Napergate: December 2007 Archives

In response to a comment by Marybeth posted today, we have a Napergate ad that ran in The Sun.

NOTE: There's more discussion about Napergate where it started in the Free Form Friday thread and in some of the Furstenau threads.

Every so often we like to ask Potluck visitors to suggest what topics you want to discuss. So here's your chance. Tell us what issues you want to talk about.

Amidst a throng of supporters pleading his case, the City Council enacted the "C" word, as in censure, against their colleague Dick Furstenau at Tuesday night's city council meeting. The vote was 8-1 with Furstenau casting the lone nay vote. It seemed - and this was probably the case - that the vote was pre-ordained from the beginning. The general atmosphere inside the chambers was somber as council members all echoed the same theme, as in "we all have to do better" before coming down on one of their own. What was also noteworthy is that Furstenau was praised by his peers for the job he does on the Council but, apparently, not for the way he does it. So,where do we go from here? Will it be business as usual as we move forward, or will hard feelings come to the fore, especially in light of Furstenau's civil rights lawsuit that now hangs like a dark cloud over Naperville, even on that rare sunny day. The only person that did okay last night - really more than just okay - wasn't even in the room. That's former city manager Peter Burchard after the Council okayed a severance package that gives him $32,000 in cash, forgiveness on a $50,000 loan and medical coverage through June of next year. Not a bad deal, since Burchard voluntarily quit, which ususally - but not in this case - takes severance off the table. Thoughts, anyone.

On Tuesday night Naperville's City Council is expected to consider a motion to formally censure Councilman Richard Furstenau. If council members decide to censure their colleague, do you think he would sue them?

Another shoe dropped yesterday in the case of Councilman Dick Furstenau vs. the City of Naperville with new defendants being named in his violation of civil rights federal lawsuit against the city. The three new defendants are: former city manager Peter Burchard, city attorney Margo Ely and Naperville police officer Joe Matchett. Along with the names come additional allegations. Furstenau alleges events have taken place since the complaint was filed that include: threats made to local business people supportive of Furstenau, who have been told that if they do not drop their support of him, their business projects will not be approved by the City Council; letters released to the media and public falsely accusing Furstenau of misconduct, including hitting a Naperville police officer and, finally, repeated violations of the Open Meetings Act - including an illegal executive session held Dec. 4 - in which an unlawful censure resolution against Furstenau was drafted and discussed.
This matter doesn't look to be going away any time soon and one has to wonder if the estimated $400,000 to defend the lawsuit will wind up being just a drop in the bucket. Will more funds be needed and who's going to supply them? You, the Naperville taxpayer. Any thoughts, folks.

At the last City Council meeting it was decided that the estimated $400,000 cost to hire outside attorneys to defend the city against Councilman Dick Furstenau's federal civil rights violation lawsuit will be borrowed from Naperville's capital projects fund. But, the tax levy for fiscal 2009-2010 would have to be bumped up by that amount to pay back the fund. After all the math is done, that translates into the owner of a $400,000 home kicking in $8 toward the defense fund. At the meeting a couple of councilmen alluded to the fact that this $400,000 was just an estimate and that the costs could, indeed, go higher. Given the fact that Mr. Furstenau has a high-profile attorney, Shawn Collins, and that the councilman - by every indication - seems to have every intention of taking this case to the bitter end, who knows how much the city will really have to spend for outside counsel? And how do Naperville taxpayers feel about being put into the position of having to kick in their hard-earned dollars to pay for the defense of the city against one of their own elected officials? Tell us what you think.

The news on the Furstenau affair that came out of Tuesday night's City Council meeting basically boils down to this:

1) Mayor Pradel called for a resolution to be drafted and included on the agenda for the meeting two weeks from now that would call for Councilman Furstenau's "censure." Included in Pradel's resolution was the outlining of a commitment to work in a respectful manner with city staff and follow council rules of decorum. The resolution - which follows outgoing city manager Peter Burchard's open letter to the city in which he blasted Furstenau with a litany of alleged abuses of power and intimidation - passed by a vote of 6-3 with the expected platitudes by council members that abuse of power won't be tolereated etc. etc.

2) A vigorous debate ensued as to how the city was going to pay for the estimated $400,000 in legal costs to fight Furstenau's civil rights lawsuit against the city. After several seemingly interminable minutes, it dawned on the mayor that Furstenau's vote on the matter was a conflict of interest, an observation that was echoed by several councilmen. Furstenau left the council chambers, a vote was cast on the legal defense fund and then Furstenau was called back to join the remaining deliberations.

Three questions:

1) Does the City Council really have to "commit" or maybe "recomit" to the obvious - cordial workings with staff and following rules of decorum? Doesn't that kind of go unsaid?

2) If Furstenau is censured, will it really mean anything or is it just the council's window-dressing response to the Burchard letter?

3) How many more times will we see Furstenau asked to leave the chambers while a vote takes place only to come back to conduct regular business - as if nothing has happened?

It seems like a big elephant has taken up residence in the City Council chambers,.