Sunday’s Daily Herald ran a large front page expose about the modest pay municipal official receive and suggested it would be reasonable to consider paying them better. The Watchdog disagrees.
If quality candidates were not running for office maybe it would be time to look at pay. But we are getting quality candidates and, in most cases, contested races. We want candidates running for the community, not a paycheck.
The other issue higher pay would bring is many of officials would never leave if they were making real money. It’s important to bring new ideas and fresh perspectives to any board. Incumbents rarely lose local positions … at least in Naperville. Good luck getting anyone to leave if they get a big check for the position. The Watchdog notes council does have a three term limit for councilmen but that only applies to consecutive terms (i.e. they can all run after 3 terms as long as they take a cycle off).
Until the day comes that no one with a good resume is running for local office the pay should be left as is. With respect to the coming Naperville race, it appears there will be at least 8 candidates running, most of whom have solid resumes and records of service in the community (6 of them even pay their real estate taxes).
Sorry officials, for now the Watchdog says no to meaningful raises but let’s check back on this in a few years and see if solid candidates are still running.
No. They agreed to the pay when they took the position.
Nope! Benny and Ian already got a big raise by not paying property taxes, then Benny has the gall to post pictures of him and his wife attending the Super Bowl! He’s got money for football games, but not enough to pay property taxes?! Disgusting.
Benny is running for council again. Look forward to supporting the military veteran Benny White again.
This is not the first time the pay issue has come up. To be honest, I am indifferent to this issue. The pros and cons of a pay increase for city council (who currently get paid as part-time city employees). Currently, the total annual spending by the city on council compensation is less than the city’s annual total spending on printing paper. This is one area where gross over spending is not happening.
I will comment on the statement about three “consecutive” terms “limitations”. This ordnance was past by city residents to limit the number of terms a person can serve on city council terms. To say it was worded in a way that it allows a person to take one cycle off and then run for another three terms is a clear violation of the intent of this ordnance. The pattern of taking off an election cycle and then running is not term limitation as intended by this law. If any prior council member does try to run under this misrepresentation of this ordnance I, for one, am willing to spend as much money on legal fees as it takes to stop them from doing it.
While I agree with the sentiment, there is nothing to litigate and this has already been looked into. Both hinterlong and brodhead served 3 straight terms and both have been encouraged to consider running again and were advised they could by city legal. They just chose not to. If the ordinance was intended to stop more than three terms it could have easily been drafted that way.
Like I said. If it happens, I will be discussing my options for legal action against the Election Board, City Cleric and the candidate for approving any such candidate petition with an attorney.
So, if such a candidate comes forward they had better make sure their campaign funds include lots of funds to cover legal expenses.
A lot to unpack here.
NO. Council does not need a raise. When I first got on council I was shocked to learn that it came with healthcare and a pension! Worked very hard to rid those perks of what is a part-time position. It should be an honor to serve and not an enrichment scheme.
Secondly as to term limits and the three consecutive terms. Jim, you are 100% incorrect. A clear review of the council deliberations on the topic would show that after a “pause” in serving one could lawfully run again as it was discussed ad infinitum. Legislative intent was clearly established throughout the process. If Hinterlong would like to run again he surely can.
Haselhorst wrong!!!!! No way! He knows everything!
Former Naperville 203 school board member Susan Crotty, post the first comment about Josh McBroom, then she and her husband post the second comment about Trump. What a classy couple!
https://ibb.co/dKfkDBV
https://ibb.co/WtdHX7T
Try these links to see what that classy couple the Crotty’s posted on their facebook page
I’ve had several very reliable sources tell me that Benny White’s wife, Kim White, called Farid Shabazz and demanded to know why he was running for city council and asked if he was put up by someone to draw votes away from her husband. Kim White sure has some cajones. Who appointed her as the black spokesman for all blacks in Naperville? She is insufferable and her attitude is so entitled.
Sure you did. Here we go with anonymous sources.
Word on the street is that the kid at Naperville Central wrote the racial slur himself on his locker to get attention. Would not surprise me one bit if it’s true.
Sure Jan
“Word on the street”? Really? That’s your anonymous “reliable” source of acting the victim? Not surprised by your comment. It is a common practice by the right to blame the victim – “look at the way she was dressed, she was asking for it”; “all she had to do was tell the police and they would have stopped the abuse”; “she shouldn’t have gotten drunk”; “she should have left him”; “poor people are just lazy, if they worked harder they wouldn’t be poor”….
These type of statements tell us more about the character of the person making them then the victims they target.
You really believe this happened? You are very naive if you don’t think this kid made it up. It’s gone suspiciously quiet lately. Not even Kim and Benny White are jumping on the band wagon. Wonder why?
Tell that to the kids at Central. They all know this kid and his friend did it. They were smart enough to do it where there were no cameras? Coincidence? I think not. My kids at Central said everyone knows they did it.
Word on the street is a polite way of say “as reported anonymously by multiple investigating officials who were not ready to make official announcements because the investigation is on-going”. It was a truthful speculation from one of the investigators, not a pretend victimization. Looking at the extremely polished and professional media tour the outraged mother is enjoying as she contemplates how many Al Sharpton’s to import to support her claims against the school, it is obvious that there are media-aware consultants fueling this story. We expect to eventually find that it was 2 of the student athlete’s Nigerian gym bros who were hired to scratch the word, so that they could MAGA-blame white people.
It is more than a little concerning that your reaction is all about the excuses made for abusive treatment of women and the victim blaming that covers up for it. Seems to be a script that is all too familiar for you to blurt out, and indicates a comfort with misogyny that is frankly repulsive. To your shame. This is not a tool of the Right, it is the cowardice of the ignorant, the intellectually immature, and the morally bankrupt. Time to find a better brand of hysteria.
Oh Yes, your source on the police force, who you have used to make many claims about past events in Naperville and which has turned out to be incorrect every time you have used this “mysterious” anonymous source.
Again you seem to have a comprehension problem when it comes to my comments. You consistently get it wrong. But again, consistently getting things wrong is what you do best.
“Anonymous” sources. Nobody believes “anonymous” sources that an “anonymous” person posts online.
Let’s get one thing clear. An apology is an admission of wrong doing and an expression of regret for doing wrong. So, an apologist would be a person that admits someone or some group has done something wrong and is apologizing for them.
None of my comments have been in anyway an apology for anything. They are clear statements of documented supported assertions, supporting a person or group’s actions.
As such, all “labeling” of me as an “apologist” is just a lame attempt to marginalize my comments rather than refute them with actual facts from reliable sources. The only reasonable justification for this type of behavior is that they can not refute my comments, so they make lame attacks on my character instead.
I consider such attacks a victory, since they are not only an admission of failure but also a clear indication of the character of the person behind them.
https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1853589639111815281?s=19
Good news is if the Chiefs make the Super Bowl, Benny can stay home! With the savings he can finally pay his property taxes! Win Win!!!