Valparaiso City Council members disagree about an item on Monday’s meeting agenda for possibly securing additional legal representation in addition to the salary of Valparaiso City Attorney Patrick Lyp.
Lyp has served as the full-time city attorney for Valparaiso since January 2020, and spent six years prior as Valparaiso’s economic director.
Council member Peter Anderson, R-5th, recently posted concerns on his elected official Facebook page about an appropriation listed among business items for the council’s consideration at the meeting, at 6 p.m. Monday at Valparaiso City Hall.
“Of special note, item E which is the $150,000 appropriation for ‘professional services’ for the Council,” Anderson noted in his post.
“There is exactly zero description of what ‘professional services’ might entail. I’ve been told an attorney specifically for the council. This ordinance lacks any semblance of transparency.”
Anderson’s post also includes a copy of the proposed ordinance described as “appropriating funds in the CCIF Cigarette Tax Fund and providing for publication of notice.” The ordinance lists an amount of $150,000 for the use of “professional services-city council.” It also advises a public hearing will be held at the Feb. 26 council meeting.
An earlier Facebook post by Anderson on Jan. 30 linked Valparaiso City Council President Robert Cotton, D-2nd, as the one who devised and is recommending the ordinance.
“Councilman Cotton has introduced this ordinance that will be heard on first reading at the Feb. 12 City Council Meeting,” Anderson explained.
“This ordinance is troublesome for me. What is it? Councilman Cotton is attempting to make an appropriation for professional services. What exactly is this? Upon a phone conversation, essentially he wants to hire an attorney for the council that would be at odds with the city attorney. Long story short, City Attorney makes a recommendation for the city that Bob (Cotton) doesn’t like? Bob consults the ‘council’ attorney to get a different opinion.”
On Friday, Cotton described the idea of the council having additional legal guidance as an important “check and balance,” and akin to the practice of “measure twice before cutting.”
“Every decision-making body throughout our agency appropriates funds for professional services,” Cotton said. “City council is no different. We don’t know everything and may occasionally need expert information required to make responsible decisions for our 35,000 residents of Valparaiso.”
Anderson reasoned in his social media post that the practice of a council hiring its own attorney “is not unheard of,” but said “in this situation I believe it is completely unnecessary and a waste of money.”
“The Democrats have a 5-2 supermajority on the Council,” Anderson said in his post.
“They can literally pass anything they want. No need to spend $150,000 on attorney fees. We already have a city attorney who is extremely proficient at his job. Can you think of a better way to spend $150k? I sure can. How about an additional police officer or school resource officer with full benefits? I do not think spending this money is in the best interest of the citizens of District 5. I strongly encourage you to show up to both the Feb 12 and Feb 26 meetings and speak your mind.”
Before proceeding with the ordinance, Cotton said he received assurance from Mayor Jon Costas and Lyp that the appropriation, in the amount requested, is “perfectly reasonable.”
“The amount for legal services is a not-to-exceed amount of $50,000.00. The balance of $100,000 provides the wherewithal to engage the opinions of experts on matters that at least 4 out of 7 of our council members agree to be necessary,” Cotton said.
Philip Potempa is a freelance reporter for the Post-Tribune.
