EASD Solicitor, Alan McFall
Ed Sieger's article in The Express Times today reports that the state has order the Easton Area School District to reveal the amount of legal fees the district is spending to support the district solicitor, Alan McFall, in a personal lawsuit against The Express Times. Back in June of 2008, Alan McFall claimed he was misquoted by an Express-Times reporter in an article about a legal settlement between the EASD and a former employee. In last month's school board meeting, Easton resident Curt Ehly spoke up to voice his concern that taxpayers are footing the legal fees for a solicitor's personal lawsuit, without it ever having come before a vote of the school board. Board President Pat Fisher responded to the suggestion of impropriety by gesturing to the other administrators and board members in the room and saying, "we'd do it for anybody--" as if that made it all right, or would make the taxpayers feel any better.
The lawyer representing McFall in the suit, said state law requires that the EASD support its employees. Only thing is, not only is the solicitor not an employee, but the school district has a confidentiality agreement with our solicitor, and the suit is over his alleged breach of confidentiality. Sounds like a broken contract to me--why should we be footing his bill?
Posts
7 comments:
Who the hell is Curt Ehly? His name sounds like a medical procedure.
FYI:
Curt Ehly is the appointed mouthpiece for Easton Area School District board member Kerry Leonard-Ellison.
Noel Jones wrote:
The lawyer representing McFall in the suit, said state law requires that the EASD defend its employees. Only thing is, not only is the solicitor not an employee, but the school district has a confidentiality agreement with our solicitor, and the suit is over his alleged breach of confidentiality. Sounds like a broken contract to me--why should we be footing his bill?
NOEL:
As usual, you only get part of the story right. It has nothing to do with a confidentiality agreement. How would you know they even have one?
The real issue is that Attorney McFall is NOT an employee of the district and not entitled to a defense paid for by the taxpayer. He is a hired subcontractor (solicitor) who should have his own errors and omissions insurance to cover crap like this. The school district had no obligation to pay for his legal defense and expenses.
Three gratuitous insults in a row - "Who the hell" "appointed mouthpiece" and "as usual you only get part of the story right".
Can't you guys make a point and be civil at the same time? That is the whole point of having an education, afterall, as opposed to simply trying to sound smart.
sorry everyone--i've been away for a couple of days.
first of all, i want to say to all of you who have posted so far, thank you for posting with names, or at least monikers, as we get so many Anonymous postings here, and it's always nice when you can get to know a person or character through a consistent tag and voice.
Michael--Kerry Leonard-Ellison needs no "appointed mouthpiece"--I think that we can agree that she's fully capable of speaking for herself, as she does at every meeting. Curt Ehly is a concerned resident, and a professional in his own right, fully capable of his own independent interests and research, as he has demonstrated as well. It disturbs me that I often hear push back to the idea that residents can have coherent, educated, personally researched thoughts of their own. Electing someone to office--or hiring them to an administrative position, does not grant them additional I.Q points (hopefully we can agree on that). Equally disturbing is the tone of insult so easily hurled at any elected official and/or resident who might actually have a conversation--as if that were a bad thing. Old school Easton (with a few exceptions) has this funny issue about "insiders" talking to "outsiders"--the "outsiders" being the taxpayers who pay them. Shouldn't we WANT the people we elect to represent us to be willing to engage with us? What's wrong with this picture?
Rich: not sure what I have done to offend you, but "as usual" is neither fair not accurate. I rarely declare anything as fact unless I have done the research or experience it myself--the rest of the time I present things I have heard as things I have heard. I do not want to ever confuse anyone. And here is an example where I am being insulted, when I am, in fact, correct as McFall's confidentiality agreement is public record.
I would much prefer that everyone debate/discuss issues civilly, rather than in a tone that is derogatory, but if the urge to be derogatory is just to exciting and tasty to resist, then at least lets make sure that we are right before doing so.
McFall's argument (and Pat Fisher's argument) is that we should pay for his legal fees because he was acting on behalf of the school district at the time. But if he is being sued PERSONALLY, as a result of actions that are a breach of his agreement with the district, then he should be on his own. I will be interested to see just much taxpayer money has been wasted paying his personal legal fees without the approval of the board we elected to represent us. He should pay it back.
darkest hour: i don't know who you are, but as you often do, you have posted my own thoughts more succinctly than i have managed to myself--always a pleasure.
Instead of responding to the shocking allegations of the article, I'd rather make a pithy comment about a person referenced in it. You stay classy...
and the answer is....drumroll...$6,400 in legal fees paid by taxpayers for McFall to sue the Express Times:
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/easton/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1287029123316840.xml&coll=3
Post a Comment