DuPage Co. (ECWd)–
As part of another FOIA data dump, I received a batch of e-mails that include conversations between former COD Treasure Tom Glaser, Carla Burkhart, and her attorney, Josh Feagans. To say they are filled with some very interesting discussions is an understatement.
“We are debating moving for an injunction against Kirk Allen, and a defamation lawsuit due to drawing attention to the issue concerning mainstream media.”
As soon as I read that in one of the e-mails I sent the following to Carla Burkhart’s attorney, which is customary with every threat of a law suit.
Mr. Feagans,
I am in possession of an email dated January 4th, 2015 at 10:00 am, in which your client, Carla Burkhart, made the following statement to a College of DuPage official.
“We are debating moving for an injunction against Kirk Allen, and a defamation lawsuit due to drawing attention to the issue concerning mainstream media.”
I hereby demand that you provide a detailed list of all defamatory statements your client claims I have made.
Kirk Allen
PO Box 593
Kansas, IL 61933
This is not the first time those being exposed talk of defamation suits against us, and each time we demand a detailed list from those threatening such action, and each time we never hear back from them.
In this case however I believe Ms. Burkhart’s own words will make such a claim very difficult, as if the truth is not enough to stop such an action.
“I have no idea how savvy or intelligent Kirk Allen is, but I certainly can review these statutes and understand why he came to the “assumption” he’s coming to.”
Clearly she understands how I came to the position I did. Although she refers to it as an assumption. Rest assured there were no assumptions in our article. We posted facts and questions pertaining to the relationship Ms. Burkhart, her company Herricane Graphics, and COD has with each other. To date she has refused to answer a single question, however, it’s clear she is concerned and knows why we wanted information on her credentials.
In an e-mail to her attorney she states: “I look forward to receiving your response, as this obviously concerns me“.
Ms. Burkhart it should concern you.
Everything I wrote was accurate and supported with documents. Sadly even her own lawyer failed to see the facts in his opening paragraph response to his client. Sadly, even her own attorney can’t seem to understand what no-bid means, although he does finally admit it was a no-bid contract.
Burkhart Attorney: “First, with respect to the alleged no bid contract”
Mr. Feagans, there was no alleged no bid contract. It was stated as fact and backed up by documents that prove it.
Burkhart Attorney: “Thus, my opinion is that your contracts with the College are properly awarded without a bid process.”
Pretty amazing how this guy can come to this conclusion when so many details were not shared in the communication. I wonder why no reference to the no bid Construction Management contract? I don’t see him claiming that is a Professional service. In fact, the very website Burkhart points to in an effort to strengthen her position in the eyes of her attorney fails to mention some very key points. (U of I link for Professional and artistic service)
The University of Illinois web site does list graphic designer as a Professional and artistic service however it does not list Construction Management as one, which is what her 2009 no bid contract was for. (Previous article on this matter)
She also puts the blame on COD for using an American Institute of Architects (AIA ) contract even though she signed two of them as an architect of which she is not one and is currently being investigated by the state to include prosecution based on what we were told by the state.
These e-mails also confirm there is no architect working at her company. Her attorney makes no reference to those facts.
Apparently our work garnered a fair bit of attention and concern, but not sure why that was concern for the former Treasure Tom Glaser who asked, “Do you have a licensed architect in your employ?” As pointed out, her answer was NO!
My question is why is Tom Glaser handling this communication and not the purchasing department? Glaser’s communication was sent from his I-Pad, so in the event anything is missing from that device we now have at least one of his communications.
More interesting in this communication is how Breuder authorized Ken Florey to speak with Burkhart’s attorney, however, it was Burkhart talking with Florey based on the documents. Was COD billed for Burkhart’s concerning discussion with Florey? A FOIA has been filed so it will be interesting to see what shows up.
Why is a private contractor getting legal advice from a COD attorney?
“Ken and my attorney have indicated that I SHOULD NOT read these blogs anymore”
If Ken Florey is giving legal advice to private contractors of COD maybe we have yet another conflict of interest?
And finally, we now see how Tom Glaser feels about Kathy Hamilton as he takes a shot at her with insults.
“I talked to Ken yesterday and asked him to send something formal to COD to rebut Hamilton’s latest claims based on the Kirk Allen article. At some point (hopefully soon) she will say something where she will expose her incompetences.”
Update: No word back from her attorney on the defamation claims.
You can read the entire e-mail chain below or download it. More to follow as more documents arrive!
No Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.