Miss Chadra,
Thanks, you're a rock star!

Is it just my computer or are these tapes not working for anyone else? I think the city might need to re-upload.

oh my god ... after listening to this, the city attorney should definitely be fired !

wow doremus you really need to hear Gutenkauf on this tape, at one point she even says, "don't we need to back up because we haven't talked about height" then later she says "I am confused ... zoning is involved how?" ... looks like she was in on this secret smoke filled back room nefarious meeting up to her eyeballs.

I listened to the first tape, can't get the second tape to load. My first impression is that the developer is a little greedy with the parking spots. My personal wish is that, be it 45 feet or 65 feet, that it gets done sooner rather than later. Dianne Gutenkauf asked a million dollar question, hopefully her and the other city leaders can get the most for our residents.

doremus, you are a talented jouster: here's what gutenkaf said on February 28 (k chadra article), "I attended the meetings in question and I am ON RECORD SPEAKING OUT AGAINST these important matters behind closed doors. The transcripts once released will show just that" slight problem doremus, they don't SHOW any such protest. How is saying "we need to back up because we haven't talked about height" speaking out against anything? I'd say she has pretty joined in the discussion. maybe i need my ears checked. so please do fill me in on her righteous quotes of protest ...

I sent an email to the city's technology director to let him know the recordings are not always working - kind of spotty. It's late in the day, but we'll see.

If the City Attorney and City Manager cannot handle this, then they are unsuited for this work which is a reasonable expectation of their jobs. I have listened to the audio. The City Attorney especially should have known to stop the discussions the instant things went too far. I bet the City Attorney charged us all a bundle though for his legal work on it. A real fiasco.

Get rid of the real problem. I agree with Voice of Reason.

And we should be disappointed with the other attorney that was in that room, Scott Levin. He surely knew better and went on ahead with the discussions. Yet he never once spoke up. Shame.

It seems like everyone is making a mountain out of a mole hill. I listened to the tape, and although I am not an attorney, I cant seem to understand why everyone is so worked up. No deals or agreements were made.

Doremus,

I really wonder why this community is so opposed to building heights. I once proposed that two symbolic "twin towers" be located where Crescent Court ( I hope my memory is correct) near the Robert Palmer underpass. More green space, better parking, a beacon to the surrounding areas and wonderful views. What major city has non-existent high rises? Elmhurst, except for Mr. Walsh and his desirably located building.

I cannot help but think that Scott Levin strives to do a good job.

Mr. Court,
"What major city has non-existent high rises?" The capital of New Mexico, Santa Fe.
At first I did not care about the height, but after listening to the neighbors and watching what a fiasco the 6 story structure idea has become I think 4 stories is sufficient. I doubt if anyone on the council voted in favor of the 6 story, 78" variance could get elected to any position in Elmhurst in the future.

Doremus,

You are a very bright gentleman. Perhaps just a different perspective than mine on this issue. I am not familiar with Santa Fe (lucky you) but it might be an exception.
If I were a developer I would seek this and if I were a Mayor, I probably would also. Maybe if I was present during these meetings I would change my mind but this continued need for consensus sometimes takes us down the path of lowest common denominator and never moving forward. I agree with the statement of "Making no small plans" and "Boldness has Genius"

We need independent thinkers who do what is right, not what is politically motivated. Too many cooks are spoiling the soup, so to say.

Jim,
If you haven't already, I would suggest watching this council meeting on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2EB6-jMYbw&list=PL4027C7A8BCF3669F&index=2
I found Mr. Pezza's comments very interesting.

Jim, watch the council meeting and listen to these tapes closely. On the surface, one thinkmit is about the height. This is about a breach of public trust. Listen to these guys who say they are open and transparent on their glossy pieces push for the deal. Morley, Chair of zoning, says they need to make this happen. Can he now run his meeting and pretend to care what the public has to say? His excuse is they need more education and he wants to wait extra days until more aldermen can hear the tapes before releasing. Mark was very quiet on Monday- probably because he knew he too pushed to make it happen before the public process. Very disappointed to
hear that piece. Illinois, Chicago, Elmhurst. Insider deals, Is there a difference any more.

the truth of the matter is that they all screwed up; they all went over the line. not just mulliner/morley/gutenkauf; but EVERYONE in that room (dicianni, hipskind, york, bram, etc etc) Levin does not claim expertise as a municipal attorney. the fundamental distinction is that the storino firm is being paid 400.00 per hour to know their $%^; they hold themselves out as experts; that's why they bill huge hourly rates; check it out, they collect 50 grand per month from us taxpayers. and who is responsible for bringing in these cook county (rhymes with heisters), guess who? PETE of course. the rest of the aldermen are not experts in open meeting act issues. diane works for non-profits (cantigny), steve runs a marketing firm; mark runs an IT consulting firm. should they be experts? maybe, but at end of day, they are all volunteers doing their best. it is the ultimate in hypocrisy for ANY ONE IN THAT ROOM to now claim they weren't part of the screw up !

An attorney sworn to uphold the law is in a different position. Yes Voice of Reason, they maybe did all run amok? Ald. Gutenkauf should never have move to go into a closed session in the first place on the first meeting. Why she did so she has to answer about. Then Gutenkauf should have objected during it, but she said nothing. Nothing. Yeah.

Put all that aside though.

An attorney like Scott Levin, sworn to uphold the laws of our state, certainly had the legal and moral obligation to speak out and he did not. Levin did not say anything in the first meeting to stop the mess. And the City Attorney actually encouraged the discussion to continue at one point. Amazing!

Fire the City Attorney. Suspend the City Manager. And demand Scott Levin tender his immediate resignation since he takes his oath to uphold the laws of Illinois so cavalierly.

That is the lesson the AG opinion is trying to teach.

i gotta tell ya doremus, you have been one loyal foot soldier. am not sure how we could have navigated all these minefields we've stepped in without your spin. first, we listened to those democrats and ordered that RoboSurvey; but that nicely worded statement we came up with ('i do not believe the results of any poll is ever newsworthy") pretty much quelled that. and then we REALLY stepped in it when diane claimed she was "on record" speaking out against the closed meeting. well, don't worry, we'll just claim that the city erased her objections. the only problem is we may have to let you go... ya see our campaign is running out of money; diane had to give it 10,000 two days ago just to keep it afloat. so if you can think of some new way to energize the obstructionists, let me know.

N.M.H.,
You're growing up so fast, you can look up political contributions. So in your own words Mister Morley just gave his campaign $10,000 to just keep his campaign afloat and Mister Mulliner got $ 10,000 from that out of state superpac just to keep his campaign afloat as well.
As for the obstructionist I guess we should just say to Arco Murray okay to build your 6 story structure and oh here's an extra Million dollars from the residents of Elmhurst. Wouldn't want to be called an obstructionist.

Did everyone listen to the same audio recordings? Only a few Alderman stepped out of line with the comments they made during the discussion. There were objections made during the meetings by one or two Alderman.
Gutenkauf didn't do anything wrong by making a motion to go into closed session. She nor any Alderman would know going into the discussion that anyone would speak outside of the intent of the meeting and violate the OMA. Unless someone has a crystal ball or one or more of the Alderman knew going into it that some of the topics that some of the Alderman would speak to would violate the OMA.
Sme should stop pointing figures at someone just because they are a mayoral candidate and pull the rug back to the real OMA violaters in these two incidences.

Although I have not followed Mr. Morley nor do I profess to understand his relationships, as many people who have greater knowledge of the alliances within the community seem to express. On one side of the fence sits Mr. Morley with deep relationships the Mr. DiCianni and his loyalists.

On the other side of the Mayoral race sits Mr. Mulliner and Mrs. Gutenkauf. History would suggest that these have been the often independent voice on the council.

In a three-way race, the independents unfortunately tend to divide the votes among their constituencies. The same happened in the last election with the presence of four candidates. I tend to favor those who are independent which prevents a form of group think and can end up in cronyism or at least the appearance of it. It is my opinion that Mr. Mulliner and Mrs. Gutenkauf need to get together and decide between them to have one of them step back and support the other. I have great respect for both of these individuals but I think that Mrs. Gutenkauf may have become tainted by allowing her passion and resulting frustration and anger, to be baited into a perception that is unfair and wrong. That unfortunately works against her as it will be spun in a negative light. The dirty world of politics. Based on this, my thought id that Mr. Mulliner should lead the way, as much as I respect and like Mrs. Gutenkauf. I also have much respect for Mr. Mulliners campaign manager, Mr. Brinkmeier, who is running for the school board.

Since our local politics are so heavily followed, I cannot help but think that the city will be served capably, although differently by any of these three very bright, motivated, and passionate individuals. This is not about good verses evil, it is about differences in perspective. I do not want to see Elmhurst divided as has happened at the national level. We should all be in this together and always make sure that we strive to do what is best for Elmhurst. We have a very good community. Let us do everything in our power to make it even a better community.
We need more citizen engagement, more ideas generated, more innovation.
I love Elmhurst, I really do.

Many of you should be ashamed of yourselves, taking persoanl jabs at each other. Reading these posts is appalling. Personally, and I may be in the minority on these pages, but I took part in the voting process, and have put a certainlevel of faith in our elected officials. I do not have the time, knowledge or desire, you do the necessary research to make an educated decision on this matter. I have to trust that between all of these elected officials, smart decisions will be made. I have no desire to listen to these recordings, or to be a part of every meeting where anything pertinent is discussed. Shame on those elected officials who are not team players, and make it their goal to object to everything the general consensus tries to accomplish. There are just some people who must rock the boat, and the same names come up over and over, some are a part of the "team" and some seem to wish they were. After a while they lose credibilty dont you think...

LisaM

I understand your perspective. I also want to have faith in our elected officials. Illinois has unfortunately been burdened with an excess number of individuals who put their interests first. The idea of being a team player could include going along to get along. While I believe that teamwork is a laudable goal, the team has to operate from an ethical, talented, and intelligent perspective. Communism operated from "one voice". If you disagreed, you might disappear. I prefer democracy overall, although the process is sometimes overly cumbersome. Loyal opposition for the good of the community is not wrong. Yes, there are those who in life are blindly oppositional and never want change. I do not agree with them. I believe that constant progress is a good thing yet I never want to dismiss those traditions that make us great.

@ Court I also would like to have faith in our elected officers. But in this one, an attorney - elected - like Levin in the room should have known better. Levin swore an oath to uphold laws and Levin didn't speak out .

I do understand your perspective. Is it possible that there so many specialized areas of the law and that it is why Mr. Levin may have not been aware of a potential violation. He strikes me as an honorable man who strives to put the best interest of the community first. I hope I am not wrong in my understanding. If I were the developer orvthe Mayor

I would prefer a six story development.
No shadow falls on any existing structure.
What is good for Arlington Heights and Evanston is good enough for me.

Have no small plans..I like that.

@ Court It is clear you wan to go out of your way to give Levin a pass. Yet, he was in the room. Levin could have said something to stop the discussion that went way too far. Levin said nothing.

Did you listen on the audio?

Levin is no leader. I don't know why you are saying he "strives for the best" A trained attorney as a leader would have stopped the discussion He participated in it. Levin is not leader.

I do not know enough about him to ascertain whether he is or not. After years of studying leadership I am convinced that true leaders are very rare. Most of what people think of leadership is really nothing more than management at best. Even most management is weak. I look for bold and innovative people who have mastered negotiation, do not try to lead by positional power or as a bully. Ethical and open-minded but ultimately with conviction and willing to stand alone if neccesary. In many ways I see Jesus as a great role model. Compassionate and leading by example yet strong and principled. Respects rhe masses but is not swayed by them.

Willing to stand above the fray if necessary. We need people willing to challenge business as usual. Warm platitudes stating how perfect we are sound nice but I prefer continued advancement. We will never " arrive" for the process should never end. Sorry to digress but I only meant to suggest that Mr. Levin might simply not be familiar with this specialized area of the law...

sent from my smart phone by a fat fingered dummy.