Close and Markilinski Square Off as ASD Changes Solicitors
by Nathan Lasher
Close
Markilinski
Board Members Michael J. Markilinski and Joseph D. Close went head-to-head, and President Rose Stitt tried to keep the meeting in order as the Armstrong School District school board voted to terminate their current solicitor and hire a new one during a special meeting held last night at the Administration Building in Ford City.
After holding an executive session, Board President Rose M. Stitt opened the meeting by explaining what would be discussed. “This meeting tonight is only to discuss legal representation. There was an incorrect article in the Leader Times today and I want to clarify that we have never advertised that we would be discussing lawsuits. We are not going to be discussing lawsuits, nor are we allowed to discuss lawsuits at this time. This is simply on deciding if we wish to change district solicitor; nothing more.”
After she made her statement, Stitt opened the floor to public comment. There were no public comments, and Stitt opened the floor to the Board and spoke first.
“I gave the Board, last week, resumes on a firm, Dodaro, Matta and Cambest, and I feel that they would be the best advocate for our school district. I feel 100% confident in their capabilities, and that is who I am recommending, and that is why I called this special meeting.”
Markilinski was the next director to comment. “I prepared a resolution for a motion to terminate the legal services of Andrews and Price as Solicitor,” he said.
At this time, Markilinski passed the resolution out to the Board and then read it aloud.
“General One: Motion to Terminate Legal Services: Resolve that the Board of School Directors of the Armstrong School District hereby terminates the legal services of the law firm of Andrews and Price as Solicitor for the Armstrong School District effective 4PM on March10, 2010, and I will make that motion,” said Markilinski.
Markilinski’s motion was seconded by Director Sara Yassem, and President Stitt opened the floor for comments from the Board. Close was the first to speak.
“Could we elaborate on the reason to excuse Andrews and Price as our District Solicitor?” asked Close.
“I just tried to give them to you in executive session, and you didn’t want me to complete,” replied Board Vice President James A. Solak.
“I’d like you to maybe complete some of your explanations. This is a general item, and I thought maybe you would want to explain them, not only to me, but to the public also,” said Close.
Solak went further to explain why he would not discuss the issue in public. “As you well know, comments are executive- type statements because they involve litigation,” he said.
Stitt confirmed Solak’s statement. “That is correct, and we can’t speak about any of those comments,” she said.
“We’re not talking about a specific case, we’re talking about our representation,” argued Close. “If you’re not being represented at the point where you feel adequate then I don’t think that’s anything to hide from anybody if that’s the way you feel.”
“Maybe you feel that you are adequately represented, but I don’t,” said Markilinski.
Stitt went further to explain why reasons for the termination of Andrews and Price as Solicitor would not be discussed. “Here is the issue,” said Stitt. “I was informed by two different attorneys that we are not allowed to discuss anything connected to litigation publicly, and the reasons were discussed in executive session because of litigation. If I was allowed to speak, I would tell everyone because I wish that all our meetings were public including executive session, but state law doesn’t allow it, and I got that advice from attorneys. I am not going to go against that. We discussed many of the issues in executive session, and that’s where it’s going to stay.”
Stitt then asked for any other comments from the Board. Close had another question to ask.
“Wouldn’t we get more than one RFQ or RFP from an attorney? We just looked at half a dozen different architects and chose one,” said Close. “We’re being given information from one law firm, and, remarkably enough, the one who represented the group from Elderton. That’s who we’ve been provided with so far. How long will we go without any legal representation for the district if we terminate it tomorrow at 4 o’clock?”
“Let’s go to this resolution, and then we’ll go to the next resolution and see how that goes,” replied Stitt.
Close then commented that there was only one resolution on the agenda.
“You’re going to get another one,” replied Markilinski.
Close then went further to argue the presentation of a second resolution. “You don’t have another under this agenda,” Close said. “I guess we already knew we were going to get another one tonight. Surprise, surprise; we get this now. Why doesn’t this say that we are going to vote on something else?”
Stitt acknowledged Close’s comment. “You do have a valid point, Mr. Close. We should listen to the second [resolution] because they are connected, so at this time can you please read your second [resolution]? I take it that you have a hard copy for us,” Stitt said addressing Markilinski who then passed out the copy of the second resolution.
“It would be nice if we had an attorney here this evening just to let us know that what we’re doing here isn’t illegal,” said Close.
“We do. There’s one in the audience,” replied Markilinski.
“Oh yeah, the one that you are going to hire in ten minutes,” Close commented.
“No, five,” Markilinski fired back.
At this time, Markilinski and Close began to argue with one another until Stitt interjected. “No, you’re out of order; enough. We are going to stick to the topics,” said Stitt.
Close interrupted Stitt by saying “Does anybody hear the train whistle? I think I hear it.”
“You took the cotton balls out of your ears,” said Markilinski.
President Stitt had to pound her gavel and quiet the two again.
Markilinski read the second resolution. “General two: Motion to Appoint Law Firm: Resolve that the Board of School Directors of the Armstrong School District hereby appoints the law firm of Dodaro, Matta & Cambest, P.C. as Solicitor for the Armstrong School District affective 4PM on March the tenth 2010,” read Markilinski.
At this time, the Board held a role call vote on the first motion; General One. Stitt, Yassem, Solak, Markilinski, and Board Members John L. Monroe and D. Royce Smeltzer voted “yes.” Close was the only Board Member to vote “no.” Members Christopher E. Choncek and James T. Rearic were absent. The motion was carried.
After the first motion was carried, Stitt asked for a motion for General Two. Markilinski made the motion and it was seconded by Smeltzer. Stitt opened the floor to the Board for comments starting with herself.
“Whoever they represented in the past is inconsequential to me,” said Stitt. “If anything, I just got to know this firm, and I realize that they are excellent attorneys. I feel that they would be the best to advocate for this school district, and that is why I will be voting yes.”
Close then asked Stitt if they needed public comments.
“No because we already had public comments at this time,” answered Stitt.
“Not on this General Two,” argued Close.
The board showed a general consensus, and Jennifer Willyard of Ford City was the first to step up to the podium.
Willyard
“I’m just wondering how many firms you did, in fact, interview for this position. Since, as Mr. Close did say, you did put some study into looking into architects, and, something like this, I would think, is a big deal,” said Williard. “So, the right person should, truly, represent the district. I’m just wondering how many you did interview.”
Stitt responded to Williard’s question. “Protocol is that we are not to have back-and-forth banter, but I will tell you,” said Stitt. “I brought this as President of the Board, and if the Board votes it down, then we go elsewhere. There are different procedures for choosing architects versus attorneys. So, that’s why. I brought this to the board, we’re discussing it, and if they wish to vote it down, then they can vote it down.”
The next member of the public to step up to the podium was Scott Starr of East Franklin.
Starr
“I think this should be held off until it is determined if there is a possible conflict of interest. Mainly because Matta represented the HERO group who tried to sue the District and the Board, and now he is representing the Board,” stated Starr. “There is an item called successive representation which may make this illegal. I can’t do this, but it has to be done by a member of the board to determine whether it is a conflict of interest or not.”
“We are leaving it at the Board level,” responded Stitt. “We know what the legal ramifications are here. I have already checked those issues out. I’m not going to say anything else, so at this time do we have any other comments?”
Close was ready to speak when Stitt opened the floor. “We were threatened by Mr. Matta at the time when the HERO group asked to, when we converted the Elderton Complex to a maintenance facility. At that time, we were notified that if any changes would be made with additional costs incurred by the District in the case of the secession, then members of the Board would be held liable for those costs as a type of a threat to us. It was brought out, and I believe it is a conflict of interest. We’re about to hire a firm, to this point, you tell me, anybody sitting on this board, every item under compensation is to be negotiated. You don’t even know what this guy is going to charge this District,” he said.
“Yes I do,” answered Stitt “The same exact rate as Mr. Price.”
“So we’ve already talked about it,” exclaimed Close
Stitt tried to comment by saying, “I talked to him whenever I called for the rest…,” but she was interrupted by Close who was making a train whistle noise.
“You’re stupid you know that? You’re as dumb as a box of rocks,” said Markilinski to Close.
Stitt tried to keep the meeting in order, but both Markilinski and Close continued to banter until she was finally able to stop them.
“Whenever I contacted this firm, I asked them for their rates, and they have the same rates as Mr. Price,” explained Stitt. “There is no additional cost to the District. So, at this time I’m going to ask for role call.”
Before he placed his vote, Solak explained his decision. “My vote reflects the law firm that I feel will be the best advocate for the ASD,” he said. “The experience of this law firm dates back to 1970. This law firm is made up of partners who have been a School District Business Manager, a Director of Personnel, and also includes CPAs. This firm also has experience in school district issues such as bond issues, redistricting, and labor negations; all of which are immediately applicable to the situations in this school district, and I vote yes because of that statement.”
At that time, once again, everyone on the Board voted “yes” except for Mr. Close with Rearic and Choncek absent. President Stitt moved to adjourn amidst grumbling between Close and Markilinski.
Print
Armstrong School District | nlasher March 9, 2010
By Delzer, March 9, 2010 @ 6:43 AM
I wonder if the five board members who had hired Matta’s firm to represent them PERSONALLY in the law suit filed last week still have to pay out of their own pockets now that the same firm will be representing the district? I don’t think so. Correct me if I am wrong but it seems like the tax payers will now be covering the bill for the Super six’s CHOSEN representation. Exactly how did the Price firm not do their job? Where was the problem? The only problem was the present firm wasn’t hand picked by the super six. I know I feel safer that HERO representation is now representing the district. No conflict of interest there!!!I hope all you readers out there are looking closely at the actions of these six people. I feel they are boardering on illegal and certainly immoral. They are out of control. And to Joe I have a train whistle that belongs to my kids I would be glad to lend it to you!!! Thanks for the effort you put forward to try and stop the Super Six.
By DANBOY, March 9, 2010 @ 7:13 AM
This is no longer the ASD. It is a Chapter in MEIN KAMPF. If I quit paying my property taxes especially the ones due in OCTOBER will I be sentenced to go to the gas chamber? What we need to do is elect more out of control egomaniacs.
By scott_starr, March 9, 2010 @ 8:41 AM
I must correct something, I did mispeak last night. HERO did not sue the district, they merely threatened to sue the district.
I was given the letter by HERO stating that they would sue the district if….
By Jen16226, March 9, 2010 @ 10:24 AM
I find it very dis-heartening that the board will not answer simple questions.
As I said last night, you would think that the board would go through a fairly stringent process of finding a new lawyer…..interviews, check references, etc.
“Protocol is that we are not to have back-and-forth banter, but I will tell you,” said Stitt. “I brought this as President of the Board, and if the Board votes it down, then we go elsewhere. There are different procedures for choosing architects versus attorneys. So, that’s why. I brought this to the board, we’re discussing it, and if they wish to vote it down, then they can vote it down.”
I can not understand how it is different for everyone to sit and watch presentation after presentation by architects, but yet not interview different lawyers since they are the ones that would stave off any lawsuits which potentially could cost the district millions.
WOW.
By WOW, March 9, 2010 @ 10:55 AM
Why does this article not share Mr. Markilinski’s end quote? In speaking to Mr. Close at the end of the meeting, Mr. Markilinski states, “You can do whatever you want. We all know you blow.” Is this who you want representing you and making decisions on a multi-million dollar budget?
By DANBOY, March 9, 2010 @ 12:46 PM
Things I think I think:
*Probably the happiest, luckiest and most fortunate individual in Armstrong County is Lee Price. Thanks for the memories. See what happens when you say no to JIMMY.
* Do the Silent Three (Monroe, Smeltzer and Yassem)know Dodaro,Matta and Cambest is a legal firm and not a shop down the strip selling meat and cheese?
* Jimmy you are slipping. You usually abstain from such a controversial vote and then tell your 80 year old constituents you are not responsible for the travesty.
*The comments made by MJM at Director Close were those of his EXPERT OPINION. We now all know why you know so much about skating at Lenape.
* Next weeks School Board Meeting at Lenape Elementary would be a great place for the first TOWN HALL meeting. Any one in the SILENT MAJORITY that needs a ride post it here and I will come carry you on my back.
*And finally I am waiting for Ashton Kutcher to show up at a Board Meeting and tell us we have all been PUNKED. How else can this be explained???
By concerned citizen, March 9, 2010 @ 12:46 PM
They ALL act like children. (both sides) Should Close be making “train noises” in the first place?
Markalinski’s and Close’s behavior was ridiculous!!
By union taxpayer, March 9, 2010 @ 12:48 PM
I can only imagine what neighboring school districts think of us. This current board is such a disgrace. I have never been so disgusted and frustrated with any group of PUBLIC SERVANTS before in my life. I personally can’t wait till their terms are up. I for one will not let my director run unopposed.
By Bolt Upright, March 9, 2010 @ 1:27 PM
Maybe the question that should have been asked of Ms. Stitt is how and why did you pick this particular law firm? Of all the law firms in the area, why did you chose the exact same firm that HERO has? The whole thing seems shady to me.
By futureconcened, March 9, 2010 @ 1:33 PM
The H.E.R.O. group has never sued the Armstrong School District.
We followed a precise legal process to secede from the ASD after the Board voted 9-0 to not interfere with our secession. We were assured at School Board Meetings numerous times that our High School would remain intact for reopening. Technology and books needed for the education of our students were permitted to leave the building but were inventoried, we were assured. We were assured that the school had been cleaned, halls waxed and ready for reopening after the secession was complete.
When the Administration decided to move the Warehouse to the Elderton High School Basement, our lawyer informed ASD that we were concerned about the building being used for this purpose. Litigation was a possibility, since this went against previous assurances. The area being considered contained lockers and a weight room for our athletes as well as shop facilities. Again, H.E.R.O. never filed a lawsuit against ASD about this issue.
Mr. Starr, I do find it unusual that you, as a Plaintiff in the lawsuit, would have a say in picking ASD’s lawyer for its defense.
Law firms specializing in School Law represent numerous districts. In Mr. Price’s case, he currently represents Lenape JOC, Indiana Area School District, Plum Borough School District, Burrell School District and there may be others. It is not uncommon for lawyers to represent numerous clients.
H.E.R.O. has no current or proposed legal actions against ASD.
By ASDpayer, March 9, 2010 @ 1:46 PM
Something is really fishy here. Why fire a firm that has been with you for years and hire another firm. We need explanations. This board is out of control and needs to resign.
By WOW, March 9, 2010 @ 2:16 PM
To DANBOY,
Ashton Kutcher will not be showing up but I think Jerry Springer is retiring and they are holding auditions to replace him Monday evenings here in Armstrong County.
By Jan, March 9, 2010 @ 2:26 PM
Many of the posts are correct in the way they interpretted the meeting last night. It was a free for all. I will give Ms. Stitt credit though for trying to keep the meeting in order. Like so many, I to wonder why Price was let go as the legal counsel for the ASD. He’s been there for many years and knows how this district operates. I would think that with the many issues on the table right now- you would want someone who has been there and understands both the legal and emotional sides of this board. I’m sure that Matta, etc. have the legal expertise to do the job- no one questions that- it just seems untimely for it to occur now. What was the hurry? Perhaps there is no legal conflict of interest that Matta is representing some of the board members on the law suit, but it sure does appear to look shady. Along with that, when HERO obtained the legal help from Matta’s law firm, it seems that on a particular piece of document that HERO had published, the names of Stitt and Smeltzer appear on it, with ASD Board Member beside their names. If all of this isn’t shady, it is darn near close. This is what we got folks- they were voted on to the board. God help us all.
By ToddLuke, March 9, 2010 @ 2:38 PM
It will be interesting to compare budget expenses in the future for billed services from the solicitor and compare that to costs submitted over the years for Andrews and Price. I hope they keep their personal legal expenses separate from district expenses. I guess the data will not lie.
By WOW, March 9, 2010 @ 3:28 PM
I am curious on whether any educational issues went into the decision to change law firms. There are continual needs for the solicitor regarding educational issues. Did Ms Stitt contact anyone in the administration in regards to any educational issues involved in changing solicitors? I do not believe that “education” was mentioned once during lastnight’s meeting. I believe Mr. Markilinski said to Mr. Close, “Maybe you feel that you are adequately represented but, I don’t.” Do you think the reasons are educational or self-interest? I believe Mr. Markilinski answered my question.
By ToddLuke, March 9, 2010 @ 3:38 PM
At least with Springer and Kutcher you can change the channel. We are stuck and have to watch this until the next election.
By ASDpayer, March 9, 2010 @ 3:58 PM
I think it is time for the business people to get involved. Your business is about to dry up and blow away. It is time for DKI to worry more about the state of the schools and worry less about light up night. This county is dying and it is being killed by our school directors. There is not a single business person on the school board, and it shows. Get a clue. Our supervisors need to worry less about porn on a computer and more about the rot in our schools. Someone needs to show some leadership. My single best kudos go to the five brave people who filed a lawsuit against the board. These folks are the heros of the county. Let’s hope the judge gives their case a fair hearing and the rest of us tax relief from these tyrants that are the school board. If you see any of these people give them a hand.
By gcaves, March 9, 2010 @ 5:11 PM
One thing we know for certain, during the past twenty years with Andrews and Price as ASD solicitors, we have had labor peace. Hopefully, this last action of the Always Some Discord board will incite enough reasonable people so as to fuel some long term progress for the good. ASD continues to regress to the tactics of the past. I really think if Elderton is re-opened then Dayton High should also be re-opened. Those were small classes and the good ole days!!!
By youngermoreintelligentman, March 9, 2010 @ 5:38 PM
Unrelated yet absolutely relevant question; Can someone tell me when the terms of the “unethical six” end? (or where I can find this information?) We now have 1 option while waiting on the outcome of the lawsuit; prepare for the next election to remove these people making a joke of the Armstrong taxpayer and there students.
By scott_starr, March 9, 2010 @ 5:51 PM
@future:
I corrected my statement on the third post.
Second, I’m not “picking” an attorney, I do find it funny that ASD decided to pick the HERO attorney, even in your book that should throw up a red flag.
Or maybe it doesn’t which I find even more interesting.
By scott_starr, March 9, 2010 @ 5:58 PM
@future:
What is not usual is for a law firm to respresent opposing sides.
That’s why it’s called sucessive representation.
Successive: one after the other.
Maybe you will read this:
What happens when a party to a potential lawsuit consults with an attorney he does not hire, only to discover later mat his opponent retained mat same attorney? If the party had retained the attorney, any number of ethical rules and court decisions would prohibit the attorney from accepting the adverse representation, whether it is concurrent or successive.
By scott_starr, March 9, 2010 @ 6:13 PM
@ASDPayer:
Here are the unfortunate facts
1 MJM – runs / owns FC Ambulance Service
2.Solak is part owner of twist and shout
3.Smeltzer has a truck and is an independant contractor.
4. I beleive Ms. STitt is involved in Buffalo LImestone.
So, there is business experience on the board… Whether good or bad is a matter for each person to decide.
By rfullerton, March 9, 2010 @ 7:23 PM
Solak 2011
Monroe 2011
Stitt 2011
mjm 2013
smeltzer 2013
yassem 2013
By DANBOY, March 9, 2010 @ 8:42 PM
Have you heard the saying a picture is worth a 1000 words. Please scroll down to the roofing contractor article in today’s KP. There is a picture that shows the vision of our elected officials.Too bad the officials were elected in the November Election of 1940.
By Jan, March 9, 2010 @ 8:48 PM
To youngermoreintelligentman- here is the information you are looking for:
Up for relection in 2011
Solak
Monroe
Choncek
Rearic
Stitt
Up for relection in 2013
Smeltzer
Close
Yassem
Markilinski
By rudytuesday, March 9, 2010 @ 10:13 PM
Youngermoreintellegentman:
I think this latest article will help you, it lists the year that each director was elected to the board and what years they are up for re-election.
http://hercasd.blogspot.com/2010/03/asd-board-history.html
By JMPC, March 10, 2010 @ 12:16 AM
futureconcened
This new law firm must be really good. How did that work out for you when, to quote your post, “you followed a precise legal process to secede” Judging by the results of that effort, their advice must have been just super.
I don’t know how anyone can defend what happened last night. Nothing that gets pushed through in this fashion is ever good for the majority. The “Self Serving Six” strike again. Keep up the good work. Soon we will all literally and unfortunately be forever in your “debt”.
By surs, March 10, 2010 @ 1:06 AM
Route 422 is a major highway in Armstrong County.
The Elderton Complex, near Rt. 422, for the future could be grades K-8. K-T could house admin offices. The new school with grades 9-12 could be on the land on Indiana Pike which is for sale and near Rt. 422.
It is time to close FCHS and KHS and the admin building. It is time to redraw tax lines so those students living near Avonmore and Apollo could attend Apollo-Ridge. Most people in Ford City and Kittaning have never been to Spring Church, Elders Ridge, and Avonmore. Most do not know where Apollo-Ridge is located.
WSHS could be sold, thereby eliminating its monstrous debt, nepotism, bullying, and reputation. The federal government is in the market for housing its prisoners.
If these ideas are not in vogue,then the Elderton Complex could be located on donated land with donated services of gas well and water drillers,contractors, electricians, plumbers, excavators, and technicians.
ASD really was not concerned about Elderon students. . . or Dayton students . . .or Shannock Valley students. It just appeared that
way.
By Jen16226, March 10, 2010 @ 6:41 AM
Surs,
While your thoughts are good ones, there are problems to them.
First, our district’s geographics would not allow for us to have 1 high school. Armstrong North and Armstrong South? Yes….that could fly.
Secondly, in this economy, do you really feel that companies would be willing to donate services that would take months to complete when they could try to earn money with their equipment and time? No…..unfortunately. The same with land being donated.
It would truly be a wonderful thing, but economics dictate that is not viable.
Our district can not afford to spend millions of dollars right now…..although it looks like we are about to in order to renovate EHS.
The big question should be, where are they going to come up with the cash to pay the teachers pension fund.
Answer would be nice as to a fiscal plan, but the board is not answering those questions.
By johnnymydear, March 10, 2010 @ 8:24 AM
Is this the way the voting public of Armstrong County School District want to be represented? If so, it’s very sad. The super six need to stop worrying about their personal agendas and worry about the district and the tax payers as a whole!!!! Are you truly proud of your decisions? Is your particlular voting region happy with what you are doing? I guess ignorance is bliss!
By Jan, March 10, 2010 @ 10:32 AM
To surs: While I like the fact that you are thinking about what may be educationally sound for students, there is a bit of a problem with your comments. First of all, do you know someone who would donate their land to the school district? With the economy as it is, I doubt that someone would want to give away land- unless there was something in it for themselves. Another issue is re-locating students from Avonmore, etc. to AR- would they take them? At this moment in time, any type of consolidation is out of the question. If you listen to your school board they only see “community schools” as the only option, so any type of progression towards consolidating schools is a moot point. If one dares to approach the subject of this- God only knows what the board would do next- possibly re-open Dayton and any other school that has been closed. 422 is a thru way for most areas that you mentioned, but again, where would the money come from to do this? We can’t even afford to renovate the schools we have,much less build a new school. Perhaps in the far away future, this could be a possibility, but you would need a progressive minded- fiscally responsible board to see that happen. As per WSHS- it needs to stay as is. It’s working for these students and shouldn’t be part of the equation. Your point is well taken though and I for one, appreciate your comment.
By scott_starr, March 10, 2010 @ 10:34 AM
School Directors are “supposed” to look at the district as a whole and do what is best for everyone.
It is in the voluntary code of ethics for School Boards.
By surs, March 10, 2010 @ 11:50 PM
To Jan and Jen 16226:
Thanks for your comments.
Some land owners are willing to donate lands for a charitable cause.
On another note, parents and foster parents
and guardians may want to consider Pennsylvania charter,cyber,home,and private schools–now that public education is under the umbrella of No Child Left Behind.
In the meantime, perusal of textbooks and curriculum materials is necessary.
Also, tonight’s evening news highlighted that the government is considering a national curriculum for math and English–meaning it would supersede the state’s curriculum.
Lastly, there is the Wellness program.
It is outlined on the ASD website.
Good-bye for now.
By Jen16226, March 11, 2010 @ 9:37 AM
Surs,
You are absolutely correct about the cyber schools. And the sad part is, ASD has one, but the position for admin. of this (Rick Burns) will be terminated at the end of the school year.
And again…..you are absolutely correct in your comments about textbooks and curriculum. That is what has me upset about Dr. Solak. He is an educator. Why had he not been advocating for this above everyone else? Why hve there not been changes? Why has he not offered insight how to get the AYP’s up? Why is he not spearheading a committee to do all of these things I mentioned?
And these are questions, among others, that the board will NOT respond to.
By elderman, March 12, 2010 @ 1:43 AM
I do not understand all the fuss about the ASD board replacing the district’s solicitor. ASD board president , Ms. Rose Stitt informed everyone that the new solicitor firm’s fees are the same as the firm being replaced. Board member Dr. Solak cited the skills and experience of the new firm of Dodara, Matta, and Cambest . Apparently, at least 6 members of the board have more confidence in the new firm and it is their right and indeed their responsibility to hire the best firm available. As to why this was done now, I suspect it may have something to do with the lawsuit brought by Attorney Chase McClister on behalf of David A. Reefer, James A. Seaman, Mary C. Seaman, Scott Starr, and Dan E. Goldinger. The court is scheduled to hear the case on April 6, 2010, but it appears to have already triggered an unforeseen consequence in the replacement of the solicitor. In my opinion, anyone who has a problem with the boards’ actions should thank the plaintiffs and Attorney McClister.
By DANBOY, March 12, 2010 @ 6:54 AM
Thank you Elderman for clearing that up. I feel so much better. BYE BYE
By rudytuesday, March 12, 2010 @ 8:31 AM
Elderman/Solak
I find it curious after watching the video of this meeting that MJM had two resolutions typed up and ready to go. YOU had a prepared statement typed up, ready to go. I don’t believe that the room that you had the Executive Session containted a printer or a typewriter. Also this meeting lasted no more than 10 minutes. THIS leads me to believe that you and your five other cohorts had met and discussed these items, which I do believe is a violation of the Sunshine Act. Can you explain this to us?
Also, why is it that everyone BUT Close seemed to know how much the fees are? Again, sounds like six were in the know ahead of time.
PUBLIC, view the videos for yourself and form your own opinion. http://www.youtube.com/HERCasd There are two parts, watch them both.