The Crystal Lake Park District board will continue receiving legal services from a former board president after commissioners failed to pass a motion to seek other legal counsel.

Commissioner Cathy Cagle initiated a vote to consider other legal representation by opening up a Request for Qualifications, a formal procurement process for finding consultants. The measure failed in a 3-4 vote, with President Frederick Tiesenga as the tie-breaker.

Eric Anderson, a former board president who served two terms on the park board, did not seek reelection last year. But he still serves the board, taking over as the district’s new attorney the same day his seat expired.

That hasty decision – to replace the park district’s longtime attorney with Anderson, at a higher hourly rate – happened during the first board meeting after the Spring 2025 election. Tiesenga and two other new board members won their seats on the board in that election in a race that was uncontested, in part as a result of Anderson choosing not to run.

The vote to hire Anderson – at an hourly rate more than 50% higher than the previous lawyer – was 4-3, with board members Cagle, Michael Jacobson and Karen Johnson in the minority.

Since Anderson’s appointment, residents have repeatedly spoken out against it, questioning the ethics and transparency behind the move that lacked a formal interview process.

“Since Mr. Anderson was a former park district commissioner and also owns a home on the lake, can he represent the whole park district impartially and independently?” resident Lynn Doherty asked at the Jan. 19 park board meeting, at which the vote to look for alternatives to Anderson was taken and failed.

Anderson – along with the three newly elected board members Tiesenga, Richard Hickey and Keith Nisenson, as well as Jason Heisler, who was already on the board – all own property on the shores of Crystal Lake’s namesake body of water. Those four board members have generally voted together on a series of far-reaching changes made since last spring’s election.

And last week’s session was the latest in a series of contentious meetings since then and included gavel pounding, cutting off microphones during public comment and the use of profanity in name-calling.

In her proposal, Cagle suggested that Staub Anderson, the Chicago-based firm Anderson works for, should automatically be put in the top 10 candidates, and the board could vote on who would be the best fit.

“This isn’t a question of Staub Anderson’s service. This isn’t a question of their fees,” she said. “This is a question of ‘Have we looked for the right representation for our firm?’”

In a letter sent by Anderson to the board in May, he said his services do not have a term agreement nor a retainer, but that he will charge the district a rate of $425 an hour, which he called “a reduced rate.”

It was not a reduction of the rate the previous attorney, Scott Puma of Ancel Glink, charged the district, which was $270 an hour, according to district officials.

“The mere act of nominating one of your friends who just left the board to serve as law firm kind of reeks of old boys’ school club,” Cagle said at the May 15 meeting.

Despite the hourly rate being almost 60% more than the previous attorney, overall legal expenses have dropped compared under Anderson, Tiesenga said, calling Anderson’s work “cheaper, smarter and better.”

For its last six months with the board, Ancel Glink billed the park district just over $21,200. Staub Anderson’s total bill for its first six months was a little more than $19,100, Tiesenga said in park district documents.

“The Anderson law firm has been cheaper by $2,500,” Tiesenga said, a statement which he repeated seven times. Before the reiteration, he said he teaches his medical students that something needs to be heard “seven times” to learn it.

His repetition of the comment prompted Cagle to interject, saying, “Knock it off,” and, “This is so insulting,” before using profanity and calling him “arrogant.”

Tiesenga replied: “This is my meeting.”

The difference between the figures cited by the district officials to compare the costs of the past and current park board attorneys is actually closer to $2,100, so Tiesenga’s reference to $2,500 wasn’t clear.

Tiesenga’s statement also didn’t take into account that, though the overall dollar amount of legal bills dropped slightly, Anderson presumably provided fewer hours of work to the park district for what he was paid, given his higher rate.

Assuming the bills cited were strictly paid by the hourly rate, the previous attorney would have had to put in about 79 hours of work. At Anderson’s higher rate, he had to clock only about 45 billable hours.

In dollar amounts, though, Anderson’s monthly bills to the district have been comparable to previous billings from Ancel Glink. According to monthly park district expense reports, legal fees totaled $4,420 in June and $3,811 in May 2025 for the Staub Anderson law firm. Some of Ancel Glink’s last billings included $4,572 total in March and $3,312 in February 2025.

For December’s bill, Staub Anderson charged the park district more than $6,600.

Some residents questioned if Anderson had enough legal experience in representing park district boards. Anderson said he represented the Adler Planetarium in Chicago, as well as the Burr Ridge-based Pleasant Dale Park District for 15 years, from 1995 through 2009.

That park board “had a political turn, and didn’t like the advice that I gave prior to the new majority, and so they terminated me. But that happens,” Anderson said. “Being smart and being a good lawyer, when that turns into a political issue, that’s trouble.”

Tiesenga, Hickey, Nisenson and Heisler all voted against the request for qualifications and voiced support for Anderson.

Cagle, by contrast, said she was “profoundly disappointed in the vote that went down today. I really thought we had more integrity than this. I don’t know what you think you’re signaling to the public by the way we voted tonight.”

Tiesenga interrupted or cut off the microphone of four residents who spoke critically of the board and Tiesenga specifically.

“We’re not going to have a meeting full of political attacks and personal attacks,” Tiesenga said. “We’re going to run a nice, civil meeting.”