Opposition voiced to county board retaining service for labor negotiations
source="8c76ae68f48763c7fb6d517e492ea384.jpg"
<p class="p1">Approval of a retainer agreement with a Carbondale law firm proved to be a catalyst for intense discussion at a regular meeting of the <a href="http://blog.unioncountyil.gov/?cat=15" target="_blank">Union County Board of Commissioners.</a>
<p class="p1">The meeting was held Tuesday morning, Dec. 23, at the Union County Courthouse in Jonesboro.
<p class="p1">Three of the four commissioners who were present at the meeting voted in favor of approving a retainer agreement with the firm of Gilbert, Huffman, Prosser, Heusson & Barke Ltd. for labor negotiations.
<p class="p1">Commissioners Richard Cunningham, Danny Hartline and Max Miller voted in favor of the agreement. Commissioner Bobby Toler Jr. voted no on the proposal. Commissioner Dale Russell was not present at the meeting.
<p class="p1">Union County State's Attorney <a href="http://unioncountyil.gov/sa/personnel/" target="_blank">Tyler R. Edmonds</a> said that he strongly disagreed with the board's action.
<p class="p1">Edmonds said that the state's attorney's office has handled labor relations for the past six years at no additional cost to taxpayers.
<p class="p1">Opposition also was voiced by union representatives who attended the Dec. 23 meeting.
<p class="p1"><a href="http://www.local773.com/home" target="_blank">Laborers' International Union of North America Local 773</a> business manager Kevin L. Starr and attorney Paul G. Prendergast both were present at the meeting.
<p class="p1">Starr said that the county has an elected official, the state's attorney, who could handle labor negotiations.
<p class="p1">Starr also voiced concerns that the "county board is continuing to hire people from outside the county. We continue to send our tax dollars out of the county. We have to look inward first."
<p class="p1">County board chairman Richard Cunningham said that the commissioners made their decision based on information which they had available, information which others may not have access to. At that point, Starr wanted to know about the information which the board had available.
<p class="p1">"There's nothing wrong with getting an outside opinion," Cunningham said.
<p class="p1">Cunningham said that the county also took budget considerations into mind when taking the action. The board chairman said that local firms had been contacted for assistance.
<p class="p1">Commissioner Danny Hartline said that his concern was about the potential for putting the state's attorney in "a very awkward position" regarding personnel matters.
<p class="p1">The issue was discussed in open session for about 20 minutes. The commissioners then went into closed session to discuss personnel matters.
<p class="p1">In a letter to the county commissioners dated Dec. 22, Union County State's Attorney Edmonds voiced his "strong disagreement with the Board of Commissioners' decision to retain outside legal counsel regarding the County's labor relations.
{{tncms-asset app="editorial" id="ba8ceb38-928f-11e4-aa28-a3203e480327"}}
<p class="p1">"As you know, a State's Attorney is vested with the exclusive authority to represent county government in all legal matters and outside counsel may not be retained without the approval of the State's Attorney.
<p class="p1">"Out of respect for your office, I will not withhold my formal approval of your action; however, I must state that I strongly disagree with your decision.
<p class="p1">"The retention of outside counsel is an unnecessary and unjustified expenditure of taxpayer money.
<p class="p1">"The State's Attorney's office has capably and diligently represented the County in all labor relations matters for the past six years at no additional cost to the taxpayers of Union County.
<p class="p1">"This representation has included strengthening and clarifying management rights through grievance arbitration and obtaining important concessions in labor negotiations which protect the County's long-term fiscal health.
<p class="p1">"Working together over the past six years, the State's Attorney's Office and County leaders have achieved these important management goals while also respecting and acknowledging the contributions of employees.
<p class="p1">"Unfortunately, over the past few months, the State's Attorney's Office has been excluded from the Board of Commissioners' efforts at contract negotiations.
<p class="p1">"After proceeding without assistance from the State's Attorney's Office, the Board of Commissioners has now decided to retain legal counsel regarding all labor relations matters.
<p class="p1">"Further, the Board of Commissioners has decided to retain this legal counsel without the use of a competitive and transparent selection process and without any estimate and without any estimate of the cost to Union County taxpayers.
<p class="p1">"The State's Attorney's Office remains willing and able to assist with any and all labor relations matters, including contract negotiations.
<p class="p1">"In the alternative, I have also made the Board of Commissioners aware that the Labor Unit of the Office of the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor is available to serve as outside legal counsel for the County at minimal cost to the taxpayers of Union County. This state agency has extensive experience representing county governments in all manner of labor relations.
<p class="p1">"I do not support the Board of Commissioners decision to retain outside counsel for labor relations matters when legal counsel with a proven track record of success regarding labor relations matters is available from the State's Attorney's Office or the Appellate Prosecutor's Office. This is an unnecessary and unjustified expense of taxpayer dollars."
<p class="p2">
<p class="p2">
<p class="p2">