Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Page 2 of 2 <br /> Option one is to maintain the status quo and continue providing the services as they are currently <br /> provided. The benefit of this option is to retain the services of the skilled and experienced attorneys <br /> who have provided these services for a number of years in orange County and elsewhere. This <br /> option maintains the current level of effectiveness and court-time efficiency. <br /> Option two is to consolidate the two contracts and set a ceiling of approximately $180,000 as the <br /> maximum allowable price for all of the services. The benefits of this option are the likelihood that <br /> one of the law firms currently providing these services would be awarded the contract thus <br /> preserving the current experience level in providing the services and an approximate net cost savings <br /> to orange County of between $16,000 and $19,000 annually. This option maintains the current level <br /> of effectiveness and court-time efficiency with slightly improved cost efficiency. <br /> Option three is to bring these legal services in-house. I believe the most cost-effective approach to <br /> providing these services in-house is the creation of a staff attorney position and a legal assistant <br /> position to be housed in DSS. The DSS staff attorney and legal assistant would serve both DSS and <br /> CSE. These positions would be supported as needed by the paralegal and staff attorney position in <br /> the County Attorney's office. The support rode by these two positions in the County Attorney's <br /> office would possibly result in up to 20% of the paralegal's and staff attorney's time devoted to <br /> supporting the DSS staff attorney and legal assistant. The potential financial savings is the primary <br /> benefit to this option. That savings is between $29,000 and $34,000 with a potential for greater <br /> savings as detailed in Attachment B. The additional potential savings could range from <br /> approximately $10,800 u to $16,000. This method improves cost efficiency but does not provide a <br /> pp �' p <br /> guaranty of maintaining effectiveness and time efficiency at the same level. <br /> It is important to note that options two and three, and particularly option three, are strongly opposed <br /> by some members of the local legal community. At Chief District Court Judge Joe Buckner's <br /> suggestion I contacted several members of the legal community to discuss the quality of the service <br /> provided to DSS and CSE. Each of the attorneys to whom I spoke believes strongly that Carol <br /> Holcomb and Leigh Peek are the most experienced and efficient attorneys available to provide these <br /> important services. Most of the attorneys to whom I spoke also support maintaining_the current <br /> system with only two stating they understood the budgetary reasons behind considering a change. <br /> Several of the local District Court judges are also opposed to any change. Generally,that opposition <br /> stems from two views, one, that the two attorneys who primarily provide these services are so <br /> experienced as to be nearly irreplaceable and two, that these two attorneys are highly efficient and <br /> keep the court time needed for DSS and CSE cases at a minimum. However, I do not wish to <br /> misstate their positions to you and encourage you to speak to Judges Joe Buckner, Beverly Scarlett <br /> and Page Vernon if you have questions on their opinions. <br /> The directors of DSS and CSE share the opinion that the method of providing these services in a way <br /> that best serves the clients of DSS and CSE is the current method due to the experience level of the <br /> attorneys who primarily provide the services. The DSS Board is also in favor of maintaining the <br /> current method of providing these legal services. <br />