Scranton School Board approves Joyce Carmody & Moran for special-education and general counsel amid transparency questions

The Scranton School District Board of Directors voted 5-3 on April 10, 2025, to approve the law firm Joyce Carmody and Moran as special-education legal counsel and, in a separate motion, to approve the same firm as general legal counsel. Both motions passed after a heated public comment period and extended discussion among board members and staff.

The motions set a start date of May 1, 2025. Board members and staff repeatedly noted that the written contract documents do not list explicit start or end dates and that the district's tiered request for proposals (RFP) extends through June 30, 2028. Board members cited advice that the Pennsylvania School Code allows the district to begin or end legal services at any time.

Public commenters raised transparency and conflict concerns before the votes. Resident Joe Gihuly urged clearer handling of contracts and said, "I just feel that transparency is so important in government." Barbara O'Malley, another member of the public, told the board she objected to awarding the contract to Joyce Carmody and Moran because of campaign contributions, saying, "I don't think it's appropriate that, again, a partner in this law firm gives you $1,500 and you're voting for this contract." Board member Casey responded on the floor: "Yes, I did. Was it legal? Yes, it was. Did I report it? Yes, I did."

Superintendent Aaron Keating acknowledged an administrative error in how a privileged contract document was distributed, saying, "I will always take onus and responsibility when something's wrong. I don't hide behind it." Keating said he had implemented corrective steps after the document was not forwarded to all board members as intended.

Board discussion centered on weighing local representation against experience and cost. Several board members emphasized a preference for a firm with local ties and the economic benefit of hiring from Northeast Pennsylvania; others said the district's volume of special-education work made experience and expertise the higher priority. One director noted that the district's special-counsel bills had totaled "over $8,000" through March 31 for the outside counsel work; a different director said her own portion of that billing was $1,575.

Attorney Noah Katz advised the board during the discussion about contract language and insurance questions. Board members asked whether the motion's specified May 1 start would "cover" the absence of explicit dates in the written contract; staff and counsel advised that the motion and the RFP language together set the operative schedule. Board member Laffey stated that he had recused himself from the process on Feb. 24.

Roll-call votes were recorded for each motion. On the special-education legal counsel motion the roll call recorded: Directors Casey and Jessick — yes; Director Fox — no; Director Merkel — no; Director McAndrew — yes; one director identified on the record as "Missus Johnny" — no; Director Borthwick — yes; and President Holmes — yes; the tally was 5 affirmative, 3 negative and the motion passed. On the general legal counsel motion the roll call recorded: Director Chesak — yes; Director Fox — no; a director listed in the roll as "Miss Marco" — no; Director McAndrew — yes; Director Yanni — no; Director Borthwick — yes; Director Casey — yes; and President Holmes — yes; again the motion passed 5-3.

Several board members asked for written documentation and public access to related legal bills. One board member encouraged members of the public to use the Pennsylvania Right-to-Know process to review legal invoices; others said they would request the records themselves.

In closing remarks, several board members thanked outgoing attorneys Freund and Huerta for their service and commended staff and counsel for managing the selection process. No additional formal directions to staff (such as study or referral tasks) were recorded in the meeting minutes for these items.

The meeting had been called specifically for the purpose of considering general legal counsel and special-education legal counsel and was advertised as a special meeting.