Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Procurement Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DuPage County board members raise concerns about county clerk contracting, voting machines and mounting legal fees
Summary
Board members expressed substantive concern during 'old business' about procurement and litigation tied to the county clerk’s office, highlighting disputes over renewal of Hart Intercivic election contracts, a longstanding moving contract, and rising legal fees in civil litigation involving the clerk.
Several DuPage County Board members used the Oct. 14 meeting’s “old business” segment to press for action and transparency regarding the county clerk’s office, procurement for election equipment and related litigation.
Member Zay urged the board to seek clarity about Hart Intercivic contracts for election equipment, citing an Oct. 3 email from the chief procurement officer and saying the county has limited visibility into renewals, equipment delivery, printing of vote-by-mail materials and other contract details. Zay expressed alarm that the county’s procurement process appeared to have been bypassed and said board members on both sides of the political divide had raised concerns about irregularities. He suggested the board consider limiting budget increases to the clerk’s office until clarity is provided and encouraged his colleagues to raise the issue in executive session.
Other members echoed concerns. Member Eckhoff said the legal representation appointed by the chief judge to defend the clerk in a civil suit appears to be exceeding the intended scope by filing additional litigation against the county; Eckhoff asked the chief judge to review counsel’s authority and the payment of fees. Member Colbert asked whether there is a cap on fees charged to defend elected officials in county litigation; county staff explained the chief judge reviews submitted bills in the civil case and that there is no statutory “cap,” though the judge scrutinizes invoices. Member Cahill asked how much the county has spent; county figures cited in the meeting put fees at approximately $161,500 through August (earlier figure through June cited as about $112,000), with additional bills likely for September and October.
Member Ozog and others raised a separate procurement concern reported in local coverage: a decades-long contract reported by the press with a moving company (Prager Moving Company) that the members said was not widely known and appears to date back about 40 years. Members said such long-standing arrangements should be transparent and subject to standard competitive bidding when required by policy.
Board members discussed two parallel legal processes: (1) a civil case in which the county is defending itself in litigation involving the clerk’s office (for which the chief judge has authorized outside counsel and which the judge reviews bills submitted for payment), and (2) an Attorney General inquiry referenced by Member Eckhoff, which would be a separate matter in the state system and, if it involves criminal charges, would be handled by the Illinois Attorney General’s office. Transcript speakers said the state's attorney previously transmitted materials to the Attorney General’s office but had not reported an outcome at the time of the meeting.
Several members asked for updates: a call or status report from the state’s attorney regarding the Attorney General inquiry, clarification from the chief judge on the scope/authorization of the judge-appointed attorney defending the clerk in the civil case, and greater transparency on procurement records for election equipment and other long-standing contracts. Some members said they would consider withholding or reducing proposed budget increases to the clerk's office until outstanding procurement and litigation questions are answered.
