(Thirteenth in a series)

Starting in 2000 during the litigation and development stages, the Lancaster Convention Center Authority was paying tens of thousands of dollars in legal bills monthly to the Reading law firm of Stevens and Lee that eventually aggregated over $7 million. The statements available to the public and Board members carried no information apart from “For services rendered.”

There ensued requests in 2005 and 2006 from County appointed members of the Convention Center Board, as well as vocal members of the public, to confirm that the invoices were based upon time actually worked on LCCCA business at agreed-upon rates.

Adding fuel to the fire, Stevens & Lee was around the same time involved in a controversy regarding their invoicing on a lump fee rather than an hourly rate for work concerning the sale of the Conestoga View Nursing Home; the fee itself surpassed the hourly rates that the County had agreed to pay. (Technically, the fee was paid by the purchaser.)

There was also a great concern among minority members of the Board and others that the LCCCA was either carelessly or willfully overpaying counsel. These Board members were so upset about the billing information being withheld that they requested an investigation from the District Attorney.

In response, Chair Ted Darcus ruled that additional information concerning billings would not be made available so long as litigation was on-going.

Upon the resolution of legal disputes in early 2009, NewsLanc made a “Right To Know” request of the LCCCA for copies of Stevens & Lees invoices. Invoices from 2005 on were received, properly detailed as to who performed the work, the date, the amount of time spent (down to ten minute intervals!), the subject and the hourly rate. For all practical purposes, billings were consistent with the annual contract terms.

From another source, NewsLanc also obtained a copy of a report entitled “Qualitative Review of Legal Services by Stevens & Lee for the Convention Center Project In  Lancaster County, Pennsylvania” by Pennsylvania Chief Justice Emeritus Stephen A. Zappala, circa July, 2007.  At that time, former mayor Art Morris, was the Chair and Acting Executive Director. Morris told NewsLanc that this report “was compiled at Stevens & Lee’s instigation and cost.”

In the report, Chief Justice Zappala states:

The billing statements submitted to the Authority by Stevens & Lee have been subjected to a quantitative review by accounting professionals.  The firm examined each of nearly 300 invoices and over 9000 time entries submitted by Stevens & Lee in its representation of the Authority.  The report by these accounting professionals concluded that Stevens & Lee’s billing entries were tied to the time records, were properly calculated by reference to the agreed-upon hourly charges and support the invoices remitted to the Authority.

The Authority derived significant benefits from the professional services rendered by Stevens & Lee.  The amount of fees charged by Stevens & Lee was commensurate with the highly-developed professional skills and standing of the attorneys who performed those services….

I have determined that the fees were fair and reasonable, and in conformity with Rule 1.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Zappala describes how, by mutual consent and with appropriate waivers, Stevens & Lee represented the City, the County and the Authority in litigation and a variety of complex lobbying and legal matters related to the development of the project with the Authority paying for all of the legal services from the newly imposed Hotel Room Sales Tax.

In response to an inquiry from NewsLanc of why invoices prior to 2005 had not been delivered, Morris responded:

The July 26, 2007 cover letter further references the fact that the accounting firm reviewed the detailed invoices ’supporting all of [Stevens & Lee's] billing for legal fees during the engagement’, ‘over 300 invoices’.  It also references the practice of having Stevens & Lee maintain the detailed invoices at its offices, where they would be reviewed and approved by the Authority Chairman, Treasurer and/or Executive Director each month, and after review, summary monthly invoices were submitted to the Authority for approval by the Board. This statement is consistent with my understanding that other than the detailed invoices recently obtained from Stevens & Lee and produced to you in response to your RTK request, the Authority is in possession of the summary monthly invoices from Stevens & Lee and that Stevens & Lee continues to possess the detailed invoices.

NewsLanc and its publisher Robert Edwin Field regret having raised suspicions concerning the appropriateness of Stevens & Lee invoices. Yet Art Morris at the time had also urged that the detailed invoices be made available for verification in a Sunday News column.

Executive Director Dave Hixson and Chair Ted Darcus had disdainfully refused to address the legitimate concerns of minority board members and the public. The matter could have been put to rest in a couple of hours by inviting a minority member of the Board or perhaps a retired judge to visit the law offices and verify that past invoices were in appropriate order. Perhaps Darcus made such a gesture in private but, if so, the public was not so advised. Darcus’ refusal to accept questions from the audience, and his use of the City majority on the Board to squelch serious discussions and ram through contracts, further exacerbated matters and enhanced suspicions.

On May 3, 2009, Field wrote to express his thanks for the LCCCA’s cooperation and Morris’ response to questions and concluded by saying: “I feel as though I have some egg on my face. However, in this case, my anger is not at myself but at those arrogant individuals who thwarted transparency every chance they had. I guess the habit of concealing truly devious matters just became a way of life.”