Legal Ties Under Review: Village to Vote on New Counsel with Campaign Connections

ORLAND PARK, IL — On Monday, the Orland Park Village Board will vote on a sweeping set of legal appointments following a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) that drew submissions from 13 different law firms. Every single firm that responded was either awarded a direct appointment or placed in an “As Needed Legal Services” pool, raising questions about how selective — or competitive — the process really was.

Even more striking, all of the appointments are being proposed in a single consolidated vote — a notable departure from past practice in Orland Park, where legal appointments have typically been handled individually and deliberated one at a time. The unprecedented volume and speed of this vote have added to public scrutiny, particularly given the number of individuals with ties to the current political leadership.

Adding to concerns: no pricing or proposal information was disclosed to the public. Under the Open Meetings Act, trustees cannot collectively receive information that is not also made available to the public; they are expected to operate from the same documentation posted in the Legistar system. This suggests that both trustees and the public will be seeing the actual details of the proposals for the first time during Monday’s meeting. How is that transparent?

Among the proposed changes are new appointments to critical legal roles, including the Village Attorney and Prosecutor positions. With several selections tied to the current political majority, the process reinforces growing perceptions of insider favoritism and eroded public accountability.

Longtime Legal Firm Replaced

After decades of service, Klein, Thorpe & Jenkins, Ltd. (KTJ) is poised to be replaced as Village Attorney. The firm’s history in Orland Park spans multiple administrations — including politically opposed leadership — underscoring its longstanding institutional role regardless of shifting political control.

KTJ has also been the subject of reputational attacks from political surrogates aligned with the Orland Park For All slate, which now controls the board majority. Those attacks referenced past political donations made by the firm but did not disclose KTJ’s support for candidates across the political spectrum, including those previously aligned with their own allies.

Campaign Connections Raise Eyebrows

The motion names Ancel Glink, P.C. as Village Attorney and Dan Calandriello — a former trustee aligned with Mayor Dodge — as Village Prosecutor for traffic violations. Both selections have clear ties to current political leadership.

Ancel Glink represented Mayor Dodge and the Orland Park For All slate during last fall’s electoral board hearings, defending their position against ballot objections. That legal support played a role in shaping the outcome of the election. However, as of this writing, no payment to the firm could be found in Dodge’s campaign filings with the Illinois State Board of Elections, despite the representation beginning as early as fall 2024.

Ancel Glink is no stranger to political work. The firm has also notably represented Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle — a fact that underscores its deep involvement in high-profile government matters, but also raises questions about the political dynamics behind municipal legal selections.

When viewed alongside other appointments — including individuals with campaign or personal ties to the board majority — the selection of Ancel Glink reinforces a pattern that undermines confidence in the fairness and openness of Village operations. For a board that has emphasized transparency, the timing and context of this appointment raise more questions than they answer.

The legal recommendations also follow other recent hires that have drawn similar concerns. Both the Village Manager and the Village’s PR firm have been noted as having ties to the Orland Park For All campaign. The addition of legal appointments to that list reflects a growing pattern of political alignment shaping personnel decisions inside Village Hall.

Then-Mayor Dan McLaughlin swears in Dan Calandriello to the Orland Park Village Board in October 2013. Over a decade later, Calandriello is set to return to public service as Village Prosecutor under a motion backed by political allies.

Calandriello’s Return to Public Payroll

Calandriello’s appointment also marks a return to public employment after four years out of office and a failed run for Cook County Commissioner. He was first appointed to the Village Board in October of 2013, filling a vacant seat under then-Mayor Dan McLaughlin. He later ran unopposed alongside Dodge in 2017 as part of the Orland First slate.

Like other recent appointments, Dan Calandriello also worked on Orland Park for All’s campaign.

In private practice, Calandriello has operated the Law Office of Daniel Calandriello, LLC, where he actively promoted services defending clients accused of DUI, speeding, and other traffic offenses. His website advises visitors to never simply pay a traffic fine without understanding the consequences and positions him as an attorney who “understands your best defense” for serious driving violations. His blog further discusses issues affecting commercial drivers and license suspensions — clearly targeting individuals looking to avoid or minimize penalties.

That record stands in stark contrast to his proposed appointment as traffic prosecutor for the Village of Orland Park. After years advocating for those cited with the very violations he would now be tasked with enforcing, the shift raises questions about consistency and judgment. Is this a natural evolution of service — or simply another political favor?

All in One Night

In a single meeting, the Village Board is poised to vote on 13 legal appointments with no public disclosure of pricing, proposals, or qualifications beyond firm names. All will be decided by a single motion, without meaningful opportunity for discussion of individual roles. Several of those recommended have direct political ties to the current administration. For a board that campaigned on transparency, Monday’s vote may test whether that promise was anything more than a slogan.

And due to restrictions under the Illinois Open Meetings Act, trustees cannot review or discuss materials privately unless they are made publicly available. That means at least three board members would be seeing this information for the first time Monday night — along with the public. If others have already reviewed it, it raises a different concern entirely.

This article is based on publicly available records and reporting as of the date of publication, and raises questions of public interest regarding transparency and governance in municipal appointments.