You can just hear it. A freshly unmasked City Manager Doug Krieger bellowing “we would’ve gotten away with it too if it weren’t for that meddling Watchdog!” as he is asked what that strange special meeting was about. Naperville residents received a cryptic email advising the public that the City was going to hold a closed Special Meeting … but the notice didn’t say what the meeting was about. The notice only said it was to discuss a legal issue in closed session. No other information given.
So what was this important legal issue which could not wait until the next regular meeting? It reportedly was not about the gun case per many Watchdog sources. The Watchdog offers 10 possible legal questions that City leaders may have been discussing:
1. Did Holzhauer violate any disclosure or conduct requirement when he voted on City tax levies that he had exempted himself from having to pay personally?
2. Did Holzhauer violate the code of conduct ordinance when he reportedly was posting on Facebook during a live City meeting about City agenda items under discussion that same night (SECA awards). Reportedly Ian was called in by City brass after doing this.
3. Did Holzhauer violate the code of conduct ordinance when he personally attacked the Mayor on Facebook with Ian’s over the top “double doink” analogy as he screamed about the Mayor meeting with Bears officials without including him. Would anyone really want to take Ian with them to go meet the Chicago Bears?
4. Did Holzhauer violate the code of conduct ordinance when he posted semi-nude pictures of himself in a hospital gown on Facebook? Shouldn’t officials use social media to share helpful information with residents….not for posting offensive self-nudes?
5. Did Holzhauer violate the code of conduct ordinance when he reportedly passed along the internally discussed names of possible commission appointees, namely Shannon Adcock and Kevin Coyne, to outside political groups? He caused a huge local blow up before the Mayor had even decided to put these names forward. Such decisions and debates are supposed to be confidential but Ian is going Ian … he knew the political drama he could cause was too much to sit on. Ian was reportedly called in by City brass over this stunt too.
6. Does Holzhauer violate the code of conduct ordinance by taking political support from lawyers who sue the City that he has been elected to represent? Imagine having a business partner tell you he was taking the day off to go have beers and to glad hand with lawyers suing your partnership. Even if it was all perfectly legal, wouldn’t you still think you needed a new partner?
7. Does Ian violate the code of conduct ordinance by continuing to miss important events, namely seemingly all important community events from the State of the City address to the City Independence Day events to his calling in for City meetings? Shouldn’t proper official conduct presume a reasonable amount of engagement with the public?
8. Did Ian violate the code of conduct policy by dismissing questions about the news of his disability exemption as coming from Right wing propagandists…as though the news wasn’t true? Clearly the news was true and doesn’t the public have the right to know why one of their officials isn’t paying real estate taxes like everyone else?
9. Does the City code of conduct exempt Councilmen or does it only apply to commissioners and employees? Given the substantial chatter about bringing a code of conduct hearing forward over Nag Jaiswals lone tweet, isn’t it fair to ask why no hearing has ever been discussed as to Holzhauer’s litany of conduct issues?
10. Should the City get rid of its code of conduct policy? Is it not evident by now that some officials do not intend to adhere to it themselves nor will any of them bring it up against their colleagues on the dais?
In summary, the Watchdog suggests:
1. The City should add context and flavor and – at minimum – an explanation the next time it sets a special meeting for legal reasons. It doesn’t need to give details but it should be able to explain why no details are being given as to why the meeting is happening.
2. The City should dump its code of conduct ordinance. Like varsity players bullying the junior varsity players, it’s only there to keep appointed commissioners from criticizing council members and to otherwise hold them under council’s collective thumb. If the ordinance was truly going to apply to council, Holzhauer would have been hit with it a half dozen times by now.
Mayor Wehrli, dump the conduct ordinance. It is there to oppress opposition and is there to oppress free speech and for no other reason.
Surprise, surprise… the Watchdog using this situation to take cheap shots at two the WD’s favor targets Ian and codes of conduct.
The reality is that roughly 90% of these close session meetings, when involving legal issues, are about someone that is suing the city. Most of the time the suit is a workmen’s comp suit, but there have been other personal suit cases.
The urgency is most likely the result of the city getting a settlement offer that has an expiration that is before the next schedule city council meeting.
As to the minimal details given. These details are exactly all the more details the city has given for past close session meetings and all that is required under the state’s open meeting statue. These meeting are subject to FOIA requests, but usually most of the details are redacted because of federal privacy laws or on going legal actions.
So if the WD is truly interested at get at the true, rather then more muckraking, the WD will fill a FOIA request with the city on this matter and tell us more. Otherwise we will hear radio silence on this mater in the future.
The FOIA requests from several inquisitive citizens, and presumably the ‘Dog were prepared within minutes of the legally mandated announcement. Obviously those who rake muck know how to defeat the obstructionists. This would fit the ‘Dog’s remit perfectly, as throwing light onto the shadowy cabal image of operating outside of traditional meeting times by our elected officials is pretty much what that “Watch” part means in the title of the site.
And as a hopefully useful side note- Jim- Brah, you have got to start running your posts through Grammarly, or a similar editing tool. The torture involved in figuring out your thoughts is outweighing the impact of your rhetoric. Brevity, levity, and clarity are the way to the Reader’s hearts.
You are the last person that should be criticizing anyone about brevity, grammar or clarity in their posts. But at least you knew better then to mention relevancy to the issue the WD raise.
Silly rabbit- I wasn’t criticizing anything, just trying to drop a word to the wise that it can be challenging at times to wrestle the meaning out of your abuse of the language. To my point; ( <-Strunk and White that ) you basically missed the point of my post by substituting "grammar" for "levity" and thereby corrupting my message completely. Ten sentences left you tangled in seven capitalization errors, 14 punctuation errors and a dozen and a half misspellings. And your transition after the ellipsis? Six English teachers just choked on their crumpets.
But enough jovial banter- you've raised points that demand a response. Relevance to the topic at hand, and your apparent concern for my lack of focus. Fine, here it comes- your surprise comes as no surprise to any in 'Dog World. You and I play our roles as the Bard crafted them. You are expected to leap to unconscionable defenses with the silliest arguments imaginable. You are known to have specious arguments for every topic the Watch Dog raises, simply because you need to see your words in print, however fleeting the aether is for your manifesti.
Speculations as to why our elected reps hold secretive meetings are food for all types of gossip and wonderment. The 'Dog merely prefaced his with a well-crafted cultural reference to those pesky kids. It was satire, clearly identified and consumed by 99% of the known universe as such. You're a 1%'er now.
First, as you point out in your post (your reference to Strunk and White) grammar standards are not written in stone. Multiple standards exist and just because one standard is more commonly used does not make it the “right” standard.
Second, grammar is a product of culture, which is why the standards for English grammar in England is different from that of Australia… Canada… and other countries. In fact, what was considered “proper grammar” in the US 50 years ago is not the same as today. Since culture evolves, so does grammar.
Finally, grammar is less about clear communication than it is about class separation. Different grammar standards are typically used by some as a means of supporting class delineation.
Basically, grammar is more often used to distract the conversation from the issues at hand, rather than clarify communications. “Grammar checker” are most often best thought of as a online “Ken” or “Karen”
Is anyone familiar with the 90s romcom 10 things I hate about you. Featuring two high school students with exceptionally great hair who fall in love. The movie ultimately peaks with one proclaiming to the other, in a list, appropriately titled 10 things I hate about you. Well watchdog, this is exactly how this list reads. (Is part of your general favor for the councilman his great hair, do you yourself have a great hair?)
You may try to say with your words that you have some level of distaste, but the underlying tone is love, sure perhaps it’s unrequited love, we’ve all been there – and of course it’s frustrating, but love nonetheless. Your list could’ve just as easily been read like this.
1. Honestly, I think I just need some help with my own personal taxes, April has long since past, and I haven’t been able to figure it out.
2. I cannot confirm this, as I used the word reportedly, but I can say that I did message him during this meeting via Facebook messenger, and was I sad when he didn’t reply.
3. Me! I would love to go meet the Chicago Bears with Holzhauer.
4. I’m so incredibly thankful, for our hard-working doctors and medical staff for saving the life of this man. And Lord, help me, I can’t help but stare at his abs.
5. I’m so desperate to be in this man’s inner circle, that I will name drop here as well.
6. Remember that Facebook message I had referenced earlier, well I had asked Ian to go out for beers, and sadly he didn’t respond. This left me incredibly hurt.
7. I’m lashing out because I’m hurt, and this is my desperate way to say that I was looking for him at these events and I couldn’t find him.
8. I wish I could find out the details of this person‘s personal life, because I care so much. Why doesn’t he see that?
9. I actually struggled to pronounce that other person‘s name (hence why I run a written blog), so I need them to bring forward someone whose name I can actually pronounce.
10. Honestly, I wish I could’ve thought of one more thing to say about him, because we all know this list is supposed to be a top 10 list.
Watchdog, we we understand your fight for free speech, don’t be afraid to say how you really feel. Can’t wait to see you at tonight’s meeting! Make sure your hair is brushed?
My Fellow Napervillians! Please let’s not let this vital conversation become just another sad script for a homoerotic smear campaign. We are all so much better than this.
Original precepts here people- to wit: what exactly is the deal with our ethically ambiguous City Council throwing secretive meetings without even the tiniest of effort to comply with Sunshine laws. That “Notice” did not meet the requirements for notice of an extraordinary meeting, and the manner is which it was fed to the public, after the legal deadline to do so, is currently under investigation with the State Attorney General. This isn’t about ad hominem man-crushes, this is about the illegal conduct of the City’s business outside of normal operating procedures. Discussion of pending settlements? Sure sounds like the business of all of us, if they are making these settlements because of official acts of the City, we are all the ones going to be making those payments, so it is, in fact our business. And then we will be considering new employment options for the faithless scoundrels who embraced massive exposure for the City with their legal misjudgements.
Yes, and the citizens of Naperville will be informed, as we have always been informed, about the content of these closed meetings, when it is illegally prudent to do so.
There are simply details of some city business which have to remain out of the public domain for legal reasons as well as the city’s best interests (best interests of residents). For example, intentions to purchase land, which if leaked to the public could result in some scrupulous person purchasing the land and then selling it to the city at extortionist prices. Personal details about a person involved in a workmen’s comp claim are also protected by law from public disclosure.
The reality of the world today is that in order for the government to do what is best for its citizens, it sometimes has to not inform them about the details of it actions until after the fact. Because doing so during would give the Karen’s and Ken’s of today’s society an chance to screw over the rest of the city’s citizens.
Has the truth just dropped? Positively Naperville has just broken the story that Naperville has just selected as one of the contestants in the Bloomberg Harvard City Management Beauty Contest. Could this announcement have been the actual topic of the Secret Meeting? Can’t imagine Council would actually allow sunlight on the sacrifice of our community’s soul to the pagan gods of globalism, DEI, and better executive function through careful monitoring by those who know how to do City Management so much better than us rubes and deplorables here in the farmland fly-over zone. Just an announcement. No discussion of the adoption of this clearly partisan agenda and the promise of Thought Police to come and make sure that we stay on program after the indoctrination into the Bloomberg Method. If you haven’t read the 2020 report that Bloomberg-Harvard used as their sneaky foot in the door marketing ploy https://cityleadership.harvard.edu/resources/collection/you-get-what-you-pay-for-reforming-procurement-in-naperville-illinois/ Do so. Millions of dollars in “scholarly” study to tell us that our method of doing RFP’s is pretty effective, but what if you embraced the rioters, hid the statues, knelt with the terrorists and adopted their non-binding resolutions? This is the garbage that our Mayor, City Manager and Deputy City Manager will be spending our time, our money, and sacrificing our children’s future to.
This topic will deserve its own thread- if in fact the City has just agreed to be remade in the globalist model by shipping our management off to this Cult, we need to have a very serious dialogue about the actual legitimacy of the government currently under observation by this august company of citizens. If the plan is to make Naperville over into the Sanctuary City, DEI embracing, asymmetrical taxing, wealth re-distributing, Socialist nanny state model that Bloomberg and Harvard preach… well, the citizens WILL have a say. Meeting in secret won’t protect the cockroaches when the lights come on.
So you have a problem with the Bloomberg/Harvard publication choosing to do a case study report on Naperville’s new procurement contracting procedure?
You do know what a case study is, right?
You do know it costs nothing to be the subject of a case study, right?
What was that you posted before? You know, the one where you ranted about the importance of brevity and clarity?
What is being missed in all the smoke and mirrors being produced in these posts about closed session meetings is that no vote on final action can be taken in closed session.
Any action to be taken by the city on matters discussed in closed session has to be voted on in open session, providing an opportunity for public comment and debate on these closed session matters.
Further, an investigation does not mean anyone acted improperly, it only means someone complained to a regulator about something. These regulators are require by statute to conduct an investigation of any comment without any consideration of the merits of the complaint.