Legal Ties Under Scrutiny: Mayor Votes on Law Firm That Represented Him in Election Matters

ORLAND PARK, IL — At the June 16 Committee of the Whole meeting (and later at the Board of Trustees meeting), Orland Park Mayor James Dodge voted to approve a new slate of legal service providers for the Village—including the firm that represented him during the recent election cycle—despite repeated concerns raised by trustees over the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Trustee Cindy Katsenes raised the issue directly:

“The firm that’s going to be the village attorney has actually represented you during the campaign season… I see that as a little bit of a conflict.”

“There’s a direct conflict of interest—where you’re getting paid by somebody.

There’s the indirect conflict of interest—well, pay my mother or my son or something like that.

And there’s also a common law conflict of interest, which says if either party obtains any undue… influence in their business dealings, that’s something.”

Healy went on to recommend explicitly that the mayor abstain:

“I have sincere concerns about this conflict of interest that would presumably preclude the mayor… at least the mayor from not participating. And I recommend that he doesn’t [vote].”

Healy was blunt in his warning:

“If you had a quid pro quo arrangement, where somebody provides services to somebody else and expects something in return… that’s a crime.”

He concluded:

“There’s only a few law firms… that offer free election services for a quote-unquote chance at the village work.”

Despite those concerns, Mayor Dodge offered no direct response, no disclosure, and no recusal—ultimately voting to approve the firm.

A Rushed Process?

Trustee Mike Milani criticized the speed and lack of transparency surrounding the legal hiring process. The RFP was posted on May 27, and by June 16—less than three weeks later—the board was being asked to approve all thirteen responding firms in a single bundled vote.

“This was one of the fastest RFP responses I’ve ever seen,” Milani said.

“We received the Dropbox with the proposals, a brief one-sentence blurb on the selection criteria, and no decision or comparison matrix on how they were decided upon.”

Milani questioned why the board was being asked to approve all 13 firms on an as-needed basis:

“Basically deciding that everybody got a trophy that submitted.”

Call to Split the Motion Denied

Trustee Cindy Katsenes requested that the motion be split so trustees could vote on each firm individually:

“This motion has all the legal firms in it… I would hope that the motion could be split up to vote on each one of them individually. Somebody may like one but not like all.”

That request was denied. Staff and the Mayor stated that the vote was simply to authorize contract negotiations—but the agenda language read “approve agreements.”

Public Kept in the Dark on Pricing

Trustee Healy raised an additional transparency concern: the public had not been allowed to view firm pricing or proposal details prior to the vote. Staff justified the lack of disclosure by arguing that negotiations were still in progress.

“They’ll be public once executed,” said Village Manager George Koczwara. “Holding them back now helps our negotiating power.”

But the logic doesn’t hold. In reality, approving a firm before negotiating terms weakens—not strengthens—your leverage. Once publicly approved by the board through a vote, the firm knows it has already passed the political threshold. The opportunity to push back on pricing or terms meaningfully is diminished, not enhanced.

This is the opposite of “negotiating power.” In sound procurement practices, negotiation precedes approval—when the board still has the ability to reject, amend, or demand revisions. Approving first, then negotiating later, is like agreeing to buy a car before you’ve asked the price—and then promising the seller you’ll drive it off the lot no matter what.

By withholding pricing and terms until after contracts are executed, the Village also denied the public any opportunity to evaluate whether the deal was fiscally responsible. It was a decision made in the dark, under the illusion of strategy, but at the expense of transparency and accountability.

Dodge Deflects With Credentials

Rather than address the conflict of interest or his prior relationship with Ancel Glink, Mayor Dodge responded by holding up a book during board discussion and declaring:

“Here is the book on Illinois law that was written by Ancel Glink.” (Photo above)

The moment drew raised eyebrows—not because Ancel Glink lacks credentials, but because the issue was never about their qualifications. The concern was Dodge’s undisclosed political and legal ties to the firm now being rewarded with a public contract.

Defending the firm’s legal expertise may have served as a distraction, but it “Dodge”d the central ethical issue: Why was a mayor allowed to vote on a firm that had represented him personally—without disclosure or recusal?

Silence — or Deflection — from the Mayor’s Running Mates

All three of Mayor Dodge’s running mates—Trustees John Lawler, Dina Lawrence, and Joanna Leafblad—were present during the vote to approve Ancel Glink. None of them addressed the conflict of interest concerns raised during the meeting.

Trustee Joanna Leafblad, an Assistant State’s Attorney, said nothing at all.

Although she attended the meeting remotely by phone due to illness, Leafblad made no remarks during the discussion on legal services—despite her legal training and professional role in the justice system. This was a vote where her insight on fiduciary duty and public ethics would have been especially relevant. Her silence stood in stark contrast to the legal concerns raised by other trustees.

Trustee Dina Lawrence avoided the ethical issue—and misunderstood the financial one.

Lawrence spoke only about cost structure and firm credentials, offering this:

“I saw a stellar list of expertise… Hourly rates aren’t necessarily indicative of the total cost to do something. It’s about overall value.”

Her comment not only sidestepped the mayor’s ethical conflict—it also revealed a shaky understanding of the financial details involved. At the time of the vote, no pricing had been released to the public, and trustees had not been given a comparative breakdown of costs or scoring. By arguing that hourly rates don’t reflect total cost—without having any total cost data to reference—Lawrence leaned on abstract talking points rather than hard numbers, an interesting position for an engineer.

Trustee John Lawler focused on the past, not the conflict at hand.

Rather than address the ethics of the vote in front of him, Lawler chose to criticize the previous firm, Klein Thorpe & Jenkins, asking:

“So we don’t know over the last five, six years whether or not they were the most competitive law firm that we could have been using?”

Lawler ignored the central issue of the evening and used the moment to rehash old decisions—deflecting from the unresolved and urgent ethical concerns surrounding the vote.

One resident later noted that Klein Thorpe & Jenkins had served as Village counsel since 1991—a tenure of over 34 years. By focusing only on the last five or six years, Lawler conveniently overlooked decades of service, competence, and continuity from a firm that had advised multiple administrations through varied political eras.

Together, their silence—or in some cases, strategic redirection—helped enable the very conflict of interest that had prompted concern.

What Comes Next

The board’s vote empowers staff to finalize legal service agreements with the selected firms. However, the ethical questions remain unresolved. The mayor’s participation in the vote—despite direct representation by one of the approved firms—has left some residents questioning the integrity of the process.

For many, the takeaway is clear: a politically connected law firm received public work from the very official it helped keep on the ballot.

---

Trustee Healy’s comments begin at 1:26:00 in the June 16, 2025 Committee of the Whole meeting.

Watch the full meeting here