Question: who is more generally disliked by the public…politicians or injury lawyers?
Answer: Someone who is BOTH a politician and an injury lawyer.
At the last council meeting, Councilman McBroom took issue with such a character who presented a sizable six figure demand from our residents for an injury case that alleged that our fire department’s negligence caused a woman to suffer emotional damage.
McBroom took issue with both the demand and the fact that the lawyer presenting it is a local elected official and a known political supporter of and donor to some of the councilmen on the dais. A point few would ever know without McBroom raising the issue as these cases are handled by City leaders in closed session.
The claim against our fire department sound preposterous. The optics of City leaders with close ties to the lawyer who brought the claim make it even worse. For godsake, White and the lawyer are co-respondents in a State Board of Elections mess over allegedly improper campaign filings that stem from the grotesque mailers former Councilwoman Sullivan sent to the community. Shouldn’t this fact alone have been enough to keep White from weighing in on the settlement behind closed doors?
Naturally White and Holzhauer were dismayed by McBroom bringing this all up during a live meeting. Holzhauer foolishly pointed to the pain the injured person suffered when she fell (that person was not even the Plaintiff – which begs the question, did Holzhauer even know what he was giving our money towards?).
White called McBroom’s actions a low blow. So it’s a low blow to tell residents that City leaders are approving six figure settlements brought by their friend and political ally behind closed doors?
If it is the Watchdog calls for more low blows!
The settlement passed 8-1 with only McBroom voting against. Kudos to McBroom for again fearlessly highlighting issues the others on the dais will not touch. Our residents deserved to know what happened here. They NEVER would have without McBroom alone raising this point.
What do Ian and Benny care what it costs? Only taxpayers pay it….
Naperville has done poorly in recent lawsuits with millions of dollars being awarded. As all the other members of council and legal team recognized the risk of a lawsuit and the benefits of the settlement, McBroom’s dissent is just another political stunt cheered on by CCWD. The implication that this settlement was the result of campaign contributions instead sound legal advice is both groundless and offensive.
Mcbroom is all about himself and doing things that he thinks make
him look good. He wasn’t standing up for anyone but himself
This isn’t that complicated. The settlement was approved by the City’s legal staff, and may have been prudent in view of defense costs to take the matter through trial, etc. But, the plaintiff’s attorney is politically active and has donated to the campaign of Ian Holzhauer and perhaps others. That seems like a conflict of interest or, at best, something that should be disclosed in the interest of being fully transparent. I don’t understand why some Council members don’t realize that they probably need to recuse themselves from voting in certain situations (e.g., wife is employed by – and face of – non-profit receiving Social Services grant from the City, plaintiff’s attorney bringing questionable suit against the City that’s being settled on a defense costs basis is friend and political donor).
The city has a clear standard for what constitutes a conflict of interest and requires recusal. Basically, it requires a clear, not possible, direct personal financial gain. Campaign contributions do not go into the pockets of the candidates, they go to pay campaign costs, so they are not a personal financial gain for any candidate elected or otherwise.
In today’s world, it is possible to find a link between any two people in as little as three mutual associates/friends/relatives/etc. In fact, that was the whole point of the book “Six degrees of Separation”. This is why simple association with someone that benefits financially is not a conflict of interest.
As to transparency, the very nature of closed sessions precludes transparency for legal reasons. It is interesting that a council member like McBroom should raise this issue considering this complete lack of transparency behind several of his actions on city council as well as the school board before being elected to city council.
The fact that McBroom waited until the open session to raise his concerns about conflict of interest and transparency, rather than during the closed session, speaks volumes as to his true motivations, and they have nothing to do with conflict of interest or transparency.
Jim, I’ve been an attorney for over 25 years and have served on a number of boards, so I am familiar with ethics and the concepts of apparent and actual conflicts of interest. The plaintiff’s attorney donated to the campaigns of several City Council members. In fact, according to Illinois Sunshine, he was among the top 25 donors for several of them. In my view, the optics are not good, and if I were a City Council member in that situation I would strongly consider recusing myself so as to avoid, at a minimum, the appearance of impropriety. I am glad that Councilman McBroom raised this in an open meeting and I don’t really care (or care to speculate on) what his motivation was.
This settlement was with the plaintiff, not their attorney. How much a client’s attorney donates to PACs is not a conflict of interest. A client should not be punished because they choose an attorney that is politically active. How would you like it if the city council treated your clients differently simply because of your political activities in the last couple of decades?
There simply is no rational reason to require any member of city council to recuse themselves because they received a donation from the attorney of someone seeking council approval.
Yes, direct financial benefit is the salient consideration in a conflict of interest situation, but it is not the only consideration. For example, the city council, almost annually, vote for a property tax abatement. This provides property tax relief, a direct financial benefit, to everyone serving on the city council, so if this is the only requirement for a conflict of interest recusal, then every member of the city council would be required to recuse themselves, leaving no one to vote for the abatement. There are other examples when council members regularly vote on matters that benefit themselves financially, yet the city standard for conflict of interest and recusal is not invoked.
Again, the fact that none of McBroom’s fellow conservatives on city council spoke up in his support or voted with him on this settlement tells you just how relevant they thought his “concerns” really were. If anyone has repeatedly failed to be transparent with Naperville residents about their actions on city council, it is McBroom.
It was a cheap “gotcha” political move by mcbroom once again.
Does council have a rule or ordinance that requires members to recuse themselves from any vote if it involves someone who donated to them? If so at what dollar amount donation do they have to recuse themselves? $50 $250?$500? $1000
The requirement only applies to individuals or organizations that have directly contributed to a city council members’ campaign, not their associates, employees, contractors, friends, professional service providers, etc. Since it was the plaintiff’s lawyer that made the contribution, city ordinance does not require disclosure.
So McBroom is concerned about a possible conflict of interest? Seriously?
There is a long tradition of lawyers who work with developers and realtors serving on the very city council that establishes the ordinances that regulate their clients. And all of these elected officials are right-leaning “business-friendly” politicians.
The reality is that it is impossible not to have lawyers as elected officials and, by the very nature of their job, they will come in contact with a large portion of any community’s population. This means there will always exist the possibility of an appearance of a conflict of interest involving council members. But there is a very big difference between an appearance and an actual conflict. The city has a very well-established and transparent standard for such conflicts, which requires council members to recuse themselves in such cases.
So was McBroom’s theatrics in the council meeting truly about conflict of interest or was it just another example of his political showboating? If it was truly about conflict of interest, where was his support from his fellow conservatives on council? Why didn’t they vote with him against this settlement? The evidence would indicate this was just more McBroom political showboating, which does more to damage the dignity and respect for city council than any pair of “pink” shoes ever could.
In closing, I would point out the reason certain business is conducted in close session is because of legal privacy requirements. McBroom tried to skate around these legal requirements in his statements, but I am not sure he succeeded. So I will not be surprised if this person’s “ambulance-chasing” lawyer files yet another civil suit against the city because of McBroom.
Mcbroom never mentioned the lawyers name. Ian did that. So wouldn’t the lawyer have to sue ian not mcbroom?
The lawyer’s name is a matter of public record. There is no confidentiality issue in here. It is the implications that this lawyer is in some way acting unethically by having a prior association with member’s of city council or their campaigns, which is what McBroom implied.
John Risvold is the ambulance chaser.
https://www.collinslaw.com/john-d-risvold/
John Risvold is also on the Naper Park District Board.
https://napervilleparks.org/commissioners
His wife, Kaylin Risvold, is the Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce, President and CEO. She has taken the Chamber fully woke and it’s a shell of it’s former self.
He deservese to be called out and ridiculed. McBroom did the city a service by calling him out and of course Pink Shoes and Benny were “shocked!” Not sure why since they don’t pay taxes and they grift off of everyone. Mabye Ian hopes he can get a job with Risvold’s firm.
Using one’s position on the city council to call out a lawyer is not in the best interest of the city or its residents. Making slanderous or defaming comments about an individual while serving in a professional capacity as a city representative creates a legal liability for the city.
And if it is done for personal reasons because of an individual’s political activities, it is an abuse of the powers of the office they were elected too, as well as unethical. It shows not only disrespect for the city council but for the city and its residents as well.
I was thinking about Ian Pink shoes. Allison Longenbaugh likes to wear Pink Vagina hats. If you don’t believe me I will post a picture of her wearing it. Why are the lefties so weird all the time?
You have a problem with vaginas?
And here I thought having a problem with pink shoes was a poor lifestyle choice.