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.