RSU 24 board agrees to investigate hiring outside legal counsel on 'Title 9' after extended debate

The RSU 24 school board voted to direct the superintendent to compile a list of potential outside attorneys and return to the board with options so members can consider whether to seek a second legal opinion on matters described in the agenda as “Title 9.” The action followed an extended public-comment period and nearly two hours of board debate over whether the district’s policies align with federal and Maine law.

Carl, a board member who requested the agenda item, said community members, parents and teachers had asked the board to “weigh out the pros and cons” and to get clarity on potential conflicts between what he referred to as the "main human's rights act" and "Title 9." He said the goal was to “educate the board” about the legal landscape before the board considers any resolution or policy change.

Supporters of a second opinion said an outside review could reveal legal risk or different interpretations than the district’s regular counsel. A member of the public told the board she favored a second opinion because the firm the district currently uses "holds strongly left-leaning bias," and urged the board to seek another perspective.

Several board members pushed back on the timing and choice of counsel. One board member cautioned that the board’s role is to comply with the law and suggested waiting for courts and state agencies to resolve conflicts; another said, "if we're going to seek an outside opinion, why on earth would we consult an attorney that has no background in education law when there are other law firms in the state that do practice education law?" The board discussed cost; one speaker said the fee for an initial opinion would be "under $500," although the district did not commit to a specific contract or retainer.

Rather than immediately hiring a particular firm, the board ultimately approved an amended motion to have the superintendent research possible outside counsel, include Steve Smith Trial Lawyers on the list as requested by the motion’s sponsor, and bring the options back to the board at a future meeting for deliberation. The motion passed by voice vote.

The board did not adopt any policy changes at the meeting. Members stressed that researching outside counsel does not itself change district policy; rather, it is a fact-finding step prior to any legal engagement or formal resolution.

The board asked for the list to be compiled before the next month’s meeting so trustees can perform due diligence and decide whether to proceed with an external opinion or retain a firm.