By Megan Kelley

Review Writer

Lake Orion’s Downtown Development Authority Board of Directors met Aug. 10 and discussed and ultimately voted to change their legal counsel to a different representative at Beier Howlett, the same firm contracted by the village.

This decision follows months of legal sparing between the village and DDA board member Orion Township Supervisor Chris Barnett over the village’s attempt to remove Barnett from the board. An attempt in which the village’s attorney, Mary Kucharek of Beier Howlett, worked with and provided legal services to both the village and the DDA.

Greater concerns of a conflict of interest arose during the DDA board’s June meeting when the DDA was billed in error for the village’s legal services regarding the hearing to remove Barnett, and again at the July meeting when DDA Executive Director Molly LaLone informed the board that she had found items on that month’s bill that did not belong and had requested they be removed prior to the meeting.

Also during their July meeting, the DDA board failed to allow the itemized attorney bills to be released because of Kucharek’s legal opinion, the same attorney whose bills were in question.

Barnett has been vocal during previous meetings saying he felt the DDA and village soliciting legal advice from the same attorney on this matter was a conflict of interest.

Because of these concerns, Barnett almost immediately moved that the board solicit bids for legal services.

“I move that we go out for bid for legal services, that’s my motion,” Barnett said. “Not excluding the current attorney if they so choose to respond. I do however have an issue with the same attorney representing two teams that are not on the same page at the same time. That’s an absolute definition of a conflict. I think we were inappropriately handled by this firm but I’m not excluding them. I just think that we should go out (to bid) for legal services.”

DDA board member and village council President Ken Van Portfliet raised an issue over Barnett’s statements about the village and DDA being on separate pages, saying he didn’t “know what that means.”

“We’ve gotten inappropriate information from this attorney, so I have real concerns,” Barnett said. “Ninety percent of the time we are linked at the hip, the DDA and the village, but we are a completely separate entity. This is the governing body of the DDA and if and when they are at odds — which we have recently been, the crosshairs were squarely on me — getting legal advice about not being able to see bills, that’s inappropriate. For the attorney that also retained her own attorney to defend herself, for some reason, assuming maybe she thought that she had given some inappropriate legal information, that’s why they would do this.”

Barnett added that he believes the DDA needs accurate and clear representation from their attorney and believes the DDA board has not received that from Beier Howlett.

Van Portfliet responded to Barnett stating that he does not believe that the village and DDA are on opposite pages, and that everything the municipalities do, they do together. He added that he felt Barnett’s comments were “conjecture.”

LaLone informed the board that when she spoke with other DDAs in the surrounding area she found that 12 of them use the same contract as their village counterparts and only one of those uses a separate attorney at the same firm.

DDA chairperson Debbie Burgess added that going to bid for legal services would take additional time from the board.

“Every single time we have to do something, in addition to what we’re already doing, that takes time away from what we’ve committed to do. So, going out to bid, I’m just letting everybody know that that is increasing additional work for the staff,” Burgess said.

With Barnett’s motion still on the table, no one offered up support, so the motion died for lack of support.

Van Portfliet then moved that the DDA continue using the legal services contracted by the village with Beier Howlett but to use a different attorney at the same $135 hourly rate — and to request a statement of ethics from the firm.

Barnett voiced his disappointment in the motion.

“This is so not right. I don’t understand how going out for bid, yes, it takes some work. We are not going to forego events by going out for bids,” Barnett said. “Put out a simple Request for Proposal and probably get 20 responses and we can look at them. I’m happy to be on the committee, but I’m really concerned…we have received poor legal advice.

“Right is right and what was done to not just me but to this entire DDA board was completely wrong and it was done at the hands of this firm,” Barnett said.

The majority of the board did not share the same concerns as Barnett because the motion then passed 6-1 with Barnett casting the lone nay vote.