Council Rock Board Ousts Solicitor; Votes To Hire New Legal Counsel

NEWTOWN BOROUGH, PA — The new Council Rock School Board majority ousted the district’s longtime solicitor on Thursday and voted to hire a law firm with ties to the Democrat Party to represent the district’s legal interests.

In a move that drew criticism from the board minority, the board voted 5 to 0 with four abstentions to award the district’s lucrative legal work to the law firm of Rudolph Clarke.

Rudolph Clarke replaces the Bucks County-based law firm of Eastburn and Gray, which has represented the district for more than 40 years.

“During the last election the community voted for change in Council Rock. We have a new majority and new leadership and we plan to take the district in a new direction,” said board president Yota Palli. “Changing solicitors is not unusual. When new majorities are elected to school boards and to boards of supervisors they typically make changes like this because they want to make sure that they have the best team on board to implement their vision and the policies they campaigned on.

“Rudolph Clarke is one of the leading educational firms in southeastern Pennsylvania with recognized expertise in Right to Know law, tax assessments, labor relations, construction law, among other areas,” said Palli. “Our legal expenses will not increase because Rudolph Clarke has agreed to follow the same fee schedule as our last solicitor. Both Rudolph Clarke and Eastburn and Gray are reputable firms and they are used to working together, which will insure a seamless transition.”

Palli said that prior to the reorganization meeting held in early December she had reached out to every board member “to discuss our shared vision. I was disappointed that a shared vision was not welcomed by all. As the majority of the board moves in a new direction chosen by the voters we need new legal counsel to support our initiatives. Each board member has an equal vote on this but the minority cannot have veto authority over the majority.”

The motion sparked a sometimes contentious response by Republican board members who took the incoming board majority to task over its promise of transparency and board congeniality.

The four board members said they were not included in any discussions regarding a change in one of the district’s biggest vendors and were not afforded the opportunity to interview the firms under consideration for the job.

“I don’t know how to even vote on this measure because I wasn’t part of any discussions,” said board member Bob Hickey. “I got a phone call 10 minutes before the agenda that said we are going with the new solicitor. I am stunned,” he said. “I’m not saying whether to change or not to change. At best I’d have to abstain because I don’t know enough. There are four of us who weren’t aware of this and this is supposed to be a board that’s transparent and working together.”

Palli said board minority members were informed a week before the vote that the change in solicitors would be voted on at the January meeting, which she said gave them ample time to reach out to other board members and the law firm and ask questions. “You had the whole week,” she responded to Hickey.

According Palli, she and the four board members-elect met around Thanksgiving to interview potential law firms to carry out the incoming board’s vision. They agreed on Rudolph Clarke.

While the incoming board members broke no laws by meeting and discussing board business prior to being sworn in as members, elected board members said they were shut out if the process and were not given an opportunity for due diligence.

“You said we had a week. But there was a lot that happened before that,” said board member Joseph Hidalgo. “Usually we would have a discussion. We would know what is wrong with the vendor. The board would talk about that. We would then form a subcommittee to interview different firms. We would then meet and discuss the pluses and minuses for each firm and make sure we were doing our due diligence.

“Your vision said nothing about changing Eastburn and Gray,” continued Hidalgo. “Why did the five of you decide to fire Eastburn and Gray? Can you share the rationale for landing on Rudolph and Clarke?”

Palli reiterated her previous comment that minority board members had a week to reach out to other board members and to Rudolph and Clarke with questions “but you did not do that.”

“To be clear, the board has known about this for a week,” said board member Linda Stone, refuting any claims the board has not been transparent.

“Ms. Palli stated earlier that she has reached out to board members to discuss this," said Stone. "All board members had ample time to reach out. We are debating this proposed change in public tonight. Members of the public are watching. And public comment has been encouraged. This all fits the definition of transparency,” she said. “Many of us believe the district will be better served with Rudolph Clarke as the solicitor.”

When Hidalgo pressed the board majority on which firms had been interviewed, Palli said she would not be disclosing the names of the other firms that took part in the process.

“This new majority was elected by the public at the last election on November 7. The new majority has decided to change solicitors because we felt it was needed for the new direction we would like Council Rock to take,” said Palli. "It’s as simple as that.”

Following his firm's appointment as district solicitor, attorney Michael Clarke fielded several questions from minority board members who continued to seek answers on the process.

"I asked a question of the board president what firms were interviewed and the board president said, 'I'm not going to tell you.' Is that okay?" Hidalgo asked Clarke.

"I don't think there's any legal requirement of Ms. Palli to tell you who else they interviewed," he said. "It's within her discretion."

Hidalgo then asked Clarke if he could share his firm's involvement in the interview process.

"We met with Ms. Palli, Mr. Tate, Ms. Osecki, Ms. Khan and Ms. Stone sometime around Thanksgiving and had a conversation with them, told them a little bit about who we are. I haven't talked with Ms. Stone, Ms. Khan and Ms. Osecki until tonight," said Clarke.

Hickey asked Clarke, while the board members may not have broken the letter of the law by conducting business before being sworn in, did they break the spirit of the law?

"No, not at all," said Clarke. "It happens everywhere across Pennsylvania prior to reorganization."

Palli, who had been in the minority on previous boards, shot back at the criticism from the members who now find themselves in the minority.

"When you were in the majority, you did so many things without taking any input from us," she said. "I can sit down with you and go over a long list with you. You cannot pretend that something like that has not happened before."

"You were always informed," said Hidalgo. "You just didn't like that no was no."

"I was never informed," laughed Palli.