The attorneys who have played major roles in the pursuit of a Will County landfill contract registered Tuesday as county lobbyists but challenged a provision in the new law that calls for them to reveal their pay.
The five lawyers filed papers only minutes before the county clerk’s office closed Tuesday, the deadline for registering under the lobbying law that took effect June 20.
The lawyers or their firms listed lobbying clients and their projects, but they did not disclose their compensation, setting the stage for a possible court fight.
The five lawyers, including a state senator from Joliet, have lobbied County Board members on behalf of two of four bidders seeking a landfill contract that could generate as much as $1 billion in revenue over the next 20 to 30 years.
State Sen. Thomas Dunn (D-Joliet) filed his statement on behalf of the Joliet law firm of Dunn, Martin & Miller.
He listed City Management Corp. of Detroit as a lobbying client.
Richard J. Kavanagh, a top official of the county Republican Party, listed the same firm as a lobbying client, as did Robert Herbolsheimer, a New Lenox attorney and former vice chairman of the county GOP.
Herbolsheimer said, however, that he had done no lobbying for City Management since June 20.
The Joliet law firm of George Mahoney III and David J. Silverman, two lawyers who had worked behind the scenes for Waste Management of Illinois in its effort to win the contract, also submitted registrations.
The firm listed developers Gallagher & Henry of Countryside, Frank J. Spellman of Palos Park, T.A. Davidson of Orland Park, and Gerald Gosack of Wilmington as other clients for whom it is lobbying.
In all instances, the lawyers or firms said they were working for a hourly rate of pay but declined to reveal the amount of compensation, saying the county had no right to demand such a disclosure.
In each case, they said the county’s ordinance went beyond the state law on lobbyist registration.
Non-home-rule counties such as Will are not permitted to embellish state laws, Kavanagh contended as he filed his papers.
“Their ordinance must be similar to state statute. This goes beyond their authority,” he said, calling the measure “a witch hunt.”
State’s Atty. James Glasgow could not be reached for comment.
While the lobbying registration law appears to have accomplished part of what its sponsors intended, by disclosing who is paid to lobby for whom, it seems to have fallen short for now on the issue of how much is being spent to influence county government.
Assistant State’s Atty. Phil Mock, who helped draft the county ordinance, had said the measure might be challenged over the provisions regarding compensation.
“If it is, we are prepared to defend you in court,” he said at the time to the County Board’s Legislative Committee.
In pressing for registration of lobbyists, County Board member Walter Adamic said the public is entitled to know who is selling political influence.
“This is something that needs to be brought out into the open,” the Joliet Democrat and chief sponsor of the measure had argued. Adamic could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
The measure passed easily in an election year, but some board members expressed reservations privately, saying the law was too vague.
Others welcomed the measure, saying they were embarrassed at being buttonholed by major political figures who had signed on as paid lobbyists for firms seeking county contracts.
In addition to the contract to run a county landfill at the redeveloped Joliet Arsenal near Wilmington, Kavanagh and Dunn had lobbied unsuccessfully on behalf of a New York firm seeking a county contract to build and finance a juvenile jail.
When the county lobbying law passed, it was described as one of the toughest in the state.
The law defines lobbying as “any communication with a county official or county employee for the ultimate purpose of influencing executive, legislative or administrative action.”
It prohibits hidden agreements that promise future jobs or other benefits to politicians and requires disclosure of campaign donations tied to county contracts.
The ordinance offers numerous exemptions, including salespeople, unpaid citizens, civic organizations and unions seeking a labor contract.
It also excludes lawyers who are acting strictly as legal advisers for clients who are dealing with county agencies conducting adversarial, assessment, or quasi-judicial hearings that can be appealed to circuit court.
But attorneys whose activities cross the line between lawyering and lobbying must register.
“To the extent that (lawyers) also engage in activities with respect to which the ordinance otherwise requires them to register, they shall so register . . .,” the law says.
The principal opposition to the law was voiced by attorneys, who said the measure violates the confidentiality of the relationship between a lawyer and client.
The challenge over compensation, however, was not leveled on that basis.
The measure requires sworn statements, raising the possibility of a perjury charge for deliberate misrepresentations.
Failure to file reports could trigger a $500-a-day fine.
Cook County, which has had a lobbying ordinance since 1993, currently has registered 260 lobbyists.
