Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Counsel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Scranton board debate over selection of general counsel draws public comment on fees and conflicts
Summary
Public comment and several directors raised concerns about the board's move to negotiate with a law firm that proposed a higher hourly rate than an alternative firm; speakers asked for ethics opinions and for the board to ensure the most cost‑effective, experienced counsel is chosen.
Public comment and board discussion on March 31 focused on the district's planned appointment of general legal counsel and the selection process for outside counsel.
Multiple speakers urged careful review of proposals and noted differences in proposed hourly rates across finalist firms. One director, speaking during public comment, said she had reviewed proposals and found the majority-selected firm had proposed $240 per hour for partners in its initial submission while a competing firm proposed $200 per hour and serves an education-law practice group representing 32 districts. She said she would not support the majority's choice and called for further scrutiny.
Director Catherine Fox urged the board to seek an ethics advisory opinion or legal review of potential conflicts of interest that have been raised in conversations with board members and the public. Fox also asked the board to consider retainer structures, noting the district previously saved taxpayer dollars with a work‑based retainer rather than an hourly retainer and asked that proposals be evaluated on comparable retainer terms.
Superintendent Doctor Keating and staff said attorney Katz (outside counsel assisting the process) was not present at the meeting but will attend the next meeting to answer detailed questions and support executive-session discussion. The board chair confirmed negotiations with the preferred firms would proceed and that attorney Katz would be available at the next meeting for formal actions.
Why it matters: Legal counsel selections shape how the district handles litigation, special-education matters and contract advice; hourly rates, retainer arrangements and apparent conflicts can carry budget and governance consequences. Several board members and public speakers requested transparency on proposal terms and an ethics review before final appointment.
Ending: Administration will continue negotiations and bring final recommendations and supporting documents, including any advisory-opinion recommendations, to the next meeting when attorney Katz will be present for questions and executive‑session review.
