Time…It’s All Relative

It’s over and it ended exactly like everyone expected. It didn’t end like it does in the movies when the good guys win, and the bad guys lose. It ended like it does when someone stands up against city hall, and city hall pounds him into submission. That’s exactly what happened during the most recent referendum hearing regarding a do-over vote for changing the way Naperville elects its officials. In 2010, 28,238 residents voted to change our council representation from an ‘at large’ format to a mix of ward representation with some ‘at large’. In essence this would make it easier to elect qualified, informed and responsive council members, and eliminate ‘clueless’ council members along with resident-unfriendly current members. It was a landslide vote winning by a two to one ratio. This was a major blow to the then Naperville city council. However, Naperville city officials were successful in delaying the implementation of the voter’s victory until the year 2015; a full five years after the vote. It’s amazing that if the city wants to physically force a device on a resident’s home, they can do so immediately by cutting the lock on your fence, forcing their way onto your property, installing an unwanted device, handcuffing the homeowner, hauling them off to jail, with little if any regard for children or pets left behind. That happens within minutes, but it takes five years to implement the results of a vote.

By stalling for five years, it gave Naperville officials, an opportunity to help support (via the Naperville Electoral Board)  a referendum for a do-over vote this spring.

This is the same Naperville Electoral Board that helped defeat a non-binding referendum in the last election which would have  allowed residents to vote for or against the installation of smart meters, yet in this recent referendum they want residents to vote twice on the same issue. So it’s all relative to what Naperville city officials want, rather than what residents need.

This is the same Naperville Electoral Board that was cited during the last referendum hearing by the State of Illinois for violating the freedom of information act. (FOIA). Even though the board was involved in wrong-doing, they get to do it again, and it looks as though they may be cited again for the same violation in this referendum. The Naperville Electoral Board consists of Mayor George Pradel, councilman Doug Krause, and city clerk Pam LaFeber. It was also the same attorneys but this time representing opposing sides. It’s like deja vu all all over again.Naperville's Referendum Objectors Paul E. Sjordal and William C. Dawe For a moment I thought I was in a flux capacitor, when I noticed the objector to the referendum  looking similar to last year’s referendum objector. Could it be there is a  Professional Objector’s Association.

As expected, the Naperville Electoral Board was partial towards the folks that want a do-over vote. The Board had to actually vote to determine if they were biased, and they unanimously voted ‘no’.  At times it seemed as though the Board might ask the “do-over” side if they would like some appetizers or desert during the hearings. While on the other side,  the Naperville Electoral Board ran Ibendahl through the gauntlet. He had to ask for permission to make a comment, he had to ask permission to ask a question, he had to ask permission in order to ask permission. At one point during the hearing it appeared the Naperville Electoral Board wanted him to stand on one leg, arms stretched out, and holding a block of salt in each hand. They didn’t do it, but they did threaten to fine him, along with his client for costs and fees for bad faith conduct. Apparently asking questions, making comments, and representing his client (along with 28,238 residents) is something that irritates the Naperville Electoral Board.

Watch and listen to the following video clips regarding how Naperville Electoral Board member (councilman Doug Krause) deals with moving the hearing along quickly. The first clip is during this week’s referendum hearing when Krause “loses it” interfacing with Ibendahl because Krause feels Ibendahl is wasting time. Yet in the second clip, from last year’s smart meter vote referendum, Krause has no problem letting attorney Kevin McQuillan fumble with papers with time passing.

Naperville Electoral Board Member Doug Krause asking to speed things up:

Attorney Kevin McQuillan Wasting Time:

Attorney Kevin McQuillan Wasting More Time:

For Krause, along with other Board members, time is all relative depending upon which side the board favors. And the side that the Naperville Electoral Boards favors is the Naperville Electoral Board’s side

Show 5 Comments


  1. Gerard H Schilling

    What really is going on here is a dedicated, honest and true patriotic 28 yr retired, AF, LC who felt it was fitting and proper to question what, where when and why this obvious attempt to thwart the will of the people was taking place.

    His crime was and is that he had the unmitigated gall to dare to question the political and social aristocracy of Naperville. These people truly believe they have some type of divine and inherited right to lord over and rule the surfs.

    They hire and appoint people who follow orders without question and seem to have no moral scruples about doing anything as long as it furthers their personal gains and aspirations.

    We have an opportunity to change out four of these character and behavior disorders and we can only hope the electorate is up to the task?

  2. Barbara Serbick

    Past time to vote them all out of office and fire Ms. Ely. Their contempt for the citizens of Naperville is palpable.

  3. Jo Malik

    Deja’ vu all over again – No matter which side smart meter ambassador McQuillan is on, as long as it’s the city’s side, he wins.

    How can the board possibly take a vote on whether or not they’re biased?

    And, how could they NOT be biased?
    The Chairman of the “Committee to re-elect Mayor Pradel,”
    Rebecca Boyd-Obarski http://www.elections.il.gov/CampaignDisclosure/CommitteeDetailOfficers.aspx?id=20116
    is also the “Yes at Large” petition organizer, and sitting just 20 feet from the Mayor. Doug Krause has gone on record stating he is opposed to districts, and Pam LeFaber works for both of them. But nah, they’re not biased, they said so themselves!

  4. Jo Malik

    “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.”

    James Madison: Federalist No. 10, November 23, 1787

  5. Jennifer Stahl

    Watchdog wrote: “…a non-binding referendum in the last election which would have allowed residents to vote for or against the installation of smart meters,…”

    I would like to inform anyone not understanding that the smart meter referendum, had it been on the ballot, would have been NON-BINDING and ADVISORY. These legal terms mean that the referendum question was basically AN OPINION POLL.

    One year ago, the Electoral Board neither permitted nor ordered proper binder checks of the supposedly invalid signatures. Subsequent review of those objected signatures provided proof the voters were in fact registered.

    What was so bad about allowing an opinion poll of Naperville Ratepayers? Here’s 2:

    1) the city’s PR manager suggested via email that a Smart Grid ambassador should challenge the signatures (both a violation of the city’s employee handbook as well as illegal – a city employee cannot make such suggestions because that’s taxpayer dollars (her paycheck) being used for political action)

    2) City Councilman Fieseler was the only person to request a copy of the few hundred referendum petition pages. How did they get from him to the objector and what army reviewed every line of signatures to challenge them?

    Had that referendum been on the March 2012 ballot, the City Council would have to take the results, should it have passed, into “consideration.” This is the “advisory, non-binding” part. They wouldn’t have had to do anything even if the city cried out – YES STOP THE SMART METERS.
    The Council could have allowed it on the ballot regardless of whether or not there were enough valid signatures (and there were). It is my opinion the city have had egg on their face, so “they” wouldn’t allow it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *