An uneasy DuPage County Board will be asked Tuesday to signal its willingness to pay the legal fees of a sheriff’s detective who was questioned but not indicted by a special grand jury investigating current and former law enforcement officials.
At issue is a relatively small charge for legal services: the $3,272 that lawyer Paul DeLuca seeks to collect for representing Detective Warren Wilkosz during grand jury proceedings two years ago.
But if the debate at a Monday meeting of the County Board’s Finance Committee is any indication, some board members read the resolutions in support of Wilkosz as a step toward paying legal fees in advance of trial for four other sheriff’s deputies and three former prosecutors facing trial later this year on criminal misconduct charges.
The seven were indicted by a special grand jury in late 1996 on charges they fabricated evidence against Rolando Cruz, one of the men sentenced to death but later exonerated in the 1983 slaying of 10-year-old Jeanine Nicarico.
Wilkosz was questioned by the same grand jury but not charged.
The controversy over whether DuPage taxpayers should pay upfront the legal fees of the seven has dominated board politics for more than a year.
On Monday, Finance Committee members voted 4-1, with interim County Board Chairman John Case abstaining, to recommend that the full board agree to pay DeLuca’s bill if ordered to do so by a judge.
County Board member Robert Heap (R-Naperville), who has been pushing for payment of the legal fees, said he was “baffled” that the issue triggered debate.
“All we are doing is saying that we have no objection to paying this, if we are directed by the court,” Heap said.
But board member Patricia Bellock (R-Hinsdale) said she would prefer to wait for direction from a judge.
The Finance Committee’s discussions were at times heated, with voices rising to a near shout.
DeLuca can collect payment from the county only if he is appointed a special state’s attorney to represent Wilkosz, and only a judge can appoint a special state’s attorney.
The state’s attorney’s office generally represents county employees in legal disputes resulting from their official duties. Wilkosz apparently sought a private lawyer after a request to the state’s attorney’s office in 1996 that he be provided with legal counsel was rejected by then-State’s Atty. Anthony Peccarelli.
In a letter last summer, Joseph Birkett, the current state’s attorney, advised board members that they could not directly authorize payment of legal fees on behalf of Wilkosz but could take action only if directed by a judge.
A key section of the resolution that was recommended for approval Monday differs significantly from what had been scheduled to be presented to the board at a special meeting called for last week. The special meeting was canceled amid concerns, voiced mostly in private, that Case was attempting to rush a decision on the issue.
As initially worded, the resolution would have acknowledged an “obligation and duty” by the county to pay DeLuca’s bill. The revised resolution indicates only that the county agrees to pay the legal fees if directed by a judge.
“What we’re wrestling about is not that heavy,” Case told Finance Committee members.
But the resolution is wrapped up in another issue on the agenda for Tuesday–a second resolution that essentially would concede without argument DeLuca’s appointment as a special state’s attorney.
The board has been advised to seek appointment of an independent counsel to research the law and appear in court on the issue, even if the board favors paying the fees. It is not unusual for a judge to prefer hearing legal arguments on both sides of an issue before making a decision.
On the Wilkosz matter, though, the board proposes to make no challenge to DeLuca’s request for payment. The second resolution says that it’s not worth the money to pay an independent counsel for legal advice on a $3,272 bill.
“A vote to the contrary is a vote against our employees,” Heap said.
Also Monday, Finance Committee members authorized that a letter be sent to special prosecutor William J. Kunkle, raising concerns about his billings and essentially asking him to make disclosures about his law firm’s finances.
Kunkle is the Chicago lawyer appointed to handle the prosecution of the seven indicted officials.
He dismissed the County Board’s concerns, saying that the fees paid him and his law firm would be reviewed by the courts after the trials conclude.
