Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-07-07-LSRC-minPie- Reminder School Legal Services Review Committee Meeting will be held on Monday, June 30, 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 July 7, 2003 The meeting commenced at 7:00 p.m. Present were Norman Cohen, Tom Griffiths, Joanne Benton, Elaine Sterzin, John Bartenstein, Howard Brick, Alice Oliff and Bill Dailey. Also present were three former chairs of the Lexington School Committee: Barrie Peltz, Robin DiGiammarino and Scott Burson. Ms. Peltz sat on the School Committee from 1994 -2000, and was chair from 1996 -1999. Ms. DiGiammarino sat on the School Committee form 1998 -2003, and was chair from 1999 -2002. Mr. Burson has sat on the School Committee from 2000 through the present, and was chair from 2002 -2003. The former chairs had been invited to provide the committee with their perceptions and experiences with the school's legal counsel during their respective tenures. Mr. Cohen introduced the former chairs and cautioned that, while the discussion should be free - ranging, care should be taken not to breach any confidentiality agreements. The discussion was led off by Barrie Peltz. Ms. Peltz said that her experiences with legal counsel could be divided into two categories: the anticipated and the unanticipated. The principal issues that were anticipated related to the collective bargaining process. The unanticipated issues included the resignation of Jeff Young as superintendent, the appointment of an interim superintendent, the negotiation of an employment contract with Dr. Ruane, and constitutional litigation brought by Douglas Yeo. Ms. Peltz explained that SC &M had provided assistance in several of the rounds of collective bargaining in which she was involved, and that they were generally very helpful. However, because of a change that had been made in the method of collective bargaining, the role of counsel was fairly limited. There followed an extensive discussion of the history of collective bargaining in Lexington to which all the former School Committee chairs contributed. Originally, the school committee had engaged in traditional, direct collective bargaining with the LEA and other unions. Alan Miller of SC &M was the principal negotiator for the schools and the School Committee's role was relatively limited. Then the school system experienced a teacher strike in the late 1980's which proved to be very painful. There was a good deal of residual bad feeling about the negotiations and an "archive" of grievances about labor practices. The School Committee felt strongly that a new approach had to be taken, and ultimately decided to move to a new methodology that had been championed by Roger Fisher in his book "Getting to Yes," known as "process bargaining" or "mutual gains /mutual interests bargaining." This approach is less adversarial, and focuses on mutual efforts to identify and address the parties' respective interests. Part of the -1- objective was to get the attorneys out of the process, and this led to the. "planned obsolescence" of the role of legal counsel in the negotiations. The new approach to collective bargaining did succeed in greatly reducing the number of grievances, and a number of other communities have adopted a similar approach. Mr. Burson commented, however, that SC &M probably does not particularly care for this approach. SC &M, he believes, would prefer more attorney involvement and more direct bargaining rather than the more diffuse committee approach that has been followed, which does not permit for as much control over the bargaining on economic terms. As a consequence of the change in collective bargaining methodology, Ms. Peltz explained, legal counsel's role in the process is no longer a pivotal one. They have been a "presence" in the negotiations, and they have been available to provide assistance. She believes that they have had good access to the school committee, and that they have been ready to make themselves heard if they believe the school system is going in a direction that is not in its best interests. They have also helped the negotiators by providing information about terms and settlements in other comparable towns, and they have provided useful mentoring and assistance to school committee members about process negotiating. Because of the change in bargaining approach, however, Ms. Peltz did not view SC &M (particularly, Bob Fraser, who has taken from Alan Miller on collective bargaining matters) as a "necessary cog," and felt that she received most of her mentoring, advice and support from Superintendent Young. Mr. Cohen inquired whether the advice provided by SC &M on questions of state law has been suitable. Mr. Burson said that on narrow, technical questions he has had great confidence in SC &M's advice, which has principally, but not exclusively, been provided by Bob Fraser. SC &M's knowledge of labor law is quite good, and they have been on top of what arbitrators are doing. Mr. Brick asked whether SC &M was proactive in its advice, and whether it adequately anticipated the school systems' needs. Ms. DiGiammarino responded that, although SC &M's role in the collective bargaining process was limited, SC &M did provide good information about salary increases in other communities and helped anticipate problems. Ms. DiGiammarino said that her principal involvement with SC &M during her tenure as chair was in the preparation of policies, collective bargaining, grievances, and the negotiation of collective bargaining contracts. During her tenure, the School Committee was sued in the "Respecting Differences" litigation, but this matter was handled by Jordan Glasgow of Palmer & Dodge. She was very satisfied with the representation provided by Palmer & Dodge, and felt that SC &M had been good about deferring to Palmer & Dodge on this matter. Ms. Peltz described her experiences with litigation brought by Douglas Yeo involving the school's rejection of an advertisement submitted to the Musket In that litigation, both she and the School Committee were represented pro bono by Jason Berger of Testa Hurwitz. Ms. Peltz had the highest regard for the services provided by Mr. Berger in that -2- litigation, who she felt represented them "wonderfully" through every step of the process of discovery, trial and appeal. Mr. Burson then commented on a number of extraordinary circumstances that arose while he was chair of the School Committee from 2002 -2003. Because he felt that some aspects of the situation presented a town -wide issue, he sought permission from the Town Manager to consult Palmer & Dodge on some of the larger issues. He was pleased with the advice given by Palmer & Dodge, and felt they offered a "different expertise and a different vision" that was an important supplement to the more school - focused advice provided by SC &M. Mr. Burson observed that Mr. Brick's question about proactive advice is a very difficult one. He pointed out that Lexington School Committee members typically do not have a lengthy tenure, and can be relative novices with little experience about specific legal issues and how best to utilize legal advice. Because School Committee meetings must be held publicly, it is often difficult to solicit legal advice during a meeting. Mr. Burson expressed his opinion that SC&M does certain things very well, and he feels strongly that the technical legal advice they have provided has been quite sound. However, on issues of broader municipal or political significance, when good technical legal advice had to be put in a wider context, he generally felt more confident dealing with Palmer & Dodge. He emphasized that it is not the responsibility of counsel to make political judgments for the School Committee, and observed that his concerns about SC &M's ability to place its legal advice in a broader context did tend to abate over time. However, what he would like to see in the "ideal" legal counsel would be a more integral sense of the community and its values, such as Palmer & Dodge brings to the town side, as well as top notch legal advice. Ms. Peltz commented that she had been highly satisfied with the work of Rebecca Bryant, who counseled her very professionally on issues involving the negotiation of Dr. Ruane's contract. Mr. Burson agreed, and also commented that Joan Stein had done a good job on special education matters. He feels that there is "great strength" at SC &M, and his primary concern is the need for a heightened awareness of the unique needs of Lexington, as opposed to other communities. Ms. DiGiammarino said that she felt, during her tenure, that it was important for people in key posts to have confidence in counsel, and that this need was generally met. Mr. Brick inquired whether the former chairs were satisfied with the. advice, inputs and judgment of SC &M on two of the major issues in recent years: the termination of Dr. Ruane and the situation at the Fiske School. Ms. DiGiammarino said that in the case of Dr. Ruane's termination, which occurred during her tenure, she was satisfied. Mr. Burson commented that his main reservation about the advice given in the Fiske situation was that he wished that members of the School Committee had been allowed to take more risks in communicating with the public. -3- Mr. Bartenstein inquired whether it was thought essential to have the same counsel representing the school system and the school committee. The former School Committee chairs generally felt that, except in situations where conflicts may arise, such as negotiations with the superintendent, it is most desirable to have a single counsel. The meeting then adjourned, and the next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, July 30, at 5:30. At that meeting, the committee will discuss preparations for a meeting with representatives of SC &M.