Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They have in-house counsel. Why couldn't that person respond to the complaint?
It's not uncommon to have outside counsel involved when the decision/action being questioned originally came from in-house counsel.
This is common practice basically everywhere. I don't see the problem.
Sure, but why keep lawyers on staff who don't do anything? They could hire more teachers. Either way, money is being wasted here.
Silly question. Do you see a infectious disease doc for a broken leg? Different lawyers have different specialties.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They have in-house counsel. Why couldn't that person respond to the complaint?
It's not uncommon to have outside counsel involved when the decision/action being questioned originally came from in-house counsel.
This is common practice basically everywhere. I don't see the problem.
Sure, but why keep lawyers on staff who don't do anything? They could hire more teachers. Either way, money is being wasted here.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They have in-house counsel. Why couldn't that person respond to the complaint?
It's not uncommon to have outside counsel involved when the decision/action being questioned originally came from in-house counsel.
This is common practice basically everywhere. I don't see the problem.
Sure, but why keep lawyers on staff who don't do anything? They could hire more teachers. Either way, money is being wasted here.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They have in-house counsel. Why couldn't that person respond to the complaint?
It's not uncommon to have outside counsel involved when the decision/action being questioned originally came from in-house counsel.
This is common practice basically everywhere. I don't see the problem.
Sure, but why keep lawyers on staff who don't do anything? They could hire more teachers. Either way, money is being wasted here.
Different roles and responsibilities.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They have in-house counsel. Why couldn't that person respond to the complaint?
It's not uncommon to have outside counsel involved when the decision/action being questioned originally came from in-house counsel.
This is common practice basically everywhere. I don't see the problem.
Sure, but why keep lawyers on staff who don't do anything? They could hire more teachers. Either way, money is being wasted here.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They have in-house counsel. Why couldn't that person respond to the complaint?
It's not uncommon to have outside counsel involved when the decision/action being questioned originally came from in-house counsel.
This is common practice basically everywhere. I don't see the problem.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They have in-house counsel. Why couldn't that person respond to the complaint?
It's not uncommon to have outside counsel involved when the decision/action being questioned originally came from in-house counsel.
It's the same person. Heather Mitchell is the in house counsel. She attends every Board of Education closed session.
She violated the law and then she defended her violation of the law. She gets paid $450 an hour no matter what she does. Win win for her.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They have in-house counsel. Why couldn't that person respond to the complaint?
It's not uncommon to have outside counsel involved when the decision/action being questioned originally came from in-house counsel.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They have in-house counsel. Why couldn't that person respond to the complaint?
It's not uncommon to have outside counsel involved when the decision/action being questioned originally came from in-house counsel.
Anonymous wrote:They have in-house counsel. Why couldn't that person respond to the complaint?
Anonymous wrote:I'm sure it was less money than keeping Zoom academy open this year.