DuPage recorder defends $680,000 microfiche contract and recent staff pay adjustments amid board criticism

DuPage County Recorder Liz Chaplin told the county board that a recently identified problem with deteriorating microfiche required remedial work with a vendor, US Imaging, and that the contract is intended to replace defective film and address an air‑quality problem in the recorder’s office.

Chaplin said staff identified “acetate/vinegar syndrome” affecting older microfiche and that the vendor will remove bad film and deliver polyester film expected to last centuries. Chaplin described the outcome as partially salvageable: the new film will be usable in the office retrievers and will reduce the strong vinegar odor that had required staff to use gloves. “We’re going to get that vinegar smell out…they’re going to take that old film away and destroy it, and then we’ll have the good images that we can use,” she said.

Anthony, an information-technology staff member who participated in the vendor meeting, told the board IT had not been aware of the procurement initially but that the recorder’s office invited IT and finance to subsequent meetings. “US Imaging is identifying all old film that is starting to deteriorate and fall apart, and they are working to replace it with new media,” Anthony said. He said the vendor had already digitized some material from 1960 through 2024 and that IT would participate in indexing and future digitization work.

Several board members expressed strong concerns about the contract’s size—about $680,000—and the timing. Member Zay said the board had learned of the pay raises in the county clerk’s office only after they took effect and criticized retroactive increases and what she described as uneven treatment of county employees. “We have a county wide here that has no regard for us whatsoever…we have given since 2023, 12 and a half percent raises to our employees,” Zay said, arguing that the clerk’s raises were excessive and that the board’s fiscal stewardship required greater transparency.

Other members agreed on the need for stronger transparency and regularized salary studies. Member Gallosse said the issue raises transparency concerns because the clerk’s increases were not presented to the board before the budget was approved. Member Kajewski and others urged an update to the county’s salary-range study, which several members said has not been comprehensively updated since 2009 (others said a more recent 2021 study had been done by departments).

Finance staff confirmed the vendor invoice had not yet been paid but that the budget transfers approved in the consent bundle were intended to accumulate funds to cover the invoice. When a board member asked whether the auditor had been involved in the procurement, staff said procurement is managed through the finance department and that the auditor typically reviews invoices and audits after procurement, not the procurement process itself.

Recorder Chaplin also defended equity adjustments she made for several recorder‑office staff to address low pay and job‑title mismatches. She said her office worked with HR and finance on those adjustments. “There were people in that office who were hired prior to new employees that were making significantly less…and we compensated them fairly for that,” Chaplin said.

Board members urged the recorder and other elected officials to increase transparency about budgets, hiring and salary changes. Several members asked for a more current countywide salary study and pledged follow-up on procurement and budget‑transfer practices.