"Missed" Communication? 2009 BAC Recommendation

[Chris_Wendt]

The BAC passed a recommendation last night recommending the Board of Education review the causes and reasons that legal costs for Special Education have increased so sharply, with an eye to devising actions to possibly reduce these legal costs in the future.

It was frustrating to me that the Board chose to respond from the hip rather than taking this recommendation under proper advisement for development of more thoughtful response and potentially meaningful action in the future. More frustrating was the dismissive tone of the Board President's response, which was a quip that "more people sue" as being the reason for this spike in legal costs.

I also took from the Board President's snap reply that he had inferred totally incorrectly that the recommendation was calling for the District to either "cave-in" to improper parental demands for specific services, or, to "settle-up" rather than defend onerous lawsuits. For the very important reason of not establishing binding legal precedent unfavorable to the district, the Board of Education should certainly manage special education services appropriately, and should vigorously defend frivolous or financially onerous lawsuits. Repeat: this is NOT what the BAC recommendation was dealing with.

So, what was this recommendation actually talking about?

I think this recommendation was directed at the Board of Education, the Board's legal counsel, the Superintendent and the administrators directly responsible for Pupil Personnel Services and for the CSE. I believe what is necessary to fulfill the intent of this recommendation is some thoughtful introspection about the manner, the tone, the choice of words, and the demeanor with which the responsible people in the Wantagh School District deal with the parents of special needs children and their advocates...on a day-to-day basis.

The suspicion is raised, the thought planted, that these suddenly very high legal costs associated with Special Education may have less to do with the facts and more to do with the treatment of and communicating with the (parent) recipients of special services by the school district.

Case in point, had I been a parent of a current or prospective recipient of special services for my child last night (instead of 20 years ago), and had a recommendation or suggestion of mine been just gruffly dismissed out-of-hand by the school district the way this BAC recommendation was given the brush-off by the board's spokesman last night, then I'd probably have a lawyer on the phone by tomorrow.

I hope I have conveyed the gist of this recommendation accurately. (I am not the author of the particular recommendation under discussion, here).

Chris Wendt

[lilly]

Yep, you’re pretty much hitting the nail on the head better than I could. Thanks for taking a stab at this. I continue to admire your writing skills.

I suspect it is communication, plus a bit more.

Think of the following scenarios:

1) The state AG office finds that school district lawyers, non-school district employees, are receiving generous NY pensions and benefits via school districts, in many cases more than one, by school districts and BOE’s erroneously filing them as employees. That investigation starts with one attorney (an Ingerman Smith att’y which although this situation does not pertain to Wantagh, is the same law firm Wantagh uses) and spreads state-wide with the AG finding fairly rampant abuses. The AG’s office has their hands more than full, trying to get the $ back and settle these cases almost one by one. Some give that pension $ back and settle. Other lawyers are resisting that idea tying it up in court, tying up more tax $’s on court time, saying that the loophole in the reg that was originally written to protect returning war veterans, not for school district lawyers to benefit from, is legally ok. For future situations, NY government quickly passes legislation so that the loophole is closed.

2) AIG executives, both here and in the UK, taking million dollar+ bonuses immediately after receiving TARP $’s that will be paid back for a long long time by U.S. taxpayers. Following public outrage, there seems to be no legal recourse until our fed gov.’t quickly puts regs into place that more clearly disallows it in future situations.

3) A long time BOE trustee’s sibling is employed by the same district as District Treasurer. That District Treasurer chairs a BAC’s contracts committee, the same contracts that now cost 76% of the annual district budget and govern this person’s employment as well as this person's colleagues. This is legally correct and happens right here in Wantagh.

These situations have elicited anything from a raised eyebrow to rampant public outrage and fall into the ‘there is right, there is wrong, then there’s the law’ saying. The commonality, however, is all of them elicit a reaction that offends the public sensibilities. “But we always win” or “we have a moral obligation to the kids” and “more parents sue” as the reason to justify the increased Wantagh sped legal, well, IMO may not scratch the surface.

The bigger headline and the reason for the recommendation is “Houston, there is a problem”. Someone needs to do the due diligence on why and how big the problem is and what it mean for the future. I too was floored at the interpretation and handling. Ralph Spagnola seemed to ‘miss the plot’ entirely, particularly the challenge thing in terms of settlements. What happens in sped legal situations should be private out of respect and dignity for those families as well as the district. I guess the point was there are more cases, whether they settle or not and go to hearing.