What issues strike a chord with you this election? Is it the economy, the budget or layoffs and personnel? Time to share those thoughts with others. Comment on the city and/or the school districts.
Again, the Sun editors ask that blog entries concentrate on issues rather than individual candidates. Instead, let us know what the candidates should be focused on.
Thanks.
Election issues
No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://blogs.suburbanchicagonews.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/8398
Sounds about right - gee, I wonder why Council and Management aren't interested in changing things???? And yes, La, you are right - Unionize before it's ALL gone (and it will be) - or get out as soon as you can.
FB,
Why the long face? Dick is dead. Just a limp rag. Residents complain, staff lumbers on, Douggie and Bobbie run around saying, "yes Councilman," but nobody knows or cares.
From what I hear, it's a terrible place to work. Drones walking around aimlessly, yes men and women everywhere, and Councilman saying you're lucky to have jobs.
Employees, either unionize, or get the heck out of there. The economy is picking up. Get out while you can.
Have you seen the $$$ laid out to our part-time council & mayor?
To date, Geo has hit us for over $150,000 in medical alone, while Doug is closing in on $160,000 for medical.
Nice work if you can get it!
Bob,
But Duggy Boy does have a lot to show for his 20 years of sitting pine. Granted it has been more taking on his part than giving... but even 20 years of salary for a part time job adds up after a while. And let's not forget the value of medical insurance and retirement which is the real reason why Duggy is so desperate to hang on.
Long past time to kick this dog to the curb.
Council (and some residents) treated City employees like garbage. Period. Employees are there to serve, and all residents do is complain. My snow-covered street isn't cleared after two minutes of snow? Call and complain. There's leaves on my sidewalk? Call and complain. There's no rainbow in the Naperville sky? Call and complain.
Council has no appreciation for what City employees do. It's a joke. And when they treat the employees like garbage, then Council doesn't earn respect. Employees can leave, but then no one would replace them because they wouldn't want to work in such a bad environment.
JQP,
Bad beat out worse and evil. We now have to live with 4 more years of bad, Bumbleweed bad that is. Maybe there is some kind of consolation in all of this that we at least don't have to tolerate 4 years of either worse or evil. While things might not be terrific under the incompetent, cough, cough, "leadership" of Bumbleweed we can only wonder how worse it could possibly be at the hands of worse or evil?
This election had such a poor turnout indirectly speaks volumes that the voters weren't particularly passionate about any of the candidates. If there had been a viable alternative to bad, worse, or evil such a candidate probably could have won by a total landslide. As it is Bumbleweed got returned to office by only about 7% of the total registered voters. Who says a strong minority can't get elected if they are well organized and vote as a block? Those who didn't bother to vote can't complain about the end result. Those of us who did can only shake our heads in wonder and disgust, mostly disgust.
Regardless, all candidates have a certain "following"... those voters whom they can depend upon to regularly vote for them in any election.... family, neighbors, friends, business associates, etc. Election studies have shown that if people truly support a candidate, such as worse or evil they would vote for worse or evil despite what elected position or which election. Worse and evil simply do not have the following they once enjoyed and that is clearly reflected in the election totals. Their chances of getting reelected to any position are not improving with time. And as the voters in this election proved... just having your name at the top of the ballot isn't always enough to get people to cast their vote for you nor is name recognition.
Thankfully the term limit clock is ticking. I hope the sound of it ticking is deafening and relentless to bad, worse, and evil. That it serves as a constant reminder to them that the amount of time they have left in office gets smaller every day, every hour, every minute... and that each of them knows there are many people in Naperville who gladly count the seconds until they run out of time and are finally and permanently out of office.
Miller is DONE. His true colors came out in his bid for Mayor. He was the first to go negitive and now we all see him for the back-stabbing politician he is! I heard rumors of this type of behavior from him in Wheatland Township and boy did it prove to be true.
Krause needs to just stop. The job has passed him bye and he really is an embarassment to watch on Tuesday nights, just doesn't have a clue. He was first elected in 1989 I think. That's over TWENTY YEARS and all he can show for it is... well... nothing come to think of it.
Lets hope NOT! (re-electing Krause and Miller). You'd have to think at some point this town will wake up and see what a mess these councilman have made of their town while supporting themselves and their friends and leaving everyone else high and dry.
Anonymous wrote:
The ratio is the same, but the elections were completely different. The only thing the election determined in regard to Krause and Miller is that the voters overwhelmingly preferred Pradel to either of them for mayor. It tells us nothing about how the voters see them as city councilmen---BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT RUNNING FOR CITY COUNCIL! That opportunity will come up again two years from now, and I wouldn't bet against them getting re-elected, if I were you.
First to know is about to go! WHOOT! WHOOT!
Now about Brodhead and Hinterlong...
Put 'em both together and you get .5 of a thought.
Time to bounce them out in 2013!!
Spoken just as Furstenau himself had dictated it. Go figure! That little man has one follower (maybe) and the dribble that comes pouring out takes up half a page. It's like watching a City Council meeting - where everyone in the room knows better First to sue, but he needs to spend half an hour explaining why he is right and the rest of the world is wrong. Can't wait until May when THAT ends - at last!
La Cuc,
Give it a rest. We all know you are on record as personally despising Furstenau. I'm ok with you having your own opinion. Please just recognize that there are others in Naperville who feel differently about him as a person and the job he performed while in office... and a variety of other opinions as to why city staff, the police, and other city council members treated Furstenau as they did.
Regardless of how you or I feel the 10% of Naperville registered voters who turned out at the last election have sealed his fate for this election and the coming term. In a few short weeks Furstenau will be replaced. In the days, weeks, months, and years ahead we will all learn soon enough if having Furstenau off of city council makes for a better or worse city council. Maybe the voters made a wise choice, maybe they didn't. We can all wonder/speculate what might have happened if Furstenau had top billing on the ballot... if he did we might be having quite a different conversation... but that is more water under the bridge.
You can continue to wring your hands about the past or look to the future and what some fresh faces and new ideas bring to the remaining mix of incumbents on the city council. How well this new group works together should be more important to all of us than wasting any more time rehashing what happened in the past or why.
I will tell you this. The culture and attitude in Naperville city employees isn't very respectful to the residents and taxpayers. There is a real we vs. them mentality along with an attitude of superiority that isn't justified. City employees put on a good show of being polite and respectful when they are getting their own sweet way though it ends real quickly when they don't. Then a different side comes out that can variously be described as ego centric, arrogant, authoritarian, argumentative, and even demanding. And they are quick to defend all of this because they are in charge or they are responsible. Collectively I've never seen a bigger group of people who can talk you to death on just about anything and at the same time not actually do anything. They have taken professional stonewalling and finger pointing to a new level.
Ultimately the city manager and the city council are both responsible for overseeing the people who talk us to death and who don't actually get much done and hold them accountable. They are also responsible for setting the expectations and culture in terms of how city employees present themselves to the taxpayers, how they treat the taxpayers, and what they produce for the taxpayers.
Getting this group of city employees to be more accountable, more productive, more efficient, and less wasteful is no little challenge. Implementing these same actions in business is also challenging and those who are most effective at actually getting it done and producing real results are not warmly embraced by those who resist what is demanded of them. Making tough decisions and making people produce can't always be done with kid gloves and it is easy to make a bunch of enemies from the incompetent and the lazy and the passive aggressive types who are counting their days until retirement.
Naperville city employees don't want the city manager or the city council meddling with the nice cozy daily routines they have established for themselves. Naperville city employees love city council members that don't ask questions and just approve everything city employees request. If the newly elected city council members turn out to be just more bobble heads joining the incumbent bunch of bobble heads the city employees will be kicking up their heels with joy and we can expect the level of bureaucratic egotism to reach a new high. On the other hand if any of the newly elected city council members dare to question city staff on what they are doing or what they want to do we will soon be off and running with a fresh new target(s) for city employees to loath and complain about.
Fact of the matter is all city employees are just the hired help. If they don't like the way things are then we all should help them find work somewhere else and preferably far away. There are dozens of people out there looking for work for every city employee on the payroll. Dozens of people who would willingly be more efficient and productive while doing the same job for less less money and fewer benefits.
Give me one good specific thing that he did. You Furstenau lovers seem to be under some delusional perception that he ran the city and had city employees working for, and afraid of him. I got news for you, they despised him for the amount of taxpayer dollars that he wasted making them justify petty expenses and trying to get them to give development deals to his pals.
Did he go after Police OT? Sure, but because of the way he presented his arguments, the Mayor and other Councilman blew him off. Just shows his lack of intelligence. All he wanted was for him to get his name in the paper. He could have cared less about the savings. If he did, he'd have found a way to get it done.
Furstenau did a great job and was a great council member. I'm torn between liking some of the council members and also being a strong believer in term limits.
Furstenau had a good run. Longer than would be allowed by the new term limit rules so no tears or regrets that he has been replaced. Now the term limit clock is ticking for all of them which is a good thing for the citizens of Naperville.
Nothing wrong with people paying back and serving a term or two. Good riddance to the power hungry entrenched bureaucrats who don't have enough good sense to take a turn and then move on to something else.
JQP,
Sorry you are wrong. Votes are votes and totals are totals and the numbers speak for themselves. There were three candidates for mayor and we got to vote for one. There were 12 candidates for city council and we got to vote for 4. The ratio in this election just happened to be exactly the same.
In the mayor race it was a choice of bad, worse, or evil and in the end bad beat out worse and evil at the hand of just 10% of the registered voters. That doesn't say much for Naperville in general or any of the three candidates for mayor or the winner.
If the best candidate for mayor in the 4th largest city in Illinois with an annual budget of $400MM is a retired officer friendly with a high school education who openly proclaims he doesn't understand the annual budget then there is little wonder why city finances are such a mess and why there is so little oversight and accountability into how our municipal government functions.
The same voters who put Bumbleweed back in office for another term also re-elected Wherli and Fieseler who's lousy performance on city council would have gotten them sacked anywhere in the real world at least two years ago. Just goes to show what an edge name recognition, ballot placement, and being an incumbent can mean during an election when we have to wonder why some people actually bother to vote when they choose to cast their vote so poorly.
Thank goodness we finally have term limits so that we can finally and permanently get rid of Wherli, Fieseler, Krause, and Miller. That day will come soon enough despite mind numbingly dumb voters who would keep voting for some of them forever. Thank goodness we finally put and end to council members elected at large and the city will have to form five wards. That will shake more dead wood out when a couple of them who live near each other end up having to run against each other. The cagey ones will try to run for the 3 at large seats but no matter what their game or angle they will still have term limits nipping at their heals. The clock is ticking on the good old boys club. We can all look forward to the day when better, healthier, and more honest politics come to Naperville.
I believe the voters spoke. If Furstenau had a 3 out of 4 chance to get re-elected, and he did not get re-elected, then that says something.
No, not a cop. But I'm sure the police will appreciate your comments. Furstenau was not good for the city or the morale of its citizens and employees. it's as simple as that. I'm not saying he did nothing productive. However, he did more harm than good, and obviously, the voters felt that.
Anonymous wrote:
You're comparing apples to oranges. The mayoral election was an either/or vote, while the ballot for council allowed voters to choose up to four. The same voter who chose Pradel for mayor over Krause and Miller could have voted for all three of them had they been running for city council.
Furstanut lovers, here's a news flash for you. HE DOES/DID NOT RUN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OR THE CITY OF NAPERVILLE. THE CITY MANAGER IS THE ONLY EMPLOYEE THAT REPORTS TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL-NOT JUST KING DICK. DICK HAS NO OTHER EMPLOYEES REPORTING TO HIM. I know you think it's a monarchy here, and he's the king of the city because he thinks so, and told you that, but let's not puff our chests out and cry about this-like Dick does.
Dick has done nothing to cut Police overtime besides complain about it. His sole goal is to save money in some areas so that he has money to suck out of the city via a lawsuit, or to give to his, or his wife's or friend's charities. This guy is no champion. He's a small minded bully that will never again hold an elected office.
It's another great day in Naperville as we count down to Dick's departure. The saddest thing is that the idiotic Mayor and Council will say what a great guy he is and make the staff (who hates his guts) stand up and clap for him at the last Council meeting. I'd rather he just not attend. Although, it will be fun to see him choke up and cry about the Boy Scouts or other Children.
It wasn't only the Cops celebrating when Furstenau lost .... every single person who has had contact with the man is walking on cloud 9. The man was an idiot with the way he handled the police, and an idiot with the way he dealt with people in general. You can't do any good being a bully who no one respects. If he really doesn't understand why he wasn't reelected, or he thinks it's because he wasn't Jolly enough, he STILL needs to take a good look in the mirror - all the answers are right there in front of him.
You are just another lazy union cop mad that Furstenau made you justify your overtime.
Too true! No one is perfect and sometimes you just have to overlook some of the little things in terms of the greater good and the big picture.
It is a sad day for Naperville in that the citizens lost their one single biggest champion against wild spending, increased fees and taxes, and an overly domineering city staff.
With Pradel leading the charge and no one left with any guts to stand up to him just wait and see what will start to happen in the police department next. God help us all.
You're wrong. On every level. Sorry.
Very sorry Dick Furstenau lost. Now the Barney Fife's in the police station will run wild. I am so glad Dick stuck up for the little guy in this town. I have too many stories of the cops in this town being jerks. Dick was 100% correct in suing the city. I am glad he did it.
WAY too small of a voter turnout to draw any real conclusions on how or why ballots were cast as they were.
With a dozen city council candidates, many of whom were unknown and unremarkable candidates is but another piece of the complex puzzle in why the results turned out as they did.
It was very gratifying and refreshing to see Chirico draw the second highest number of votes. As for Wherli and Fieseler both their incumbent status and top placement on the ballot likely was more of a factor in being re-elected than their qualifications, personalities, and glowing lack of accomplishment during their past term.
Bumbleweed was no surprise especially considering neither Krause nor Miller were any kind of a real threat much less a viable better alternative to Bumbleweeds well known incompetence. With known incompetence why risk trading that with unknown incompetence? Who can blame voters for taking the less risky path? With Bumbleweed we know he is at least a nice guy even if he is in way over his head, education, and experience and even if he is nothing but a rubber stamp for city staff. Can't say either Krause or Miller are more likable and neither one has any impressive leadership. George says this is his last term... we'll have to wait and see if he holds true to his promise.
There will be a lot of eyes on Chirico and McElroy to see what they can deliver in terms of voter expectations and leadership. They have 4 years to get a good handle on city business and make their own mark... especially if they develop any aspirations to serve once Bumbleweed is finally put out to pasture. Goodness knows there isn't a solid mayoral candidate among any of the rest of the existing city council members.
From a practical perspective what that means is we have to pay close attention to who was elected this year and what they do with this opportunity. We also have to pay close attention to who is elected in two years... especially anyone who beats out an incumbent. And we have to pin some hope on a totally new and fresh mayoral candidate without any city council experience emerging in 4 years. Now is the time to start shaking that tree and see what falls out!
And we have to hope that none of the fresh, new city council members loose focus and get in bed with the any of the existing council members that have been around for too long before we have a chance to turn more of them out of office and end the existing city council climate of "business as usual". This is probably a really good time for several people high up in city administration and department heads to get their resume in order and start planning for their next career move. Especially anyone with the word "Assistant" in their job title.
If just 2 short years we will have our next opportunity to turn some more dead wood out of office; in specific Miller, Krause, Hinterlong, and Broadhead. Not a solid accomplishment or leader among any of these four... just 4 people taking up a lot of space and using a lot of city resources. There is an argument they each cost us more than they actually contribute to the city. Even as incumbents both Miller and Krause garnered so few votes neither of them would have been re-elected had they been running for city council instead of mayor... in fact their vote totals would have put both of them behind 6th place Furstenau with Krause at 7th place and Miller way down at 11th.
That should be more embarrassing than telling, especially for Krause who has overstayed his welcome by about two decades and who clearly will never have the good grace to leave office voluntarily... thanks to all of the city benefits and perks he couldn't afford on his own as just another insignificant real estate hack around town. Now at least term limits are nipping at his heals as well as voters who are starting to pay attention to what he does or doesn't do while in office.
Congratulations to the three incumbents who won in the D203 school board election.
Thanks to "Jay" Fisher and Bethany Weeks for being willing to serve the district on the board. Please stay involved and active in the conversations about the direction of the school district. Each of you has a unique perspective on how things could be done better.
-1
JP,
Great comment. I'm going to break my election promise, I'm going to gloat more. Dick was a cancer on this town for 12 long years. I would have loved to have seen him at his campaign headquarters (aka Show Me's), chest puffed out, crying about the children.
Dick, I suggest you volunteer for some no pay boards or commissions. Nah, they'd turn you down.
I can think of a $million reasons why Furstenau lost today.
1. FB, and other enlightened people, DICK IS OUT. Finally, Dick is out. I'm not going to gloat any more than that... Dick is out.
2. George has only four more years of um, leadership.
It takes time to turn a battleship.
Where would you like me to start?
My election issue is that of what I see as the corruption that accompanies each race in each cycle.
Example?
Imagine my shock when I read the following excerpt from an email I received this weekend:
"...in 2007 the group PURE financially supported the three 203 incumbents, but was not "formally created" until AFTER the election (which made it impossible to find the connection before the election). We wonder what is happening along those lines in this election."
I was completely STUNNED!
Does Qe203 continue to defend this type of corruption?
I thought I had all the scoop on the slime of the 2007 school board elections, especially that which was hurled by PURE, than I find out there was even more!
I agree with the last comment: exactly what other kind of slime is going on in this year's school board election? Who else besides the Teachers' Union is supporting the three incumbents (either upfront or covertly in the background)?
What are we ----- Cook County?
VOTING THEORY
Approval-like elections are somewhat interesting since you must give a full YES or NO vote to each person, and are limited by the number of YES votes you can cast.
In the D203 election, if you really like just one or two candidates, it is best to vote for that one or two, so as not to give a vote for another candidate who may end up beating your favorite(s) with those throwaway votes. Despite the language on the ballot, you can approve of 0, 1, 2, or 3 candidates.
Mr. Higgins and his PAC were somewhat intelligent last election by endorsing only 4 candidates. It was disappointing last time it chose not to endorse a very highly qualified candidate (Michael Delciello), because it felt he did not have the financial resources to compete. Moronic statements aside, it was the right decision for it to choose that action as approving more than 4 could dilute the effect for each of the 4 candidates it thought were best.(and really,, why not Mr. Delciello?)
So, reviewing.
If you like 1 candidate a lot more than the others, do not give away votes. Vote for ONE
If you like 2 candidates a lot more than the others, do not give away votes. Vote for TWO.
If you like 3 candidates a lot more than the others, vote for THREE.
(City council .. there are 4 votes. same logic)
By the same token, you may wish to vote AGAINST some number of candidates by voting FOR the others if votes are available, even if it may cost your favorite candidate.
-1
What is wrong with Dick Furstenau?
FB,
I disagree a bit here. I think it is the Sun's responsibility to bring these issues to light. That's the spirit of investigative reporting and good old fashioned journalism. It may be true that they don't have the resources to investigate everything, but there are some big stories out there.
As for our buddy Dick. I think he will win-and that is a shame. Here's another take. I heard that a number of City Council candidates were going to go after DF, take out full-page attack ads, and none of them did. What happened here? Why would they not go after him? Policitcs? Don't want to burn bridges? Help me out here.
Hope he doesn't backhand. The only way someone like Furstenau gets into office more than once is that people aren't paying attention. I don't think it's the newspapers fault that people don't pay attention, but it is the newspapers fault that there isn't any information out there for people who would otherwise be interested.
There are no shortage of stories in this City .... The City Council, the Mayor, and City Management could provide enough material to fill the Sun for 6 months if they ran nothing else - the problem is that no one bothers to look beyond the press releases, or in this case, the candidates web-sites.
Example - Smart Grid. Interesting new technology - big price tag. Does ANYONE at the paper actually investigate where the money is going and how the project is being run? Why did this City Council rush into this project without seeking resident input before spending 11 Million dollars during an economic crisis? Is the technology really ready, or will we all be paying for updates two or three times before the original target date (4 years budgeted before this project took legs).
What about Krieger and all his yes men and their bonus checks? Bonus's pay for do nothings were noted last year - what about some follow up now? NONE of the perks for upper management have changed a bit during this "crisis" .... why is that?
My point was/is .... you can only blame the voter so much if institutions LIKE the Naperville Sun won't even ask the questions the need to be asked. It isn't the papers fault if people are apathetic, but they sure could do a lot more to inform the public ... if people saw the truth of what happens, there might just be a bit more interest the change that is desperately needed.
So instead of blaming the newspaper, how 'bout we blame the people in charge? For example, it's not the paper's fault if voters continue to vote Furstenau into Council. I don't need the newspaper to tell me that he's not good at what he does. Yet, he will win, come the next election.
I totally agree. The Sun is nothing more than a community shopper newspaper. They simply "repeat" what they hear instead of reporting. The demise of newspapers and in particular the Sun/Sun Times reflects the lack of journalism.
Case in point. This recent censure. What really happened? And I am not talking about what transpired at the meeting. At the core of this issue is the personnel issue at the school where Weeks was assigned "Adopt-A-School". In meeting with the principal, he referred to a recent personnel issue(s) at the school. The principal claimed to have no knowledge of the situation and Weeks had disclosed "confidential" information to her. Somehow this discussion made its way to Jaensch (that chain of events has not been clarified, by the way).
But let's take a step back. How are personnel issues addressed in the District? Does the school board president (Jaensch) discover them and take unilateral actions at executive session to address them? Of course not.
Instead, the building leader (in this case, the principal) makes a decision on a personnel matter. In turn, that request is submitted to the administration. If they support the action, it goes to the school board who acts upon the action in public session although the specifics are discussed in closed session (they don't have to by the way). Most of the time, these principals are all hanging out at the board meetings. If not, I doubt that it takes the "central office" weeks (no pun intended) to inform the originator of the final action. In fact, I bet that it happens the next morning if not minutes after the board acts.
So when Weeks was having his coffee with his assigned Adopt A School, he mentions in some fashion this personnel action and the principal had no clue? And let's say that the principal did not have the final word, wouldn't she just say so instead of running to Jaensh (or whoever)?
Now I have refrained from raising the above because I feel that Dave and others should be addressing this matter. It does not help to speculate. But to date, Dave has been isolated on this matter.
But more importantly, the Sun (and the Daily Herald) simply have not done their job. Where is the hard hitting editor seeking the answers to the questions? How are they training young reporters to be the next Woodward and Bernstein? Or is Tim West part of this "make nice" Naperville crowd that is trying to force out Dave just like they did for Mike Davitt and Jim Caufield? Is the community served better by a "Truman Show" manipulation? I doubt it.
So if the Sun cannot "report" on this matter, how can you expect them to report on the election issues as a whole? This matter is simple compared to the Smart Grid matter. Even Com Ed is saying that Smart Grid is a waste of money (even if you only have to pay half), more savings could be realized by replacing the frayed wires.
Healthy debate leads to better ideas. The lack of transparency "tolerated" by the Sun is not good for the community.
Anon, you're right. When the paper becomes apathetic, there's little hope. But, we have our blog. There's no doubt that Tim West and his staff have sold out to the current Mayor and Council.
Funny thing, I've been reading a lot about the $5M that the DuPage Housing Authority misspent. This City Council has misspent around $20M in the last few years considering the Carrillon, Smart Grid, and Children's Museum, with no call for anyone to lose their jobs.
Investigative reporting would tell us how the three projects connect to the City Council.
Carillon-A bunch of connected citizens, with good intentions, sells the idea of erecting a $2M bell tower. The economy tanks, and whoops, it costs $6M. They form a board with Councilmen on it, including our watchdog Furst-to-spend (on himself), and they approve a bail out with little discussion with the public.
Smart Grid-(G)Rant and Wack Job Fieseler, both self proclaimed geniuses, decide that you need this. Fieseler goes on to say, someone would have got the $11M, so why not us? Well Bob, you have to ante up $11M OF PUBLIC MONEY, NOT YOURS, to get in the game. That's a bad bet.
Children's Museum-The people on the CM Board are friends of Councilmen. This is purely a take care of your friends deal.
Look at what these people say and do, Public Unions are greedy and pensions are not sustainable, agreed. The Children's Museum is not sustainable-oh no! Bail them out. They are pathetic. Let's vote them out.
ONE week before the elections in Naperville, and stories in the Naperville Sun detailing issues and dissecting the candidates words and promises vs their actions and records are no where to be found. NOT a single article questioning ANYTHING that has happened in the past four years here in Naperville. Not one incumbent is being asked why they voted for the 11 million dollar smart grid, or they can explain the full speed ahead direction of that project after review and caution has been promised? Not a single question about bail out? of the Childrens Museum during the cries of budget crisis? Not a single question about the disaster they created with the funding of the bell tower, and what makes that so much different than the Childrens Museum? Not a single article about the SECA fund and how far it has morphed from it's original intended purpose? Questions about the firing of 6 police officers and what effect that might have had on the department as a whole, and the City as a whole? Questions about Council and Executive perks in light of the despondent staff morale under their hand picked and confidence resolution receiving City Manager? Questions about the lies he's told his staff and the public? Questions about how any councilman might feel only a few years after suing the City whose budget he presumes to protect?
IF the City Newspaper is apathetic, and doesn't care to make waves or ask questions - how can anyone there suggest that the citizens need to vote and embrace their voice? Regurgitated press releases aren't news ..... and they aren't informative, or interesting. How can anyone wonder why it is so few people vote here in Naperville. No effort is made to educate the electorate of the City - in fact, it is just the opposite. Discussion about candidates is not allowed - real issues are not discussed (wouldn't want to offend someone running for office now would we?). Candidate statements are not questioned - their statements are published as is, and the political spin is never questioned.
News organizations are supposed to be the public source for the TRUTH - they are supposed to tell the stories we would never hear without them. What is here, and more importantly what is NOT here should truly be a source of embarrassment as this paper is more of a City Promo piece than a news source. If Naperville citizens don't come out to vote next week, the Naperville Sun holds a significant piece of the blame.
When did this turn into School Board Part 2? Does anyone think that the City as a whole has issues that need to be addressed?
Whatever you believe in - this City is in trouble, and that trouble will become crisis if apathy continues to be the rule. Change is essential! Look for the candidates that oppose the way Smart Grid was forced down your throats ($11,000,000 should have gotten someone's attention right?). Look for the candidates who openly say they would have voted against the bailout of the Childrens Museum ($3,000,000 worth noting? Did we not learn ANYTHING about from the Bell Tower debt????)
VOTE against self centered egotistical leadership - GIVE a chance to some new faces who aren't in this to stroke their ego's or award contracts to their friends. Pet projects have to stop - business has got to be brought in to Naperville, and Naperville has to become the kind of place businesses want to start, and want to stay.
VOTE and help make Naperville a great place to live and work again - we've been headed in the wrong direction for more than 3 years now - change course! VOTE VOTE VOTE!!!!!!!!! Before it's too late and we are looking up with admiration all the surrounding towns and wondering what happened to us!
Well for once in recent recorded history Thom Higgins finally managed to state something correctly when he wrote: " I will offer the opinion that those declaring victory for Mr. Weeks here in the blog are…….premature."
Absolutely true.
And anyone thinking they can declare victory for the SD203 school board would be equally premature in their own thinking.
So far there hasn't been one factual report of Mr. Weeks having broken any laws or doing anything illegal himself. What has been reported is that Mr. Weeks has refused to go along with the majority view in terms of how official government business should be conducted. And there are strong allegations being reported that what the school board did may have been illegal and improper. So what we really have is a real serious question of which side in this dispute is right and which side is wrong. So far Mr. Weeks has yet to share his intentions in terms of his next move. And the next move is definitely up to him. I'm hoping we hear from Mr. Weeks or his attorney soon.
If the Illinois Attorney General begins an investigation of the SD203 board and how they have conducted official government business the board will no longer have the ability to hide behind the secrecy of a closed meeting. All of the audio tapes and transcripts, minutes, notices, and agendas of the closed will be scrutinized as well as what official action the SD203 board took during or after the meeting as well as the quality and accuracy of any legal advice they were given. For their sake they better hope what they have done will pass muster with the investigators.
Pull up a chair and set a spell this could get interesting and may last a while.
I also am interested in knowing how Thom Higgins knew that declaring victory for Mr. Weeks would be "...premature." (Thom Higgins | March 20, 2011 10:50 PM )
First, I am concerned that this censure issue is overshadowing the over taxation this year again. The District can and should reduce taxes by $2.2 million and still have $36 million in the bank.
However, I was troubled by the following comments that came out of last night’s meeting. The following are the more significant.
1. One board member asserted that that board members had to respect the “sanctity of executive sessions." For reference, sanctity means “sacred” or “holy”. Do matters of executive session raise to such a religious level? I thought religion was not allowed in public schools.
2. Another stated that when you vote to go into executive session, you vote to keep everything confidential. You are bound to a contract and subject to penalties if you violate.
3. Yet another comment is that the board “must” act as one voice.
4. The Board held a retreat where the importance of keeping matters confidential was stressed for three hours.
5. No executive session minutes have been released in recent history. Even classified US Government documents are released.
These comments reflect a pattern where seven people, assuming all go along with the program, can keep information from the people they represent. I recall the board in 2005 admitting to failure in negotiating with the unions. They promised to publicly review the entire process after the contract was signed. Never happened.
I for one find this entire “philosophy” as contrary to the role that I expect of our elected representatives. They should err on full disclosure; not every action they consider is a sensitive personnel matter. In fact, when people take a government job, they do so knowing that they have limited, if any, rights to confidentiality.
More disturbing, these policies and statements appear to be a violation of state law. But that can be cured by the Illinois Attorney General reviewing the board policy and these public statements. I hope Mr. Weeks pursues this matter and forward all the information that he has (including “confidential materials”) to Lisa Madigan for her to review and opine on. Maybe she will even prosecute. Also, he should ask about the Board’s ability to both censure and sanction.
Mr. Higgins, how did you know we were premature in Mr. Weeks Censure issue? Did you have discussions with board members about confidential board matters? If so, who did you discuss this with? How did you find out about it? Did the board members you discussed this with just violate the same rules you and the board accuse Mr. Weeks of?
So what happened at the School Board meeting tonight? Did anyone speak from the public? If so, what was said?
I would be aghast to think anyone is declaring victory for Mr Weeks.
From my standpoint, I am just interested in pointing out that it certainly appears the rest of the board over-stepped its bounds. Their voting block seems to allow them to think they have more power than they do, and that bothers me a bit. Even if Mr Weeks does, indeed, "win" (whatever that means), I think this board needs to get together, ALL of them, and have some group sensitivity training!
---- Luke
For those interested in the Weeks censure, this issue will be again discussed at the 3-21-2011 District 203 Business Meeting starting at 7:00. I will offer the opinion that those declaring victory for Mr. Weeks here in the blog are…….premature.
Also, don’t forget the NAHC District 203 Candidate Forum Thursday March 24th from 7:30 to 9:00. It will be broadcast live on cable, and available afterward on the City streaming webpage.
Thom Higgins
QE203.org
Thom Higgins has totally got egg all over his face in his defense of the board on this one.
The SD203 board has been outed as being totally wrong on how they handled this issue, that they broke the law meeting and taking action the way they did, and that they overstepped their authority as a board in trying to censure another member.
We already knew the SD203 board was dysfunctional. Now they are hell bent on demonstrating their incompetence!
The first one to get sacked over this one should be the school board attorney. The rest of the school board can be dealt with accordingly at the ballot box.
This may be a dumb question, but does the Illinois AG's opinion actually have any standing here? It's not the same as a judicial ruling, after all.
How about 203 put Denys and Higgins on the financial advisory committee? Price won't allow it since she thinks she is the smartest one on the board. Never mind she graduated from that academic powerhouse of SIU!!!
HOLY COW! Jaensch may have earned his own censure!
In the final paragraph of today's Naperville Sun follow-up story on the Weeks censure it is reported that Jaensch did exactly the same thing he accused Weeks of doing.
Weeks got censured for allegedly discussing what he knew about a staff member with another district employee (a principal).
Now Jaensch is reported to have allegedly discussed what he knew about a board member (Weeks) with another district employee (an attorney).
So do two wrongs make a right or do they all just agree to drop the stupid mess?
For starters I don't know who the staff member was, why they were leaving, or if the staff member had a reporting relationship to the principal. Let's face it the comings and goings of staff members are widely discussed in every organization. Even when employees are terminated for cause everyone knows it and often know why. Organizations can attempt to pretend that certain things are confidential, but they are really kidding themselves if they think no one know and on one is talking.
Trading information and having the inside scoop is a form of social currency that has existed for thousands of year and no one is more skilled at trading or exploiting information than politicians and organizational leaders. Even the principal who "expressed discomfort" about Weeks saw an opportunity to gain political favor by leveraging his/her information.
One of the tangent issues of this case is do we, as taxpayers, want school principals spending their time playing political games involving board members or do we want our school principals focused on providing the best possible education to our children?
The more I learn about the culture of how SD203 operates at a board and administrative level as well as how the school district operates on a day-to-day basis the more concerned and disturbed I become. The word that keeps coming to mind is UNPROFESSIONAL.
The chair of the school board and the superintendent of schools are the two key positions who are personally responsible for ensuring the culture of SD203 mirrors an environment that is consistent with the needs, wants, and values of our community. If either of these two key positions can not set the tone and lead by example or if they can not create and maintain the proper culture and environment for a school district then we need to help them immediately transition to something that is more consistent with their demonstrated abilities.
Hey, now!
It seems that what we have here in Naperland is a failure to communicate!
I think a quick purview of today’s paper should set even the most ardent 203 board fan (even you, Mr. Thom) straight on the whole “censure” thing.
To wit, the statement from Illinois Press Association attorney Craven which states that AG file #91-001 sets forth the opinion on current law that
>>“..matters not on the agenda cannot be acted upon”, and
>> “..the public body does not have the authority to sanction a member for discussing information discussed by the board in closed session”
For any over-jealous fans out there who do not accept this, I would guide you to the opinion released by the office of then-AG Burris on 01-31-91 on this exact issue.
Now, given these little tidbits of legal facts, I think we can speculate a bit as to why the illegally-censured member did accept the CRITICISM for his MISTAKE.
He clearly felt he made a mistake from a “team mate” standpoint! He MAY have been apologizing to his “ bandmates” if you will, for the slip, but not an apology based in legal bric brac.
Per his story, as he had little warning on the censure due to what appears per the article to be a violation of the open meetings act, he did what he could, which is apologize for a mistake. I will point out that in viewing the meeting, hearing the censure, hearing and reading the censure itself, etc., I never noted him accepting it as anything more than a mistake.
[Newsflash, guys: sometimes actions are simple mistakes and nothing more, even when a conservative makes them!]
To the obscure question of why the letter to the board did not include the issue of the second un-censured member ------ uh, it is now appears clear in this readers opinion that the board acted outside the law on the censure issue and that would clearly be the first, and primary, basis for any legal questions.
The issue of the second member would, perhaps, be more of a civil issue?
Almost two months later, we start to get some reporting. Thank you, Don Craven, for setting the record straight.
Everyone should read the following opinion of DEMOCRATIC ATTORNEY GENERAL ROLAND BURRIS:
http://www.mediafire.com/?ycmnyb49czgxcjz
It is clear that Weeks did not violate laws. Further, the opinion specifically states that the school district does not have the legal authority to censure Weeks.
I think that the Board should first fire the lawyer who drafted this document. Second, the six board members should apologize to Mr. Weeks. He was trying to carry out his role and due to a misunderstanding, he created this event. He thought the principal knew about the employee matter. That would have rendered the incident as a non event--some will view this entire saga as some type of entrapment!!! We have no clue about the real estate transaction.
The issue about the teachers contract is very curious. This reinforces the view of the six board members as well as their predecessors that taxpayers, the ones who foot the bill, have no right to provide input on teachers contracts. I gave several board members ideas including two existing board members other than Weeks. These are our rights. Or is this Change from 2008 also result in loss of democracy????
Ironically, all of this secrecy benefits the public unions. While I am not advocating any position right now, I am confused why Board members would work to the detriment of the taxpayer. This becomes either more confusing or more sinister.
Reminds me of the famous Higgins--DECEPTION OR IGNORANCE??? At least four of the existing board members must have his symptons (since I know at least two do not!!!!).
Grfowing up in Bridgeport we preferred "Erin go Braless!"
As I said, I would not expect you to observe this as you are a clear proponent of the Board and never see anything but greatness in it. That is okay --- it is your opinion. I get it.
The comment about another Board member “..who regularly discusses personnel matters with people outside the district” which you refer to was in the Herald article. My comment was a reference to that article.
I can think of many reasons why the letter was limited in it’s contents, but I would not question or dissect anyone else’s legal strategy as it is always’s lawyer and situation specific. I am sure you, too, can come up with as many reasons if you put your thinking cap on.
Psyche;
Why don’t you post some video of school board meetings on you tube that illustrate your point. I’d really like you to show us this behavior you are describing.
As to your comments about Mr. Weeks, I find we share an interest in Mr. Weeks claim that “He said he was willing to accept criticism for his mistake because he knew the board and administration already were dealing with another board member who regularly discusses personnel matters with people outside the district. Which I assume was the source for your similar comment here, or did Mr. Weeks tell you this personally?
Why do you think Mr. Weeks is making this claim to the papers but his attorney’s letter to the District is silent on the matter? Truly this has the air of the classic “dog that didn’t bark”. He’s made the claim publicly, he or his counsel need to make the charge formally to the District or he needs to withdraw it.
Éirinn go Brách!
Thom Higgins
QE203.org
JQP,
In politics things frequently are not what they appear to be. Many refer to figuring out what is happening as reading between the lines. You are free to agree or disagree and come up with your own conclusion about what is really going on here.
I'm content with calling a spade a spade.
Cheers!
To: Anonymous replied to comment from Naperville Sun editors | March 16, 2011 1:06 PM |
Very good post!
To:Dan D.: Don't forget the lack of minutes & notes on teh Finance Advisory Board meetings and the NCHS construction committee meetings, which have not been available online.
Given the acute lack of transparency on important issues, I have to wonder what they are hiding here.
I shall add my candid comments (and I do not want this to turn into the scorched-earth fight like TH and Dan D. have!). The following is strictly my opinions and observations.
First off, Thom H. is probably right in that HE sees no problem with the way the members act. Of course he doesn’t! He is probably the single biggest proponent of the Board in all of 203! They treat him like a king AND he sees things on the same “plane” that they do.
However, I, too, have attended scores of school board meetings, both directly and via telly (well over 35), over the past several years.
MY viewpoint is that this group has consistently set themselves up into an adversarial dynamic with anyone who sees differently than them. When Board members they do not like speak up, they are ignored or talked to with condescending tones, etc.
When citizens go up to speak, there is eye-rolling, the occasional rude comment or action, info after the meeting taking folks to task, etc.
I will point blank state that it is my distinct observation that the Board treats those with a different view than theirs much more rudely.
I do not know the guy who was censured very well, but I WILL state that it appears every single vote I have seen goes against him, and I do not believe that anyone is wrong ALL THE TIME.
Now, as to TH’s analysis of the situation and the legalities:
First, TH quotes liberally from the Sun article. However, the Sun NEVER interviewed him before they ran the article!!!!!!! Hmmmmmmmm?
How do I know this? I was concerned about this issue (not wanting another council-type fiasco) and I went out of my way to find the person in question and ask him. Wow! I actually did some reporting and analysis. Imagine that!
Second, the person admitted what he did was foolish. However, to the point: He had NO warning of the censure as it was NOT on the agenda (thus he was unprepared), and the issuance of such a complete and wide-ranging statement does indicate it was probably discussed prior to the meeting (thus the open-mtg violation charge). Let’s remember the statement was read at the meeting, so it was not spontaneous. Also, it appears per the articles that his disagreement is with two things:
>>>the open mtg question (which is a big one if true and heads should roll IF true)
>>>the question of why he was singled out for censure on this single event when at least one other board member has several such events under their belt.
I don’t see any of this as a technical reason for not being unjustified. In fact, I find it to be important, ethics-based, and pretty darn scary IF true!!!
In fact, I am absolutely shocked that TH is immediately taking the side he is on this as I would think he, of anyone, would be outraged if there is a situation of BIAS on the Board or any violations of the open meeting act.
Having said all of that, I have the same observation on this I had on the council issue: If not a perfect situation, why is it so freaking hard for the parties to get together, admit they over-reacted, take back the censure, and move on?
I will tell you why ---- like that issue this one is a power struggle, pure and simple. The rest of the board plain does not like the one censured, and they have clearly different views on many things, and they saw the opportunity to bang him upside the head.
They did not expect the reaction they got, though, and now they are trying to downplay it. If true, they are run-of-the-mill bullies, and nothing more.
If they are truly strong in their belief, they should immediately move forward in a recall motion or they should apologize and move on.
Anonymous wrote:
I agree we should not rush to judgment, but the way you have worded this practically begs the question.
And:
This sounds like a rush to judgment.
-JQP
A couple of candid observations about what has happened:
First one local lawsuit and now another one appears likely because of how these boards function and operate. Before any rush to judgement on who is right or who is wrong I think the voting public needs to be assured there aren't any bullies on these boards running rough shod over other members and that no back room deals are being made.
Since a censure is nothing more than an admonishment so maybe it should be eliminated and taken away from these boards because it is mostly an empty gesture. Council members and board members are accountable to the voters not to the board and not to the board chair. If someone outright breaks a law related to their board service they should be held accountable and the police and states attorney should be involved. Anything less serious like something that might warrant a censure should be up to the voters to decide if they agree or disagree with the persons conduct and if they want the person to continue to represent them.
Councils and boards can agree upon all kinds of rules on how they choose to operate. Sometimes they even choose to operate in an illegal manner. The rules can and do change over time. Many of these rules make procedures easier to follow but are not legally binding. In the end citizens have better, stronger government when there is more openness and transparency and less closed door sessions. Not all council or board members think or act the same. Intellectually we need to ensure the process allows those who don't just go along like lemmings or who think outside the box do not become the whipping boy of a majority just because they wield the ability to censure.
More importantly the Open Meeting Act PERMITS certain issues to be discussed in closed session. The important distinction is that the Open Meeting Act DOES NOT require these issues to be discussed in a closed session. So while one board might choose to discuss something in public, another board might choose to discuss the same topic in a closed session.
Important to this is there are no legal rules or standards that clearly define what can or can not be shared from a closed meeting or by whom. This is at best a question of discretion. Let's face it, all of the news media would be crippled if no one ever "leaded" information from any of these closed meetings. So the question isn't really about information coming out of the closed session it is more of a hissy fit over who has the power to control the release of this information. The truth is this is more about a power struggle and personal egos among board members than it is about anything else.
Common Thom, get off your throne (the porcelain one, of course).
Weeks admitted to one incident. Jeansh's statement, both then and now, refers to a pattern. More than one. And based on the reported articles, the one incident involved a matter at Weeks "assigned school" that he thought was no longer a "confidential matter". When is Jeansch going to answer three questions.
1. How many incidents and did Dave ignore the appropriate "punishment" in private session?
2. Have all other board members been treated the same?
3. How was the prepared censure statement prepared (taxpayers dollars) and why wasn't appropriate notice (48 hours) posted before action was taken?
Yes we know that Weeks does not accept the "consensus" view of the other six board members. That is no secret. But he raises appropriate questions that quite frankly many are concerned about.
Now they are raising these questions in Wisconsin. By the way, why hasn't 203 posted the teachers contract on line? How many executive session board minutes have been "declassified" in the past ten years (as required by state law).
Are the actions of the 203 Board critical to national security? Why does the current board majority fear transparency? Why do they violate their policy and hoard $18 million of funds beyond THEIR policy?
These are all legitimate questions, It is about time that whatever game is being played by these people end. It is not about the kids, but I do not know who benefits. Jaensch should have taken t he time he wrote the censure and devised a plan to expand the elementary school day that HE noted four years ago was the shortest in the state. Instead, censure?
if you skoff at these Thom, then you must need to spend hours on your throne.
A few thoughts on the Weeks controversy:
This is from the Sun article of Jan 26, 2011: Weeks said he deserved censure and, while acknowledging what he did was foolish, said his intent was not malicious. On Tuesday, he admitted he has sometimes had an antagonistic relationship with the board but was still surprised at how “broad” Jaensch’s statement was.
However, he added, he does not interpret the board’s action as an act of retribution.
“I discussed things I should not have and, for that, I deserved censure,” he said. “... I would take issue with some of the broadness of the statement, but on the personnel issue, I certainly take responsibility for it. I did something wrong and I should be held responsible for it.”
It now seems that Mr. Weeks wants to see if he can find some technical reason why the censure was unjustified. From the Sun 3-13-2011 article: Collins said the board had no legal authority to censure Weeks, and that the board violated the Open Meetings Act because it gave no notice it was going to take that action and it was apparent the censure motion was drafted, discussed and resolved not only without Weeks’ participation, but also outside of an open meeting.
It seems to me that it’s up the District’s legal counsel and Mr. Weeks attorney to decide what the controlling law is in this matter, and if Mr. Weeks argument has any legal merit. The concern being that if they don’t come to a common understanding then we could see a repeat of the unfortunate (and expensive) legal battle the City went through with a sitting Council member a few years ago. Interestingly (OK, really, really, interestingly) the same attorney, Shawn Collins represents both men.
I do think he is treading on thin ice here (from a Daily Herald article): He said he was willing to accept criticism for his mistake because he knew the board and administration already were dealing with another board member who regularly discusses personnel matters with people outside the district.
If this is true, then why didn’t his attorney mention this in his letter to the District? The letter is really only complaining about perceived technical violations of the Open Meeting Act, with nothing about his “guilt” or “innocence”. It bothers me that he seems to be trying to “get off” on a technicality, and it seems to me a far more serious claim is that he was unfairly censured for his indiscretions while another Board member is not. I find the lack of any mention of this claim in his attorney’s letter significant, and troubling.
For myself, I don’t see where any of this helps Mr. Weeks, or his relationship with the Board and Administration. The Herald article reports that Mr. Weeks is actively campaigning against the three incumbents and that Mr. Weeks is claiming “ the board… has no tolerance for dissent; and frequently views the public as the enemy.
I have a real problem with this claim. I attend SB meetings, I know these people. Mr. Weeks may be frustrated because he has problems finding people to agree with him at times but he is treated with respect. No one and I mean no one, treats the public as the enemy.
Thom Higgins
QE203.org
He's not. Not yet anyway. He did allude to it as reported in the Sun. http://napervillesun.suntimes.com/news/4265594-418/d203-board-member-charges-open-meetings-violation.html
Your whining is just so stale, now. Get over it. It's the Sun's rule. Move on.
Where has it been reported that Mr. Weeks is taking legal action?
Anyone else have an issue with the fact that though more than one board member has been involved in confidential info being shared outside of the board meeting, the NCUSD 203 School Board elected to only censure the board member that has differring political and fiscal views than the rest of the board?
Should this board really be allowed to pick their fights based on political views?
I thought the school boards were non-partisan races.
Anyone else have an issue with the fact that the board member who was censured now has a daughter also running for the board? Should this family really get two votes on the board?
T.B.
Why dont u shut up, backhand?
Wait! Do we see a pattern here?
Now another branch of our local government is about to get into a lawsuit after censuring one of it's members. Déjà vu.
I guess I can't specifically mention the name of the Naperville city council member who also filed a lawsuit because of the Nazi censorship policies in place by the Naperville Sun just because we are in election season.
However, congratulation to Mr. Weeks and the unnamed council member who both had the moral fortitude to stand up and speak out when others attempted to walk all over them.
There are many citizens who have long suspected that closed meeting sessions have been used to deliberately circumvent the Open Meeting Act. On top of this there is plenty of other "backroom" dealing that goes on in other smaller, private meetings that no one knows about, telephone conversations, along with email and other forms of electronic communications that are all being used to circumvent public discussion and decision making.
Mr. Weeks and every other elected official has personal knowledge if a violation occurs when they are present. Many residents have good reason to suspect these violations occur as part of the long standing "good old boy" network with a wink and a nod along with trading of political favors to get everyone to continue to go along. All of this really is nothing more than a form of officially sanctioned organizational blackmail and coercion. Some might even argue corruption. And another example of the culture of "the way things really work here" despite what may be proper, lawful, or legal.
Congratulations to Mr. Weeks for standing up and speaking out. Hopefully there are more elected officials who also possess the moral integrity to stand up and speak out when others among them attempt to circumvent the law and that they have the fortitude to expose these elected officials for who and what they really are.
Question for the bloggers AND the Sun:
If the policy is to not alllow endorsments of candidates on the blog, why does the Sun allow so much drivel from QE203 on here?
The QE203 site only gives accolades to teh sitting board, which by implication is an endorsement.
Congrats to Mr. Weeks for taking on this Board? Legal action? Really?
I thought I read Mr. Weeks say that he deserved censure. If he said himself that he deserved censure, then why is he doing this? For someone who is so concerned about the districts finances, this seems like the actions of a hypocrite to me.
Also, please explain to us how any member of this Board could be labeled a "bully".
Please shut up about this already.
Congrats to Dave Weeks for taking on this board via legal action. It's about time someone stood up to these bullies. Dan D. you are 100% correct, the next teachers contract negotiation will be all about using the HUGE surplus to give away to the teachers in more HUGE salary increases that exceed CPI by 3 times or more.
School Board 203:
The answer to the excessive surplus quandry is simple::
EITHER SPEND THE SURPLUS ON THE STUDENTS, OR GIVE IT BACK TO THE PARENTS!
Just building it up so you can then give it away via union contracts is insane.
What a really boneheaded move by somebody at the Naperville Sun to even suggest this thread.
How about we all hold off on discussing any local issues until such time as the Naperville Sun changes their policy and allows free and open discussion of candidates?
After all it is kind of pointless and disingenuous to talk about local issues without being able to discuss the position of the candidates on the issues. We elect candidates, we don't elect issues. However, we do vote for or against candidates based upon their position on issues. It simply isn't logical to discuss one without the other.
For the City
Honesty and Integrity need to be restored to the City Council. Currently everything is done behind closed doors - and decisions are made without any resident input (see Smart Grid, Childrens Museum, Marriott Tax Breaks). Budgets are used as a weapon - crisis one day when it benefits them, surplus the next when it's election season. We need the truth, and we need some people who don't have a personal agenda. The City is on a downward spiral - services are going to be non-existent if things don't change, and this council doesn't care one bit.
For Mayor we are left to vote for whomever will do the least harm. Past Council members are not the answer.
For School District 203
1. Should the surplus be returned to the taxpayers? If so, how?
2. Should the District tax to the maximum amount or just what they need?
3. What should be the philosophy on teacher salary increases? For example, limit total cost growth to CPI unless voters approve BEFORE wages and costs are increased?
4. What can be done to improve education? What has happened to the need to extend the school day and techer foreign languages to ALL elementary students that was put forth four years ago and not been addressed?