Double Standard Applies To Naperville City Council

Rules are rules, policy is policy, and guidelines are in place, unless it applies to to members of the Naperville city council. If members of the city council are involved, then the double standard applies which trumps rules, policy, and guidelines.

It was evident during the last city council meeting, January 19, when council member Kevin Coyne asked a question to other council members concerning the March 15 city council meeting.

Watch and listen as Coyne mentions that March 15 is primary election day in Illinois, along with four other states,  and whether or not the meeting date can be changed, followed by council member Paul Hinterlong’s response that typically the council meets on that day, unless a member of the council is running for election.

If changing the meeting day benefits a member of the council who is running for office, then the day is changed. Where do the residents of Naperville fit into this equation? People who attend council meetings or watch online or on television tend to be interested in politics, locally, statewide, and/or nationally. By not changing the date of the council meeting, necessitates those folks to choose between viewing the council meeting live, or following the primary results in real time.

Yes, I get it, those wanting to watch the council meeting can record and watch it at a later time, or catch it online, but why not simply move the date of the council meeting to Wednesday, allowing folks to see both in real time.

Could it be that council members, other than Coyne, relish in the idea that fewer residents will see the council meeting, hence the less the residents know the better it is for council members to conduct business without resident interference. Maybe so, maybe not. But what’s the problem with the council changing the day, to eliminate any thought that the council likes to conduct business with fewer residents watching.

Even more disappointing, is the fact that Coyne himself voted to keep the March 15 meeting date intact, thereby resulting in a 9 to 0 vote, even though he “prefers not to have a meeting on election day”.

There appears to be a disturbing trend with this city council that a unanimous vote is more important than standing up for one’s convictions. If that’s true, then what is the purpose of having nine council members.