HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-07-30-LSRC-minReminder
School Legal Services
Review Committee Meeting
will be held on
Wednesday, July 30, 2003
at 5:30 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 30, 2003
The meeting commenced at 5:30 p.m. Present were Norman Cohen, Tom
Griffiths, Joanne Benton, Elaine Sterzin, John Bartenstein, Marsha Baker, Howard Brick,
Alice Oliff and Bill Dailey.
Mr. Cohen explained that the purpose of the meeting was to prepare for the next
meeting, when representatives from Stoneman, Chandler & Miller (SCM) would be
invited. The Committee agreed that the lawyers to be invited should included Robert
Fraser, who manages the relationship; Joan Stein, who is principally responsible for
handling special education matters; and possibly Alan Miller and Rebecca Bryant as well.
The Committee then considered what sorts of questions should be asked of SC &M, and
in what level of detail.
After extensive discussion, the Committee decided that it would be appropriate
for Mr. Cohen, on behalf of the Committee, to send to SCM, in advance of the next
meeting, a letter of invitation that outlined the following questions that the Committee
would like SCM to address:
As legal counsel for the school department, how do you view your firm's role
with regard to the school administration and school committee? Over the long
history of working with the Lexington Public Schools, in what areas do you think
the firm has performed well? Are there any areas where you believe
improvements could be made? If yes, how could your firm improve in these
areas? What could the school department do to help the firm better fulfill its role?
2. Your firm works with other school departments and school districts where the
legal services are handled by more than one firm. How does such an arrangement
work when tasks are separated and what legal services does your firm provide?
How is communication handled between the client and the law firms involved?
Who advises the school committee in these municipalities that have multiple
counsel?
3. Questions have been raised about the handling of the Fiske School matter. With
the benefit of hindsight, how would your firm have handled it differently?
4. There is a perception among some people in Lexington that the legal advice
rendered by your firm to the school department has been sound legally, but may
not be as sensitive to the emotional needs and to the political climate in the
community. (For example the Fiske School matter referred to in Question 3
highlighted this concern.) What measures could be taken to change the
perception?
-1-
The Committee agreed tha'
;CM in executive session, but than
nformation about particular cases
�Woduct protections, or privacy col
Could not be necessary to conduct the interview of
should be taken not to elicit any detailed
might implicate the attorney - client privilege, work
s of parents or students.
The Committee discussed several possible dates in mid- September for the next
meeting, and Superintendent Benton agreed to contact SCM to line up a final date. Mr.
Cohen agreed that, once the date was finalized, he would send a letter to SCM setting
forth the Committee's questions.
-2-