[1. Meeting Opening]
[00:00:05]
>> ALL RIGHT. WE ARE GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. LET'S START WITH THE PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE, PLEASE. >> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD UNDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND
JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> ALL RIGHT.
[2. Information Items]
SO TODAY'S WORK SESSION IS ON DISCUSSING FINAL RFP'S RECEIVED FOR LEGAL SERVICES. IN BOARD DOCS, THERE ARE ALL THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED FROM THE FIVE DIFFERENT FIRMS. AS WELL AS FEEDBACK FROM FACULTY AS WELL.FROM OUR ADMINISTRATION. SO DURING THIS SESSION TODAY, WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS EACH FIRM. WE HAVE A RUBRIC WE WILL SHARE AFTER THE MEETING THAT IS SCORING SHEET SO WE CAN ASSESS, DO EACH OF THESE FIRMS IN THE SCOPE OF LEGAL SERVICES, PROVIDE ALL OF THE NECESSARY SERVICES THAT OUR DISTRICT IS IN SEARCH OF AND IN NEED OF? AND THEN AS WE GO THROUGH THAT, LOOKING AT A RATING SYSTEM BASED ON THAT, AND THEN OUT OF TODAY, MAKING THE DETERMINATION WHO COMES BACK ON MONDAY EVENING TO DO A PRESENTATION FROM THESE FIVE FIRMS. IS IT ALL FIVE? IS IT SOME OF THE SNIEF SO WE CAN HAVE A QUESTION-AND-ANSWER SESSION WITH EACH OF THEM AS WELL. SO WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO OPEN OUR DISCUSSION. LET'S START OFF IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER. I THINK THAT IS THE MANNER WHICH WE RECEIVED THEM. ALL OF YOU SHOULD HAVE A PACKET.
A PRINTED PACKET. SO AS YOU GO THROUGH THIS, ONE OF THE THINGS I WANT YOU TO STOP AND CONSIDER IS, YOU KNOW, DID EACH FIRM IDENTIFY AND CHECK OFF THE SERVICES THAT WE REQUESTED.
WHAT, IF ANY, GAPS DID YOU IDENTIFY? AND FIND IN EACH OF THEM. WERE THERE QUESTIONS T THAT WERE RAISED AS A RESULT? LET'S START OFF WITH BARNES AND THORNBERG. THIS IS OPEN DISCUSSION FOR YOU ALL. IF YOU WANT TO START ON ONE END AND COME THROUGH. OR FIRST COME, FIRST SERVE.
GO FOR IT. >> I THINK THEY ALL... I'M STARTING ON THE THIRD PAGE. TITLE PAGE ONE AND TWO.
THEY WERE VERY THOROUGH IN MAKING SURE THAT THEY WERE CLEAR AND CHECKED EVERY BOX THAT WE HAD ON OUR SCOPE OF SERVICE.
I DON'T SEE ANY MISSING BOXES FROM BARNES & THORNBERG.
I THINK THEY DID A GOOD JOB THEY CHECKING ALL OF THOSE.
ONE QUESTION I'M GOING TO HAVE WITH ALL OF THESE IS THINGS THAT THEY NEED TO OUTSOURCE OR GO, YOU KNOW... THE OUTSIDE COUNCIL, THIRD PARTY. I DON'T SEE REALLY ANYWHERE
THERE THAT REFERRED TO THAT. >> YEAH.
THEY ARE SUCH A GIGANTIC LAW FIRM.
I HIGHLY DOUBT THEY WOULD NEED ANY SORT OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL.
>> THAT WAS MY ONE QUESTION. THE OTHER ONE WAS, A LOT OF THESE LOOK AT DOING SOME KIND OF MONTHLY RETAINER WITH ALL KINDS OF VARIOUS THINGS INCLUDED. BARNES IS REALLY THOROUGH.
THEY HAVE... LET'S SEE. SECOND TO LAST PAGE, THEY HAVE LOTS OF THINGS IDENTIFIED HERE. TO ME, IN COMPARISON TO SOME OF THE OTHERS, IT IS PRETTY HIGH-PRICED.
IT LOOKS LIKE MAYBE THEY HAVE INCLUDED MORE THINGS IN THAT.
IT WILL BE TOUGH FOR US TO JU JUDGE...
>> THERE IS ONE THING. AND IF I MISSED IT, PLEASE SOMEBODY POINT IT OUT. IN THAT LIST OF THINGS THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED AS, LIKE, THE SORT OF INSIDE THE FIXED FEE IS COLLECTIVE BAR GAINING AND DISCUSSION.
IT IS ALSO NOT LISTED IN THE, LIKE, DISCLAIMER UNDERNEATH.
WHERE IT SAYS THE RETAINER DOES NOT COVER THESE THINGS.
IT IS KIND OF OMITTED COMPLETELY.
WHICH RAISED THE QUESTION TO ME OF WHERE THAT WOULD LIE.
>> YOU ARE SAYING IT IS LISTED TWICE.
LIKE, ONE IS... NO. IT IS NOT LISTED AT ALL.
IT IS NOT SAYING IT IS INCLUDED IN THAT.
IT IS NOT, LIKE, SPECIFIC... YOU KNOW, AT THE BOTTOM WHERE IT SAYS "NOTE THE RETAINER DOES NOT COVER THESE THINGS."
[00:05:02]
IT IS NOT LISTED THERE. IT LEFT A QUESTION TO ME OF WHERE DOES, YOU KNOW... KATIE, CAN YOU ANSWER HOW MANY HOURS YOU USUALLY SPEND PER YEAR? ROUGHLY?(INAUDIBLE). >> THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PIECE. OKAY.
>> OKAY. A GOOD QUESTION TO THEM TO REACH BACK OUT. TO SAY IS THAT INCLUDED OR SEPARATE? THAT IS A BIG DIFFERENCE.
>> I THINK ONE OF THE KEYS IS THE POTENTIAL FOR THINGS TO COME UP. SORRY.
ONE OF THE KEY THINGS THAT... I'M NOT SURE IF YOU HEARD KATIE SAY, IT MAY BE 40 HOURS IN ACTUAL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.
THERE ARE THINGS THAT COME UP AFTER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.
>> DO WE KNOW... AND THIS IS A BIG QUESTION.
IF WE NEED TO PREPARE IT, THAT IS TOTALLY FINE.
ARE TOTAL EXPENSES FOR LEGAL THROUGHOUT THE YEAR?
>> YEAH. >> WAS THAT IN THERE? OKAY. I MISSED IT.
I'M SORRY. SOMEBODY POINT ME TO IT.
>> I CAN ACTUALLY LET YOU KNOW. >> OKAY.
>> WELL, CAN WE REPEAT IT IF SOMEBODY KNOWS WHAT THAT IS,
OVERALL, MY IMPRESSION WAS BARNES & THORNBERG SEEMED LIKE A GOOD THOROUGH SUBMISSION. PRICING SEEMED A LITTLE ON THE HIGH SIDE. SEEMS LIKE THEY CAN CERTAINLY DO
IT ALL. >> I LIKED HOW THEY WENT THROUGH ON THEIR PAGE TWO AND LISTED THE RFP SCOPE AS A CHECKLIST.
SO WE CAN SPECIFICALLY SEE IT STRAIGHT OUT.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS NICELY DONE ON THEIR PART.
PUTTING THAT INFORMATION OUT THERE.
AND THEN INCLUDING THE MAP, AND NOT ONLY IS THE MAP, IN MY OPINION, BENEFICIAL, BUT HOW THEY BROKE OUT THEIR MAP.
THEY SAY IF THEY DO TRADITIONAL WORK OR JUST THE FINANCING WORK OR REPRESENTS BOTH, THAT IS GOOD TO SEE THAT THEY ARE VERY VERSED. THEY COVER ALL PARTS OF THE CITY. AND I POINT THAT OUT AS... TO ME, BECAUSE... OUR STATE IS DIFFERENT.
RIGHT? YOU HAVE HAMILTON COUNTY.
YOU MIGHT HAVE STUFF DOWN IN SOUTHERN INDIANA, PARTS OF INDIANAPOLIS. IT LOOKS LIKE THEY HAVE A WELL-VERSE OF KNOWING THE WHOLE STATE AND HOW WE MIGHT COMPARE TO OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS. I THINK THAT IS A VERY UNOFFICIAL THING THAT THEY HAVE EXPERIENCE, KNOWING WHAT'S HAPPENING. SOMETIMES WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT HERE IN HAMILTON COUNTY MIGHT NOT BE HAPPENING IN MAYBE SOUTHERN INDIANA OR ANOTHER PART OF THE CITY.
I THINK IT IS... SOMETIMES WE GET STUCK IN OUR BUBBLE.
I THINK HAVING A LAW FIRM THAT SEES WHAT'S HAPPENING AROUND THE WHOLE STATE IS IMPORTANT. I JUST THOUGHT I WOULD POINT
THAT OUT. >> I HAD NO CONCERNS WITH THE PROPOSAL. I THOUGHT THEY ADDRESSED EVERYTHING THAT WE ASK FOR IN THE RFP.
I HAD SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THEIR COST.
I THOUGHT IT WAS MORE THAN JUST A LITTLE HIGH.
I THOUGHT IT WAS EXTREMELY HIGH. BUT I DO THINK THEY ARE VERY HIGHLY QUALIFIED TO PROVIDE THE SERVICES.
>> MAYBE WE CAN JUST ADD THAT TO THE LIST.
COMMUNICATING WITH THEM. IF THAT IS A FINAL...
>> RIGHT. >> OR IF THAT IS SOMETHING THEY
ARE WILLING TO WORK OUT. >> YEAH.
NEGOTIATION ON FEE STRUCTURE IS CERTAINLY A QUESTION I HAVE FOR ALL. ONE OF THE THINGS I DO NOTE IN THE PRICING, WHICH IS THEY HAVE BUNDLED THEIR SERVICES $, 7,500 A MONTH FOR IN-SCOPING SERVICES. DEFINED BELOW.
THAT PRETTY MUCH CHECKS THE BOX ON EVERYTHING EXCEPT FOUR KEY AREAS WHICH IS ITEM J. ADVISE ON LEGAL ISSUES PERTAINING TO DISCUSSION AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.
DEFEND LAWSUITS, ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIMS OR OTHER LEGAL CLAIMS. CONDUCT LITIGATION, AS NECESSARY.
AND THEN SERVE AS LOCAL BOND COUNSEL.
IT IS A PER-CONTRACTED RATE DEPENDING ON THE ATTORNEY ASSIGNED. FROM THAT STANDPOINT, AS WE LOOK AT THIS, THEY ARE BUNDLING ALL THOSE PIECES TOGETHER.
REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT ARISE FROM THE TIME INVOLVED TO ADDRESS THEM. AND THEN SERVICES ON A FIXED PRICE. AS WE CONSIDER THAT, YOU KNOW,
[00:10:02]
IT IS HELPFUL TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE ARE CURRENTLY UTILIZING OUR LAW SERVICES AND IF THAT IS ON A PER TIME BASIS, PER HOURLY RATE VERSUS A BUNDLED FEE, FLAT FEE FIXED.IT IS HELPFUL TO ASSESS THAT FROM A QUANTITATIVE COST
PERSPECTIVE AS WELL. >> DON'T THEY ALSO SAY THAT THEY RESERVE THE RIGHT TO LOOK AT THAT QUARTERLY?
>> THAT CONCERNS ME, TOO. LIKE, WHAT IF QUARTERLY, THEY ARE, LIKE, WOW. YOU GUYS HAVE A LOT MORE THAN WE
WELL, IT IS ALSO GOOD FOR US TO DO A CHECK AS WELL.
I DO LIKE THE QUARTERLY REVIEW. JUST AS A CHECK-IN.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE AN ASK OF ALL THE FIRMS. REGARDLESS OF WHO WE CHECK IN WITH.
SO WE CAN HAVE A GOOD ASSESSMENT AND NEGOTIATION OF TIME AND FEES
AND COST. >> AND IF IT COMES UP THAT WE END UP CHANGING LAW FIRMS OR NOT CHANGING LAW FIRMS, EITHER WAY, THERE IS GOING TO BE A TRANSITION TIME, I THINK, IN
>> IF WE POINT THAT OUT, BECAUSE I'M ASSUMING THE MANPOWER, IF YOU WILL, WOMANPOWER, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO PUT IT, IS GOING TO BE INCREASED IN THAT BEGINNING PART.
IF AND I SAY IF, IF THERE IS A TRANSITION, WHAT IS THAT COST PART? IS THAT GOING TO BE CONSIDERED A DISCOUNT TIME? IS THERE A 90-DAY, HEY, LET'S TRANSFER, CHANGE THINGS? AND THEN WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THE OTHER LAW FIRM. AGAIN, IF THAT LAW FIRM IS THERE, YOU KNOW, IF THEY HAVE CHANGED ANYTHING, IS THERE ANYTHING IN THEIR TRANSITION TIME THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DO, TOO. JUST TRANSITIONING TIME RIGHT NOW. IS THERE ADDITIONAL COST OR
LEEWAY IN THAT TIME FRAME? >> I BELIEVE THEY MENTIONED THAT
IN HERE. >> THEY DON'T, ONE OF THEM DOES.
I DO RECALL THAT BEING IN HERE. >> KGR HAD THAT LAID OUT FOR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OR SO. IT WAS, LIKE, JULY 1.
THAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO KIND OF A FLAT FEE FOR A TRANSITION PERIOD. WE WILL GET TO THAT WHEN WE GO
THROUGH THEIRS. >> ASIDE FROM FEE STRUCTURE, WHAT ELSE ARE RED FLAGS THAT I MAY NOT HAVE CAPTURED?
WERE THERE ANY OTHER CONCERNS? >> WE ARE JUST ON BARNES &
THORNBERG, CORRECT? >> CORRECT.
>> THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PART.
THE COST. MAKING SURE WE KNOW OF THEIR OUTSOURCING OR IF THEY ARE DOING IT ALL A ONE-STOP SHOP.
IF YOU WILL. THAT WAS POINTED OUT AS A POSITIVE THAT THEY WEREN'T OUTSOURCING MUCH.
THAT IS WHAT I HAVE AS THE RECAP ITEMS.
>> OKAY. IS THIS A FIRM WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE COME BACK AND PRESENT ON MONDAY?
>> I LIKE THEM. AGAIN, I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE
>> SERVICE-WISE, THEY SEEM GOOD. >> IT IS A CONSENSUS-TYPE...
>> CORRECT, CORRECT. IF ANYTHING, WE HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS TO ASK OF BARNES & THORNBERG COME MONDAY, WE CAN HAVE THEM COME BACK AND SPEAK TO THESE ITEMS AS WELL.
THEN ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT COME UP THAT MAY BUBBLE UP FROM
THE OTHER FIRMS AS WELL. >> IF WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE THEM ALL BACK, I'M ASSUMING WE ARE KIND OF GETTING TO A TOP COUPLE OR THREE, I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH THE REST OF
THEM BEFORE WE DECIDE. >> ABSOLUTELY.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON BARNES & THORNBERG? ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE TO THE NEXT ITEM.
COMMENTS. ANY AREAS THAT YOU IDENTIFIED OR
GAPS THAT THEY DID NOT FULFILL? >> LY SAY A POSITIVE IS THEY KNOW OUR SCHOOL DISTRICT. SO THAT IS A VERY... VERY MUCH A POSITIVE WITH THEM. THEY HAVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH OUR ADMINISTRATION. WITHOUT BEING SPECIFIC, MADE GREAT REFERENCES TO THEIR WORKING RELATIONSHIP.
THAT IS POSITIVE. THAT THEY WORK WITH OUR SCHOOL DISTRICT AND OUR ADMINISTRATION HAS A TRUST WITH THEM.
SO THAT IS POSITIVE. IT LOOKS LIKE TWO, THAT I'M NOT GOING TO SAY NEW BECAUSE THE ATTORNEYS THAT I SEE IN THEIR
[00:15:01]
PROPOSAL HAVE WORKED WITH OUR DISTRICT, AND THEY HAVE BEEN WELL-RESPECTED BY ADMINISTRATION AND SOME OF THE PREVIOUS ATTORNEYS THAT HAD WORKED ON THE ACCOUNT ARE NOT REFERENCED IN HERE TO BE HERE. AT THE SAME TIME, CAN GIVE INPUT. YOU KNOW, THAT IS A POSITIVE THAT THE ADMINISTRATION THINKS HIGHLY OF THEM, I GUESS.>> I THINK BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN OUR EXISTING LAW FIRM FOR SO LONG, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK DRD MEMBERS WHERE THEY HAVE SEEN GAPS. I MEAN, THIS IS THE ONLY ONE WE HAVE REAL EXPERIENCE WITH. ARE THERE THINGS THEY HAVE HAD TO OUTSOURCE OR BUILD SEPARATELY OR WHERE THEY HAVE... ARE THERE
POTENTIAL GAPS? >> ONE OF THE THINGS FOR ME, HAVING BEEN IN THIS PARTICULAR DISTRICT WHICH I LOVE, FOR JUST A YEAR AND A HALF, I HAVE HAD EXPERIENCE WITH OTHER LAW FIRMS. AND THEY DON'T OUTSOURCE ANYTHING.
CCHA, THAT I'M AWARE OF. NOTHING THAT I HAVE HAD TO DEAL WITH IN THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF.
THEY ARE PRETTY COMPREHENSIVE. AND THEY ARE ONE OF THE FEW WHAT WE CALL TRUE SCHOOL LAW FIRMS. AS YOU ARE... EITHER KNOW OR ARE SURE, SCHOOL LAWS ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN MAYBE CORPORATE LAW. SCHOOL LAW IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT. WE ARE DEALING WITH CHILDREN.
THAT BEING SAID, I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING... AND I CAN ASK MY TEAM, THAT WE HAVE EVER ENCOUNTERED THAT CCHA DIDN'T HAVE AN IN-HOUSE STAFF WHO IS PROFESSIONALIZED IN THAT AREA.
EVERYTHING FROM SPECIAL EDUCATION TO BARGAINING TO LABOR LAWS. ANYTHING YOU CAN THINK OF.
THEY HAVE EXPERTISE IN THEIR OFFICE.
THAT IS KIND OF WHAT I WOULD SHARE.
>> AND MAYBE IF I'M INCORRECT, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
I THOUGHT THEY DO THIRD PARTY WHEN THEY DO THEIR BONDS.
A LOT OF THEIR BOND WORK. >> I'LL LET MY TEAM SPEAK TO
THAT. >> CCHE SERVES AS OUR LOCAL BOND COUNCIL. WE HAVE TO HAVE CORPORATION BOND COUNSEL WHICH HAS BEEN HIS OR THECALLY ICE MILLER.
THEY HAVE NERVE SERVED AS BOARD CORPORATION COUNSEL.
WE HAVE USED ICE MILLER FOR A VERY LONG TIME.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE CLARITY. >> YEAH.
I AGREE WITH DR. STOKES. I THOUGHT IT WAS NICE THAT THEY LOOKED LIKE THEY ARE KIND OF SPECIALISTS IN THIS AREA.
I WOULD HAVE SAID THAT PROBABLY BARNES & THORNBERG AND CCHA HAD THE LARGEST LIST OF KIND OF SCHOOL CLIENTS.
AND LAWYERS THAT SPECIALIZE IN THOSE AREAS.
THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT. KGR LOOKS LIKE THEY ARE PRETTY GOOD, TOO. THEY DO SOME WORK WITH US AS WELL. I DID LIKE THAT FROM CCHA.
>> JUST TO FOLLOW UP AND ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I HAVEN'T HAD ANY CONCERNS IN MY TIME ON THE BOARD WITH OUR EXPERIENCE WITH CCHA.
I FOUND THEM TO ADDRESS AND HANDLE ALL OF OUR ISSUES APPROPRIATELY. AND ADVISE US APPROPRIATELY.
AND I DON'T SEE ANY GAPS IN THEIR PROPOSAL.
I THINK THEIR COST STRUCTURE SHOWED, YOU KNOW, FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY THERE. I THINK IT ALSO... I APPRECIATED THAT IT SAID IT GAVE US A LITTLE BIT OF A DISCOUNT.
AND THAT WAS HELD OVER FROM WHEN THE DEPARTMENT OF ED... WELL, IT WASN'T REALLY THEM. IT WAS THE GOVERNOR AT THE TIME.
BUT WHEN THEY CUT THE SCHOOL FUNDING, AND THEY HELD THAT DISCOUNT. THEY ARE WILLING TO CONTINUE TO HOLD THAT DISCOUNT. I THOUGHT THAT WAS, THAT WAS
NICE. >> I THINK THE ONLY THING TH THAT... FOR ME, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS NECESSARILY A NEGATIVE TOWARDS THEM. SERVING AS THE LEGISLATIVE LIAISON FOR THE BOARD, THERE IS NOT... WHEN NEW LAWS ARE PASSED, THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN GOOD ABOUT THE PUBLIC COMMENT AT BOARD MEETINGS. THEY WERE PROACTIVE IN MAKING SURE WE AMENDED OUR POLICY TO DO THAT.
DURING SESSION, THEY DON'T... THEY HAVEN'T BEEN SO PROACTIVE IN GIVING US UPDATES. WE ALSO ARE IN A RELATIONSHIP WITH KGR THAT DOES THAT FOR US SEPARATELY.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WERE ASKING FOR THAT.
BUT IF WE ARE LOOKING TO STREAMLINE, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK
THE QUESTION OF THEM. >> CAN I SPEAK TO THAT?
>> YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. I MEAN, WE ACTUALLY PAY KGR.
IN FACT, THOSE ARE THE ONLY SERVICES KGR PROVIDE FOR US.
[00:20:03]
I MEAN, WE COULD ASK THEM TO DO. THAT AND THEY DO ACTUALLY SEND US SOME UPDATES. I GET WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.WE ARE PAYING KGR. WE KIND OF RELY ON THEM TO DO THAT. CCHA IS CAPABLE AND WILLING TO DO IT. THE STRUCTURE WAS ALREADY IN PLACE WHEN I TOOK THE SUPERINTENDENT JOB.
>> AS SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN ON THE BOARD FOR ONLY TWO YEARS, I CAN ONLY SPEAK ON MY BEHALF OF THE EXPERIENCES, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I... AS PROFESSIONAL AS THEY WERE IN MANY SITUATIONS, MINE SOMETIMES WAS PA COMMUNICATION ISSUE.
I JUST FELT THAT... NOW, OTHER BOARD MEMBERS COULD HAVE THEIR OWN INPUT ON HOW THEY FELT THINGS WENT IN COMMUNICATING WITH THEM OVER TWO YEARS. SOME OF THE ADVISEMENT THINGS THAT WERE ADVISED ON, I'M NOT NECESSARILY SAYING I WAS IN SUPPORT OF SOME OF THE DIRECTIONS AND INFORMATION THEY GAVE. AND SOME OF THE COMMUNICATION IN ASKING QUESTIONS AND REACHING OUT DIDN'T ALWAYS GET THE THOROUGH ANSWER. OR WAS... DIDN'T GET THE RESPONSE AT ALL. FOR ME, THOSE WERE SOME OF THE EXPERIENCES I HAD. NOW, I KNOW THAT EACH RELATIONSHIP AS A BOARD GOES, MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT RELATIONSHIP WITH THE LAW FIRM WHERE THEY CAN ONLY, YOU KNOW, COMMUNICATE SO MANY TIMES OR HOWEVER IT WORKED.
I DIDN'T FEEL LIKE I GOT THE COMMUNICATION AS A RESPECTABLE BOARD MEMBER TO GET SOME OF THE ANSWERS THAT I WAS HOPING FOR.
IN DIFFERENT SITUATIONS. FOR ME, IT WAS A COMMUNICATION ISSUE. AND THEN I FELT IT WAS... WHEN YOU ARE WORKING IN A LAW SITUATION OR YOU ARE ASKING QUESTIONS, AND IF YOU ARE NOT KNOWLEDGEABLE ON THE SITUATION AND WANTING THE PROFESSIONAL ADVICE, YOU KIND OF WANT THEM TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND WITH INFORMATION ON BOTH SIDES.
WHAT IS THE WORSEST THING THAT CAN HAPPEN? WHAT IS THE BEST THING THAT CAN HAPPEN? I DON'T FEEL LIKE I GOT THAT IN COMMUNICATING.
WHETHER IT WAS LOOKING UP SOMETHING AND WANTING TO ASK MY LAW FIRM OR... FOR ADVICE OR WHAT SOMETHING MEANT FOR ME.
I DIDN'T FEEL LIKE I GOT THE ADVISEMENT THAT WAS... THAT I WAS LOOKING FOR. I DON'T WANT TO SPECIFY CERTAIN SITUATIONS OTHER THAN TO SAY IT DIDN'T FEEL LIKE I WAS GETTING THOSE ANSWERS. THAT WAS MY RELATIONSHIP.
>> I WOULD DEFINITELY DISAGREE. I THINK THEY PRESENTED BOTH SIDES. I'M THINKING OF ISSUES THAT WE HAD WHERE ABSOLUTELY, WE WOULD ASK THEM.
THEY WOULD SAY THIS IS BEST-CASE.
THIS IS WORST-CASE. AND ANYWHERE IN BETWEEN.
AND SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, IT IS NOT UP TO THEM.
IT IS NOT UP TO US. IT IS THE JUDGE SOMEWHERE THAT IS GOING TO DECIDE. THEY CAN ONLY ADVICE US ON WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAPPEN. BUT NO.
I DON'T THINK THAT IS FAIR AT ALL.
ALSO I'M NOT SURE... YOU DIDN'T HOLD A LEADERSHIP POSITION IN THE LAST TWO YEARS. I'M NOT SURE... I DIDN'T COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE LAW FIRM AT ALL.
I'M NOT SURE WHY YOU WOULD HAVE. EITHER.
>> BECAUSE CERTAIN SITUATIONS THAT HAPPENED THAT I HAD TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE LAW FIRM. I'M SAYING THAT THEY DID NOT REPLY OR COMMUNICATE THOROUGHLY. EVEN IN THE MEETINGS WITH OUR BOARD PRESIDENT OR SUPERINTENDENT, I WAS NOT APPRECIATIVE OF SOME OF THE COMMUNICATION THAT WENT THROUGH.
I WOULD HAVE COMMUNICATED THROUGH OUR PRESIDENT.
>> WHICH WAS DONE, AND WHEN THERE WAS MEETINGS THAT WERE HELD IN THE ADMINISTRATION WITH THE PRESIDENT, LIKE I SAID, AND THE LAW FIRM, I WAS NOT HAPPY WITH THE WAY THEY COMMUNICATED.
YOU ARE ALLOWED YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION.
I'M ALLOWED MINE. THE COMMUNICATION WAS NOT WHAT I
WOULD THINK WAS RESPECTABLE. >> SO I RESPECT YOUR OPINION.
I RESPECT BOTH OF YOUR OPINIONS. I'LL SPEAK FROM SOMEONE WHO HAS TO DEAL WITH THEM PROBABLY WEEKLY, FOR SURE.
BUT ALMOST DAILY. THEY DO GIVE US ADVICE ABOUT WHAT THEY CAN LEGALLY DEFEND, AND THEY ALSO GIVE US ADVICE ABOUT WHAT THE LAW SAYS. NOW, WE MIGHT NOT LIKE WHAT THE LAW SAYS, BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS. THEY GIVE US BOTH SIDES, AND ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, IF I SAY WHAT IS THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION? THEY GIVE US WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION. THAT IS ALWAYS OUR DECISION.
THEY WANT TO JUST MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY CAN LEGALLY DEFEND IN COURT. IF SOMETHING WERE TO HAPPEN.
AND THAT COUPLED WITH THE LAW. I CAN'T SPEAK TO ANYTHING, YOU KNOW, YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. I WILL SAY MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN THAT THEY ARE ALWAYS THERE.
I'LL BE HOONEST. I CAN CALL THEM AT 6:00 AT NIGHT, AND THEY ANSWER THE PHONE.
THAT IS ONE THING I DO LIKE. I HAVE EXPERIENCED LAW FIRMS WHERE IT HAS BEEN A DAY OR TWO DAYS, YOU CAN'T GET AHOLD OF THEM. THEY ARE ALWAYS AVAILABLE.
SO THAT PART, I DO LIKE. THAT THEY ARE ALWAYS THERE.
>> I WILL SAY AS SOMEONE WHO S SAT... WHO SPENT A LOT OF TIME
[00:25:02]
WORKING WITH JESSE IN THE LAST YEAR ON POLICY, I ALWAYS FELT LIKE WHEN WE... THEY WOULD PRESENT US WITH THEIR SUGGESTIONS, AND WHEN WE WOULD GET INTO DISCUSSION, KIM, YOU CAN CHIME IN AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG... AND EVEN DENISE.YOU ARE ON THE COMMITTEE AS WELL.
WHEN WE GOT INTO DISCUSSIONS, ASKING QUESTIONS, THEY WERE REALLY GOOD AT GIVING US WHAT WE COULD DO UNDER THE LAW AND NOT NECESSARILY DIRECT US ON WHAT THEY THOUGHT WE SHOULD DO.
BUT REALLY JESSE SPECIFICALLY HAS BEEN GOOD AT GIVING US ALL OF OUR OPTIONS UNDER THE LAW AND SAYING THIS ONE IS YOUR SAFEST BET, TOO, TO AVOID LITIGATION. THIS ONE, YOU DO IT.
YEAH. THE RISK IS A LITTLE BIT HIGHER.
NEVER IF WE PICKED THE RISKIER ONE, FOR ANY REASON.
NEVER SORT OF TOLD US WE COULDN'T.
WHICH AS SOMEONE... I HAVE WORKED FOR A LAW FIRM FOR OVER TEN YEARS. THAT IS BEST PRACTICE WHEN IT COMES TO LAW FIRMS. GIVING YOU ALL THE OPTIONS UNDER THE LAW. THAT YOU CAN DO.
AND THEN ENCOURAGING OR SAYING THIS IS YOUR BEST OPTION OR YOUR SAFEST OPTION. BUT IF YOU CHOOSE A DIFFERENT OPTION, THAT THEY ARE STILL THERE TO SUPPORT THE DECISION THE DISTRICT AS MADE AS WHOLE MOVING FORWARD.
I THINK THEY HAVE BEEN REALLY GOOD AT.
>> YES. I WOULD CONCUR WITH YOU.
JESSE WILL, YOU KNOW, ALLOW THE BOARD TO... WHEN IT COMES TO POLICY, THE BOARD DICTATES THE LANGUAGE.
AND HOW THINGS WERE WRITTEN. SHE HELPS US MAINTAIN, YOU KNOW, INDIANA CODE AND MAKE SURE, YOU KNOW, WE ARE COMPLIANT.
YOU ALSO MENTIONED, I WOULD LIKE TO ECHO, THE RISK TOLERANCE.
IF WE ARE DEALING WITH ANY KIND OF ISSUE, THEN SHE MOST CERTAINLY HELPS US UNDERSTAND WHAT THE RISKS WOULD BE FOR THE DISTRICT. I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID.
>> ONE OF THE STRENGTHS WITH POLICY AS WELL IS THE FACT THAT WE ALL KNOW THERE ARE LOTS OF POLICIES.
IT IS NOT JUST HELPING US WRITE LANGUAGE THAT IS LEGAL AND ETHICAL AROUND POLICY, BUT ALSO UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS POLICY CAN IMPACT 7 OTHER POLICIES AND THAT LEGALLY, THEY CAN'T CONTRADICT EACH OTHER. I THINK THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT
AS WELL. >> I WOULD SAY AS FAR AS SOME CONCERNS, AND THERE IS VERY FEW, ONE OF THE REASONS THAT I HAD AGREED, THAT I THOUGHT WE WANTED TO LOOK AT THIS WAS BASICALLY THE LONG-TERM RELATIONSHIP. WHILE I SEE THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF POSITIVES TO THAT. THAT THEY KNOW ALL OF OUR PEOPLE, THEY HAVE WORKED WITH EVERYONE BEFORE, SOMETIMES WHEN YOU DEAL WITH SOMEBODY FOR THAT LONG, THERE IS SOME COMPLACENCY OR SOME KIND OF SET IN YOUR WAYS MENTALITY.
AS SUZANNE POINTED OUT, SOME COMMUNICATION THINGS MAYBE.
THEN AGAIN, MAYBE NOT. THOSE WERE SOMEWHAT MY CONCERNS.
NOW MAYBE JUST SIMPLY THE FACT OF GOING THROUGH AN RFP PROCESS KIND OF KEEPS EVERYBODY ON THEIR TOES AND STEPS IT UP A LITTLE BIT. FROM WHAT I'M HEARING, I DON'T HEAR REALLY A LOT OF THAT. A LITTLE BIT FROM SUZANNE.
THAT MAYBE THERE WAS SOME COMMUNICATION THINGS.
BUT HAS ANYBODY ELSE NOTICED THAT? I WOULD SAY DR. STOKES, YOU HAVE BEEN HERE FOR A SHORT PERIOD.
MAYBE SOME OF YOUR STAFF THAT HAS BEEN HERE LONGER, HAS
ANYTHING CHANGED OVER THE YEARS? >> DENISE OR DR. KEGLEY COULD SPEAK TO THAT. THEY HAVE BEEN HERE THE TWO
LONGEST. >> I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY KIND OF DROP-OFF IN LACK OF SERVICE OR ANYTHING TO THAT NATURE OVER THE TIME THAT I HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE WITH THEM.
PARTICULARLY, IN THE TIME I HAVE BEEN OVER AT THE ADMINISTRATION OFFICE. AT THE BUILDING LEVEL.
IN THAT TIME, I HAVEN'T SEEN A DECREASE IN SERVICE OR ABILITY
TO SERVE OVER THAT TIME. >> THAT IS GREAT.
THAT IS GOOD TO HEAR. INTERPRETATION-WISE, HAS ANYBODY EXPERIENCED ANYTHING WITH, YOU KNOW... THIS IS GOING TO BE A LITTLE ANECDOTE FROM MY PERSONAL LIFE.
MY GRANDFATHER WAS AN ATTORNEY. HE SAID 95% OF THE LAW IS INTERPRETATION. HAS ANYBODY EXPERIENCED ANYTHING WITH THAT AS F AS WORKING THROUH SOMETHING.
YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU WRITE THESE THINGS, THESE LAWMAKERS ARE PRETTY GOOD AT TRYING TO NARROW IT DOWN, BUT IT COMES DOWN TO HOW DOES YOUR LEGAL TEAM INTERPRET THINGS.
HAS ANYBODY SEEN ANY ISSUES WITH THAT?
[00:30:01]
WHERE WE REALLY WANTED TO READ SOMETHING ONE WAY, WE LOOK AT IT AND SEE IT THIS WAY, AND THEN THE LAW FIRM SEES IT ANOTHER WAY. THERE IS A GRAY AREA THERE.USUALLY. DO THEY FEEL LIKE THEY AGREE? I GUESS WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS I THINK THERE IS EVEN THOUGH EVERY LAW FIRM IS REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE LAW AND BE AN IMPARTIAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LAW, VALUES DO STILL COME INTO PLAY.
HAS THERE BEEN ANY ISSUES WITH THAT? AND AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE HAVE.
I'M ASKING THE QUESTION. >> RIGHT.
I WOULD SAY THERE AREN'T ANY ISSUES.
I WILL SAY, LIKE IT, LOVE IT, OR HATE IT, THAT THEY DO, AND I THINK IT IS PROFESSIONAL OF THEM, THEY WILL TELL YOU THAT THE LAW IS GRAY IN THIS AREA. AND WE NEED TO KNOW THAT.
THAT THE LAW IS GRAY. AND THEY MIGHT SAY SOMETHING LIKE, YOU KNOW, THAT IS BEING LITIGATED RIGHT NOW.
WE WILL HAVE MORE INFORMATION. YOU KNOW, THINGS LIKE THAT WHICH I THINK IS REALLY IMPORTANT. SO I CAN'T SAY THAT THEY ARE MAKING INTERPRETATIONS. IN FACT, IT IS KIND OF WHAT YOU HAVE ALREADY HEARD. THAT THEY WILL GIVE US... HERE IS WHAT THE LETTER OF THE LAW SAYS.
HERE IS AN OPTION. HERE IS... HERE IS WHY YOU CAN TAKE THIS OPTION. YOU CAN RISK LITIGATION, AND IT IS A LITTLE MORE CHOICEY, IF YOU WILL.
THEY DON'T INTERPRET THE LAW TOO ANY LENS, PER SE.
THEY WILL TELL YOU WHERE THE LAW IS GRAY.
YOU KNOW. AND SO THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO ABBY ABOUT THE NEEDS FROM A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT SITUATION AND THE SERVICES WITH
CHA IN YOUR EXPERIENCE. >> SO THIS YEAR, ALL OF OUR, ALL OF MY BARGAINING TEAM AND THE DISTRICT... THE DISTRICT BARGAINING TEAM ALL WERE TRAINED IN INTEREST-BASED BARGAINING.
THAT WAS BROUGHT ABOUT BY OUR ASSOCIATION AND AMY MATTHEWS, THEIR CCHA'S LEGAL COUNSEL FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.
AND WE WERE ALL TRAINED IN INTERSPACE BARGAINING.
FOR THE FIRST TIME, I THINK, IN A REALLY LONG TIME, I THINK THEY ALL CAN AGREE TO THIS, IT WAS THE MOST PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONAL PIECE OF BARGAINING THAT WE HAVE EVER EXPERIENCED. WE ALL CAME OUT OF IT FEELING GOOD ABOUT WHAT WE CAME WITH. NOBODY FELT LIKE WE LOST ANYTHING OR FELT LIKE THEY GOT THEIR WAY, WE DIDN'T GET OUR WAY, TYPE OF THING. IT WAS VERY COLLECTIVE.
AND VERY ORGANIZED. AND IT WAS BECAUSE OF CCHA, AMY MATTHEWS, WORKING WITH OTHER DISTRICTS IN HAMILTON COUNTY AS WELL. IN THIS PROCESS.
AND BECKY, THE DIRECTOR, WE HAVE WORKED TOGETHER FOR A LONG TIME.
WE HAD THAT PROCESS REALLY NAILED DOWN.
IT WAS SO SUCCESSFUL. WE HAD SO MANY TEACHERS HAPPY WITH THE NEW CONTRACT. WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO POSSIBLY WORKING WITH THEM AGAIN IN THE FUTURE FOR THAT REASON.
>> I JUST WANTED TO POINT ONE THING OUT.
IN TERMS OF PROJECTS. AND IT HASN'T BEEN MENTIONED.
THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CITY OF NOBLESVILLE HAS REALLY BEEN HELPFUL AND INSTRUMENTAL IN US GETTING SOME THINGS RESOLVED.
EASEMENTS, FEES, AND SO ON. SO FORTH.
FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF OUR LONG-TERM RELATIONSHIP, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT REALLY OUGHT TO BE CONSIDERED.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER SOME OF THE OTHER LAW FIRMS HAVE THOSE KINDS OF RELATIONSHIPS. JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT.
>> TO CONFIRM, IS THE LAW FIRM IN INDIANAPOLIS?
OR IS IT IN FISHERS? >> NOBLESVILLE.
>> THEY HAVE MULTIPLE LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE AREA.
I THINK THEY DO ACTUALLY HAVE ONE IN FISHERS NOW.
AND NOBLESVILLE. THERE ARE SOME OTHER OFFICES,
TOO. >> WAS ANYONE IN THE ADMINISTRATION HERE FROM THE LAST REFERENDUM AND CAN SPEAK TO THEIR WORK IN ASSISTING THROUGH THE REFERENDUM?
NO? >> I'M NOT AWARE THAT THE LEGAL FIRM REALLY IS DOING A WHOLE LOT.
I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK IN WITH MR. REUTER, TO BE HONEST.
BUT GENERALLY, THE ONLY THING THAT THEY MAY HAVE ASIFSED WITH WOULD BE THE BALLOT LANGUAGE TO EBB SURE THAT WHAT YOU ARE SUBMITTING TO THE BOARD IN THE RESOLUTION IS COMPLIANT WITH THE LAW, YOU KNOW, AND COVERS ALL THE BASES.
[00:35:03]
THAT WOULD BE THE LIMITS TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.>> AND PRICE-WISE, FOR THESE GUYS, I SAW, I THINK, A $1,500 A MONTH RETAINER. AND THEN DID WE SEE THINGS
OUTSIDE OF THAT? >> THAT IS FOR GENERAL LEGAL.
THE NOTATION OF COST SAVINGS OVER THE PAST EIGHT YEARS.
OVER $100,000. >> WE DO SOME THINGS THROUGH ICE MILLER. SOME THINGS THROUGH KGR.
LOBBYING THROUGH KGR. ICE MILLER, BOND.
>> I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT THAT IS A HUGE COST, THOUGH.
RIGHT, KATIE? WHEN WE GO TO CORPORATION BOND
FOR ICE MILLER? >> CORPORATION BOND, IT IS... IT IS A FIXED FEE. GENERALLY SPEAKING.
IT CAN BE ANYWHERE FROM $20,000 TO $30,000.
GENERALLY SPEAKING. BUT AGAIN...
WHENEVER WE ISSUE BONDS. THAT COMES OUT OF THE BOND PROCEEDS. NOT THE OPERATIONAL FUNDS.
>> I THINK THE KEY IS THAT CCHA CAN'T DO BOTH.
SO YOU KNOW, NOT LEGALLY ANYWAY. >> SO YOU WILL HAVE THAT COST NO MATTER WHAT IF YOU ARE ISSUING BONDS.
IF WE DON'T ISSUE BONDS, WE DON'T HAVE LOCAL BOND COUN COUNSEL,... IT IS BASED ON WHAT WE ARE DOING AS A CORP.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? FOR CCHA? ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR FEEDBACK. APPRECIATE IT.
MOVING ON TO THE NEXT FIRM. KROGER, GUARDIS AND REGIS.
>> I THINK A POSITIVE IS SEAMUS USED TO WORK FOR CCHA.
HE HAS A LOT OF KNOWLEDGE REGARDING EDUCATION LAW.
THIS ONE... IT SEEMED LIKE THEY, AGAIN, HAD LOTS OF EXPERIENCE.
IN EDUCATION. THEY APPEAR TO CHECK ALL THE BOXES FROM THE RFP. DOES EVERYBODY AGREE WITH THAT?
>> I HAD SOME QUESTIONS. DO THEY ACTUALLY SAY WHAT SCHOOL DISTRICTS THEY HAVE REPRESENTED? I KNOW IN THE, IN THE CLIENT LIST, THEY LIST SOME SUPERINTENDENTS.
AS REFERENCES. ARE THEY REPRESENTING THOSE SCHOOLS? ARE THOSE, LIKE... I'M KIND OF UNCLEAR THERE. AND THEN A LOT OF THOSE PEOPLE
AREN'T SCHOOLS. >> I AGREE WITH YOU.
I WOULD LIKE SOME CLARIFICATION ON WHAT SCHOOLS THEY REPRESENT IN THE SAME CAPACITY THAT THEY REPRESENT... ACTUAL LEGAL REPRESENTATION OF THE DISTRICT WHEN IT COMES TO WHERE OUR SCOPE OF SERVICE IS AND WHICH ONES ARE WHICH.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT INFORMATION TO HAVE.
IT IS NOT REALLY CLEAR FOR THE PUBLIC.
IF YOU ARE FOLLOWING ALONG AT HOME ON THIS THING.
THEY HAVE A LIST OF JUST EDUCATION CLIENTS.
NOW, THIS JUST MAY BE THE CONTACT.
AT EACH OF THE PLACES. THEY ESSENTIALLY LIST OUT A PERSON AND A JOB TITLE. LIKE A NAME AND SUPERINTENDENT.
BUT THEN THE NAME OF THE SCHOOL SYSTEM, THERE ARE QUITE A FEW.
IT IS A GOOD LIST. I THINK THAT IS GOOD.
WE CAN ASK THEM FOR SOME CLARITY ON, DO YOU REPRESENT THEM OVERALL? IS THAT JUST A ONE-OFF.
IF YOU HAVE DONE ONE CASE WITH THEM.
THAT KIND OF THING. >> OBVIOUSLY, THEIR OFFICE IS DOWNTOWN INDIANAPOLIS. NOT LOCAL.
>> I WILL SAY, THOUGH, THAT IN MY EXPERIENCE, THAT THEY HAVE...
THEY HAVE CONNECTIONS TO HSC BY HAVING STUDENTS IN THE SCHOOL
[00:40:02]
DISTRICT. AND IT WAS REFERENCED THEY WORK FROM HOME OFFICES AS WELL. THAT MEANS THEIR MAIN OFFICE IS IN INDIANAPOLIS. THEY WORK IN THE FISHERS AREA.>> AS LONG AS SOMEBODY IS IN A REASONABLE DISTANCE TO GET TO US IF WE NEED THEM, WE ARE IN A DIFFERENT WORLD NOW.
WITH PEOPLE WORKING FROM HOME. AND TELECOMMUTING.
ALL THOSE KIND OF THINGS. SOME OF THESE GUYS, I SAW THAT THEY HAVE SOME SERVICES. AND YOU KNOW, IN WASHINGTON, D.C. AND ILLINOIS. ALL DIFFERENT PLACES.
TO ME, THAT IS NOT A HUGE CONCERN.
DOWNTOWN INDIANAPOLIS, MY WIFE DRIVES BACK AND FORTH EVERY DAY.
I DON'T SEE A BIG ISSUE WITH IT. THERE IS SOMETHING TO STEPPING OUTSIDE OF OUR LOCAL AREA. KIND OF LIKE WE SAID WITH THE BARNES MAP. IT IS NICE TO HAVE SOMEBODY WHO KIND OF COVERS A LARGER AREA. HAS MORE EXPERIENCE IN DIFFERENT SETTINGS. SO WE ARE NOT HYPERFOCUSED ON OUR OWN COMMUNITY. IT IS GOOD TO USE LOCAL PEOPLE.
WHEN IT COMES TO SOME THESE THINGS THAT DEAL WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW, BIGGER PICTURE ITEMS, A VIEW FROM A DIFFERENT
ANGLE IS A GOOD THING. >> AND I ALSO THINK THEY HAVE A
BUNDLED SERVICE. >> WE WANT TO MAKE NOTE ON.
THAT IF THEY COME BACK. I WOULD LIKE MORE EXPLANATION ON WHAT'S ACTUALLY INCLUDED AL TOGETHER.
THE PRICES IS COMPETITIVE, I GUESS.
I WANT TO SEE MORE CLARITY ON THE COST STRUCTURE.
>> YEAH. THIS WAS THE ONE THAT HAS A BUNDLED SERVICES OF 2,75... 2,735.
UNLIMITED OPPORTUNITY WITH KGR UNTIL JULY 1, 2023 FOR AN EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT TRANSITION.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS NICE. AGAIN, PROBABLY SOME MORE CLARITY ON THAT. WHEN I SEE THE WORD "UNLIMITED," I GET A LITTLE NERVOUS. I DON'T KNOW IF IT TRULY IS.
WE ASK CAN ASK FOR EXACTLY WHAT'S INCLUDED IN THERE.
THEY HAVE SOME OTHER THINGS ABOUT OFFICE HOUR TIMES AND HELP DESKS. IT DOES LOOK LIKE ON THE COMMUNICATION FRONT, THAT THEY ARE ONE OF THE TOP, AS FAR AS ACCESS TO THEM. I LIKE THAT.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE ON THE SCOPE OF SERVICES.
I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ON MY RUBRIC WITH POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. ASSISTANCE IN PREPARING FOR IEP MEETINGS, MEDIATION AND DUE PROCESS CLAIMS. RESPONSE TO SUBPOENAS. COURT ORDERS.
AND REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION. CONDUCTING LITIGATION.
SERVING AS BOND COUNSEL. THOSE, I HAD KIND OF QUESTION MARKS BECAUSE IT WASN'T NECESSARILY CLEAR IN THEIR SCOPE OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION. WHETHER THOSE SERVICES WERE SOMETHING THEY COULD PROVIDE OR NOT.
THEY OFFER A LOT OF INFORMATION. IN THEIR...
THERE WAS, LIKE, A HOLE. EACH OF THE BIOS ARE VERY PROFESSIONAL. AND THE COST SERVICES ARE PROFESSIONAL. THEN THERE IS THE LITTLE EMPTY HOLE OF LEAVING SOME QUESTIONS. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM COME BACK WHERE WE CAN ASK THEM MORE QUESTIONS.
SO THERE WERE THINGS ON THERE WHERE PEOPLE WERE BEING SENT TO EVENTS ON OUR BEHALF WITHOUT OUR KNOWLEDGE.
SOME OF THOSE EVENTS WERE POLITICAL, WHICH IS COMPLETELY
[00:45:02]
NOT LEGAL FOR US TO USE PUBLIC FUNDS TO PAY FOR.THOSE THINGS WERE CORRECTED. BUT JUST THE FACT THAT WE HAD TO SIT DOWN AND DR. STOKES LITERALLY HAD TO SAY "YOU WILL NOT CHARGE ME UNLESS YOU TELL ME FIRST." AND I HAVE WORKED WITH ATTORNEYS FOR 20 YEARS.
I HAVE NEVER HAD TO HAVE THAT TYPE OF A CONVERSATION.
SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THAT IS ALARMING.
THAT IS NOT AN ISSUE THAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY.
WE DID HAVE THAT ISSUE. WITH THEM.
>> DID WE RECEIVE THE SERVICES EXPECTED FROM THAT?
>> YES AND YES. THEY DO A GREAT JOB OF LOBBYING FOR US. THERE ARE ACTUAL... I CALL THEM.
WHAT DO YOU CALL THEM? VIDEOS.
>> STATEHOUSE... >> I COULDN'T THINK OF IT.
THAT SERVICE THAT THEY PROVIDE IS ACTUALLY PRETTY GOOD.
>> YEAH. I HAVE BEEN REALLY IMPRESSED WITH THAT PIECE OF WHAT THEY HAVE DONE FOR US.
IT IS REALLY, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IT IS REALLY BENEFICIAL, MARLIE WHEN THE LEGISLATURE IS IN SESSION.
FOR US TO KNOW WHAT TYPES OF EDUCATION-RELATED MATTERS ARE GOING TO BE DISCUSSED, WHAT BILLS ARE BEING INTRODUCED, IF WE NEED TO GO DOWN AND TESTIFY, IF SOMETHING WOULD RISE TO THAT LEVEL. THAT WE ARE AT LEAST IN THE KNOW. OF... IT APPEARS THEY KEEP VERY GOOD TABS ON THAT PIECE OF THEIR WORK.
WHICH IS THE ONLY AVENUE IN WHICH I CAN ASSESS THEM.
I HAVE WORKED WITH, I HAVE WORKED WITH SEAMUS WHEN IT IS HE WAS PART OF CCHA. IN SOME OF MY DEALINGS HERE.
ITCH NOT HAD A NEGATIVE EXPERIENCE THERE.
AS FAR AS KGR IS CONCERNED AND THEIR LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, IT
HAS BEEN VERY GOOD. >> YOU KNOW, WHEN WE HAVE... I WAS TRYING TO THINK OF ZOOM. WHEN WE HAVE INTERACTIVE DISCUSSIONS VIA ZOOM WITH OTHER SUPERINTENDENTS IN THE AREA AND IN OTHER AREAS AND IN DIFFERENT COUNTIES, WE CAN BALANCE THE INFORMATION WE ARE HEARING AGAINST INFORMATION WE ALSO RECEIVED FROM THE INDIANA SUPERINTENDENT'S ASSOCIATION.
THEY GIVE US INFORMATION. WE GET IT FROM THE INDIANA SCHOOL BOARD ASSOCIATION. CCHH GIVES US INFORMATION.
WE GET TO LOOK AT ALL OF THIS INFORMATION COLLECTIVELY ABOUT BILLS AND LAWS THAT ARE BEING CONSIDERED AND KIND OF GET A FEEL FOR WHAT MIGHT PASS, WHAT MIGHT NOT PASS.
AND LIKE THE DOCTOR JUST SHARED, IF WE NEED TO HAVE OUR VOICE AT THE STATEHOUSE, BECAUSE IT MIGHT IMPACT SCHOOLS.
THEY DO A GOOD JOB. >> GOING BACK TO THEIR CLIENT LIST, I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT ASSUMING... AGAIN, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT SERVICES ARE PROVIDED TO THESE SCHOOLS, WE ARE SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER THAN ANY SCHOOL DISTRICT ON THIS LIST.
SO I WOULD HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, TOO ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THEIR CAPACITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES A AT... FOR A DISTRICT OUR SIZE.
AND WITH OUR LEVEL OF NEEDS. >> THEIR STATEMENT ON CONFLICTS OF INTEREST GIVES ME PAUSE. I'M HAPPY TO READ IT.
LET ME JUST READ IT SO EVERYBODY CAN BE ON THE SAME PAGE.
PAGE THREE. "WE HAVE NEVER BEEN ADVERSE TO HSC. WE WOULD NOT CONSIDER A MATTER THAT IS ADVERSE TO HSC ON PUBLIC POLICY MATTERS, WE HAVE NOT AND WILL NOT TAKE ON ENGAGEMENTS TAKING POSITIONS.
>> AND YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT? BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT WAS GR GREAT.
>> I WOULD HAVE TO SAY I AGREE WITH YOU.
I MEAN, THAT THEY WOULD NOT GO AGAINST HSC IS VERY POSITIVE, IF
THAT IS OUR LAW FIRM. >> MAYBE I JUST READ IT DIFFERENTLY. I KIND OF FELT BEATING AROUND
THE BUSH A LITTLE BIT. >> I WILL SAY I AGREE WITH TIFFANY ON THIS ONE. FROM A PUBLIC POLICY PERSPECTIVE AND EDUCATION FUNDING PERSPECTIVE, HOW EFFECTIVE IS YOUR REPRESENTATION IF THEY ARE NOT ADVOCATING FOR YOU? WE ARE PAYING THEM TO ADVOCATE ON OUR BEHALF.
>> THEY ARE REPRESENTING... THE POT OF MONEY IS ONLY SO BIG.
[00:50:03]
THEY ARE TAKING AWAY FROM ONE TO GIVE TO ANOTHER, I WOULD HOPE BEING THE FOURTH LARGEST SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THE STATE, THAT O OUR... I WOULD HOPE THAT THEY WOULD BE ADVOCATING AND NOT TAKING ON THINGS ADVERSE TO US. BUT IF THEY ARE MAKING THE SAME CLAIMS TO OTHER CLIENTS AT THE SAME TIME, THEN YOU ARE KIND OF MAKING YOURSELF NEUTRAL ON A LOT OF THINGS.I WILL SAY, THOUGH, I AGREE WITH DR. STOKES, THAT THE INFORMATION THEY GIVE DURING SESSION IS VERY, VERY THOROUGH AND COMPLETE AND THE ACCESS THAT THEY PROVIDE TO HER AND TO OUR STAFF ON WHAT'S GOING ON AT THE STATEHOUSE AND ALLOWING HER TO COLLABORATE WITH OTHER SUPERINTENDENTS FOR THAT INFORMATION AND HOW THOSE... THE POTENTIAL PROPOSED CHAIKS IN LAW WOULD AFFECT US AND OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS IS INVALLABLE...
INVALUABLE, TO HAVE THAT ORGANIZED COLLECTIVE COLLABORATION ON THOSE ISSUES. AT THE SAME TIME.
WHEN YOU ARE REPRESENTING US AND CARMEL AND OTHERS, THERE ARE GOING TO BE TIMES WHERE WE ARE ADVERSE TO EACH OTHER.
BECAUSE OF WHETHER IT IS THE COMPLEXITY INDEX AND HOW THAT IS BEING WORKED OUT, THOSE DISCUSSIONS.
SOMETIMES AFFECT US GIVEN OUR SIZE, MUCH DIFFERENTLY THAN THEY AFFECT OTHER DISTRICTS IN THE AREA.
SO I THINK, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THAT IS WHERE TIFFANY IS COMING FROM WHEN SHE MENTIONS THAT STATEMENT.
IN SOME WAYS, WE NEED SOM SOMEONE...
>> YOU ARE FEELING LIKE IT IS TOO NEUTRAL?
>> I MEAN, IF YOU ARE REPRESENTING US, CARMEL, AND WESTFIELD, AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE BUDGET BILL, WE ARE ALL FIGHTING FOR FUNDS. THE WAY THAT THE FUNDING FORMULA WORKS FOR US IS VERY DIFFERENTLY THAN IT WORKS FOR... JUST BASED ON OUR DEMOGRAPHIC. AND THE COMPLEXITY INDEX.
SOMETIMES IT MIGHT NOT BE AS BIG OF A DISADVANTAGE FOR OTHER DISTRICTS AS SOME OF IT MIGHT BE TO US.
WHEN THEY ARE LOOKING AT CHANGING THE COMPLEXITY.
AND HOW WE ARE FUNDED. >> AND MAYBE WHEN I READ IT, I I'M... IN HINDSIGHT, MAYBE WE ARE ALL LOOKING AT IT DIFFERENTLY. BECAUSE WHEN I LOOKED AT IT, I THINK I WAS IN A GOOD WAY, I WS HUNG UP ON THE FACT THAT THEY WOULD NOTIFY US. I THINK I WAS LOOKING AT IT MORE AS THEY WOULDN'T GO OUT AND, YOU KNOW, LOBBY AGAINST SOMETHING THAT WE THOUGHT WAS IMPORTANT WITHOUT NOTIFYING US.
I LOOKED AT IT LIKE. THAT I KNOW ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU ARE REPRESENTING A LOT OF DISTRICTS ACROSS THE STATE OF INDIANA, WE ARE URBAN, WE ARE RURAL, WE ARE SUBURBAN. I MEAN, WE HAVE DISTRICTS AS SMALL AS PROBABLY 30 CHILDREN TO AS BIG AS 0,000.
SO THE NEEDS ARE GOING TO BE DIFFERENT.
I WAS LOOKING AT IT MORE AS THEY WOULD NOTIFY US.
MAYBE. MAYBE I LOOKED AT IT WRONG,
THOUGH. >> I TEND TO AGREE WITH SARAH AND TIFFANY DOWN HERE. THAT I THINK TO ME, IT SPEAKS TO INPARTIALITY. THAT ANY LAW FIRM NEEDS TO BE IMPARTIAL AND CAN DO THEIR JOB. WHEN IT HAS THIS IN HERE THAT IT WOULD BE WISE FOR HSC TO KNOW THEIR LAW FIRM, ADVOCATED FOR X.
YOU COULD STOP RIGHT THERE. TO ME, WHAT YOU HAVE... THE CLIENTS YOU HAVE REPRESENTED IN THE PAST, THOSE ARE YOUR CLIENTS. YOUR JOB IS TO BE AN IMPARTIAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LAW. SO I DON'T MIND WHO YOUR CLIENTS WERE IN THE PAST. I AGREE, THOUGH, THAT GOING FORWARD, I LIKE THAT IT SAYS, YOU KNOW, "WE WOULD NOT CONSIDER A MATTER THAT IS ADVERSE TO HSE." THAT GETS TO A REAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
LOOKING BACKWARDS, I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE IF THEY ARGUED FOR SOMETHING THAT WAS AGAINST THE DISTRICT.
OR YOU KNOW, THEY ARE REPRESENTING THEIR CLIENT AT
THAT TIME. >> I THINK WE JUST NEED TO ASK THEM TO CLARIFY THAT. AND YOU KNOW, YOU CAN WRITE ALL KINDS OF THINGS THAT ARE UP FOR INTERPRETATION.
WE NEED TO HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE SO SAY.
... TO SAY. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON KGR? OKAY. MOVING ON TO LEWIS AND WILKINS.
>> MY FIRST COMMENT HERE IS THAT THEY HAVEN'T REPRESENTED ANY PUBLIC SCHOOLS. AND SO THAT WAS A BIG CONCERN.
[00:55:25]
THEY HAVEN'T DEALT WITH IEP MEETINGS, 0 # 4S.ALL THE SPECIAL ED, ARTICLE 7. ALL OF.
THAT THAT IS GENERALLY NOT HANDLED IN NON-PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
>> I AGREE. THE KIND OF LACK OF SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE IS SOMEWHAT OF AN ISSUE FOR ME.
A LOT OF THESE THINGS. I LOOKED AT THE IEP, TOO, SARAH.
ON PAGE FOUR, IT... THE ASSISTANTS PREPARING IEP MEETINGS, MEDIATION, DUE PROCESS CLAIMS, LAW HAS SIGNIFICANT EXPERIENCE AND HAS PREPARED CLIENTS FOR DIFFICULT MEETINGS.
THE FIRM HAS EXTENSIVE LITIGATION EXPERIENCE.
I'M SURE THEY HAVE EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE IN LITIGATION.
PERSONALLY, I'M LOOKING FOR SOMEBODY WHO HAS MORE SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE HERE WITH THINGS THAT WE NEED.
TO DR. STOKES' POINT. EDUCATION LAW IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN CORPORATE LAW. GOVERNMENT LAW.
WE ALL HAVE OUR SPECIALTIES. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMEBODY
WITH SOME REAL EXPERIENCE. >> WELL, I MIGHT BRING IN A POSITIVE. ONE OF THE POSITIVES THAT I NOTICED IS THAT THEIR PRICING SEEMS TO BE PRETTY RESPECTABLE.
I KNOW THEY POINT OUT SOME OF THE BILLING STUFF.
THEY DON'T BILL FOR THINGS THAT WOULD... LET'S SAY, TRAVEL TIME, ET CETERA. THEIR PRICING LOOKS GOOD.
THAT IS NOT THE ONLY REASON YOU GO FOR A LAW FIRM.
BUT JUST TRYING TO POINT OUT A POSITIVE THAT THEY SHARED.
THEIR PRICING WAS VERY RESPECTABLE.
>> WHEN I LOOKED THERE AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING THAT SUPPORTED, LIKE, FACILITY-TYPE THINGS. LIKE,, YOU KNOW, WE REPUSH THING BUILDINGS. HAVING TO DO THINGS WITH CHILLERS OR WHAT HAVE YOU. AND LAND.
WHATEVER. WHEN PEOPLE WANT TO USE PARCELS OR LAND OR WHAT HAVE YOU. HARRY, DID YOU SEE ANYTHING IS I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING. THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION I WOULD HAVE. ABOUT THEIR ABILITY TO SUPPORT.
>> THAT WOULD BE A CONCERN, TOO. I AGREE.
>> I HAD A CONCERN ON THEIR SIZE.
KNOWING THAT THEY HAVE OTHER CLIENTS AS WELL.
THAT WE ARE NOT THEIR ONLY CLIENT AND THEIR ABILITY, GIVEN THEIR SMALLER SIZE, TO BE ABLE TO GIVE US THE LEVEL OF SERVICE THAT IS WE NEEDED AND TO ALSO NOTE THAT IF YOU LOOK AT TH THEIR... THE BIOS OF THE ATTORNEYS, ONLY ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS HAS ANY EDUCATION EXPERIENCE AT ALL.
THE REST OF THE ATTORNEYS DON'T HAVE ANY BACKGROUND IN EDUCATION
WHICH IS A BIG RED FLAG TO ME. >> YEAH.
I WOULD AGREE. THERE IS PROBABLY A SWEET SPOT OF SIZE-WISE, FOR A PARTNER WITH A DISTRICT OUR SIZE.
I THINK YOU CAN GET INTO TOO LARGE WHERE WE DO HAVE BUREAUCRACY ISSUES, COMMUNICATION ISSUES, AND CERTAINLY, TOO SMALL. WHERE WE HAVE THE SAME ISSUES.
AS FAR AS TRYING TO GET AHOLD OF SOMEBODY.
MAKING TIME. NOW, I WOULD IMAGINE THAT WE WOULD PRETTY QUICKLY BECOME ONE OF THEIR LARGEST CLIENTS.
THEY WOULD PROBABLY MAKE THE TIME FOR US.
BUT I THINK THAT DOESN'T MATTER AS FAR AS BEING ABLE TO SERVICE A DISTRICT THIS LARGE WITH, AS DR. STOKES SAID, WITH ALMOST DAILY COMMUNICATION. THAT IS A CONCERN FOR ME.
BETWEEN THAT AND THE EXPERIENCE. >> MAY I PROVIDE SOME COMMENTS AS WELL? IN MY ROLE OF ADVOCATING FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES, OBVIOUSLY, I WOULD SHARE CONCERNS WITH THEIR LACK OF SPECIAL EDUCATION EXPERIENCE.
I ALSO AM FAMILIAR WITH SOME OF THE NON-PUBLIC SCHOOL WORKINGS.
AND I DO KNOW THAT WHEN IT COMES TO STUDENT DISCIPLINE, THAT WAS ALSO A CONCERN OF MINE. THE WAY THAT THE ARCHDIOCESE IS SET UP, SINCE THAT WAS ONE OF THEIR MAIN REFERENCES, BECAUSE THEY ARE A PRIVATE SCHOOL, OFTENTIMES, STUDENT DISCIPLINE ISSUES, BECAUSE THEY CAN REJECT STUDENTS, THEIR EXPERIENCE IN THAT AREA MAY OFTEN BE USING LEGAL COUNSEL TO DRAFT A LETTER TO STATE THAT AS A NONPUBLIC ENTITY, THIS LAW DOESN'T APPLY OR THINGS OF THAT NATURE. SO IN ADDITION TO THOSE CONCERNS
[01:00:03]
WITH ARTICLE 7 AND IDEA, I THOUGHT THAT WAS IMPORTANT.TO NOTE CONCERNS WITH STUDENT DISCIPLINE.
>> RIGHT. AS A PUBLIC SCHOOL, WE DON'T GET TO PICK AND CHOOSE WHO GETS TO COME TO OUR SCHOOLS.
>> CORRECT. >> AND I ALSO HAD MARKED... THEY HAVE NEVER SERVED AS LOCAL BOND COUNSEL.
RIGHT? ANYBODY ELSE HAVE THAT MARKED? RIGHT. .
>> JUST TO BUILD ON WHAT THEY SHARED.
SIMILAR CONCERNS AS IT APPLIES TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.
THE LABOR REGULATION THAT IS WE FOLLOW FOR TRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE NOT THE SAME REGULATIONS THAT A NONPUBLIC SCHOOL HAS TO FOLLOW. NOT BEING CRITICAL OF THAT, JUST SAYING THEY ARE, VERY DIFFERENT. AND SO THE FACT THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THAT EXPERIENCE WOULD BE CONCERNING.
>> I THINK THAT THEY ARE SMART LAWYERS.
I HAVE ACTUALLY KNOWN PEOPLE WHO KNOW SOME OF THEM.
MAYBE ONE DAY THEY WILL BE ABLE TO WORK WITH MORE PUBLIC SCH SCHOOLS. I'M JUST NOT SURE WE ARE THE ONE
THAT NEEDS TO BE THE FIRST. >> YEAH.
I WOULD AGREE. I WOULD ECHOES THOSE THOUGHTS.
I DON'T KNOW THEM PERSONALLY EITHER.
I KNOW SOME PEOPLE WHO DO. THEY ARE EXCELLENT ATTORNEYS.
CERTAINLY I THANK THEM FOR RESPONDING TO THE RFP.
BETWEEN SIZE AND EXPERIENCE, MY OPINION IS IT IS A TOUGH ONE FOR ME TO MOVE THEM TO THE TOP OF THE LIST RIGHT NOW.
CERTAINLY WILLING TO HEAR OTHER PERSPECTIVES ON IT.
BUT FOR ME RIGHT NOW, THIS WOULD PROBABLY BE ONE THAT WE MOVE ON.
>> I WOULD AGREE. >> ALL RIGHT.
IS THERE NO OTHER COMMENTS? MOVING TO THE NEXT.
>> THIS ONE, FOR ME, SORT OF THE SAME AS LEWIS AND WILKINS.
THE SCOPE OF SERVICES ADDRESSED WAS VERY VAGUE OR... I MEAN, THEY TALKED ABOUT THEIR AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION.
BUT NEVER REALLY ACTUALLY AIM DRESSED OUR SCOPE OF SERVICES.
AND WHAT SERVICES THAT THEY PROVIDE.
OTHER THAN TALKING ABOUT THE SORT OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, PUBLIC POLICY REPRESENTATION AT THE STATEHOUSE.
THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF REFERENDUM IN PUBLIC QUESTIONS.
AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE FOUR. AND STUDENT-RELATED ISSUES.
BUT DIDN'T REALLY SPEAK SPECIFICALLY TO OUR SCOPE OF SERVICES. AND WASN'T DIRECT ON WHAT THEY PROVIDE AND WHAT THEY DON'T. WHEN IT CAME TO THAT LIST.
>> LEFT ME FEELING A LITTLE UNCLEAR.
>> I WOULD AGREE WITH SARAH. AGAIN, KIND OF THE SAME THINGS I JUST SAID ABOUT THE LAST FIRM. EXCELLENT ATTORNEYS.
I DON'T KNOW THAT I SEE THE EXPERIENCE HERE IN OUR AREA.
OTHER THAN THE LEGISLATIVE THINGS.
THEY ARE EXCELLENT ON EDUCATION. I JUST DON'T SEE A LOT OF THE EXPERIENCE. ESPECIALLY WITH A DISTRICT OUR SIZE. I LIKE THAT THEY ARE LOCAL.
BUT AGAIN, WE JUST TALKED ABOUT MAYBE IT IS BETTER TO HAVE A PERSPECTIVE FROM A LARGER AREA. SOMEBODY WHO CAN SEE IT FROM A BIRD'S EYE VIEW. NOT SURE THAT THIS ONE FITS INTO WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR. BUT AGAIN, EXCELLENT ATTORNEYS, I THANK THEM FOR RESPONDING TO THE RFP.
>> THEY ARE ALSO THE ONLY FIRM THAT HAD ANY CONFLICTS TO
DISCLOSE. >> AND THEY HAD MULTIPLE ONES.
I WAS CONCERNED. THERE WAS REDACTIONS.
IT LOOKED LIKE THEY INCLUDED STUDENT INFORMATION.
MAYBE THEY DON'T HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAWS.
THAT IS CONCERNING GOING IN AS LEGAL COUNSEL FOR A HUGE SCHOOL DISTRICT. YEAH.
I DON'T SEE A LOT OF BACKGROUND IN REPRESENTING SCHOOL DIST DISTRICTS, PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
AT THAT. I THINK THERE IS... I HAVE A LOT OF MISSING THINGS. THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR A BOND COUNSEL AS WELL AS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. SO HOW THEY WOULD OVERSEE THAT IS A LITTLE CONCERNING AS WELL, TOO.
[01:05:01]
>> I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT, SARAH.
>> I THINK FOR ME PERSONALLY, I APPRECIATE HOW THEIR DEPTH IS WITHIN IEP AND SPECIAL NEEDS. I DO AGREE THAT I THINK THAT THEY ARE VOGUE... NOT VOGUE. VERY VAGUE ON WHAT THEIR SCOPE IS. I DO LIKE THAT THEY ARE LOCAL.
>> I WANT TO STATE THAT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
I HAVE WORKED WITH THIS LAW FIRM AS OPPOSING COUNSEL.
IN SEVERAL OF OUR REQUESTS FOR DUE PROCESS HEARINGS.
SPECIFIC TO SPECIAL EDUCATION CLAIMS IN ARTICLE 7 AND IDEA.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK ON YOUR EXPERIENCE?
OR SHARE ANYTHING IS. >> SURE.
SO THE SIX THAT WERE REFERENCED ALL WERE SPECIAL EDUCATION CLAIMS. I WANTED TO BE TRANSPARENT WITH THAT. WITHIN THERE, YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE... I'M AN ADVOCATE OF STUDENTS AND PARENTS.
MY EXPERIENCE WITH THEM IN WORKINGEN TO PUBLIC SCHOOL SIDE IS IT IS ALWAYS CONTENTIOUS WHEN, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS YOU ARE ENGAGING IN LEGAL MATTERS. I UNDERSTAND THAT.
I WOULD WONDER HOW THEY WOULD BALANCE REPRESENTING A PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM ALONG SAVED THEIR COMMITMENT... ALONGSIDE THEIR COMMITMENT TO REPRESENTING PARENTS AGAINST SCHOOLS.
SO JUST WONDERING, YOU KNOW, WHAT THAT RELATIONSHIP WOULD
LOOK LIKE WITH THAT. >> THANK YOU.
>> I THINK IT IS A VERY FAIR QUESTION.
THEY WOULD OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO ESSENTIALLY PICK A SIDE.
IF THEY CAME TO WORK FOR US. THEY YOU WOULD COULDN'T DO BOTH.
HOWEVER, I DO AGAIN KIND OF APPRECIATE THE EXPERIENCE FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE. YOU KNOW, THE OLD KNOW YOUR ENEMIES TYPE OF THING. THAT COULD BE A POSITIVE FOR THEM, TOO. HAVING BEEN ON THE OTHER SIDE AND BEING ABLE TO SEE IT FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE.
SEE IT FROM A PARENT'S PERSPECTIVE SO THEY KNOW WHAT TO DEFEND AGAINST. WHAT TO BE READY FOR.
THOSE KIND OF THINGS. I STILL HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT KIND OF THE SIZE AND THE EXPERIENCE, BUT IN THAT AREA, IT MIGHT TURN
INTO A POSITIVE. >> FROM A COST PERSPECTIVE, THERE WAS A $20,000 RETAINER IDENTIFIED.
BUT IT IS NOT A RETAINER... LIKE, IT LITERAL... LITERALLY IS A RETAINER. IT IS NOT A MONTHLY FEE.
BASICALLY, THERE IS NO FEE THAT WILL COVER THEIR SERVICES TO A DEGREE. THEY BASICALLY...
WHETHER THAT MATTERS TO THE BOARD OR NOT.
THIS WAS THE ONE THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
I WOULD ALSO SAY THE CAVEAT TO THAT WOULD BE THEIR HOURLY RATE DID SEEM COMPETITIVE. SOME OTHER FIRMS HAD REALLY HIGH
HOURLY RATES. >> THANKS FOR REMINDING US OF.
THAT I HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THAT, TOO.
SO, LIKE, IN NOVEMBER, FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD WE HAVE TO PAY ANOTHER $17,000 OR WHATEVER? IT SEEMED EXCESSIVE.
I THINK ON ALL OF THESE, AS WE START TO WRAP UP THE INDIVIDUAL PROPOSALS HERE, IT WILL BE IMPORTANT FOR ALL OF US TO KIND OF GO THROUGH AND SEE IF WE CAN FIND SOME WAY TO FIGURE OUT THE BIG ON ALL THESE GUYS. IT LOOKS LIKE THEY EACH HAVE THEIR OWN WAY OF DOING THINGS. IN THESE KIND OF THINGS.
FROM MY DAY JOB, TOO, IT IS REALLY HARD TO GET APPLES TO APPLES ON THIS KIND OF STUFF. MAYBE... WELL, I WOULD SAY I'M NOT INTERESTED IN BRINGING THIS FIRM BACK.
>> I THINK I AGREE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO GET DOWN TO. MAYBE A TOP THREE.
>> I THINK I WOULD STILL LIKE SOME MORE CLARITY.
I DO LIKE THE FACT THAT IT IS VERY SHORT AND SWEET.
TO THE POINT TO WHERE IT GIVES YOU THE NUTS AND BOLTS.
THERE IS NOT LEFT OUTSIDE OF THE VAGUENESS OF ITEMS MENTIONED BEFORE. YOU KNOW, WE LOOK AT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. WHAT'S LEGAL AND NOT LEGAL.
IT DOESN'T LEAVE YOU WONDERING. I THINK IF WE ARE GOING TO DO THE DUE DILIGENCE OF HEARING FROM OTHERS, WE SHOULD GIVE ALL THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK ON THAT SCOPE.
>> SO I'M GOING TO ADDRESS THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM.
AS SUPERINTENDENT, I'M GOING THE TO TAKE THE LEAD AND DO IT.
I KNOW PEOPLE ARE PROBABLY SITTING HERE THINKING IT.
AND MAYBE FEARFUL TO SAY IT. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND SAY IT
[01:10:05]
WITH THE UTMOST RESPECT FOR THIS ORGANIZATION.THEY SEEM LIKE GREAT LEADERS, BUT THERE IS SOME CONCERN ABOUT A TRUSTING RELATIONSHIP WITH THIS FIRM IN LIGHT OF SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE COME OUT IN THE INDY STAR.
I'M NOT SURE IF YOU ARE AWARE ABOUT THAT.
I DON'T WANT TO DRILL DOWN INTO THAT.
YOU KNOW, I HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHAT MY STAFFER IS THINKING...
MY STAFF IS THINKING AND SOME OF THE BOARD MEMBERS ARE THINKING, HOW THAT RELATIONSHIP WOULD BE TEMPERED, IF YOU WILL.
BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE SHARED.
I WILL JUST SAY TRUST. I THINK THAT THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT A TRUSTING RELATIONSHIP IF WE ARE BEING
TRULY TRANSPARENT. >> AND I WILL JUST SAY I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE ARTICLE. I READ THE ARTICLE.
I WAS APPALLED BY THE ARTICLE. POSSIBLY NOT FOR THE SAME REASONS EVERYONE ELSE WAS. I WAS AT THE EVENT WHERE THAT TOOK PLACE, AND THE REPORTING ON IT WAS EXTREMELY POOR.
I WAS VERY FRUSTRATED BY IT. I SPOKE TO THE REPORTER PERSONALLY. I FEEL IT WAS EXTREMELY OUT OF CONTEXT, AND THERE WERE LIBERTIES TAKEN WITH THAT ARTICLE THAT WERE VERY FRUSTRATING TO ME.
AGAIN, I WAS IN THE ROOM. WITHOUT GETTING INTO ALL THE SPECIFICS, I DO SEE THAT THESE ARE EXCELLENT PEOPLE THAT WOULD BE A GREAT RELATIONSHIP. I HAVE OTHER ISSUES FROM A SERVICE PERSPECTIVE. AS FAR AS THEIR CHARACTER AND CREDIBILITY, I HAVE NO ISSUE, AND I HAVE MORE ISSUES WITH THE INDY STAR ARTICLE THAN I DO WITH THESE GENTLEMEN.
>> I HAVE TO CONCUR WITH BEN. IT IS A SERVICE SITUATION AS OPPOSED TO THE INDY STAR ARTICLE.
I WAS ALSO IN THE ROOM AND HEARD THE PRESENTATION FIRSTHAND.
AND IT WAS WAY OUT OF COB TEXT... CONTEXT, THE WAY THE ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN. I TOO SPOKE TO THE JOURNALIST THAT WROTE IT AND WAS APPALLED WITH IT.
AS WE KNOW, IT IS NOT JUST THE INDY STAR.
IT IS ALL OF MEDIA RIGHT NOW. ON WHATEVER CONTENT.
IT DOESN'T ALWAYS SEEM TO BE... THERE IS THE INFORMATION, WHAT THE ARTICLE SAYS AND THEN THE TRUTH.
IN THIS CASE, I KNOW FIRSTHAND IT WAS APPALLING TO READ SOME OF THAT INFORMATION IN THERE. MY CONCERN IS MORE ON IT JUST BEING A SMALLER FIRM. AND SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE BIG THAT I HAVE LEARNED ONLY... YOU KNOW, I WOULD SAY BECAUSE I HAVE LEARNED IN THE TWO YEARS BEING IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, THAT IT IS MORE OF THOSE CONCERNS THAT THEY MIGHT NOT BE FITTING THE BILL FOR GOING FORWARD.
IF EVERYONE AGREES TO BRING THEM BACK TO TALK, THAT IS FINE.
THOSE WERE MY CONCERNS. ESPECIALLY JUST SOME OF THE...
>> I THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR STATEMENTS.
I WOULD BE REMISIF I DIDN'T SAY THAT I HAVE TO SPEAK FOR MY
STAFF. >> AND I WOULD SAY THAT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE REPORTING WAS MISCONSTRUED OR NOT, THE TRUST WAS BURNED. SO WHETHER THAT HAPPENED OR NOT, IT IS GOING TO BE AN ISSUE TO BUILD TRUST.
WHETHER THAT IS HOW IT WAS INTENDED OR NOT.
IT WILL BE AN ISSUE. >> THAT IS FAIR TO SAY.
AS THE ADMINISTRATION, I WILL PUT IN THEIR THOUGHTS.
I WOULD THINK ALMOST ALL OF THEM MADE A COMMENT OF HAVING AN UNCOMFORTABLE TRUST WITH THAT LAW FIRM.
SO YOU KNOW, TO START ON THAT FOOTING WOULD NOT BE VERY BENEFICIAL, BUT FOR ME PERSONALLY, KNOWING THE ATTORNEYS IN THE OFFICE AND WHO THEY ARE, THEY ARE ETHICAL, VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE, GREAT LAW FIRM. VERY POSITIVE.
JUST MIGHT NOT BE THE RIGHT REPRESENTATION FOR HSE SCHOOLS.
THEY ARE STILL A LAW FIRM. >> I WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT WE ARE MAKING A DECISION BASED OFF OF FACTS, NOT EMOTIONS.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT IN THE CLASSROOM.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT LED BY... FROM THE COMMUNITY'S VOICE. I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH MAYBE ELIMINATING THAT BEING A TRUST FACTOR.
AGAIN, THOSE ARE FEELINGS. >> TRUST IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF A RELATIONSHIP WITH A LEGAL FIRM, THOUGH.
BUT I WOULD GO OUT AND SAY BECAUSE HERE IS ANOTHER FACT.
THAT MEMBERS OF THAT LAW FIRM HAVE DONATED TO MULTIPLE MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD, AND I SEE THAT AS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST AS WELL.
ESPECIALLY WHEN WE ARE MOVING DAY ONE AS PUTTING DOWN AN RFP FOR LEGAL SERVICES. WHETHER THAT IS TRUE OR NOT, IT APPEARS TO THE COMMUNITY THAT, WOW, OKAY, WE ARE CONTRIBUTED TO THEIR CAMPAIGNS, AND NOW WE ARE GOING TO PUT IN AN RFP, AND WE ARE GOING TO SUBMIT TO BE THE LAW FIRM.
SO JUST THINKING ABOUT HOW THAT LOOKS.
>> RIGHT. I THINK THAT IS A FAIR STATEMENT. WE COULD ALSO SAY THAT BY OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAVE SERVENED OR BOARD OR OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE
[01:15:02]
RECEIVED MONEY. WHETHER IT IS A UNION OR ANYTHING ELSE. I THINK IF YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE THAT STATEMENT, THEN YOU NEED TO BE AWARE HOW FAR THAT GOES.I AGREE. WE SHOULD PROBABLY STAY ON TOPIC AS FAR AS EVALUATING THEIR SERVICES AND COST AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS. WE ALL HAVE ISSUES WITH WHAT, YOU KNOW, HAPPENS OUTSIDE OF THIS AND PERSONALLY AND CAMPAIGNING. ALL THOSE THINGS.
I AGREE WITH SARAH, THAT THERE IS AT LEAST THE APPEARANCE OF SOME IMPROPRIETY THERE. I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH IT. BUT AGAIN, I'M MAKING MY DECISION MORE ON THE SIDE OF THEIR EXPERIENCE, THE SIZE, BEING ABLE TO HANDLE ALL OF OUR NEEDS.
I DO AGREE THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU VERY RECENTLY CONTRIBUTED TO MY CAMPAIGN EVENTS, THAT HAS AT LEAST THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY. I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT.
I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. THAT WOULDN'T BE A REASON I WOULD THROW THEM OUT. BUT I UNDERSTAND IT.
AND AGAIN, WE HAVE DAY JOBS AND REAL LIVES.
THINGS LIKE THAT. IT PLAYS INTO IT.
THE TRUST FACTOR. DR. STOKES MENTIONED THAT.
THAT CERTAINLY PLAYS INTO IT. REGARDLESS OF... YOU JUST HEARD ME SPEAK ON THE REPORTING. I HAVE MAJOR ISSUES ON THAT.
... WITH THAT. WITH THE TRUST WITH THE REPORTER, THE PUBLICATION ITSELF.
THOSE ARE ALL REAL THINGS. I DON'T THINK WE CAN IGNORE THEM. WE JUST TRY OUR BEST TO EVALUATE BASED ON THE SERVICES THEY PROVIDE.
THE SIZE, THEIR ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE.
THE COST, THOSE KIND OF THINGS. IF WE CAN TRY OUR BEST TO TRY TO FOCUS ON THOSE THINGS, I THINK WE WILL MAKE THE BEST DECISION FOR THE CORPORATION, FOR THE STUDENTS, FOR THE TEACHERS, FOR
EVERYBODY INVOLVED. >> MISS DOWLING, YOU WANTED TO SHARE SOMETHING. YOU HAVE THE MIC.
>> FROM THE CONFLICT PERSPECTIVE, THE LEGISLATIVE CONFLICT. THE FACT IS ONE OF THE PRIMARIES OF IT IS A STATE REPRESENTATIVE THERE.
HAVE BEEN BILLS THAT HE HAS IS UPPORTED THAT HAVE NOT BEEN IN THE BEST INTEREST OF TRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL.
UNDERSTANDING THAT ROLE, IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT.
THAT HOWEVER, IT SETS UP A POTENTIAL CONFLICT.
THE REALITY IS, YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO USE MYSELF AS AN EXAMPLE. I'M THE FIDUCIARY FOR THE SCHOOL KRPTION. IF I WANTED TO BE ON THE CITY COUNCIL, I DON'T LIVE IN THE CITY LIMITS.
THAT IS NOT AN ISSUE JUST SO WE ARE CLEAR.
I'M USING THIS AS AN EXAMPLE. HOW CAN I LOOK OUT FOR BOTH THE INTERESTS OF THE CITY THAT I'M REPRESENTING AND FOR THE PHI DIESH AREA DUTY TO THE SCHOOL? IT DOES CREATE THE OPPORTUNITY WHERE THOSE THINGS DON'T MATCH. .
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO BRING UP THE FACT THAT ONE OF THE PARTNERS HAS MADE DISPARAGING REMARKS ABOUT THE SCHOOLS.
A QUICK SEARCH OF THE NAMES POP UP THESE POSTS.
I WOULD BELIEVE THAT MIGHT UPSET SOME COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND ALSO AS DR. STOKES ALLUDED TO, CAUSE SOME TRUST ISSUES WITH US.
SOME OF THE POSTS ARE ALL PU PUBLIC.
THEY DATE BACK TO EVEN WHEN WE WERE DOING A REFERENDUM.
WHICH THEY WERE PUBLICLY AGAINST.
I WOULD BE FEARFUL OF A LAW FIRM TAKING OVER WHO WOULD BE PUBLICLY BASHING MAYBE THEIR FUTURE EMPLOYER.
I FEEL LIKE I WOULD NEVER GO ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND BASH SCHOOLS AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN. AND SO CERTAINLY,...
>> CAN I ALSO SUGGEST THAT WE ASK FOR MALPRACTICE INSURANCE APPLICATIONS FOR WHOEVER WE BRING BACK? FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, THEY HAVE TO LIST THE PERCENTAGE OF WORK THEY DO IN EACH PRACTICE AREA.
THAT MIGHT GIVE US SOME INSIGHT INTO HOW MUCH THEY HAVE DONE IN
DIFFERENT AREAS. >> THAT IS A REALLY GOOD IDEA, SARAH. I'M SAD I DIDN'T THINK OF THAT.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME? ON ONE THING I NOTICED THIS LAW FIRM. IT BROUGHT A LOT OF PAUSE.
ON THE WEBSITE, THEY ARE MOSTLY CRIMINAL.
RIGHT? AND WE ARE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION. WHAT WOULD THAT TRANSITION LOOK LIKE? HOW WOULD... WHAT SUPPORTS? I WOULD NEED THOSE QUESTIONS ANSWERED.
WE ARE NOT AN INSTITUTION WHERE A LOT OF CRIMINAL THINGS HAPPEN.
THAT JUST CONCERNED ME. CAN YOU MAER ME NOW? OKAY. SORRY.
I HAVE A MASK ON. IT JUST CONCERNED ME ABOUT THEIR PRIMARY... THEY ARE PRIMARILY CRIMINAL.
95% CRIMINAL LAW FIRM. WE ARE AN ENEDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION. WHAT DOES THAT TRANSITION FOR THEM LOOK LIKE? WHERE IS THEIR EXPERIENCE?
>> I WOULD AGREE. I THINK IT... THEY DO LACK SOME
[01:20:02]
EXPERIENCE SPECIFICALLY TO EDUCATION.THAT IS A CONCERN FOR ME. WOULD THAT BE IN THE LAST...
WOULD THAT BE THE LAST ONE TO GET THROUGH? I WOULD LIKE TO ASK DR. STOKES IF ANYONE ON HER TEAM OR ANYONE ELSE HAS ANY INPUT AS FAR AS JUST THIS ENTIRE PROCESS.
WHAT ARE YOUR FEELINGS? I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT AS A BOARD. I DON'T THINK WE WILL HAVE THE INTERACTIONS DAY TO DAY WITH THE LAW FIRM.
WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR? HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO EVALUATE?
>> MY TEAM DID HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT ALL OF THE PROPOSALS AND TO BASICALLY, GIVE INPUT ABOUT HOW THEY WORK WITH LAW FIRMS AND HOW THAT WOULD IMPACT THEM.
I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR MY TEAM.
I WILL SAY I THINK THERE WERE TWO, FOR SURE THAT, ROSE TO THE TOP. AND MAYBE EVEN A POTENTIAL THIRD THAT, YEAH, YOU KNOW, THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOME QUESTIONS.
THERE WERE ALSO TWO THAT JUST WE THOUGHT SHOULD NOT EVEN BE CONSIDERED. AND MORE SO BECAUSE OF SIZE OR ABILITY TO SUPPORT EDUCATIONAL NEEDS.
IS THAT A FAIR RECOLLECTION, TEAM? I THINK THAT IS WHERE WE WERE. .
>> IS THIS SOMETHING THAT... SO WE ALL GOT THAT.
RIGHT? WE SAW THE SUMMARY FROM THE ADMINISTRATION TEAM. BY THE WAY, THANK YOU FOR
PUTTING THAT IN THERE. >> YES.
THANK YOU. >> NOT JUST ONE OR TWO SENTENCES. I WAS VERY IMPRESSED WITH YOU BEING THOROUGH. I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE IT.
I'M SURE THE REST OF THE BOARD DOES, TOO.
BBECAUSE WE CAN SIT UP HERE AND SAY THIS IS WHAT WE WANT.
WE WANT CHANGE. AT THE SAME TIME, YOU ARE THE ONES THAT WORK WITH THESE LAW FIRMS DAY IN AND DAY OUT.
SO YOUR INFORMATION THAT YOU SUPPLY TO US IS VERY VALUABLE INFORMATION TO TAKE. WHEN WE ARE DOING THIS PROCESS, IT IS IMPORTANT. SO IN SAYING THAT, THOUGH, TOO, OBVIOUSLY, WE DON'T WANT TO SAY, SO AND SO SAID THIS AND PUT THAT OUT THERE. IN A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT OF SAYING THINGS HERE, I DO SEE A LOT OF THE SAME MAJOR CONCERNS.
WHICH WERE... NOT CONCERNS. INTERESTS THAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR. MAKING SURE THAT THEY HAVE THE EXPERIENCE. WITH REFERENDUM.
WITH, YOU KNOW, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.
HUGE. EXCEPTIONAL LEARNERS' PROGRAMS. HUGE. AND UNDERSTANDING THE LEGISLATION PART OF IT. I THINK AS A BOARD, TAKING IN THOSE FOUR MAIN THINGS, AS WE BRING BACK THE OTHER LAW FIRMS, BEING ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WITH THEM ON MONDAY, WHEN THEY COME BACK, MAYBE THE BOARD PRESIDENT, LETTING THEM KNOW THAT HERE IS OUR FOUR THINGS THAT ARE BIG THE ADMINISTRATION.
AND WHATEVER OUR BOARD SAYS ARE BIG THINGS.
THAT THEY BRING THOSE POINTS ON MONDAY TO TOUCH BASE ON TO HELP US TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARITY.
ON HOW THEY WOULD REPRESENT OUR SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THOSE
MANNERS. >> SO SUZANNE, DIG INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE. YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED MALPRACTICE EXPERIENCE FROM ALL FIRMS. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.
YOU SAID THERE WERE FOUR. WHAT WERE THE OTHER TWO?
>> THE ONES THAT I NOTICED, THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.
EXCEPTIONAL LEARNERS. REFERENDUM EXPERIENCE AND LEGISLATION EXPERIENCE. I THINK WE ARE AT THE TOP FOUR.
>> THE REFERENDUM EXPERIENCE AS MS. DOWLING SHARED, IS GOING TO BE MORE WITH OUR LANGUAGE THAT WE WRITE.
BECAUSE I THINK BY LAW, ONLY CERTAIN PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY HELP WITH THE REFERENDUM. I THINK ONE THAT WE DID MENTION WAS LABOR. LABOR LAWS.
HELPING WITH LABOR THINGS. BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE AREAS THAT
WE TEND TO HAVE TO... >> THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND DISCUSSION KIND OF ENCAPTURED... I THINK I MADE UP A WORD.
CAPTURED ALL OF THAT FOR US. THOSE ARE BIG THINGS.
>> ANOTHER ONE WOULD BE POLICY. I'M SORRY.
I TOTALLY MISSED THAT ONE. THAT IS HUGE IN MY BOOK.
>> BEING ON TOP OF WHAT'S HAPPENING CURRENTLY IN LAW AND CURRENTLY, IT IS NOT JUST SA SAYING... REVIEWING POLICY BUT BEING ON TOP OF WHAT'S HAPPENING AND WHAT CHANGES ARE NEEDED.
I THINK HAVING THAT POLICY EXPERIENCE, WRITING POLICY, RECOGNIZING POLICY AND ASSI ASSISTING.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, IF BOARD DIRECTION WHEN WE ARE CONSIDERING THINGS ON IF THERE IS POLICIES THAT WERE WRITTEN IN... YOU KNOW, '99 OR 2002.
WHATEVER. THAT MIGHT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.
IS THIS LAW FIRM CAPABLE AND KNOWLEDGEABLE ON WORKING WITH
UPDATING AND REVISING POLICY. >> AND TO CLARIFY, IT IS THEIR MALPRACTICE INSURANCE APPLICATION.
WHEN THEY APPLY FOR THEIR INSURANCE, THEY HAVE TO LIST HOW MUCH TIME THEY HAVE SPENT ON DIFFERENT TYPES OF CASES.
[01:25:07]
>> I WOULD REMISS IN NOT POINTING OUT HOW IMPORTANT IT IS FOR THIS LAW FIRM TO INTERACT WITH ALL OF THE FACILITIES ISSUES. WE SPENT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS EVERY YEAR ON ALL OF THESE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.
THEY LOOK AT CONTRACT LANGUAGE. THEY REPRESENT US IN LITIGATION.
WHICH I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN. LITIGATION SEVERAL TIMES.
OR LIKED F LIABILITY ISSUES. I DON'T WANT YOU TO FORGET HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS. AS WELL AS THE RELATIONSHIP WE HAVE WITH THE OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES.
I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT.
>> AND HARRY, THANK YOU SO MUCH. I ACTUALLY HAVE REAL ESTATE ON HERE UNDERLINED. AND CONTRACTS WITH FACILITIES.
ALL OF. THAT I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT I DIDN'T EVEN SAY THAT OUT LOUD. I KNOW.
>> I WHISPERED IT TO DAWN. I KNEW YOU KNEW IT.
>> I MEAN, THE PUBLIC IS VERY INTREFSED IN WHAT WE DO.
>> THAT IS REALLY GOOD TO KNOW. THAT IS A MOMENT FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND HERE TODAY. THE INVESTMENT IN THAT.
>> SOMETHING THAT SEEMED LIKE IT MIGHT BE NICE THAT WE COULD GET SOME CONSENSUS ON. IT SOUNDED LIKE, DR. STOKES, YOU AND YOUR TEAM HAD A TOP THREE. I'M GOING TO GO OUT ON A LIMB M.
WITH ALL OF THOSE. >> IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS SHARED PUBLIC OR E-MAILED LATER? HOW DOES THAT WORK?
>> I'M NOT SURE. I WAS GOING TO ASK, I GUESS, PROCEDURALLY, IF WE ARE ALLOWED TO.
WE ARE MISSING ONE PERSON OVER HERE.
IT SOUNDED LIKE YOU HAD A NICE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CURRENT FIRM. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE PROPER FORM TO SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS OR WHATEVER.
THE PROPER FORUM TO SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS OR WHATEVER.
WE COULD TRY TO WHITTLE DOWN A LIST.
MAYBE WE COULD GET A% PERSPECTIVE LATER.
I'M NOT SURE. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT THEIR
THOUGHTS ARE, TOO. >> THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION, BEN. I WOULD SUPPORT THAT AS WELL.
I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM HS OH A.
HSEA. IN YOUR RESEARCH, WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS WERE, WHAT YOU FORESEE AS A POSITIVE OR UPON...
POSSIBLE... I DON'T WANT TO USE THE WORD NEGATIVE.
WORKING WITH ANOTHER ANOTHER LAW FIRM.
I DON'T KNOW IF PROCEDURALLY, THAT THEY SPEAK HERE AND SAY.
THAT OR GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THESE, YOU KNOW, RFP'S OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS.
THEN THEY DEMAIL MAYBE THE BOARD PRESIDENT AND LET HER KNOW THE
TOP THREE THAT YOU WOULD FAVOR. >> I THINK JUST TO CLARIFY, I THINK AS YOU LOOK AT THESE, ALL OF THESE PROPOSALS WITH THAT LENS IN MIND, WE ARE NOT GOING TO PUT YOU IN THE HOT SEAT TO SAY HERE. YOU MAY HAVE LOOKED AT IT VASTLY DIFFERENT THAN WE WERE UP HERE. IS THERE ANYTHING... THERE IS A QUESTION TO THROW OUT TO YOU. IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE SERVICES PRESENTED WE TALKED ABOUT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT IS NOTEWORTHY WE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT TO CONSIDER FOR HSEA AND TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED HERE. AND IF IT WAS, WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE FROM YOUR PER SPECK
TY. >> ADMINISTRATION HAS GIVEN THIS ALREADY. BUT SPECIAL ED AND HOW THAT IS LITIGATED AND HOW IT IS CONFUSING AND IT IS FOR TEACHERS AS WELL AS FOR ANYBODY WHO HAS BEEN IN LEGAL NEED OF CCHA.
THEY HAVE DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB OF MAKING THE TEACHER FEEL LIKE WALKING THEM THROUGH WHAT THAT IS AND WHAT THAT FEELS LIKE AND WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE PROCESS. THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT WHEN YOU ARE GOING THROUGH THAT. AND SO I WOULD SAY ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IS, LIKE, WHAT DO THEY DO WHEN A TEACHER IS, YOU KNOW, GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS? WHAT ARE THEIR PROCEDURES THAT THEY WALK THEM THROUGH? HOW WILL THEY RESPOND TO THAT TEACHER? OR HAVE COMMUNICATION WITH THAT TEACHER THROUGH IT.
I KNOW IT GOES THROUGH AMY. I KNOW JUST FROM THE EXPERIENCES THAT I HAVE HAD WITH CCHA, THAT IS A POSITIVE EXPERIENCE THAT TEACHERS HAVE. MOST OF THE TIME, IT IS, YOU KNOW, NOT ANY FAULT OF THEIR OWN.
THEY ARE JUST WALKING THROUGH THE PROCESS.
IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR THEM TO HAVE THAT EXPERIENCE TO TALK
A TEACHER THROUGH. >> AND EXCUSE MY NAIVETY.
DOES THE HSEA HAVE THEIR OWN SEPARATE LAW FIRM? DOES ANY LEGAL STUFF THAT HAPPENS, DO THEY GO THROUGH THE
DISTRICT LAW FIRM? >> IF IT IS A DISTRICT FILE
[01:30:03]
COMPLAINT, IT GOES THROUGH THE DISTRICT.IF IT IS AN INDIVIDUAL TEACHER THING, WE HAVE OUR OWN.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARITY. >> MM-HMM.
>> THANK YOU. THE LAST KIND OF STAKEHOLDERS I SEE IN THIS PROCESS, AND IT IS A BIG PROCESS, THIS IS A MAJOR DECISION AS FAR AS I SEE IT. THE LEGAL TEAM WILL BE INVOLVED IN VIRTUALLY EVERY ASPECT OF WHAT WE DO GOING FORWARD FOR SEVERAL YEARS TO COME. I WOULD LIKE TO PUT IT OUT THERE TO THE COMMUNITY, IF YOU HAVE ANY INPUT.
THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE THAT, FRANKLY, HAVE MORE EXPERIENCE THAN A LOT OF US DO. IN WORKING WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. WE HAVE A LOT-NEW PEOPLE.
I DON'T BELIEVE ANYBODY WAS HERE, WAS PART OF THE LAST REFERENDUM PROCESS. OTHER THINGS.
OBVIOUSLY, GOING ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE FIRST TIME WHELM HIRED CCHA, I BELIEVE THAT OFFICIALLY WAS 16 YEARS AGO.
WE HAVE HAD RELATIONSHIPS GOING BACK 30 YEARS.
IF ANY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY WANT TO WRITE IN, EMAIL IN, GIVE US THEIR THOUGHTS.
IMMUNOI WOULD APPRECIATE TO SEE THOSE... I KNOW I WOULD APPRECIATE TO SEE THOSE. IF ANYBODY WANTS TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS DISCUSSION, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT.
GETTING INPUT, EVEN IF IT IS A SIMPLE EMAIL.
IF YOU HAD AN EXPERIENCE WITH THE LAW FIRMS. I MEAN, WHETHER WE GET THREE EMAILS OR #00, IT IS IMPORTANT TO HEAR FROM THE COMMUNITY. IF THEY WANT TO USE THIS TIME BETWEEN NOWP AND... NOW AND MAYBE SATURDAY TO SHARE EMAILS TO US. AND LET US KNOW WHAT THEIR THOUGHTS ARE. ANOTHER BIG PART IS MADAM PRESIDENT, EXPERIENCE WITH OUR CITY.
THESE LAW FIRMS, THE RELATIONSHIPS THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE WITH OUR CITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OR ANY THINGS HAPPENING WITH THE CITY. AND WHAT THEIR KNOWLEDGE IS.
GROWTH IN OUR CITY AND EXPANSION OF THE CITY.
AND THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING HERE.
BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T WORK DIRECTLY FOR THE CITY, WE SHOULD BE WORKING IN TANDEM WITH THEM.
AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE GOING FORWARD.
I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT OUR LAW FIRM HAS A GOOD RELATIONSHIP
WITH THE CITY AS WELL. >> WE WORK VERY MUCH WITH THE CITY. YOU ARE RIGHT.
THERE IS A LOT OF THINGS WE DO. IN COLLABORATION.
>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR ABBY. SORRY.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET BACK UP.
I WANT TO JUST ASK IF THE ATTORNEYS THAT YOU ARE USING ON A TEACHER BASIS, ARE THEY IN THIS PILE?
>> SINCE SHE IS NOT ON MIC, SHE SAID NO TO YOUR QUESTION.
ISTA H HAS THEIR OWN. SO WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO HAVE OUR BOARD SEND ME YOUR TOP THREE.
AND WE WILL INVITE THOSE FIRMS BACK ON MONDAY.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, CAN YOU REPEAT THE LIST THAT WE ARE SOMEWHAT USING IN OUR DECISION? CAN YOU SEND... EMAIL THAT TO ALL OF US? THE LIST THAT YOU GATHERED THAT WE ARE USING FOR, HOPEFULLY, MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION FROM THE LAW FIRMS AND CONSIDERING WHAT HAY SPEAK ON? ON MONDAY.
DO YOU MIND SHARING THAT? >> I WILL DO THAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS REGARDING THIS PROCESS?
THE FIRMS? >> I THINK YOU DID MENTION...
SORRY. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE BRING THIS UP. I THINK AS I'M GOING TO SAY, CONSIDER MYSELF A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE, SOMEONE THAT IS REALLY CONCERNED WITH BUDGET AND FINANCE, I DON'T THINK CHEAP IS NECESSARILY THE WAY YOU WANT TO SAY, BUT INEXPENSIVE IS ALWAYS A GREAT THING. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE DO INVITE THE NEW LAW FIRMS BACK, I THINK WE POINTED IT OUT.
JUST TO REPEAT, THAT THEY REALLY LOOK AT THEIR SCOPE OF WHAT THEY ARE COVERING AND WHAT OUR NEEDS ARE.
MAYBE HEARING FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT AND MAYBE KATIE, A LIST THAT IS MOST IMPORTANT IN THE LAST YEAR, WHERE WE USED OUR LEGAL SERVICES. MAYBE THEY CAN LOOK AT THAT TO SEE WHAT THAT COST MIGHT BE. IF WE HAVE THE... YOU KNOW, LAST YEAR, THIS IS WHAT OUR COSTS WERE.
ON A SPREADSHEET. AND BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO COMPARE APPLES TO APPLES. RIGHT? AND SEE IF A LAW FIRM CAN MATCH THAT OR IF THEY ARE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER IN THAT KIND OF SERVICES.
[01:35:07]
>> I HAVE THOUGHT THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN SHARED PREVIOUSLY.
WE COULDN'T GO BACK FIVE YEARS WITHOUT HAVING TO GO AND PULL PHYSICAL CLAIMS AND INPUT. WE ALREADY PROVIDED THREE YEARS
I'M THINKING OF IF WE ARE BRINGING BACK FOUR LAW FIRMS AND WE CAN MAKE A SIMPLE SPREADSHEET THAT SAYS HERE ARE THE SERVICE THAT IS ARE MOST IMPORTANT. A, B, C, D.
WE SPENT 150 HOURS HERE AND WHATEVER, WE CAN SEND THAT OVER TO GET A RECAP OF IF THEY WERE REPRESENTING US, AND AGAIN, IT IS A BROAD THING. AT LEAST IT GIVES US AN IDEA OF WHAT THEY CAN COVER. AND SEE WHERE THEY ARE.
WHEN I REVIEW ALL OF THESE RFP'S, THE PRICING SEEMS TO BE A WHAT-IF SITUATION. NO ONE IS REALLY ABLE TO SAY THIS IS WHAT WE CAN DO. WE ALL KNOW IN THAT 90 DAYS TO SIX MONTHS OF THEM, IF WE GO WITH ANOTHER LAW FIRM, THERE IS THAT TRANSITION TIME. SOME OF THOSE THINGS ON THERE IS REALLY NOT SHOWING US WHAT THEIR COST SITUATION WOULD BE GOING FORWARD. AND THAT LEAVES TO ME AN OPEN MIND OF NOT KNOWING WHAT THAT WOULD BE.
IF WE HAVE A LIST THAT SAID, YOU KNOW, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, YOU KNOW, OUR EXCEPTIONAL LEARNERS, WHATEVER.
THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, 2,000 HOURS SPENT HERE.
WE HAD 150 HOURS SPENT HERE. AT LEAST WE CAN GET JUST A VAGUE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT TO EXPECT WITH THE NEW LAW FIRM.
THAT IS THE SUGGESTION. >> I DON'T KNOW THEY CAN GO BACK AND FIND THE SPECIFIC NUMBER OF HOURS WITHOUT PULLING EACH INDIVIDUAL BILL. THERE IS A COLUMN THAT SAYS, LIKE, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. WHAT ITEM IT WAS, WHETHER IT WAS REAL ESTATE, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.
>> IT HAS THE COST? >> THEN IT HAS THE NUMBER.
>> AND EACH MONTH'S BREAKOUT. IT SAYS THAT THERE IS A DESCRIPTION THAT SAYS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.
AND THEN THERE IS AN AMOUNT THAT WAS BILLED FOR THAT SPECIFIC CLAIM PERIOD. SOME OF THEM, I THINK, ARE TWO MONTHS WORTH. YOU WILL SEE.
IT WILL GO FROM, LIKE, FEBRUARY TO APRIL.
>> THAT IS SUFFICIENT, TOO. WE NEED TO REPULL IT AND MAKE SURE THAT IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR ME ANYWAY, TO SEE A COMPARISON OF WHAT IT COULD BE FOR ANOTHER LAW FIRM.
>> SURE. >> YEAR OVER YEAR, THAT MAY FLEX AS WELL BASED ON THE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS.
SITUATIONS AT HAND. ALL THAT STUFF.
SO JUST KNOW THAT. >> OF COURSE.
>> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. MEETING
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.