This week’s edition of The Journal reports on various ways the Dist. 64 “Community Finance Committee” (the “CFC”) has come up with to supposedly save the District money.(“Dist. 64 Committee Thinking Of New Ways To Save Money”, 10-31-07 – PDF)
The CFC is a collection of individuals neither employed by the District nor elected by the voters, but on whom the Dist. 64 Board relies for advice about its financial matters. It has three subcommittees: The Financial Structure Subcommittee, chaired by Phil Eichman; the Communications Subcommitee, chaired by Craig Elderkin, and the Spend Management Subcommittee, chaired by Diana Stapleton. It was CFC recommendations which reportedly led the Board to propose the tax increase referendum that was approved this past April.
The CFC’s newest recommendations deal with how the District obtains its legal services. For years Dist. 64 has used the prominent law firm of Seyfarth Shaw, with attorneys who concentrate their practices in local government and employment law. Seyfarth Shaw does not come cheap, so anything that carries the promise of lowering the costs of legal services is welcomed.
But we were less than impressed to read that two of the main changes that the CFC was recommending were (1) the District being billed by its attorneys in one-tenth hour increments, and (2) paying only for the actual out-of-pocket costs the law firm incurs in performing services for the District rather than paying for them on a cost-plus basis.
Both of those “new” billing practices have been routine in the Chicago legal community for more than a decade, so we have to wonder why it has taken this long for Dist. 64 to implement them?
The District also has retained two additional law firms: Franczek Sullivan P.C. and Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn, both of which concentrate on representing governmental bodies. Supt. Sally Pryor’s justification for engaging two more firms? “We believe there are definite advantages to this multiple representation, including the ability to request different opinions on specific cases.”
That may be true, but for those of you without a scorecard the more interesting news – not reported in The Journal’s article – might be that partners in each of those two new firms used to be District 64 Board members – Ares Dalianis and Dean Krone, respectively. In some places, that’s what is sometimes referred to as “pin-stripe patronage.” Whether that’s the case here will remain to be seen.
4 comments so far
Let’s see now…D-64 likes its old firm but decides to add two new law firms…and both of those new firms have former D-64 Board members as partners. How convenient.
Did any of the unsuccessful applicant firms have former D-64 Board members on their staffs?
Who do we need to call or see about an investigation here? Is Fitz still around?? Like at Chicago City Hall, in Springfield or at Cook County this “pinstripe patronage”, as you call it, is just out of line.
And Dr. Pryor’s rationalization for adding two law firms to the mix are just plain silly. Sure, there are definite advantages but what about the definite disadvantages?? Shopping opinions is an age old problem… let me keep asking the question until I get the answer I want. Well, if three firms are good then why not 5 or 7 or even 10!
To Hoover’s post I would add: was the process to add these firms open and clear?
Wonderer, good question on the “process.”
If it followed standard form, I would expect that the “process” would have involved Sally Pryor and one or two Board members – and perhaps maybe one of D-64’s newest wunderkinds from the Community Finance Committee. They would have met in private, possibly interviewed reps of the firms, and then came up with their recommendation.
So if you’re talking about a “process” being open to the public, it would have been limited to the Board’s vote at an open meeting on whether to approve the recommendation of the two new firms. Clear as mud.
I’m with Wonderer – if the first firm is good enough to keep, you shouldn’t have to have two other firms in the dugout waiting to be called upon to give you an opinion you like. Plus the fact that it goes to the firms of two ex D-64 Board members smells.
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>