Since 2005, the district has paid Brock Clay a flat fee for some of its legal work and paid for the rest on an hourly basis. The law firm has about 16 attorneys who work on Cobb School issues, and the firm earns about $2 million per year from Cobb County Schools.
If the board decides to enter a new contract and pay on a strictly hourly basis, Brock wrote, "There would be no continuing obligation on your part and you could evaluate the services as often as you like," Brock wrote. "If this is your preference, we are prepared to begin this January 1, 2010. If you prefer to continue on the same arrangement as we have now, we will also be happy to honor that agreement."
Brock Clay's rates range from $165 per hour for work by younger associates to $195 per hour for work by the most experienced attorneys, according to the letter. It could not be determined from Brock's letter if his new proposed fee structure would increase or decrease the district's annual bill. Brock Clay has been the school district's law firm for 20 years.
It appears Brock is trying to legitimize his firm's controversial contract with the district. In November 2007, board members discussed the contract during executive session and allowed it to roll over for four more years, beginning Jan. 1, 2009. The four-page contract states that if board members do nothing, the contract automatically renews for four years, and could renew indefinitely.
That 2007 rollover, though, was not disclosed to the public until October 2008 when the Journal learned of it from a board member.
The board and Brock Clay has come under criticism for the legal contract since it was discussed in closed-door session and not made public.
At that time, Abraham said he did not know about the rollover clause until he read about it in the Journal.
David Hudson, an Augusta attorney for the Georgia Press Association, said that hiring a legal firm is a contract matter and should have been discussed and voted on in public.
At the board's most recent meeting, on Dec. 17, Brock briefly mentioned he would be sending a letter to the board regarding his fee structure. The Journal, via an Open Records Request, received a copy of Brock's letter in which he offers to void the contract, with three years left, because it "has become the target of negative media attention," which "is a distraction to all concerned."
Abraham said Monday that he is aware of Brock's letter.
"It's best to let the new chairman decide what to do," said Abraham, whose term as chairman of the board will end Wednesday with the election of a new chairman. "That was a contract that the old board put in. I think they're going to have to decide whether to break that and do something else."
The contract is not on the agenda for the meeting and is unlikely to be discussed Wednesday, he said.
"If there are members of the board who feel that needs to be discussed, they will bring it up with the new chairman," he said.
Brock's 16-page letter also summarizes the areas of law involved in representing Cobb County Schools. The following are excerpts.
School Law
"As full-time education lawyers, we know that having comprehensive, legally-sound board policies now prevents costly litigation later ... We are also certified by the State of Georgia to provide required school board member training." ...
"Brock Clay's attorneys are extremely familiar with both (the Open Meetings Act and Open Records Act), having serviced public schools boards for nearly two decades. Our attorneys routinely attend board meetings at least twice each month to ensure compliance with these statutes. We also regularly assist our clients to ensure timely and appropriate responses to any requests made under the Georgia Open Records Act.
(Last July, Brock apologized after it was revealed that the Cobb School Board had voted about 55 times in executive session since Jan. 1, 2007. Under the state's Open Meetings Act, all votes must be done in public.
"I take responsibility for it. Mistakes have been made. We're making efforts correcting them. We think that we have done so," Brock said at the time.)
Finance
"Brock Clay's attorneys have extensive experience advising our public school clients in the competitive bidding process and assist them in all facets of the procurement and contracting process."
Employment
"We handle dozens of termination and nonrenewal cases each year, most of which result in resignation in lieu of a hearing because of our thorough preparation working closely with school districts' HR staff. We fairly and efficiently prosecute those cases which require a hearing and have handled numerous Fair Dismissal appeals at the State Board level and beyond."...
"Brock Clay attorneys typically advise district human resources personnel and respond to at least 30-40 EEOC Charges of Discrimination each year. Our results are definitive; the EEOC has never filed any lawsuit against one of Brock Clay's school district clients."
Staff writer Jon Gillooly contributed to this report
Follow us on Twitter!
Why doesn't the MDJ post the entire letter, rather than excerpt it?
Their hourly billing rates, even by Marietta (as opposed to Atlanta) standards, are very reasonable.
I would consider entering into a new contract with Brock & Clay for certain matters, but not others. From what I hear, they have excellent experience with ADA/Rehabilitation Act, special education issues. Even school districts that have inhouse laywers for other things, refer this stuff to Brock & Clay.
Clearly, someone else should be advising the board on the Open Meetings Act. Also, since Brock & Clay was giving legal advice when the school district made the bone-headed move to slap the "evolution is just a theory" sticker on science textbooks and when it tried to use splost funds for things other than laptops, it shouldn't be advising the board on how to spend money or whether their actions might violate the First Amendment. (So much for avoiding costly litigation with good legal advice!) In fact, any federal court litigation should be handled by a firm that is routinely in federal court. Brock & Clay is not.
Finally, the statement that the EEOC has never filed suit against a Brock & Clay client is very misleading. The EEOC almost never files suit. They routinely, in like 98% of the discrimination charges filed, issue what's called a right to sue letter and let the individual pursue the matter on their own. Almost every firm that does employment law can make the same statement, as most of us who do employment law have never had to face the EEOC in court. I'd much rather hear what their success rate is like in federal district court, once the plaintiff has filed a discrimination law suit.
And, I agree about irked's complaint about the use of vague attributions like "school board insider" or "school board watchers" or "politicos." (Yes, they used that one in a recent school board article! What does THAT mean?) I've complained about this before. If you can't identify your source at least give enough information for use to evaluate whether it really is news. Otherwise, it looks like you're dressing up your own opinions as news.
Report the news, we'll decide what it "appears" to be or not.
It's becoming more and more difficult to pretend that I'm getting objective news from the MDJ. Had this sentence appeared in the article as a quote, and had it been attributed to a real person (not to some mysterious entity such as "a school board insider") it would have belonged on the front page.
However, it was a conclusion drawn by the reporter and belonged in the editorial pages.
Listen... times are tough for all of us. We're all facing the same decisions regarding how to adapt to these strange times to put food on the table.
Unfortunately, some will sacrifice ethics.
Times are tough for all of us. We're all having to adapt and find new ways to put food on the table.