.
Feedback

Vote No Bills

Every month, two borough councilmen vote "no" to paying of bills $1,000 or more - and it all stems from hiring a new solicitor

Borough government is anything but consistent.

However, there's been one constant at every Council voting meeting: Councilmen Jack Hansen and Rich DiGregorio voting "no" to the paying of bills $1,000 or more.

Their dissidence stems from the hiring, according to Hansen, three years ago of solicitor Wisler Pearlstine LLP of Blue Bell.

However, Wisler Pearlstine LLP replaced solicitor Friedman Schuman in January 2010. Friedman Schuman replaced longtime solicitor Dischell, Bartle and Dooley.

"My opinion is we are paying too much money for a solicitor. It's a lot of money," said DiGregorio.

DiGregorio said he was happy with the old solicitor and their services.

"I feel that Lansdale is paying too much. In the past, the solicitor did quality work," he said.

Furthermore, he said the new solicitor gets paid $65 more an hour than the previous one.

Hansen shared the same sentiment with his councilmate.

"Our solicitor is getting paid $175 an hour, where the old one was $100 an hour," he said. "It's absolutely ridiculous spending that kind of money for a solicitor who is doing the same job."

Hansen said when Wisler Pearlstine was first hired, it was paid $165 an hour.

"I don't know (if $175) is the number officially. It's the number I heard it recently went up to," Hansen said. "When I asked the question at a council meeting, I was told it had no bearing on my question and would not be answered in a public meeting, which is wrong also. It's the peoples' money."

DiGregorio said that amount over a year really adds up to overspending on the borough's part.

Even though their votes are always in the minority - there are nine councilmembers - DiGregorio and Hansen will stick to their guns.

"It makes no difference who the solicitor is," Hansen said. "It's too much money to pay for."

C. Smith October 5, 2011 at 06:18 pm
This article is interesting, but seems somewhat incomplete. These two councilmen are also known for an interesting series of other NO votes in recent months. For example, they voted against the current budget, AND against refinancing the Borough's debt at lower interest rates.
Yet for some reason they continue to vote YES on ALL SPENDING approved by that very same budget and financed by the General Obligation Bond that they voted AGAINST. The words confused and hyprocritical come to mind... So exactly where DO these two councilmen stand? It would be very interesting to see if one can get a straight answer to THAT question!
Jean N Fritz October 5, 2011 at 08:21 pm
Why was the Solicitor changed? What did the Dischell, Bartle + Dooley law firm do that would cause themselves to be replaced? Can anyone answer the question?
C. Smith October 6, 2011 at 01:48 pm
Jean -- actually, the article is wrong on this point. You would have to ask Councilmen Hansen, DiGregorio, and Councilwoman Scheuring. They (along with then Councilmen Guenst and Gross) actually replaced Dischell, Bartle + Dooley at the 2008 reorganization meeting with firm Friedman Schuman. At the 2010 reorg meeting, Friedman Schuman was replaced with Wisler Pearlstine.
The irony of ALL of this, is that, at the time when Dischell was replaced by Friedman, Dischell's firm was getting a LOWER hourly rate than Friedman's. So the two Councilmen whining in this article are just (as I said before) being hypocritical.
Tony Di Domizio (Editor) October 6, 2011 at 01:59 pm
C. Smith - Thank you for your clarification/correction.
Jean N Fritz October 6, 2011 at 03:22 pm
To C. Smith,
Thank you for the additional infor. I appreciate you taking the time to answer. I will follow-up to get an answer to my question, why change the Solicitor for a more expensive one ( @ the tax payers expense)?
C. Smith October 6, 2011 at 06:59 pm
No problem Jean. I wouldn't count on getting a straight answer to your question, though. :-) As I'm sure you know, this decision is (sadly) rarely based on how much a particular solicitor charges, OR how qualified they are, but more often is a simple matter of patronage. In the case of Friedman Schuman taking over in 2008, I suspect patronage was the culprit since that firm (and Mr. Kilkenny in particular) have certainly been strong supporters of the Democratic Party. The charge to replace Dischell was led by the Dems, who managed to convince Councilman Guenst to vote with them. (Possibly for a VP nod? Hansen made the motion, so it stands to reason).
On the other hand, while Wisler is certainly a more expensive firm -- there's no denying that -- there was no history of the kind of patronage shown to Dischell or Friedman in the past. It appears that they were selected for their excellent reputation, and the fact that they had no previous ties to either party, at least here in Lansdale. My 2 cents -- hourly rate doesn't necessarily have a bearing on how much you and I as taxpayers get charged in total. It depends on how much that firm is used, and how efficiently they do their job.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Montgomeryville-Lansdale Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something