Q & A With Watchdog (Part 7)

Since Watchdog’s first posting (January 3, 2011, ‘Who Works For Whom’), Watchdog has published 257 postings, including this one. Watchdog has grown from one reader, and one subscriber to our newsletter, to now having readers and subscribers, not only in all 50 states, but going beyond U.S. shores to 88 countries (89 if you include Taiwan). That represents 45.4% of the of the World’s 196 countries, including 12 of the 14 countries still ‘alive’ in the World Cup.

Former Naperville residents, along with those elsewhere considering a move to Naperville, comprise a good segment of Watchdog’s readership. Watchdog receives many emails, comments, and questions. Comments, pro and con, are typically posted within 24 hours. Emails and questions are typically answered within 72 hours.

Occasionally Watchdog will  publish a ‘Q & A’ and this is one of those occasions (Part 7). So here we go.

“Are you more interested in ‘spreading the word’ or showing funny video clips?”

Mark B. (Oak Park, IL)

Ans: ‘Spreading the word’, as you refer to, is most important, especially if you can hear it directly from the council members. The video embeds from the meetings do that. Watchdog comments are simply to see things from a different perspective, and movie clips (embeds) add a little flavor for impact.

“You go after certain council members (Wehrli, Fieseler and Brodhead), and let others slide (McElroy, Chirico, Pradel and Krause). That seems biased and unfair.

Robert C. (Kennebunk, Maine)

Ans: Actually all nine council members have been ‘called out’ at one time or another. It just happens that the three you mentioned along with the three that departed, provided much more material, to choose from during council meetings. When Wehrli is condescending to speakers, Fieseler is disrespectful to residents, and Brodhead is an ’empty chair’, that’s much more interesting to note or show, than McElroy using common sense, Chirico using good business sense, Pradel being reasonable, and Krause getting steamed and outvoted. Watchdog has given credit, when credit is due, even to Wehrli, Fieseler, and Brodhead.

“Can’t Naperville do better than Doug Krieger for city manager?”

Andrea K. (Woodridge)

Ans: Of course the Naperville city council could do better than Krieger, but for whatever reason they keep him around. There are a variety of possible reasons why Naperville has not taken action for improvement, and unfortunately none of the reasons are good. For now, until the next election,  it looks like Naperville is stuck with Krieger, like gum on your shoe on a hot August afternoon.

“If the Naperville city council is so ineffective or incompetent, as you say, why is Naperville considered a destination of choice for so many moving to the Chicago area?”

Ray M. (Naperville)

Ans: Overall the council has improved during the last three years. The departure of three and addition of three has been a plus. However more than half of the remaining council members need to ‘turn’ before there is a majority working in the right direction. Naperville is successful because of its people, not the local government. Since 1831, a lot of dedicated people set a course for Naperville that has allowed us to be what we are today. Over the past 5 years Naperville has slipped in its image. It’s still a good place to be, but if better is possible, then ‘good’ is not enough. Better is definitely possible.

Watchdog welcomes your questions and comments. Thank you.

Leave a Comment


No comments yet. Why don’t you start the discussion?

Leave a Reply

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