Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Legal Contracts Litigation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

East Ramapo board authorizes Bond, Schonick & King to handle contract dispute with Language Learning Network

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The East Ramapo Central School District Board of Education voted to retain Bond, Schonick & King, PLLC to represent the district in a contract dispute with the Language Learning Network (LLN) and authorized the district to commence legal proceedings, including in federal court if necessary.

The East Ramapo Central School District Board of Education voted during its meeting to retain the law firm Bond, Schonick & King, PLLC to represent the district in a contract dispute with the Language Learning Network (LLN) and authorized the district to commence legal proceedings, including in appropriate federal or state courts.

Board members adopted a resolution that authorized the firm’s appointment under the terms of an attached engagement agreement and empowered the superintendent to take steps necessary to implement the resolution, including payment to the law firm as provided in that agreement. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gruber and recorded as carried on a voice vote. The board recorded the outcome as “motion carries”; no roll-call vote with individual named tallies was recorded in the meeting transcript.

The resolution text distributed at the meeting states the dispute may result in litigation and notes the district’s familiarity with Bond, Schonick & King from prior representation on special education matters. The resolution also specifically authorizes the district to commence legal proceedings related to the contract between the district and LLN and authorizes the superintendent to implement the resolution’s provisions.

Board members did not discuss or debate the merits of the underlying contract dispute during the portion of the meeting recorded in the transcript. The board did not record a roll-call with individual yes/no votes in the transcript; the minutes show a voice vote and the chair announced that the motion carried.