The Finance Committee of the BOE is looking into the various incidents that have left caused outside legal fees to post a $190k over run. Lauren Mylo of The Hour reports:
One issue that was discussed in detail was the fact that district lawyers are present during PPT (Planning and Placement Team) meetings if a parent brings in an attorney. “If the parents bring in an attorney, it’s understood we would bring an attorney with us,” said CFO Dan Cook. Finance committee member Sue Hamilton clarified it’s a practice, not a written policy, and Cook clarified that the practice has been the suggestion of Director of Pupil Personnel Janie Friedlander.
Colarossi asked if students were represented by legal counsel at expulsion hearings, adding: “If we’re spending $40,000 for counsel on expulsion hearings and the other side doesn’t have representation, that seems like a lot of money.”
West Rocks Principal Lynne Moore said from her experience the district should have representation there because of the complexity of the process.
Colarossi also asked why the district is using a firm with the caliber of Brown Rudnick for expulsion hearings.
“It’s been past practice that we’ve used that firm,” said Donna Vaccarella, the district’s interim budget coordinator. ” We use Larry Cafero, who’s now with them, and has been our expulsion hearing officer for as long as I can remember.”
So far this year the superintendent’s office has spent $135,831 on outside legal counsel and is budgeted for $280,000, and the special education department has spent $38,929 and is budgeted for $120,000.
Colarossi asked about the last time the district looked into competitive fees from law firms, and Cook said he hasn’t seen numbers in awhile. Later, Colarossi asked, upon the question of Norwalk Federation of Teachers President Bruce Levine Mellion, if attorneys are paid for travel time, and Cook said he would find out.
The whole idea of needing lawyers to represent students at disciplanary hearings is just indicative of what’s wrong with the whole educational system in the first place. Either the rules governing what is acceptable behavior from a student are too ticky tacky, or there’s a whole behavioral problem that parents, not the school system, should be dealing with. Meanwhile the state is mandating in school suspensions.
Then there’s the whole special ed fiasco. Earlier in the article it stated:
At the first finance committee meeting since the election, newly appointed chairman Steve Colarossi began by addressing the fact that in the 2008 to 2009 budget season, the superintendent’s office spent $310,369 in legal fees but was budgeted for $280,000 and the special education department spent $243,942 but was budgeted for $85,000.
So which numbers are correct?
source: The Hour, BOE’s finance committee discusses legal services deficit, By Lauren Mylo, November 24, 2009
We have found that going over the BOE legal bills (requested through FOI) have revealed a tremendous amount of information with regard to BOE antics. The lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank on the backs of the children and their education. Ridiculous.
That is one reason that law school enrollment is at an all-time high.
Pathetic waste of taxpayer money.
Why doesn’t the BOE, as a City agency, use lawyers from the Corp Counsel’s office ? It might require hiring another lawyer there, but it should save a lot of money hiring outside lawyers.
The Board of Education and the Norwalk Public School District are separate and distinct entities from the City of Norwalk. The City’s legal Counsel serves the City, reviews all the hundreds of contracts that the City is party to and deals with court matters on behalf of the City. The District does the same.
The essential inquiry that prompted my desire to investigate how we utilize outside legal services was initiated by two sources: first, the 2009-2010 budget appropriation seemed high compared to other cities; second, several parents with whom I’ve spoken explain that the school department frequently has attorneys present during PPT meetings (the team meetings that are held to try to determine the types and extent of services which a special education student needs). Because I manage outside litigation for two of my clients (and have done so for years), I am keenly aware of the measures needed to control legal costs and appreciate how these costs can skyrocket if not monitored.
Given that last year’s appropriation exceeded the budget by $190,000, and that there appeared to be few, if any, controls over the process of who may retain outside legal counsel, I had reason to suspect that we needed to conduct a thorough investigation to determine an appropriate level of funding for outside legal services and craft definitive guidelines for when they may be utilized. The Finance Committee’s investigation into this matter is ongoing.
As many of you may recall, last night it was revealed that in addition to the superintendent and assistant superintendent, a multitude of other employees have the authority to call upon outside legal counsel and incur legal bills, that a large sub-account exists for general and miscallaneous matters and that there are no written guidelines on this practice. Given that these attorneys (from two different firms) are being used (based upon what we heard last night) to do everything from representing the school department in negotiations to reviewing IEP’s for individual students, it does appear that some controls are needed to hold these costs down. This is much the same issue that arose when an unfair labor practices action was commenced against the Norwalk Federation of Teachers this past fall and the attorney was paid to not only prosecute that matter but to also prepare and distribute a press release about it. At that time, there was significant public discussion if the hiring of an attorney to prepare and distribute a press release was an appropriate use of taxpayers’ money (http://www.yourct.com/new/2009/09/boe-spends-money-filing-complaint-against-nft/ )
The other issue that came to light is that our use of trained hearing officers in expulsion matters appears under the outside legal services budget. However, simply as a private citizen, I would think that these matters need to be treated separately because in expulsion hearings the school district must provide an impartial hearing which safeguards the students’ due process rights; the Board of Education or an impartial hearing officer can serve as the hearing officer. There are many valid reasons why a well-trained hearing officer, with familiarity in the law of procedure and evidence, can serve in that role with great efficiency. The hearing officers (who are attorneys) do not sit at the hearings as attorneys for the Board of Education, nor do they serve as the prosecutor. Rather, they are charged by law to impartially review the evidence and to then fashion an appropriate remedy (much like a judge would). These hearing officers/attorneys are only utilized to conduct the hearings—they are neither called upon nor paid to render legal advice to the school district. Although some have suggested that the school district needs to examine its policies regarding expulsion, we would still need to retain expulsion hearing officers for what would be the hopeful limited number of future expulsions.
As we gather more information, it will be made available to the public (to the extent it is not confidential or privileged). I hope that my explanation above answers some of the questions that have arisen.
I think that it’s a great idea that you chose to pursue the legal fees. Smart to leverage your experience in that field to gain knowledge of the district, its controllership, etc.
There may be times when a lawyer from corp. counsel will work, not many.
You may be aware that school law is a whole new ball game. The quick piling of legal precedents and the crazed behavior of tech savvy students aided by their helicopter parents leave the school district and therefore town to millions in court damages.
Nothing can be the fault or responsibility of these students or their families. The school employees must be liable for anything and everything that students do.
NorwalkNet.com also has an excellent report on this topic
http://www.norwalknet.com/2009/11/boe-finance-commitee-gets-briefed-on.html
All attorneys charge portal to portal, in addition to their fees at the actual hearing. Brown Rudnick’s Connecticut offices are in Hartford. So, why is the BOE paying for attorneys to travel from Hartford, when there are plenty of qualified law firms in the Stamford/Norwalk/Bridgeport area?
Office in Hartford? That’s crazy. Sounds like someone was steering business their way.
The hearing officer only charges for time spent conducting the hearing. As has been explained to me, there are no charges for travel.
The hearing officer only charges for time spent conducting the hearing. As has been explained to me, there are no charges for travel.
cafero’s firm is also the lobbyists for the city of norwalk in washington dc according to some simple web searches. looks like state rep is very profitable for larry cafero. can anyone say conflict ?
Sure can! Conflict, as in Conflict of interest.
When I first read about this guy, I thought of “Vulture”, but that wasn’t right. Vultures eat carrion and perform a useful function.
Feeding oneself at the expense of our children–What’s going on here is more parasitical, even cannibalistic.
Interesting discussion. As I mentioned on NorwalkNet, I have participated in a rather large number of PPTs in New York City over the last few decades and not once has a lawyer been present. Under certain circumstances, lawyers are required, but, in my opinion. not for the vast majority of these conferences.
Perhaps the presence of lawyers at these meetings is a reflection of a general lack of trust between the BOE and the public. That would indeed be sad.
Pupil Sevices Director Dr. Jane Friedlander has handed monthly checks averarging nearly 20,000 a month. That is worth of a through inspection.
Dr. Friedlander in the first three months of 09/10 has given Marsha Moses 40,000. cash. What was all that dough spent on? Dr. friedlander has resigned but not effectice till her contract expires end of May. How much more dough will she hand out to sharks, not to mention her own checks for the next 6 months. Why are we paying Friedlander a salary to pay $120,000 to Moses.
Friedlander, is of no help and in fact is a hinderance. She needs to relived of her duties immediately, she is doing anything now accept spending our valuable tax money to protect herself from liability. she resigned, board accepeted, someone please escort Friedlander to the door. She single handidly has caused alot of families duress and nearly a million we have spent on the sharks since she came aboard June 1 2008. The Door for Jane.
William Callon did negotians on arbitrated union contracts representing the district, face value square deal.
Than we have Cafero, who works in Hartford as an elected house minority leader and also has his law office in Hartford. Cafero has lobbied extensively as minority house leader (agains)t reducing school suspenions and expulsions, as mandated by law since june 2008, where he is the districts expulsion hearing officer.
Conflict, Larry?
Yep, he pads his travel expense accounts and racks up his bank accounts.
Smart guy, he has dough coming in from every stream possible on our childrens, acdemic and emotional well being. backs.
Hey Larry, we see you.
Double, triple, quadruaple dipping, shame, shame, shame.
Is there no moral minds of integrity to be found?
Definetly a significant story, may even be indictments on the horizon.
Equality and justice for all children.
Hey Larry, heads up,
the education revolution is coming.
News Flash; your not invited.
marcia moses should be fired by the city she is a rude attorney whose job is to be mean and use legal tricks to deny our students services that they are owed
Getting rid of Cafero, who has been a terrible probationary officer, would be a real accomplishment. The savings could be enormous.