Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal And Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board votes to retain outside counsel for three Commissioner appeals amid dispute over board-member lawsuits
Summary
The board approved retaining Shaw, Purlson, Megan Lambert LLP to represent the district in three New York State Commissioner of Education appeals; trustees debated whether taxpayer funds should cover appeals tied to payment disputes involving an acting superintendent and noted that one petitioner is a sitting board member.
The Newburgh City School District Board voted to retain Shaw, Purlson, Megan Lambert LLP to represent the district and other respondents in three New York State Commissioner of Education appeals, after a contentious discussion about cost and conflicts of interest.
The clerk read a resolution listing three appeals (Rhine v. Board; Brand v. Board; Bello v. Board). When a trustee asked for an explanation, legal counsel — addressed in the meeting as Mr. Shah — said the appeals challenge a per‑diem payment of $200 that the district agreed to pay a Deputy Superintendent who served as acting superintendent from July 1 through Sept. 3. "The the retainer covers certain items, but it doesn't cover commissioner's appeals," Shah explained, noting that the appeals must be litigated to completion.
Several trustees objected to spending additional taxpayer money for appeals they said were brought by board members. One trustee noted that a petitioner is a sitting board member and asked whether the district should shoulder extra fees for lawsuits brought by peers. Another trustee said the situation presented an appearance of impropriety and called it "a disgrace," arguing the counsel and the district risk additional costs.
Supporters of retaining counsel said the retainer does not cover Commissioner appeals and that defending the district requires litigation services at the hourly rate provided in the retainer agreement. The board first voted to add the resolution to the agenda and then held a roll-call vote on retention; the final vote recorded several yes votes and two no votes, and the resolution passed.
The motion authorizes the board president to execute the agreement with Shaw, Purlson, Megan Lambert LLP for representation in the three appeals; the transcript identifies the appeals by Commissioner’s appeal numbers and characterizes the underlying challenge as a claim that the post-facto per‑diem payment was unconstitutional. The board did not discuss estimated total fees for the appeals during the meeting.
Next steps: outside counsel will proceed with the Commissioner appeals process on behalf of the district. The board did not set additional reporting requirements or a public estimate of the hours or cost for this representation during the meeting.
