Is Orland Park Set to Award $60K PR Deal With Political Ties?

The Village of Orland Park is preparing to award a $60,000 public relations contract to a newly created company with no public track record, no evidence of a competitive bidding process, and no clearly defined deliverables. At a time when residents were promised more transparency from local government, this move raises more concerns about how political supporters are being rewarded with taxpayer dollars — and whether the Village is slipping back into the kind of insider, patronage-style deals that erode public trust.

A Vendor with No Visible History

The company selected for the engagement is PubliCity Communications, LLC, recently formed and owned by a former employee of the Village. Despite being chosen to manage public-facing communications and crisis messaging, the firm has no publicly available portfolio, no listed clients, and no demonstrated experience in government or crisis communications.

Moreover, because the contract is being awarded to a former Village employee, it’s fair to ask: Was her personnel file or past performance as a public employee reviewed as part of this decision? If not, why wouldn’t that be part of a responsible vetting process — especially when awarding a public-facing, crisis-sensitive contract funded by taxpayers?

The company’s website, which appears to have been created shortly before the contract was proposed, is notably incomplete. The “Press” section — a logical place to showcase media work or public engagements — returns a 404 error, casting doubt on the firm’s readiness to take on such a high-visibility role for a municipality of nearly 60,000 residents.

The Proposal: Vague Scope, No Performance Criteria

The proposal submitted to the Village outlines general categories of services, including:

• Strategic counsel to Village leadership
• Crisis communications and incident response
• Media relations and stakeholder engagement
• Content support for newsletters and social media

While these activities are important, the agreement does not define specific deliverables, timelines, or success criteria. There is no mention of a communications plan, no calendar of expected outputs, and no system for reporting on progress or outcomes.

The proposal calls for a flat fee of $5,000 per month, or $60,000 over the course of a year, regardless of the level of activity, complexity of needs, or results delivered. There is also no provision for performance-based evaluation, mid-year review, or accountability if expectations are not met.

No Competitive Bid Process

Even more troubling: there is no record of a public bidding process. There was no RFP, no outreach to other firms, and no transparent evaluation of other vendors. In short, this appears to be a no-bid contract, brought forward with no competitive process and little apparent deliberation — likely to be approved by a board now positioned to reward a campaign supporter.

Public relations and crisis communication are not fringe or low-stakes services — they’re central to public trust. Especially in government, these functions should be handled by proven professionals selected through an open and accountable process.

When contracts are awarded without competition, the public is left to wonder: Was the process fair — or was it structured to favor a preselected outcome?

A Broader Pattern of Insider Governance?

During the May 5, 2025 Village Board Meeting, Mayor Jim Dodge publicly thanked the owner of PubliCity Communications, by name, during his remarks. She was included in a list of individuals he credited for supporting the campaign that helped elect the current board majority. This public acknowledgment appears at approximately 38:52 in the official meeting transcript.

This is significant: the same individual publicly thanked by the Mayor for her campaign support is now set to receive a no-bid, $60,000 communications contract from the Village. The current Village Manager — also a known participant in campaign activities — plays a key administrative role in awarding and overseeing such contracts, raising further questions about political entanglements at the highest levels of Village government.

Just weeks earlier, the Village Board re-appointed that same Village Manager without publicly posting the position, conducting a search, or considering other candidates. The appointment took place during a special meeting with limited notice and minimal public discussion. The Village Manager had previously resigned, and it was later learned he had been the subject of disciplinary action(s) — the details of which were fully redacted in FOIA responses.

This contract doesn’t exist in a vacuum. While there’s no confirmed link between the PR contract and the Village Manager’s past disciplinary issues — and we hope there is no connection — the broader pattern is hard to ignore: a no-bid contract to a campaign-aligned former employee, a top administrative appointment without competition, and key records shielded from full public view. Taken together, these decisions raise serious questions about transparency, accountability, and whether Orland Park is seeing the return of politically motivated hiring and contracting.

The Cost of Silence

This isn’t about political parties. It’s about process, ethics, and stewardship of public dollars. At the very least, Orland Park taxpayers deserve:

• A public explanation of how this vendor was selected
• An open acknowledgment that other qualified firms were not invited to submit proposals
• A pause on the contract until a fair, competitive process can take place
• Clear expectations, deliverables, and reporting requirements written into any future agreement

Contracts like this — especially in sensitive areas like crisis communication — shouldn’t raise eyebrows. They should instill confidence.

Government Shouldn’t Reward Connections. It Should Protect the Public Trust.

Residents have every right to ask: Are these decisions being made to serve the community — or to reward political allies?

When public contracts are handed out behind closed doors, and former insiders are the first in line to benefit, that question becomes harder to ignore.