First Two Naperville Council Members ‘Lose Their Seats’ And Stand

It didn’t take long (only 49 days) for two Naperville city council members to say something foolish thereby ‘losing’ their oversized, comfy, chairs-on-wheels at the dais causing them to stand henceforth during meetings. Whether or not they will be accountable and actually do it is doubtful.

Last Naperville city council member sitting

As predicted, Patty Gustin is the first council member to say something foolish. It happened during the February 4th council meeting. Watch and listen as Gustin expresses her words-of-wisdom “we don’t sell kids in store fronts” in response to a comment by councilman John Krummen:

Gustin had the chance to throw away the shovel she used to dig her hole, but no, she had to solidify her hold on the first council member to say something foolish, by following it with another gem-of-wisdom and saying “we don’t breed people like dogs”. Also, check out the expression on council Krummen’s face at the end of his comment. It’s as if he swallowed a hair ball; he wasn’t a happy camper with Gustin.

Not only should her chair-on-wheels be confiscated, it should be donated to a local pet store for puppies to use for fun-rides around the pet store.

Soon afterward, councilman Patrick Kelly became the second council member qualifying to lose his council chair for uttering a foolish comment. It happened when Kelly, also a member of Naperville’s Housing Advisory Commission, stated after learning Naperville needed to add a ‘fertilizer-load’ of affordable housing units, when he said “It was like, holy cow! That’s a lot of units! Where would we even put them!”

Keep in mind he is a council member; he’s a member of Naperville’s Housing Advisory Commission, and he’s shocked about the situation? Where has he been! Holy cow, what was he thinking when he said that!

Two council members already standing by mid-February. At that rate the entire council should be without chairs by Labor Day. Odds are they will be standing by the Fourth of July for more than the Pledge of Allegiance.


Show 37 Comments


  1. Kerin Smith

    I was at this meeting. It was the discussion of the humane pet store ordinance. COuncilman Krummen initiated this exchange with his Power Point comparing the birth rate of babies with congenital issues to that of puppies born in mills and sold sick. Councilwoman Gustin was responding and the majority of the audience appreciated her comments

    Taking sound bites out of contect to humiliate and belittle says a lot about your character.

    • watchdog

      ‘the majority of the audience appreciated her comments’. The majority of the colonists supported the King of England over the patriots.

      • Lisa Paschal

        Thank you Kerin Smith for posting this – it reminded me why I don’t follow this mean spirited, out of touch, out of context site… having also been there, Council woman Gustin simply responded to the ridiculous argument put forth by Krummen comparing the ordinance to childhood illness –

        • watchdog

          If she was responding to a ‘ridiculous argument’, why would she respond with a ridiculous comment.

  2. Kathy Svac

    I was in attendance for this meeting and that’s sure not how I remember it happening. It is amazing how words can be twisted and turned to benefit whatever your platform. If you want the true facts, attend the meetings. Don’t rely on others to stir the facts up for you.

    • watchdog

      I don’t remember seeing you at the meeting, proving that some people are truly forgettable.

          • Kerin Smith

            I understand you think you are funny but, honestly, being mean spirited to Kathy or Councilwoman Gustin or anyone else, is not funny.

          • watchdog

            Is it that difficult for you to lighten-up and keep things in perspective.

          • Kerin Smith

            As difficult as it is for you to be kind.

          • watchdog

            Wonderful. We shall agree to disagree.

  3. Catherine Goodwin

    The writer of this article just wants to continue to support puppy mills. She’s a hero snd ending retail sales of pets is the will of the people. Give. It. Up.

    • watchdog

      If Gustin is a hero, we are all in trouble. Real hero’s are Donald Duck, David Letterman, and Larry David.

  4. Jennifer Schrieber

    I find it interesting that Gustin is being targeted because she stood up for what is the right thing to do. She has morals and understands that they Pet Stores are greedy, with their interest rates being so high and offer to finance a dog is wrong. These are breathing animals we don’t fiance our children when we have them. Animals should be treated like a family member.

    • watchdog

      “Animals should be treated as family members”? It will be a long time before my poodle gets a cell phone.

  5. Emmy Hartung

    Your understanding is very twisted on actual events, especially in regard to Patty Gustin. Try to be honest the next time you create a sentence, please.

    • watchdog

      “Try” to be honest? No need to ‘try’. You either are or aren’t.

  6. Jackie Freeman

    I was at that meeting, and your comments do not reflect Gustin’s and Kelly’s comments and behavior in any way. City Council Watchdog? Really? You sound like a paid lackey for the mayor.

    • watchdog

      Paid? No way. Lackey? Sounds a little sexist on your part. Might be time to lighten-up a bit on your part.

  7. Katie T.

    This article is a joke and in no way how the conversation went. I watched online live and you are absolutely twisting her words. I’m sure this writer is pro puppy mills and their deplorable conditions. You are what’s wrong with journalism these days. Shame on you.

    • watchdog

      Joke? I don’t think you are getting the joke. ‘Twisting her words’, they are her words. That’s the beauty of a video.

  8. Shannon Gaglione

    Councilwoman Gustin has be absolutely wonderful and hasn’t lost sight of the main goal. She spoke up for those who couldn’t speak for themselves. She couldn’t be bought like some others that are on the board. She has morals and values. I applaud her for her bravery against some of those crooked board members.

    • watchdog

      So if you don’t agree with a ‘board’ member, that qualifies as being ‘crooked’? Is that how it works?

      • Kerin Smith

        The mayor and Councilman Coyne have both accepted money from the pet stores and pet industry. Shocker, they voted against the ordinance and worked very hard to get the ordinance stopped.

        • watchdog

          I support your right to be absolutely wrong.

  9. Gail Diedrichsen

    This is out of context…and out of line…In our country’s history, lots of inhumane “stuff” was allowed due to the almighty dollar. Puppy mills are one. Patty Gustin was responding to Krummen’s “biology” comments which were convoluted in my opinion. I like the guy, I think he means well, but he doesn’t get it. He’s probably never worked one minute rescuing a pet as so many there that night have. Patty Gustin has a heart.

    • watchdog

      She has a heart, she simply needs to engage her brain a bit more.

  10. Jim Haselhorst

    I know I am going to piss a lot of people off but here I go….

    First off no one has ever provide a good definition of a “puppy mill”.

    I have heard anything from a breeder that has a large number of animals they keep solely to continually breed in a small space (the definition I grow up with). To any person that has more then three litters of puppies in a year. To any person that provides puppies to a pet store (no matter how will treated, how infrequently breed, etc).

    The ironic thing about the pet store standard is that if you are a rescue or a shelter in Kentucky and you pack a dozen dogs in a minivan for a 7 hour trip to Chicago area pet shop your a saint. If your are a breeder that shares your home, your bed and you life with a dog you only breeding once a year. And you make sure all the puppies get proper veterinary care, but you provider these puppies to a pet shop, you are a evil puppy mill breeder.

    Its outrageous.

    Second, the reality is the ordinance Naperville adopted is unenforceable. And there was a CBS special over a year ago that explained why these type of bans are failing all over the country. So while it made a lot of people feel good about themselves and gave them something they could call a victory. The reality is nothing has really change.

    The proof nothing has change and puppy mills are still cranking out puppies? The number of registered commercial breeder with the USDA has not significantly changed. Some have moved around, relocated, changed names but they are still the same operation.

    The one thing human history (and economics) has taught use is that bans never work. As so long as the people pushing to end puppy mills continue to rely on bans, puppy mills will continue to operate.

    • Gail Diedrichsen

      It sure sends a message though, doesn’t it. No different than the way people in the Opt Out circle feel…sends a message. Jim, get educated. I bet you have never spent one minute of your time rescuing an animal. It’s heartbreaking, and if there’s a way to end any amount of suffering? I am for it. You should be too.

      • Jim Haselhorst

        Thanks for demonstrating you know nothing about me. As I have said publicly on several occasion I have had pets that were adopted from rescues, including a female Malamute from a commercial (puppy mill) breeder.

        You say I need to get educated. Okay, so educate me. How many bans, in the history of the United States have actually worked?

        Oh and have you see this article.

        Just one of many I have read on the various ways that these ban ordinances are failing all around the country.

        I have also read articles on animals taken for rescues & shelter to be shipped half way across the country by other rescues and shelters to make sure they have enough of the “desirable” dog available for adopts in communities that have adopted the type of ban Naperville now has.

        Stories of how these dogs arrive at there destination, stressed out, sick and in some cased dead because they were not properly care for in transit.

        Stories of locals that wanted to adopt these same dogs but couldn’t because they were already earmarked for shipment to these communities with bans. And when they complaint, were told they shouldn’t be so picky. REALLY, they should be so picky? Then how do these rescues justify shipping these dog to “picky” customers in communities with bans?

        There is a double standard being applied here by the puppy mill faction that can only be describe as hypocrisy. Hypocrisy resulting from a holier then thou attitude and an unwillingness to acknowledge that these bans are failing and causing animals harm.

  11. Kerin Smith

    “If your are a breeder that shares your home, your bed and you life with a dog you only breeding once a year. And you make sure all the puppies get proper veterinary care, but you provider these puppies to a pet shop, you are a evil puppy mill breeder”. Is a faulty statement. No RESPONSIBLE breeder sells to a pet store. Additionally, responsible breeders are not effected by the ban. Mills are closing due to the ordinances. Mills have decreased from approximately 10,000 a decade ago to approximately 2,000 today.

    This post was not debating the ins and outs of the ordinance but an attempt to humiliate a council member.

    • Jim Haselhorst

      It is interesting to note that the anti-puppy mill group considers any breeder that provides dogs or cats to a pet shop is being irresponsible, but if you are a shelter or a rescue and you do this you are “golden”. Sorry if it is irresponsible to provide companion animals to a pet shop then it does not matter who is doing it (breeder, rescue, shelter) but by some twist of logical the anti-puppy mill group does not see there irrational nature of their position. I can only guess that they do not see rescue and shelter animals to be as deserving as animal that come from breeder.

      • Kerin Smith

        Shelters and rescues do not sell dogs to pet shops. They just don’t. I have worked in shelters and been active in the rescue community for years. We want all companion animals to find good homes–including those treated as livestock by commercial breeders. If you are truly interested in learning about this subject, please visit Pupquest. It is a site by veterinarians. I am not going to continuously debate you on this topic. The ordinance passed and it was the right thing to do.

        You seem far more interested in defending the pet stores, their animal cruelty and consumer fraud with high APR rates than discussing the actual topic of this post. Councilwoman Gustin was treated very unfairly and her words were taken out of context.

        Have a good day and I truly hope you educate yourself on the truth behind the cute puppy in the window.

        • Jim Haselhorst

          First rescues and shelters charge an “adoption” fee. Under USDA guidelines charging such a fee is a sells activity. Further the USDA regulates any rescue or shelter that charges an “adoption” fee and put them in the classification pet shops.

          Second, it is interesting that you attack any pet shop that gets animals from any source other then a rescue or shelter for “their animal cruelty and consumer fraud” accusing them of not caring about the well being of these animal. But as soon as these same pet shops, with same staff and management, start sourcing for rescues and shelters they no longer accused of treating the animals in their care cruelly or abusing there customers.

          Third, most rescues and shelters, involved with providing animals to pet shops are in fact in violation of USDA regulations for failing to be property registered with the USDA which would make them subject to the same random inspections they insist other providers of animals to pet shops be subject too.

          Finally, my problem is with the fact that the ordinance passed fixes nothing, just like the over 300 such ordinances and statue passed before it. This whole ordinance campaign is more about politics then insuring the compassionate care of companion animals. As was stated by several people from various animal rights groups said before city council, they supported this ordinance because of its value as a message to the elected officials in Springfield and DC. I do not believe in wasting city resource on trying to send political messages.

          I do care about how these animals are treated. I am interested in shutting down puppy mills. But all that these bans do is promote puppy mills to find other avenues for selling their animals including entering the black market. They do nothing to insure any animal in the pet industry gets a better home or is treated with compassion by anyone. This is what I truly care about.

Leave a Reply

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