INDIAN RIVER COUNTY — The Indian River County School Board has decided to keep its current general counsel at an expense of $22,000 a month – or $264,000 a year – with a 4-1 vote. All but School Board member Matt McCain agreed that Brown, Garganese, Weiss and D’Agresta, in Orlando, was the best choice for the district, not only financially but also due to the firm’s legal expertise in education law.
McCain has said throughout the process of hiring legal counsel that he believes a local law firm would be just as equipped to handle the School District’s legal needs and that he’d prefer to hire locally instead of send taxpayer dollars out of the county.
Responding to phone calls, e-mails and public comment during Tuesday’s board meeting, School Board Chair Jeff Pegler explained the process of how the board came to decide on keeping the current law firm in place.
The district notified local law firms that the board was interested in their applications for general counsel – among other areas of law – and set about interviewing the responding firms. There were seven total that responded to the district’s request for qualifications – only three applied for general counsel aside from the current firm.
Pegler told the audience, which included several teachers and members of the Indian River County Education Association – the teacher’s union, that of the three that applied, two would be more expensive than Brown, Garganese, Weiss and D’Agresta and the two had less education-related legal experience.
Another firm, he said, suggested the board pass a “district special act” that would keep board discussions on certain issues, such as negotiations, out of the public eye.
Teacher Luke Flynt, during public input, told the School Board that, to date this fiscal year, the district has spent what averages out to $1,668 every school day on legal fees.
He also disagreed that keeping the current firm would knock the price down of the district’s legal expenses overall.
Teri Pennington, too, spoke against retaining Brown, Garganese, Weiss and D’Agresta.
“It’s absolutely atrocious,” she said of the amount of money the district would be paying a law firm when teachers are sorely underpaid and the board appears unwilling to invest in students’ futures.
Others questioned why the board did not consider in-house legal representation, much like what the municipalities, the Board of County Commissioners, and the Sheriff’s Office have.
Pegler, an attorney himself, told the audience that, on the surface it would seem that in-house counsel could be a cost savings to the district but, in fact would not in practice. He explained that other school districts that have in-house counsel often must hire outside representation to handle specific legal needs their in-house firm is not familiar with.
“It is a significant expenditure,” Pegler said, agreeing with the audience, but an expense he believes to be the most cost effective for the district.
As for hiring locally, School Board member Claudia Jimenez said, “It’s not justifiable” to hire a firm without the required experience.
She also pointed out that the board has been working to cut its legal fees over the last few years. In 2008-09, the district spent $504,000 on legal expenses. The following fiscal year, the amount dropped to $412,000, and dropped again the next year to $300,000 in 2011-12.
Jimenez agreed with Pennington that it is a shame teachers aren’t valued the same as lawyers.
“It is deplorable,” she said, but “that is societal… Sadly, as a school board, we cannot fix that problem.”
Though the contract approved Tuesday night is for three years, the contract can be exited with 30 days notice to the other party. Pegler told the audience that the 3-year contract would help the board not have to deal with renegotiating with the law firm every year.
