DuPage Co. (ECWd) –
Please pass the shovel, the hole is not deep enough!
In pure amazement, COD has now issued not only a comment to the Chicago Tribune, but a written statement according to the Daily Herald regarding the contract used for the hiring of a business owned by a Foundation Board member.
The crux of the issue is that the Foundation Board member who signed the contract is signing not one, but two contracts that report her company to be the Architect, which she is not.
- Chicago Tribune quote – “An architecture contract was used, the school said, because “the college was advised that it could be effectively applied to several services, including graphic design.”
First question, advised by who? I have no problem using boiler plate contracts as many people do that. The difference here is they failed to not only enforce key elements in the contract, they reported certain proposals were included “for the avoidance of any doubt” yet have been unable to produce those very proposal. You would think if the real goal was to “avoid any doubt” they would produce those records.
- From the Daily Herald – “COD issued a written statement saying the forms Herricane signed with the college in 2012 “are the result of a prior law firm providing boilerplate contract language for many of the school’s core construction documents.”
Wait a minute?
They told the Chicago Tribune “the college was advised that it could be effectively applied to several services, including graphic design.” Now it appears they are distancing themselves from that position and casting blame on the previous law firm.
For the sake of discussion, let us say it was the previous law firm’s doing. Does this not point once again to a failure of internal controls at COD?
I’m sorry your honor, the contract we signed was created by a previous law firm so they are to blame not us.
I asked the Daily Herald reporter if they contacted the previous law firm to confirm they are the ones responsible and they said they will get back to me next week.
If I were the “other” law firm, I think I might have a few words for COD. It appears to be an attempt to cast the appearance of malpractice on the previous firm in spite of the fact they continued to use the very contracts in question.
This is yet another indicator as the the depth of arrogance and resistance to actually fixing the broken money machine known as COD.
