Outside Legal Fees Spurr Questions

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.

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.

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 ?