chicago is a different animal. It has a different form of government--strong mayor. It has wards (as you note) while Naperville does not. We see the result of Chicago police not enforcing the law against its aldermen. Look how many Chicago city officials have been arrested by the FBI for breaking the law. Don't tell me about the police blotter in the Sun. The blotter only contains the minor offenses. Anything major is reported as a full article. Naperville is in the 54th percentile in US cities according to the crime index.
Finally, the city council in a managerial form of government is solely a legislative office. They take no part in the management of the city. Their power is restricted to passing legislation, including financial legislation. If they want to correct a situation, their only recourse is to change the law or cut the funding. Chicago with its strong mayor form of government and wards is different. And, even different cities with strong mayor form of governments are different. Look at Aurora, the second largest city in Illinois that has the same form of government as Chicago. Since all city employees in Aurora work for the mayor in a strong mayor form of government, the aldermen there can't even talk to a city employee except through the mayor's office. Ask Alderman Lawrence about that.
Anonymous @ 3:02 am June 26,
Wow! Way to turn this issue completely upside down!
-JQP
Anon @ 3:02 am June 26,
It is obvious that you are DF. You think you have WAY more power than you do.
Go back to bed and stop being afraid of your own SHADOW!!!
The only reson you think the world is out to get you is because of all the people you have stepped on to get to where you are. They WILL remember you in the next election...do NOT run.
IT WILL ALL COME FULL CIRCLE!!!!
Experienced,
anon42day,
City Council members have a lot more clout than either one of you seem to want to admit. And they can pull their clout in a lot of subtle ways in terms of raises, promotions, benefits, etc. for years to come. It is called the difference between winning a battle and winning a war. Even most dumb beat cop's aren't so politically stupid that they don't know it is political suicide to mess with the boss's, boss's, boss and that eventually there is going to be a political price to be paid by them, their boss, or their department when or if something like what happened happens.
Now also consider that under Illinois law a City Council member can have police powers. I'm not sure why our City Council members don't seem to take advantage of this provision in the law. However, if DF had gone and became registered as a police officer then how this incident would have played out would have been a whole lot different.
Maybe the best solution for the future would be to for all City Council members to get registered as police officers. Then instead of the typical cop mentality of thinking cops vs civilians they would have to respect City Council members just like every other member of the police department. And, in hindsight, if the beat cop that started all of this had show DF equal respect like he would have shown any other beat cops (i.e. "professional courtesy") and even better if he had shown DF respect as an elected City Council member and had gotten a sergeant, lieutenant, or watch commander involved immediately none of this would have ever happened. The longer the police chief allows members of his department to operate with an "us" vs "them" attitude the greater the likelihood there will be more incidents like this in the future.
I don't like to see City Council members arrested. I don't think City Council members like to see other City Council members arrested, much less over something as silly, petty, and trivial as towing cars. So what if a beat cop gets his underwear all knotted up because a City Council member dresses him down for doing something stupid. This was not an imminent danger situation and the cop should have known to back off and gotten a superior involved immediately. Better yet, our City Council members should have the police chief called in on the carpet and have him spell out exactly what is department policy and what steps will be followed and who will be notified in the police department chain of command the next time another City Council member needs to approach a beat cop about something/anything related to city business.
None of our City Council members should ever have to walk on eggs around city police officers nor be afraid to be able to fully do their job out of fear of being arrested themselves much less when they are advocating on the behalf of the citizens they represent. City Council members have a job to do and that is to represent us. The police have a job to do as well. Both need to be able to work together and there may be times when both groups may not see eye to eye. Just because the police have the power to arrest someone isn't the kind of solution that reasonable people expect to see used by the police to win an argument. And at the end of the day that is all this whole incident boiled down to... simple revenge.
I can't even imagine what would happen in the City of Chicago if the cops ever arrested an Alderman for something like this... the political retribution for the first half dozen in the chain of command who were personally involved and approved what ended up playing out would have permanently ruined their career and any hope for promotion.
The sad reality is that something like this would never happen in the City of Chicago because of the respect shown towards Aldermen, especially within their own ward. Part of the reason things like this can happen in Naperville can be explained partly because the police have not been properly schooled in how to treat elected officials and partly because we simply have too many cops sitting around with too little to do. If Naperville operated with a leaner police force they simply wouldn't have time to deal with this kind of silliness... but then again just look at the police blotter printed in the Sun and there is little serious crime to speak of so the cops are bored and end up on potty patrol chasing drunks around downtown alleyways and a bunch of other petty stuff that they must think continues to justify why we need so many cops in Naperville.
We would be better off trimming about half or 100 of the current police positions and sending the guys who get laid off to Chicago where they can be real police officers and fight some real crime.
People blog on this website a few times in opposition of Furstenau and the nay-sayers go away.
Must be Furstenau himself blogging and HE CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!
Anonymous,
I don't think YOU understand that being on City Council does not give one the right to direct city employees---especially police officers---in their day-to-day activities.
-JQP
Naperville's Chain of Command:
* City Council
* City Manager
* Police Chief
* Watch Commanders
* Lieutenants
* Sargents
* Patrol Officers
Did I miss anyone?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
By Anonymous on June 23, 2010 11:21 PM
JQP,
Really? What exactly about a chain of command do you not understand?
Anon @ 11:21pm, June 23.
Really?
Councilmen take issues to the Chief of Police.
Think of Furstenau out telling cops how to make arrests or who to arrest. As a Councilman, he has no say in day to day operations. How about Furstenau saying who's trash gets picked up and when. Or Furstenau saying where to send firetrucks. HE HAS NO SAY!! His EGO might think he does and that is the problem with the guy. He is the boss of nothing but thinks he is king and knows better than us taxpayers.
TIME. FOR. FURSTENAU. TO. GO.
...and take Krause with him...
Anonymous on June 23, 2010 11:21 PM
JQP,
Really? What exactly about a chain of command do you not understand?
-----------------------------
Naperville has the Managerial form of government. In the managerial form of government, the city council has supervisory control over only one city employee--the city manager. All other city employees are under the supervisory control of the city manager. The city council can only fire one city employee, the city manager.
The chain of command for the city council begins and end with the city manager.
JQP,
Really? What exactly about a chain of command do you not understand?
Anonymous wrote:
The problem was not the cop's attitude; it was DF's attitude. City Council member or not, he did not the right to interfere in the cop's doing his job. If DF had a problem with what the cop was doing, he should have complained through channels, because it is not DF's job to tell cops how to do their jobs.
-JQP
La Cucaracha,
YOU ARE SPOT ON!! DF is the poster child for term limits. Him and Krause are the two biggest vote panderers on council. Not leaders at all and just there to collect the money and have there ego's stroked. They expect us "blind sheep" to forget all the stuff they have done to harm our town. I will not let that happe in the next election!! The Court's made it VERY CLEAR that none of those Furstenau accused did anything wrong. In fact, they commended those and admonished Furstenau for his behavior. In the end, when faced with sanctions, Furstenau dropped his case! He was not about to pay the hundreds of thousands of dollars HE cost the city to defend six people who DID NOTHING WRONG!!
His lawsuit was all about his ego and the money he thought he could STEAL from us taxpayers!
Who dat?
Show me the "real data." All of the court filings are availible on line. READ them and you will see that Furstenau had NO case and his lawer was using the system as best he could to string this out in hopes of a settlement. I'm glad the others on Council would not bend to Furstenau's twisted little game!
La Cucaracha,
Twice every day the City of Naperville clears parked cars off of Washington and they go to extreme measures to try to ensure no one gets towed or ticketed (at an ungodly ongoing cost to us taxpayers) all to appease the downtown merchants who don't want their customers "upset".
The special parking ban associated with the DF incident wasn't handled AT ALL like what is done every day on Washington. Part of the ugly truth behind what happened is the NPD bungled what they were supposed to do in the first place in terms of planning, posting, announcements, etc and then when it came time to implement the ban it was full steam ahead and everyone else be damned. The cop had an attitude that I have a job to do regardless of whether it is right or wrong and I'm going to do my job regardless of what anyone else thinks... including a city council member... without calling his supervisor and saying what should I do.
This whole ugly mess would have played out entirely different if there had been an eye witness or a video tape of the incident. And everyone is entitled to their own view of what that would have shown.
Disputes like this always have two side. Civilized people use the legal system to settle disagreements. DF didn't abdicate his right to redress grievances just because he is a City Council member. I hope you aren't advocating DF ignore the legal system and take matters into his own hands. At the same time DF had to make a very difficult personal decision to pursue the case. You and I and everyone else can agree or disagree whether or not we like what DF did, but we have to respect the fact that he stood up for himself and worked within the system.
If the system is broken don't blame DF, instead do something yourself to start to fix the system.
If you have a problem with how much the litigation cost then maybe you should be advocating caps on what lawyers are paid just like the reform talk that is going on in health care. If you have a problem with how many lawyers and which firms the city hired to defend the lawsuit then maybe you should vote to toss out those City Council members who voted to spend the money. And maybe you should make it clear to those who you vote to elect in their place that you want the City Manager, City Attorney, Police Chief held personally accountable for their role in what happened. If you have a problem with how much the litigation cost then maybe you should be leading a call for an independent investigation to audit the law firms to see if they fairly billed the City of Naperville or whether they inflated or padded their billing.
Otherwise all you have is your own sour grapes about what happened. You need to move on.
la Kook,
Your definition of extortion and stealing are indeed warped. Perhaps a short trip to the library to view a dictionary is in order?
DF did what all Americans are allowed to do: he used the laws & regulations of the united States to right what he saw as a wrong (and, which I may add, the real data seems to support).
It is kooks like you who want to take away these rights, and others like them, but ONLY from the people you don't like, or who don't think like you, or perhaps who don't look like you. How compassionate is that?
I loved Dick Furstenau's comments in the paper about Council members needing institutional knowledge. How this idiot thinks he has any knowledge of how anything works is beyond me. Even more, we need him around to tell us what to do? The Anon person who supports DF is even crazier. The guy TOOK/STOLE/EXTORTED over $1M of TAXPAYER money for his stupid lawsuit because he forgot that he approved towing during an event in the downtown and got his feelings hurt. He is the poster child for term limits. Two times and out. DF shoud have had none. But, he's the tax watchdog... with over $1M of our cash in his doggie bowl.
Anonymous,
I said "some" wanted Senators appointed for life only to underscore the majority feeling that Senators should be above the fray, so to speak, not to imply that most or all wanted it that way. As it was the six-year term they settled on was a compromise. James Madison, among others, who is often called "The Father of the Constitution", wanted the term to be longer.
As to your statement that you are more concerned with "how today's majority view the issue", it was you that brought up the "founding fathers", not I.
-JQP
JQP,
Until fairly recently, the Senators actually represented their State governments who appointed them; and would fire many of the sorry carpet bagging narcissists that currently hold the offices.
Much of what the current directly elected and funded by god knows who Senators vote to pass would never get by the old system.
Top down government has been a failure in this country, lets end it again.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$4
By John Q. Public on June 20, 2010 10:28 PM
Anonymous on June 19, 2010 1:45 PM, wrote:
Term limits also helps us keep truer to the original vision of the founding fathers. Today's professional bureaucrats are not what the founding fathers envisioned for our country.
In the case of the Senate, at least, the vision of the founding fathers was that the members would be less subject to the whims of the voters, and would serve as break on the caprices of the lower house. Some even wanted Senators appointed for life. So I'm not so sure that they would be appalled by the frequency with which Senators are returned to office today.
JQP,
"Some wanted" was far from a majority view. So sure that minority wouldn't be appalled by how long or how many terms some elected officials serve today.
I'm more concerned with how the majority view the issue and more specifically how today's majority view the issue.
I fully encourage term limits at all elected offices, including city council.
I would prefer to see a "real" limit ---- 3 terms, total, including Mayor. At 12 years, it is time to get a new job!
Anonymous on June 19, 2010 1:45 PM, wrote:
In the case of the Senate, at least, the vision of the founding fathers was that the members would be less subject to the whims of the voters, and would serve as break on the caprices of the lower house. Some even wanted Senators appointed for life. So I'm not so sure that they would be appalled by the frequency with which Senators are returned to office today.
LW,
The Supreme Court was intended to be isolated from politics was the basis of lifetime appointment. Now look at how politics have taken over the appointment process. Even the Justices themselves bastardize the process by carefully choosing when they retire and which president gets to appoint their successor. The rare justice who happens to be unlucky enough to go and suddenly die while in office can really upset the balance of power more than anything else.
Go read up on what our Founding Fathers thought about citizens serving as elected officials, serving as civil servants, serving in the militia, etc. Their vision was nothing like what we see today where people make their entire career out what was supposed to be temporary, non-continuous service. Another perspective from those times are to consider what the average life expectancy was as well as the fact that elected service did not have retirement or insurance or anything else like the perks it has today. Since the original vision there has been a slow and steady erosion of the original vision that has made it possible for professional bureaucrats and politicians to embrace government service as a lifestyle and career. None of this was in the original vision!
T.B. is quite right. Voters get a chance to enforce term limits every election day. If there isn't enough voter anger to vote the bums out, then so be it. We get the government we deserve.
Ted Kennedy should have been voted out years before he died? I think so too. But what you think and what I think matter not in the least to the people of Massachusetts. They could have voted Teddy out any time they wanted to. The sad truth is that he reflected the views of a majority of his electorate. Representative democracy works even when the voters elect moral derelicts.
"Term limits also helps us keep truer to the original vision of the founding fathers." Oh really? Then why did are there no term limits on any of the offices established by the constitution? Remember, these same founders thought it OK to grant lifetime memberships to the Supreme Court. Term limits indeed!
Please don't misrepresent the vision of the founding fathers. Theirs was a vision of personal freedom greater than what has existed in the last 100 years. If they were alive today, they would collectively wretch at what has become of their once freedom-loving country. Yes, they would be appalled at the level of apathy in the populace. But they would defend to the death (and did) your right to be apathetic.
"You want to limit a city councilman’s term…vote him out. It’s pretty simple."
Actually it isn't that simple. Far from it in fact. Which is why this is an important discussion and an important referendum.
Elected officials clearly have an advantage over other candidates once they are in office. Once someone is in office it gets progressively harder and harder to get them out of office... just look at Sen Kennedy from MA! What he did and what he got away with he should have been thrown in jail more than once yet there was no way he was ever going to get voted out of office. There were only two ways to get guys like him out of office... death or term limits and he is only gone because death got to him first!
A lot of people won't campaign and run if they think all they will do is end up loosing or end up splitting votes with a bunch of other similar candidates. More people would be open to the possibility of tossing their hat in the ring only if they were able to run against non-incumbents.
Term limits also helps us keep truer to the original vision of the founding fathers. Today's professional bureaucrats are not what the founding fathers envisioned for our country. Term limits allow more people an opportunity to serve and help keep everyone honest by decreasing the ability of politicians to create these huge power bases that serve their needs better than our!
I support term limits in elections where the incumbent is afforded a huge advantage, which seems to happen most in Statewide or federal office races. I don’t know that such an advantage exists in local Naperville politics. You want to limit a city councilman’s term…vote him out. It’s pretty simple.
T.B.
Hope the 2 term limit is passed. Would be good to see the Good ole boys have to leave. Tricky Dick first. He has no business being on the council to begin with. And for his comment that he feels that it takes some time to get familar with things is stupid. Most people on the council are pretty well rounded and educated. If they need more that two terms to figure things out, they have no business being on the council.
We don't need career councilmen or state reps, or Fed senators etc. The same applies to the Mayor who is nothing more than a figure head and baby kisser. He needs to go too. We need fresh ideas and new blood.
Let them all get a real jobs after their term limits expirs.
Wherli all too often opens mouth before engaging brain thus embarrassing himself, his family, and the City of Naperville. Any more I'm not sure how much of a brain there is to even engage after some of the things he has said. Despite the old Naperville family name he really doesn't have anything of substance or meaningful to bring to the council. Most people have already noticed and he has slim to no chance of getting re-elected. And mostly because of how he chooses to conduct himself in public. No one wants to see such a public display much less on a regular basis. It reflects badly upon him and the city. Until we have a mayor or a mayor pro tem with enough of a backbone to censure some of the crap that comes out of his and others mouths at times we will have to continue to suffer through these kinds of petty little exchanges. Since Wherli appears to desire to be the council bully and at other times simply incapable of controlling himself expect more of the same until we get a chance to kick him out of office. Personally, I've had more than enough of the guy.
The problem is really a State wide problem and term limits need to be established for the Legislature, Governor, all State Boards etc. 2 terms for any position is plenty. Naperville should work with other municipalities to make it happen.
This should also include Municipal and County Governments of all kinds.
On a procedural note, the far left whack job on City Council that was taunting Furstenau while he was speaking, should be censured and required to make her comments on open microphone. I'm still waiting for her to put her money where her mouth is an propose transsexual bathrooms, gay boy scouts etc or whatever it is she actually stands for.
Wherli needs to have his ears cleaned, Furstenau stated in the beginning that he would not apply for the "green funding" for his businesses two minutes before Wherli attacked him on microphone claiming that Furstanau was lobbying for funds for his businesses.
Wherli's pathological hatred for Furstenau is difficult to explain since Furstanau voted to appoint the least qualified and most junior member of the planning commission to the City Council.
Furstenau needs to have his mind examined for appointing Wherli to Council.
I like and support Richard Furstenau. We need more critical thinkers on City Council instead of a bunch of bobble heads that can't exhibit any leadership beyond whatever "staff" parades in front of them. Yes, those on City Council know who I mean.
Despite Richard Furstenau's talent and service I fully support term limits. We may loose one good guy like Richard but at the same time we can finally give the boot to Krause and Pradel who both mostly just take up space.
I don't like the way the proposal I read was worded which sounds like a limit of 3 consecutive terms. Seems someone crafty could serve 2 terms, sit one out, serve two terms, sit one out, etc. I would rather see a limit of 3 terms, non consecutive or otherwise.
While we are putting referendum questions on the ballot let's also ask the question of wards/precincts vs. electing council members at large. Right now none of these guys are accountable to anyone and all have redundant overlapping territory trying to serve the entire city which is now 10 times bigger than when the existing system was designed and seemed to make sense. We will never have true representation until we are able to elect people that are accountable for representing a specific section or area. For the naysayers who resist rocking the status quo... it works for state wide and national representation just fine and perfectly well... and I don't think we will see a move underway to change congressional districts, etc to at-large representation any time soon.
"Have City Council members stayed too long?" Yes and the single dissenting vote is one that needs to go. In this community, there is a stinking combination of voter apathy and name recognition. I vote yes on this possible referendum!