Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Services Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Scranton board opens vendor review and will appoint independent counsel before solicitor interviews
Summary
Board members agreed to an open, districtwide process for selecting outside legal counsel and to wait for independently appointed legal counsel before scheduling candidate interviews; administrators said two firms applied for general counsel and three for special-education counsel.
The Scranton School District Board of Directors on March 3 agreed to broaden the vendor-review process for selecting outside legal counsel and to delay interviews until the board appoints an independent attorney to oversee the procurement.
The move, led by Vendor Relations Chair Director Casey, follows an administration-request-for-proposal process that the district said was advertised in the Scranton Times, The Citizen's Voice and on OpenGov. Superintendent Dr. Keating and district administrator Mr. O'Donnell told the board that resumes and fee structures from bidders were included in board packets and that administrators prepared comparison materials for the board's review.
Board members said they wanted the full nine-member board to take part in interviews and that an outside firm should manage the process. "I'd rather have the entire board participate in an open transparent manner," Director Casey said. Dr. Keating said administrators had also solicited, from board suggestions, names for an independent counsel who would guide the district through the interviews and ensure the process is legally sound because the current interim solicitor is among the applicants.
Administrators said two firms applied for general legal services and three firms applied for special-education legal services; that information was described as public and came in through the district's OpenGov solicitation. Director Casey and other board members said interviews should not be scheduled until independent counsel is appointed and available, and that interviews should be scheduled so all nine members can attend. In addition, Director Casey said that discussion of candidate evaluations and the board's deliberations would likely take place in executive session, as is customary for personnel-related vendor interviews.
No final selection or binding vote took place at the March meeting. Instead, the board took consensus to proceed with the process outlined by administrators and to place the appointment of independent counsel and the interview schedule on the next steps list. Dr. Keating said administrators will circulate memos and updates to the full board and will follow independent counsel's guidance before contacting any applicants for missing RFP material or scheduling interviews.
How this will proceed: administrators will await the board's appointment of independent counsel; that counsel will advise on whether vendors who omitted information from their RFP submissions may be given an opportunity to supplement their proposals; the top candidates will be selected for interviews; and the board will vote publicly to select legal counsel and execute an engagement letter defining scope and fees.
The board did not take a formal roll-call vote on hiring counsel at this meeting; members characterized the decision as consensus to move forward with the process and to wait for independent counsel before scheduling interviews.
