JACKSON COUNTY CONTRACT WAS IMPROPER, LAWSUIT ALLEGES

A "politically motivated" Jackson County Legislature illegally awarded a
$628,000 drug-treatment contract last month to a Kansas City company,
according to a lawsuit filed Monday.

County Court Services Inc., the current contractor, says the Legislature
gave the contract to Addiction Recovery Services Inc. even though
independent bid evaluators recommended sticking with County Court Services.

County records show that the evaluators gave Addiction Recovery's proposal
failing marks, while giving high grades to County Court Services and
recommending that it retain the one-year contract.

"The legislature improperly and illegally awarded the contract not based on
the lowest and best bid, but as a result of bad faith, favoritism,
collusion and/or corruption," the lawsuit states.

Lawsuits against government officials over decisions they made in their
official capacity are relatively rare. But a lawyer for County Court
Services, Thomas Schweich, said he had "never seen a company with such low
scores be awarded a contract like this. The numbers alone prove that
something is wrong."

Timothy G. Donaldson, owner of Addiction Recovery, did not return calls and
was not at home when a reporter visited his house on Monday evening.

In interviews last week and Monday, Legislature Chairman Victor Callahan
defended the Legislature's decision, saying the issue "is ultimately the
savings to the taxpayer and can we have quality service."

"The Legislature went with the lowest bidder after determining it could do
the job and approved it unanimously," Callahan said.

Addiction Services' bid was $42,000 lower than the one submitted by County
Court Services.

Callahan dropped out of the race for re-election in May amid rumors he is
preparing to run for the Missouri Senate. His last day in office is today.

Jackson County's anti-drug program is funded by a quarter-cent sales tax
and was approved in 1989. The tax generates about $18 million annually for
drug prevention, treatment and law enforcement efforts.

The treatment program is an adjunct of the county Drug Court and provides
services for an average of 400 clients at any given time -- or thousands
per year. Drug charges are dropped if defendants complete a year or more of
intense drug treatment, job counseling and other requirements.

It was unclear what effect the lawsuit would have on the program's clients.
Addiction Recovery had planned to take over operation of the program on
Thursday morning.

County Court Services is seeking an injunction to prevent that from
happening. A hearing has been scheduled this morning before Jackson County
Circuit Judge Jay Daugherty.

Treatment Contract

County Court Services has administered the county Drug Court's treatment
program since 1995. It and Addiction Recovery were the only firms to submit
proposals when the contract came up for renewal earlier this year.

At least two independent evaluators reviewed the bids and concluded that
Addiction Recovery's was seriously deficient. Although its bid was less
than its competitor's $670,000 proposal, both evaluators recommended that
County Court Services be given the contract.

Acting independently of one another, the evaluators gave County Court
Services an average score of 90 out of a possible 100 and Addiction
Recovery an average of 45.5. Both concluded that Addiction Recovery's bid
was not responsive to the bid request.

In two sessions in October, the Legislature proposed to award the contract
to County Court Services. Then, on Oct. 28, Legislator Dan Tarwater, head
of the Legislature's anti-drug committee, informed contract administrators
that the contract would be awarded instead to Addiction Recovery, according
to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit states that County Court Services believes that Tarwater and
Donaldson "have a personal relationship, as friends and neighbors," that
may have influenced Tarwater's and the Legislature's decision.

Donaldson is a certified substance-abuse counselor who has owned Addiction
Recovery since 1998, according to his resume. He also owns Skylander
Psychological Services Inc., which operates a crisis system for Ray County,
and Health Productivity Services, which performs drug testing for Jackson
County's Drug Court.

The lawsuit names the Legislature and Tarwater as defendants. A companion
action asks the court to declare that the Legislature's action was improper
and illegal, and to award the contract to County Court Services.

Tarwater did not respond to numerous calls over the past week seeking comment.

Defending The Contract

Callahan last week said that the evaluators' assessment "was important, but
I think we can't go off the evaluation. You have to evaluate the
evaluation. It's a beginning point. Sometimes they're wrong or have their
own agenda."

The evaluations were performed by Bruce Eddy, executive director of
Resource Development Institute, and Pat Stiler, director of Mid-America
Addiction Technology Transfer Center. They were hired by Vicki Boyd, deputy
administrator of the county's anti-drug program.

Callahan said he considered Addiction Recovery well-qualified to do the
work, noting that it has a similar drug-treatment contract in Clay County.

That program deals with a much smaller caseload, about 25 clients. Clay
County officials could not be reached for comment.

The lawsuits filed Monday came after the owner of County Court Services,
Judy Chase, wrote to Legislator Bob Spence on Nov. 4 about her concerns
over the way the contract was awarded. Five weeks later, Schweich, County
Court Services' lawyer, sent a letter to Spence, Tarwater and Callahan
demanding that the contract with Addiction Recovery be rescinded.

Shortly after that, Spence introduced a resolution to re-award the contract
to County Court Services. The resolution wasn't seconded and died.

Spence on Monday said he introduced the new resolution "because I was
asleep at the switch when we awarded the contract."

"It wasn't our finest hour, when there's a process set up to grade vendors
and then it's totally ignored," he said.

Spence said that Tarwater and Callahan later "relieved my mind to some
extent by pointing out that the current provider got the contract in 1995
under similar circumstances....They also said the grading process was flawed."

The lawsuits allege that after Dec. 12, unidentified "influential proxies"
for Tarwater, Callahan and the Legislature promised County Court Services
"undetermined future government work" if the firm would forgo "exposing the
improprieties" charged in the lawsuits.

County Court Services said it rejected the overtures. Chase declined to
comment last week and referred inquiries to Schweich.

Callahan on Monday rejected the allegations about proxies acting on his
behalf, saying he didn't know "what the lawsuits are talking about."