Winchester board debates outside law firm after FOI disclosures; motion to hire firm fails

The Winchester Board of Education on May 13 debated whether to hire a new law firm to represent the district in contract negotiations with the Gilbert School Corporation after public records released by residents showed email exchanges about draft motions and legal input.

The matter drew public comment and extended discussion during the meeting, with some residents and board members raising concern about the appearance of outside influence and the qualifications of the proposed firm. Cheryl McGlynn, a former board member, asked why the board would replace longtime education counsel Shipman & Goodman with a municipal firm she said “does municipal work, zoning, planning. They don't do education.”

The question mattered because the draft motion before the board asked only that the Gilbert contract be reviewed by counsel; opponents said an attorney already involved in drafting motions for one side had participated in back-channel drafting. Candy Perez, a member of the Board of Selectmen who spoke during public comment, told the board she had seen Freedom of Information disclosures and said she was concerned about transparency and whether the negotiating committee could be trusted to protect taxpayers.

Board members also debated the legal expertise needed. Supporters of changing counsel said an outside municipal firm could provide an independent review for a contract they described as potentially large in scale. Opponents pointed to Shipman & Goodman’s education-law experience, saying municipal practice did not necessarily cover federal special-education law, 504/IDEA issues, or tuition and excess cost questions that factor into a multi‑year school contract.

During the meeting, a motion was made to retain an outside municipal firm (named in public comments and email disclosures) to represent Winchester in negotiations with Gilbert. The board discussed FOI evidence cited by public speakers that showed drafts and email threads among town and committee members prior to the item appearing on the board agenda. Advocates for reconstitution of the negotiating committee and for full-board involvement said the FOI material had damaged public confidence in the process and recommended the negotiating group be expanded.

After debate, the board voted on the motion to retain the outside firm; the motion did not pass. The board chair said the discussion had revealed public concern about process and the need for clarity before attorneys are engaged further. The transcript records the chair and other members stressing that any contract must include clear formulas for student cost calculations and protections if budgets are cut.

The board did not adopt a new attorney engagement at the meeting and left the negotiating committee and next steps under discussion. Several board members asked for the committee to bring past contracts and examples of prior language for review before further legal spending.

Documents cited during public comment included multiple email threads and a referenced draft motion that, according to speakers, were exchanged among town committee members and outside parties before the matter reached the full board. The board heard public calls for transparency and for legal counsel experienced specifically in school law rather than only municipal law.

The board chair said she supports a fair contract that controls costs and provides a clear formula for calculating student costs and allocations if budgets are reduced. She directed the negotiating committee to continue work and to present prior contracts and specific negotiation goals for the full board to review before further legal engagement.