Yesterday's Wall Street Journal had an interesting article on the outsourcing of legal work by Attorneys General that is interesting in light of Julia Rietz's interesting relationship with Joe Phebus. Phebus has been working for the County for a year and a half and has not yet submitted a bill (that's nice) but also has not told the County Board how many billable hours he's put in on the cases he is pursuing on our behalf (that's bad). Also recall that the Phebus contract has a big loophole in it that leaves open the final cost to the County of his legal work.
Outsourcing of Government Legal Work
Posted February 26th, 2008 at 01:20 PM by Mark Shelden
Well, Mr. Sheldon, your criticism of the wide spread and bi-partisan practice of public attorneys employing private counsel to handle specific cases in which the public interest is evident is laced with partisan attacks on Champaign County's States Attorney. I might consider some of your complaints about Mr. Phebus employment as well taken if you could answer a few simple questions. The first is this: What is time is counsel for the architect and contractor going to expend in resisting their clients' responsibility for the substantial cost overruns and their negligenct management of the construction contract? Next is this: What would be the cost burden on the States Attorney's office of managing the litigation in house? Then this: How many times did Ms. Reitz's Republican predecessor employ outside counsel to represent Champaign County in matters beyond his office's resources and expertese? And the related question, on how many of those occassions did Mr. Piland present engagement agreements to the County Board for specific approval? ANd the final question, are you willing that the budget of the States Attorney's Office be increased substantially to provide for the employment of experienced and proven attorneys to provide the broadly based ability to handle complex corporate litigation in house?
Until you can provide meaningful answers to those questions your carping is just partisan opportunism. Criticism is fine but it carries with it the reponsibility to provide constructive alternatives to the policies about which you choose to complain.
Actually, if you took the time to read my posts, you'll know that I have no problem with an outside attorney, especially one of Mr. Phebus' unquestioned ability. I find his political connections interesting, and worthy of consideration. I find the fact that his contract leaves open the possibility of a contingency fee when he clearly stated that he was operating on an hourly fee and when Julia Rietz clearly said that it was hourly to be highly questionable. I find the fact that we don't know how much we are into him for to be highly questionable, since that is a big part of making the decision about how to proceed in any litigation.
As to the "negligent management of the construction" that has already been resolved. PKD settled with the County for about $100,000. That leaves about 2.9 million to get from the other people involved in this.
As to the time that the other parties are spending "resisting their clients' responsibility" I imagine that they would put it different. I imagine that they are doing a little bit of discovery. But considering we were advised to stop construction until the working conditions improved and all the wood was tested for moisture content and that the construction continued and no testing was done, I'd say that as much time as they are spending "resisting" they spending an equal amount of time making the case for the incompetence of the County in managing this whole affair.
My constructive alternative? Modify the contract to reflect the original intent as presented to the Board and public. Tell us the billable hours put in by Mr. Phebus and his firm.
I read the first post in this thread and as well as the articles and posts you linked to in it prior to responding to it.
You call for the engagement agreement with Mr. Phebus to be modified to "reflect the original intent as presented to the Board and public". Interesting solution that since you made a point to claim that the Board never voted on the arrangement and thus had no "original intent" in the legislative sense of the term. These are your words: "Since this was the decision of Rietz, the County Board never voted on Phebus' contract and I don't even believe that any of the Board Members saw it."
I note that you chose not to address the issue of increasing the resources of the States Attorneys office to a level which would render the engagement of outside counsel neither prudent not necessary. Nor did you choose to inform us as to the number of instances when Mr. Piland engaged outside counsel nor whether the County Board specifically approved those arrangements.
Isn't the issue really one of conflict of interest--i.e., who is hired--i.e., a significant campaign contributor? Mr. Hays, Mr. Shelden doesn't seem to be avoiding your questions as much as he seems to be trying to stay on the original topic rather than engage your attempted deflections. Just one person's opinion.
Anon 9:29 .. Agreed
Actually, I never criticized outsourcing, so I'm not sure why you think I should respond to whether we should give Rietz's office more money for more attorneys for civil litigation (No) or how much Piland used outside attorneys (lots)
Rietz's public statements and her statements to the County Board aren't reflected in the contract.