Wehrli Leads, Holzhauer Plays Games

Holzhauer questions Wehrli statement that the City will not move forward with a Ceasefire resolutions. Holzhauer knows the Ceasefire resolution is a political disaster yet wants to feign interest to those calling for one. At least Wehrli is truthful about where he and the City stands.

The Watchdog applauds Wehrli’s honest leadership. It’s wrong and poor form to mislead all these activists – not to mention waste the time of an entire City – by pretending there is any intention by anyone on the dias to motion for a Ceasefire resolution. There have now been three heavily attended meetings in which the resolution has been asked for by dozens of speakers. Why hasn’t Holzhauer motioned for one by now if he has any intention to do so?

Show 16 Comments


  1. John Georgias

    Holzhauer is all about politics, always has been. He needs to concentrate on the needs of Naperville and not appeasing activists. I am looking forward to him leaving the council the next election cycle, either voluntarily or by vote.

  2. joey

    Scott also pays his real estate taxes

  3. jim haselhorst

    Don’t know what Ian said so can’t comment on that. But I do agree that there clearly is not enough support by the council to make this happen.

    The reality is if it was going to happen it would have by now and continued calls for this resolution won’t change this, it only increases insensitivity to this issue by council members.

    • Kurt Dorr

      Yeah, murdering 1,200 innocent Jews for no reason is such a drag. I’d tell those protestors to go pound sand. No way in hell am I giving into their threats.

      • John Georgias

        I agree Kurt, thus my question to Jim. There is no insensitivity to terrorists and those that back them.

        • jim haselhorst

          Not sure what your question is. My point was not about the resolution in question but about the fact that the council has made it clear there is no will to make such a resolution.

          Any member of council can bring this resolution up in new business and put it to the vote if they wished. It does not take any action on the part of the mayor to make such a vote happen. Only a motion and a second (two council members wanting it).

    • Joan Murray

      I agree that the mayor made a false statement trying to speak for the entire council. There was no vote. They should just vote and see where everyone stands.

      • John Georgias

        Why should a city council vote on a ceasefire which tells a sovereign ally of the United States they can not fulfill their goals after their 9/11. This is not the agenda for a city council and Scott is right for not wasting the city councils time with this nonsense!!

      • Sam Nelson

        Agree Joan. Let them vote and put the issue to rest. Naperville republicans don’t want a vote because they probably think it hurts their politician

        • John Georgias

          Naperville Republicans don’t want a vote because a city council should not be weighing in on international issues. We want the council to spend their time on local issues not listen to the demands of a bunch of paid activists looking to cause discord. We do not want them to spend time on activist political issues that are antisemitic in nature.

        • Joan Murray

          Thanks Sam. Naperville republican activists like John G think those with opposing views are paid. The arrogance that those who think different from him and his ilk are paid is astounding. They are worried about this coming to a vote
          because they know it will hurt their them politically.

      • jim haselhorst

        Any member of council can bring this resolution up in new business and put it to the vote if they wished. It does not take any action on the part of the mayor to make such a vote happen. Only a motion and a second (two council members wanting it).

        Clearly there are not even two members of council that are interested in making this vote happen. And continued presence of speakers want this to happen will not change this situation. Trying to bully council members into supporting this resolution will only backfire because no member of council wants to explain next election how they let themselves be bullied into doing something.

        • Steve Chirico

          Jim, I believe an item requires 3 councilmembers support to get it added to the agenda and it does not require a motion and a second. An item that is supported by at least 3 councilmembers can be added to the agenda by simply contacting the city manager and informing him of the request…so, evidently, there are not 3 councilmembers supporting this resolution, which is a good thing in my view. The city council should stay in their lane; police, fire, transportation, storm water management, zoning and code matters, water and electric utilities. It’s not a very sexy list of responsibilities, but it is what the council is elected to do.

  4. John Georgias

    ‘it only increases insensitivity to this issue by council members’. What is the issue for a city council? How would city council members be ’caused’ to insensitivity?

  5. Ron Amato

    Mayor Wehrli has handled this situation very professionally, and his comments and demeanor set a good example for everyone on the dais. Councilman Holzhauer’s gotcha moment didn’t go so well when City Attorney Mike DiSanto succinctly explained what is (and isn’t) covered by the Open Meetings Act – clearly, here, there was no violation of the OMA.

    • jim haselhorst

      I rarely (in fact very rarely) agree with you but in this case I do.

Leave a Reply

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