Ms. White HAD an attorney. It does not matter if she no longer works with one. Once she hires one or mentions one, the school administration and school committee are obligated to work with one to protect the school from liability.

Below is the quote from Ms. White, found at the bottom of her first letter in this group, that says that she had an attorney.

Are there all housewives in this forum? Anyone who has ever worked in a significant organization on contentious issues should know that this practice permeates American organizations, both private and public.

“I think the issue is that when there is any complaint about accountability or compliance with state and federal law by school staff, the whole case is immediately turned over to the school attorney rather than having anyone try to resolve the situation within the district…I only involved an attorney for three weeks in Apr-May of 2006, so this is not a case of a parent's attorney battling the school's attorney…How would I have the school act differently? I expect administrators to assure and enforce compliance with state and federal education laws by every teacher in every classroom rather than provoking a legal battle with the few parents that have the courage to bring the violations to their attention."

These are the legal expenses for the Duxbury Public School District for the period Jan 26, 2008 to Feb 26, 2008 as reported to me today by Supt. Skeiber in response to my FOIA request:
Labor $755.22
School Law $1212.50
Special Education $16,532.05
Total $18,499.77

The totals reported to date for FY08 are:
Labr $13,842.50
School Law $3,695.30
Special Education $67,498.85
Total $85,036.65

The total legal expense related to my son spent between 2/7/8 and 2/26/8 was $4875 which now brings the grand total to $95,992.50 since March 2006.

This $4875 total includes a 1.5 hour charge of $375.00 for "prepare for witness preparation" on 2/25/08 and an 8.75 hour charge of $2,187.50 for "witness preparation" on 2/26/08. I can only assume that this total $2562.50 was to prepare witnesses for the on-site investigation scheduled by the Dept of Education on February 29th due to the fact that "the ditrict chose not to complete a local report" for a simple noncompliance complaint. I have no doubt that our school administrators are perfectly capable of completing a "local report", but instead, again chose to pay the school attorney to justify and deny their noncompliance with basic education law. I also note that the spreadsheet of legal charges ended on 2/26/08 and did not include whatever the school attorney was paid to do on 2/27 and 2/28 to further prepare for the DOE onsite investigation on 2/29. And, I'm sure the school attorney's presence was required for the entire day on Feb 29th while the DOE conducted their on-site investigation.

There were also charges totalling $2,187.50 for drafting and revising a hearing request for the harrassment hearing which was thrown out by the hearing officer during the first five minutes of our BSEA pre-hearing conference today.

I can't believe the school lawyer takes two days to prep the teachers and administrators before DOE comes to town. One would have to think, if they were telling the truth, the words would flow out of their mouths. I realize Elizabeth doesn't think they make enough money, but if they can't stand on their own two feet and tell the investigators what is going on but have to be prept or told what to say or maybe even intiminated into what to say, is that the type people we want teaching our children? Just maybe one of them will show us sometime in the near future that they are worth the money that they get or maybe more if they blow the whistle on the intimidation they must have to endure at the hands of the administration and their mouth piece, who is robbing the tax payers of this town blind. George Cipolletti isn't doing a damn thing about it and claims that nothing to do with this school department has anything to do with his school committee. Wake up George, the school lawyer is doing your job running the school department and is getting as much money as the useless superintendent you gave a three year contract to. You should of listened to John Heinstadt and given her a one year contract then, in my opinion, the boot.

The $4875 in legal fees that Duxbury tax payers paid to the school attorney for her services related to my son for a twenty day period in February is more than the amount that I pay in taxes and fees to the Town of Duxbury for an entire year.

The $95,992.50 in legal fees that Duxbury tax payers paid to the school attorney for her services related to my son for the twenty-four month period from March 2006 to March 2007 is more than the amount that I have paid in taxes and fees to the Town of Duxbury for the entire fifty years that I have lived here.

If the school committee and superintendent continue to approve this average $4000 per month legal expense related to my son until he graduiates from DHS,then I would have to continue live here and pay taxes/fees for another 25-30 years for Duxbury to even come close to breaking even just on school legal expenses related to my son alone.

I am not even including the legal expenses that our upcoming class action suit will generate to the Town of Duxbury.

And, this is all due to the fact that the administrators and staff of the Duxbury Public School District refuse to comply with basic education law. More importantly, the emotional, physical, and educational cost that this educational neglect inflicts upon all of our children is life long and unforgiveable.
---------------------------------------

These are the legal expenses for the Duxbury Public School District for the period Jan 26, 2008 to Feb 26, 2008 as reported to me today by Supt. Skeiber in response to my FOIA request:
Labor $755.22
School Law $1212.50
Special Education $16,532.05
Total $18,499.77

The totals reported to date for FY08 are:
Labor $13,842.50
School Law $3,695.30
Special Education $67,498.85
Total $85,036.65

The total legal expense related to my son spent between 2/7/8 and 2/26/8 was $4875 which now brings the grand total to $95,992.50 since March 2006.

This $4875 total includes a 1.5 hour charge of $375.00 for "prepare for witness preparation" on 2/25/08 and an 8.75 hour charge of $2,187.50 for "witness preparation" on 2/26/08. I can only assume that this total $2562.50 was to prepare witnesses for the on-site investigation scheduled by the Dept of Education on February 29th due to the fact that "the district chose not to complete a local report" for a simple noncompliance complaint. I have no doubt that our school administrators are perfectly capable of completing a "local report", but instead, again chose to pay the school attorney to justify and deny their noncompliance with basic education law. I also note that the spreadsheet of legal charges ended on 2/26/08 and did not include whatever the school attorney was paid to do on 2/27 and 2/28 to further prepare for the DOE onsite investigation on 2/29. And, I'm sure the school attorney's presence was required for the entire day on Feb 29th while the DOE conducted their on-site investigation.

There were also charges totalling $2,187.50 for drafting and revising a hearing request for the harrassment hearing which was thrown out by the hearing officer during the first five minutes of our BSEA pre-hearing conference today.

Hello all,

There's been lots of discussion and information posted to this thread so I've made it a sticky.

That just means it will remain near the top of the page. Please feel free to continue posting as usual.

Josh

Here is the original version of my letter that was published in the Clipper today:

Dear Editor, Duxbury Clipper:

The Duxbury Public School District paid Stoneman, Chandler & Miller, LLP a total of $18,500 for legal services between January 26 and February 26, 2008 with $755 spent on labor, $1213 spent on school law and $16,532 spent on special education. That brings the total FY08 legal expense to $85,037 to date with $13,843 for labor, $3,695 for school law and $67,499 for special education.

The total charge for legal services related to my son between February 7 and February 26 was $4875 which now brings the grand total to $95,993 during the past 24 months. February charges included $2188 for school attorney Colby Brunt’s services to draft and revise her request for a harassment hearing that was thrown out by the hearing officer during the first five minutes of our pre-hearing conference last week. Since the billing cycle ended on February 26th, further legal expenses related to my son were generated by Department of Education’s on-site investigation on February 29th and the Bureau of Special Ed Appeals pre-hearing conference on March 11.

On February 29th, investigators from the Department of Education came to Duxbury to conduct an onsite investigation of one of my noncompliance complaints. The DOE ordered the investigation because “the district chose not to complete a local report”. I have no doubt that our salaried school administrators are perfectly capable of completing a “local report” for a simple noncompliance issue at no cost to tax payers. Instead, again, administrators and the school committee chose to use their unlimited legal expense fund to pay the school attorney to justify and deny the noncompliance with basic education law that the DOE deemed that it was necessary to investigate.

The DOE notified the district that investigators planned to “briefly interview” these four staff members on-site on February 29th : Director of Special Education Deb Corvini, Principal Andrew Stephens, School Psychologist Wayne Frieden, and Sped Team Chair Mary Buchanan. On Feb 25 and Feb 26, the school attorney was paid $2,563 for 10.25 hours of “witness preparation” related to my son. If the school district was truly in compliance with the law and if the four school staff members were merely expected to tell the truth during their interviews with the DOE investigators, then why did Duxbury tax payers have to pay the school attorney $2,563 for 10.25 hours of “witness preparation” before the DOE investigation? It sounds to me more like my taxes were used to pay the school attorney for “witness intimidation” rather than “witness preparation”.

Sandy White
Tremont Street

The total legal expense related to my son spent by the Duxbury Public School District between 3/3/8 and 3/25/8 was yet another $5000 which now brings the grand total to $100,992.50 since March 2006. That averages out to approximately $300 for each day that my son attended school.
That is an awful lot of tax payers’ money to waste on denying and justifying noncompliance with an approved special ed plan and violations of state/federal education laws. That legal expense has done absolutely nothing to benefit anyone or anything except school attorney Colby Brunt’s bank account.

These are the legal expenses paid to Stoneman, Chandler & Miller, LLP by the Duxbury Public School District for the month of March 2008 as reported to me today by Supt. Skeiber in response to my FOIA request:

Labor March 2008: $1642.85
School Law March 2008: $406.88
Special Education March 2008:$15,994.21
Total March 2008: $18,043.94

The totals reported to date for FY08 are:

Labor FY08: $15,485.35
School Law FY08: $4,102.18
Special Education FY08: $83,493.06
Total FY08: $103,080.59