Following an Oct. 13 budget presentation that more than $2 million might have to be cut from next year's budget, School Committee Vice Chair Denise Burns made a motion that town counsel be consulted in the future before any decision by the superintendent or vote of the committee to enter into new legal action. The motion failed, 2-5, with Burns and committee Chairman Joseph Curran voting in favor.

YourArlington asked the members of the committee to explain why they voted as they did. Five of the seven members have responded. Here is Burns's motion and comment followed by the responses received so far.

Burns made clear that her motion did not mention the arbitration cases involving Chuck Coughlin and Stavroula Bouris, fired in August 2007.

Karen Fitzgerald, the committee secretary, provided the motion Oct. 16:

"Ms. Burns moved to instruct the Superintendent or School Committee to consult with Town Counsel anytime before we pursue legal action or make any legal expenditure, seconded by Curran."

Burns offered the following comment Oct. 14 about why she made the motion:

"We had a budget presentation in which we could conceivably have to cut over [$]2 million from next year’s budget.

"And I can't get out of my head that in the last two warrants we had legal bills totalling over 60K. We certainly have a responsibility to ensure the public that we will are taking every step necessary to curtail costs. So I made the motion to ask that Town Counsel be consulted in the future before any decision by the superintendent or any vote of the committee to enter into new legal action so that we could weigh that advice before making a decision.

"This would be a measure to ensure we have someone thinking about it from the perspective of Arlington as a whole. Counsel would not have a vote - but would have an opportunity to provide advice or opinion. This was not specific to ongoing arbitration - but so that we don't find ourselves in a similar situation a year from now, or two years from now. Its not about current cases but on future cases.

"It is unbelievable to me - but unfortunately it is no longer surprising - that the committee does not support the idea of a process for soliciting advice before entering into costly legal battles. While we do retain counsel on retainer, it would be good practice to get a second opinion rather than allowing that retained counsel to make the recommendation that we need to spend additional money with their firm.

"The greater issue this sheds light on is that we have a majority on the committee that repeatedly refuses to allow information pertinent to making sound decisions."

Response (Oct. 15) from Joseph Curro, who voted no:

"The motion that was made on Tuesday did not concern a matter immediately before us. There were also a number of questions surrounding this which required further deliberation and investigation. Specifically raised was the question of whether Ms. Burns was seeking prior review before taking any legal actions in relation to specific special education proceedings. I would include the questions of timely hearing of grievances and other unexpected situations.

"Ms. Burns' motion did not -- in my mind -- address these types of situations with sufficient specificity. The motion was worded on the fly, and it sought to bind the action of future committees. I believe that such a proposal is more appropriately -- and by necessity -- handled in the form of carefully considered policy.

"Ms. Burns is the chair of our Policies and Procedures Subcommittee, and she has run a generally collaborative, thorough, and productive process this year, as was demonstrated during her report later on Tuesday evening. She has been careful to pull all stakeholders into the conversation before the subcommittee has proposed any policy changes. If Ms. Burns remains committed to a formal review mechanism for legal costs, it would be better to explore this proposal through our subcommittee process, so as to be able to present a thoroughly examined and vetted recommendation to the full School Committee. Failure to do so risks a whole new set of unintended consequences.

"Pending such a policy review, any member of the School Committee has it within their power to ask questions about specific expenditures before signing or voting for the warrant, and I fully defend their right to do so."

Response (Oct. 18) from Cindy Starks, who voted no:

"I managed to get one question in Tuesday, which was to clarify that this would only be for future legal actions. But I had many more questions about the motion that did not get answered as there was a call for the vote. Because I had so many questions, I voted against it.

"Here are my questions:

"1.) How much does it cost for us to use town counsel? I am not interested in adding more legal costs.

"2.) Where in the process would they be inserted? And do we have a say for each case?

"3.) Would it be required to go to them for every legal matter?

"I did not want to have another mandated step for every legal action that might come before us. We know town counsel is there and I would rather vote on a case by case basis to send something to town counsel for review than to create a blanket requirement that they review everything.

"I believe this is the second time Denise has suggested something like this, but I still had too many questions to back it."

Committee members Ronald Spangler and Jeffrey Thielman, both of whom voted no, declined to comment.

Committee member Leba Heigham, who voted no, and Curran, who voted yes, have not responded to repeated requests for comment.

In the past, all current committee members have responded to requests for comment from YourArlington except Curran.

Town Council Juliana Rice was asked whether she believed it is advisable for town counsel to review the public schools' legal issues that are handled by the schools' firm, and, if so, under what circumstances she would do so.

She wrote Oct. 15: "I have no comment on this."

Alan S. Miller of the Stoneman Chandler & Miller firm, which represents the School Committee, noted Oct. 15 that the arbitrator's decision in the Coughlin case is now due by Nov. 2. "It, of course, is possible that the arbitrator will request additional time," he wrote.

NOTE: Responses from School Committee members not yet received will be added once they are received.