Board approves Fox Rothschild as district solicitor amid public criticism over banning letters

The Souderton Area School District Board of School Directors voted to approve Fox Rothschild as the district solicitor for the 2025–26 school year after public comment sharply criticized the firm’s handling of letters that banned community members from district property.

The motion to approve Fox Rothschild passed by a recorded tally of six in favor and two opposed, following a brief board discussion and prior procedural votes that had removed the solicitor contract from the consent bundle for separate consideration.

Multiple public commenters asked the board not to renew the contract. Stephanie Jamieson, who identified herself as “president of Souderton Area for All” but said she was speaking in a personal capacity, told the board that attorneys from Fox Rothschild sent three letters to community members last fall banning them from district property and that two of the letters were identical and contained factual errors. Jamieson said those letters were later rescinded only after the ACLU contacted the district and warned that banning people from school board meetings violated free-speech and due-process rights. She said the letters are available online and urged the board not to renew the contract.

Jamieson: “A simple proofread of these letters would have identified the error. We expect our students to proofread their work but not our attorneys who are being paid thousands of taxpayer dollars.”

Rosemary Butekofer, representing Souderton Borough during public comment, urged transparency and said solicitor contracts are public records under Pennsylvania’s Right‑to‑Know law. She asked whether contract terms and costs (e.g., retainers, hourly fees, caps) would be provided to the public before the vote.

Butekofer: “Solicitor contracts like other contracts dealing with the receipt or disbursement of public funds are considered public records and should be made accessible to the public.”

Board debate on the contract itself was limited during the separate vote. After the vote the chair confirmed the tally and moved on to the budget item. The district later rescinded the banning letters, according to public comment, after contact from the ACLU; the board did not provide additional detail on the substance of the firm’s representation or a breakdown of fees during the meeting.

The contract approval was listed on the consent action agenda as item 6.22 before it was pulled for separate consideration and a stand‑alone vote.