Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consulting Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Villa Park trustees reject six‑month lobbying contract with Strategia Consulting
Summary
After public comment and debate over transparency and timing, the Village of Villa Park board voted 1–4 to reject a six‑month agreement with Strategia Consulting for lobbying services; supporters cited local connections and prior results while critics said the process lacked time and detail.
The Village of Villa Park Board of Trustees voted 1–4 to reject a resolution authorizing a six‑month agreement with Strategia Consulting to provide lobbying services in Springfield.
Christine Murphy, a resident and former village trustee, addressed the board during public comment on the item and said the packet lacked a clear scope, measurable deliverables and a transparent selection process. "The agreement before you does not appear to include a clearly defined scope of work, specific goals, or measurable deliverables," Murphy said, urging the board to require future contracts include defined priorities and reporting expectations.
Village Manager Rivas summarized staff's recommendation and said the engagement would run for six months and could be terminated with 30 days' notice. Trustee Jack Cozart strongly endorsed the firm, citing former state senator Tom Cullerton's past work for Villa Park. "He brought $10,000,000 to this rec center that we sit here today when he was senator," Cozart said, arguing that Cullerton's relationships in Springfield and local reputation made the firm the best choice at short notice.
Cozart also framed the contract as limited and low‑risk, calling it "a 6‑month limited engagement contract for a total cost of $18,000" and saying "it is essentially a month to month contract for $3,000." Tom Cullerton, present in the audience, described the firm's reporting: he said he would provide written and verbal updates to the village manager and could ask trustees for local advocacy when necessary. "Our contract is to do what the village and the village board needs to be done," Cullerton told trustees.
Other trustees said the board received materials on short notice and needed more time and detail to make an informed decision. Trustee Kumar specifically said the "very short turnaround time" reduced trustees' ability to study the proposal. When asked about funding, Manager Rivas said the village could use general‑fund surplus now and address a budget amendment later: "We could take it out of the general fund and then do a budget amendment later to create a particular line item," she said.
On roll call, the votes recorded were: Trustee Alfano—No; Trustee Constados—No; Trustee Cozart—Yes; Trustee Kumar—No; Trustee Sabri—No. The chair announced the resolution did not pass.
The defeat leaves the village without a short‑term paid lobbying presence in Springfield; trustees who opposed the measure said they were open to revisiting outside assistance with more time for vetting, budget details and a defined scope of work.
