Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Counsel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Robbinsdale board rejects motion to remove routine legal counsel at meetings
Summary
After a contentious debate about costs and governance, the Robbinsdale Area School Board voted 4-3 to keep legal counsel available at meetings; a narrower motion to limit counsel to requests by the superintendent or chair was defeated.
The Robbinsdale Area School Board voted on May 19 to reject a proposal to eliminate routine legal counsel at board meetings, after hours of debate over cost, governance and past conflicts. The motion, moved by Director Holmes and seconded by Director Long, failed in a 4-3 roll-call vote.
Board members and district counsel sparred over both principle and practice. Director Holmes introduced the motion, saying, “I motion do it you want me to read the thing again? Motion to resend legal counsel from further board meetings unless required by Minnesota state statute.” Director Holmes said the change was prompted by what she described as mounting legal fees and the need to save district resources.
Supporters of counsel cited past incidents where legal advice prevented errors. Director Bowman said it is “standard and customary for legal counsel to be at any governance meeting” and called counsel a “safeguard.” Chair Evans Becker argued the board has struggled with governance and that having counsel present “protects us” while members learn to operate effectively together.
District legal counsel clarified the bills the board had received and how they were composed. Counsel said, “That $16,000 number is made up primarily of an employment investigation that the district or that our firm did for the district. That is ... not related to our attendance or representation of the board,” and described how time and tasks are itemized on invoices.
Board members who opposed the motion also said removing counsel now could create greater financial exposure later. Director Wutto said he was concerned the board was “not quite ready” to lead meetings without legal presence and warned that mistakes could cost the district more than routine attendance fees.
When the board voted, Director Bassett, Director Holmes and Director Long voted yes; Directors Bowman, Evans Becker, Hillenbrand and Wutto voted no. The motion did not prevail.
The meeting did include an amendment during the discussion that sought to limit counsel’s presence to situations “unless requested by the superintendent or the chair”; that narrower formulation was proposed during the floor debate but the board ultimately rejected the broader motion to rescind routine counsel presence.
The vote ends a contentious item that board members said reflected longer-running tensions over governance style, cost transparency and how the board should use outside legal resources. Superintendent Salo told the board that legal bills and the categories of legal work are public records and that she would make requested billing details available to board members.
At the meeting’s outset the board had earlier approved placing the rescind-counsel item on the agenda by roll call after an initial voice vote and a request for a recorded count.
The board moved on to other business, including curriculum and operational items, after the vote.
