Fred Dupere, Special Education Counsel for the Amherst Regional Public School system since December, 2010 resigned suddenly, effective June 30. According to a statement sent out by Interim Director of Student Services Jo Ann Smith, "He indicated that his decision is based upon his current work commitments with other clients in his practice."
In other words he was doing w-a-y more work than expected for a lousy $3,000 month retainer.
The Regional School Committee has scheduled an emergency meeting executive session this Thursday at 4:30 PM at the Regional Middle School with Superintendent Maria Geryk in her private conference room. How cozy.
Dupere replaced Gini Tate (terminated by a 5-4 Regional School Committee vote on 9/22/10) who stayed on as attorney for all other legal matters at $220/hour. Well, except for a case or two that she started concerning special education. Those she continues to litigate even though Dupere could have handled them for no additional costs.
In fact, over the first three quarters of this fiscal year--even though fired as Special Education Counsel--Ms. Tate has been paid twice as much as Dupere for her Special Ed services billed to the Regional School District: $42,472 vs. Dupere's $18,684. In addition Ms. Tate raked in another $15, 000 for school committee consulting and an addition $32,000 for Human Resources.
Since Ms. Tate is a long-time friend of Superintendent Geryk, and since she already occupied the position of Special Education Counsel--and in fact never really ceased doing it--safe bet she will be the top name on a (very) short list of potential candidates.
Let the coronation commence.
This inside baseball. Ms. Geryk made an impassioned plea to keep Tate's lawfirm in her camp. Tate, as you say, is a good friend of Ms. Geryk's and Ms. Smiths.
ReplyDeleteIf they choose Tate again - after an elected body fired her - the State Ethics Commission should get involved. This is yet another cosy relationship that yields financial benefits to the outside party at the cost of Amherst taxpayers.
Where is the referree? But god forbid anyone critisize Tate - she'll sue you for libel.
Deliberately Anonymous.
It will be an elected body that chooses Tate again, if that is indeed what happens on Thursday. No reason for an ethis commission to get involved.
ReplyDeleteIt is unfortunate that the readers of this blog do not have an appreciation about what the role and function of legal representation in special education means to a district and in particular to the finances when cases are lost. It is one of the most complex and complicated aspects of education and education law. I wonder what the cost has been to the district and taxpayers since Atty Tate stopped representing special education and the other attorney took over. Perhaps, that's the question to ask before conclusions are drawn. Whether you like Tate or not, she has an exceptional reputation across the state as being a top special education attorney. Don't the schools and Amherst taxpayers have the right to be represented well or should we just give our money away when there is a disagreement? Interesting reference to "good friends"; how do you know that? What facts or evidence do you have? I chose to be anonymous becuase I am a member of this community and there seem to be no boundaries on this blog or in the community about personal attacks.
ReplyDeleteCan someone please explain the need for an attorney in the first place?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhatever problems that develop under Superintendent Geryk are of no significance, as the ruling class in Amherst (those who determine the tone and content of the debate in town) will simply adjust its version of reality to favor her.
ReplyDeleteBasically, just shut up and go with the flow...pay the taxes and keep your mouths shut, or else....at least that is the message we got from the school & town.......Evil Corruption!
ReplyDeleteNone of the attorneys or firms are employees of the district so this isn't a personnel matter that can't be discussed in an open school committee meeting. In fact, it has to be discussed openly.
ReplyDeleteWhere were you larry. How come you weren't at the school committee meeting this afternoon?
ReplyDeleteI'm sure they missed me, greatly.
ReplyDeleteSo who did they choose for Special Ed Legal counsel?
Gini Tate's firm.
ReplyDeleteMakes sense. They were the only other firm which the SC's search committee (from a couple of years ago) said was a viable candidate after a long, thorough search. It got whittled down to two, one of them quit, that left Tate's firm. Who else was even in the running?
ReplyDeleteThere are three things about the SPED laws that everyone seems to be missing here.
ReplyDelete1: The SPED laws are civil rights laws (by definition). Does anyone care to imagine the hue and cry that would arise if the district was litigating maternity leaves and fights with Jewish parents over having their kids home for both days of Rosh Hashanah? Or if the district decided to ignore a different (and equally expensive) law known as Title IX?
SPED accommodations are like restrooms and locker rooms for females -- who, no, can't just use the same showers as the guys.
2: SPED proceedings are adversarial the same way that tax assessments are adversarial and when you find out the town has assessed your property an extra $50K for a barn that might have been there in the 19th Century but isn't there now.
Folks walk into town hall with a few pictures of their barn-less yard and say "umm, folks, I don't have a barn...." And while they could say "too bad, sue us", most assessors will admit that they have to offer some abatement because you have a solid claim.
It is the same thing with SPED, you don't want to offer a gold-plated IEP no more than the assessor wants to reduce the valuation to zero, but the vast majority of these situations ought not go to court.
3: There is a very big difference between an attorney returning phone calls from the adverse party (and otherwise being professional and courteous) and colluding with the adverse party.
This is "good faith" which is not the same thing as giving the parents everything they want. Or even anything that they want -- it is civility and professional courtesy.
The SPED law presumes that the district approaches the parents in such a manner, and there is a case out of Atlanta of what happens when the courts find out that a district hasn't.
What is the name of the Atlanta case? I presume you are an attorney?
ReplyDeleteAs requested: Draper v. Atlanta Public Schools.
ReplyDeleteSee http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/08/11th.jdraper.atlanta.htm
and
http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/art/draper.aps.comped.htm
As an aside, some folk are starting to seriously believe that dyslexia is caused by ADHD -- not only is there the high comorbidity but there is starting to be some evidence of an actual casual relationship....