HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-15-LSRC-minReminder
School Legal Services
Review Committee Meeting
will be held on
Wednesday, October 15, 2003
at 7: 00 P. m.
at the Administration Building
1557 Massachusetts Avenue
Lexington, MA 02420
(Please RSVP to Ginny Schwamb
at 781 - 861 -2551 if you are unable to attend.)
Minutes
Legal Services Review Committee
October 15, 2003
The meeting commenced at 7:00 p.m. Present were Norman Cohen, Tom
Griffiths, Joanne Benton, Elaine Sterzin, John Bartenstein, Marsha Baker, and Alice
Oliffff, Bill Dailey arrived at approximately 8:30 p.m.
The draft minutes of the meetings held on May 19, June 16 and July 7 that had
previously been distributed were discussed and approved, subject to a few minor editorial
revisions.
Mr. Cohen explained that the principal order of business was to discuss the
testimony that the committee had taken and to decide whether or not to issue a request for
proposals (RFP). He said that if an RFP is to be issued, the committee would need to act
quickly; and that if an RFP is not to be issued, the committee would need to consider the
content of its report. Mr. Cohen then polled each of the members present on their
opinions about the issuance of an RFP.
Mr. Bartenstein questioned whether the committee has adequate information
about available alternatives to come to a decision to issue an RFP. He suggested that
there would not be much point in issuing an RFP unless there are other firms available
that are qualified to do the job.
Ms. Baker stated that she does not see the necessity for issuing an RFP. She
noted that all of the school employees who testified early in the process had spoken
favorably about the timeliness and quality of the advice they received from Stoneman,
Chandler & Miller (SC &M). She also noted that those employees who had worked with
other counsel while employed in other school districts had been considerably less
satisfied than they are now with the representation provided by SC &M. If the decision is
made to retain current counsel, she believes there are some issues that should be
addressed; but on balance, she does not believe it is necessary to look at other firms.
Ms. Oliff as well said that she does not see the necessity for an RFP. She noted
that the staff members who had worked with SC &M were pleased with the firm's
responsiveness and work ethic. She expressed some concern whether SC &M may in
some cases have been overly rigid in its advice, telling the client what to do instead of
counseling it about the consequences of various courses of action. She said, however,
that she feels this is an issue that can be resolved; and that while it should be addressed in
the committee's report, it does not dictate a change in counsel.
Mr. Bartenstein said that if the committee is going to recommend the issuance of
an RFP, he believes it would need to make a case that something significant has gone
awry in the existing relationship. He noted that the school staff had reported SC &M's
-1-
representation to be quite satisfactory in the more routine matters, and that the greatest
area of concern identified was how SC &M deals with the explosive crisis. He suggested
that some consideration be given to supplementing the advice of SC &M in crisis
situations, possibly by drawing more heavily on the resources of town counsel. However,
he does not believe that a sufficiently compelling case has been made of shortcomings in
the quality of SC &M's representation overall to justify the issuance of an RFP.
Mr. Cohen said that he had made some investigation of the alternatives, and that
while there are some very good firms that practice in this area, he does not believe there
are any that would be willing to do the work that has been done by SC &M, at an equal or
better level of quality, at rates that would be acceptable to the community. Consequently,
he does not believe it would be in the best interest of the community to issue an RFP.
Mr. Griffiths said that he was "deeply conflicted" about the issuance of an RFP.
He said that he likes SC &M's business model, including its representation of a large
number of school districts and its very fair retainer fees, and he has been impressed with
the administration's comments about SC &M's work ethic, its availability and its handling
of the more routine matters. He also agreed that it would be difficult to find counsel
capable of providing equal or better service at an equivalent cost. However, he remains
concerned that the school district has experienced periodic explosive crises, at
approximately twenty -four month intervals, which might have been less disruptive had
they been better managed. Whether or not the committee decides to issue an RFP, he
believes that this is an issue that the committee should address in its report.
Ms. Sterzin said that she had learned a great deal about SC &M in this process.
She believes that SC &M made an impressive presentation and that, except for certain
circumstances that went awry, the firm has delivered very good service to the school
district for many years at a reasonable price. She said that she would definitely not
support an RFP.
Supt. Benton said that she also feels this has been a very informative process. She
observed that the school system has never provided any systematic feedback to its legal
counsel, and thinks that it would be a good idea in the future to institute a regular three -
year review process of the legal services provided. Based on inquiries she has made, she
believes that there are not a lot of other firms available that can do all the work that has
been done to date by SC &M. The feedback she has received from school districts that
use multiple counsel has not been favorable, and although the City of Lowell has had
good results using in -house counsel for special education matters, she does not believe
that such an arrangement would be efficient for a town of Lexington's size. Supt. Benton
said that she feels the school district's relationship with SC &M has evolved positively
over the last few years; that the firm's long history and experience representing
Lexington is a real asset; that she is skeptical about the availability of obviously better
alternatives; and that she would be very unhappy to lose the services of SC&M.
Accordingly, she would not support the issuance of an RFP.
-2-
Mr. Bartenstein suggested that the committee consider the potential downsides of
issuing an RFP. The following were identified:
• The time and burden for the school system of conducting the RFP process
• The burden on SC &M of preparing a bid
• The risk that SC &M might choose not to submit a bid
• The potential loss of the stability and experience provided by SC &M
• The possibility that the bid process would result in a cost increase
Mr. Cohen observed that there appeared to be a consensus among the members
present not to recommend the issuance of an RFP. However, he suggested that before
making a final determination it would be a good idea to continue the meeting and to give
the absent members an opportunity to voice their opinions. There was some discussion of
timing, and Mr. Griffiths advised that the school committee recognized and accepted that
the process might take longer to complete than originally expected.
At this point, Mr. Dailey joined the meeting. Mr. Cohen summarized what had
been discussed and invited Mr. Dailey to provide his views. Mr. Dailey said that he
agreed with the consensus not to issue an RFP. He said that he had been impressed by
the testimony of the three representatives of the school department who had testified, and
that he sensed that both Supt. Benton and Ms. Sterzin were strongly supportive of
SC &M. He also thought that the three former school committee chairmen who testified
had been generally, if not uniformly, positive about the performance of SC &M.
Mr. Dailey said that he had been disappointed with the presentation given by Mr.
Fraser. He thought that Mr. Fraser was excessively defensive; that he did not adequately
respond to concerns about his firm's sensitivity to community concerns; and that most of
what he had to say was not impressive. However, he did think that Mr. Fraser had made
several points that were worthy of consideration, including: that he was not comfortable
with the way that collective bargaining negotiations have been undertaken recently by the
school system; that the school might not be achieving the optimal economic results in its
collective bargaining negotiations; and that SC &M's advice may not have been followed
completely in the Fiske matter.
Mr. Dailey said that one recommendation he would make is that the school
system make a more extensive use of SC &M. In particular, he believes that it would be a
good idea for SC &M to sit in on at least one of the school committee meetings a month in
order to get a better feel for community concerns. He also recommended that school staff
be encouraged to develop relationships with a broad range of the firm's lawyers.
The next meeting was scheduled for Monday, October 27, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. Mr.
Cohen requested that each of the members bring to the meeting, for use in preparing the
committee's final report, a list of SC &M's strengths and weaknesses, recommendations
for change, and recommendations as to how the school committee and administrative
staff might better make use of counsel.
-3-