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 | 
Comments (35)
Loading ...