If actions have consequences, the consequences for speaking out in favor of the diversity policy could be costly for one local law firm.
It didn't escape the attention of the new school board majority that prominent local attorney Wade Smith was one of the speakers at the Oct. 5 Friends of Diversity press conference. Smith had helped push the 1976 merger through when he was in the General Assembly.
One potential response by the new board majority is to drop the firm that Smith helped found, Tharrington Smith, as the school district's attorney.
Smith and other speakers at the Friends of Diversity press conference, held a day before the election, were careful not to explicitly endorse any of the pro-diversity policy candidates. But it wasn't hard to get the idea they weren't in favor of the anti-diversity policy candidates who eventually won.
Tharrington Smith represents more than 20 school systems, including Durham and Chapel Hill-Carrboro. It's widely acknowledged that the firm has a national reputation for education law practice.
But the new majority could have questions about the legal advice they'd be getting from Tharrington Smith as they attempted to overturn policies such as the diversity policy and mandatory year-round schools.
The school board generally picks its attorney during the annual meeting in June so Tharrington Smith would likely have the job for at least the next seven months.
It's a position that would likely draw interest from other legal firms if Wake made a change. Wake has routinely paid Tharrington Smith, the board's attorney for 31 years, more than $500.000 a year.
If Wake does go lawyer shopping, it's unlikely the contract would go to the firm of Parker Poe even though it does have an education law practice. Two of the firm's partners, Raleigh Mayor Charles Meeker and Knightdale Mayor Russell Killen, both spoke at the Friends of Diversity event.
The school board had looked in 2002 at switching to an in-house attorney but dropped the idea. Although an in-house legal department would be cheaper, board members said Wake has been getting high quality legal services from Tharrington Smith at a reasonable cost.
UPDATE
Ann Majestic says Smith never agreed to attend the Friends of Diversity press conference and did not attend. His name was on the list of speakers put out by the event's organizer, Keith Sutton.
Smith had talked about the importance of the diversity policy in an article that ran the Sunday before the election.



Comments
"Ann Majestic says Smith
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 10:32 — woodstock"Ann Majestic says Smith never agreed to attend the Friends of Diversity press conference and did not attend. His name was on the list of speakers put out by the event's organizer, Keith Sutton."
"Ann Majestic says"...?! Who cares? What does Smith say? That is what matters.
The rumors are astounding
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 20:01 — ApexterIs there any evidence that any of the incoming board members have indicated that they will move to fire Tharrington Smith, or is this just another unfounded rumor to circulate about this group of board members?
First we hear that this group hopes to segregate schools. Then we get articles saying that the community has reason to fear that they'll destroy the magnet program. Now we hear that they'll axe their legal counsel.
Can I start the next unfounded rumor? I'm wondering if the new board members will propose that all Committee of the Whole meetings begin with a stirring rendition of the Chicken Dance.
After all this buildup, I have the feeling that reality will be terribly anticlimactic.
The possibility of replacing
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 22:14 — KeungHui (author)The possibility of replacing Tharrington Smith has come up in conversations with the new board members.
Chicken Dance is too silly
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 20:05 — shank56Why not the Cupid Shuffle !!!!
The Status quo stomp
Tue, 11/24/2009 - 20:32 — g88ky07seems more appropriate.
;c )
Chicken Dance
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 21:21 — SDR256I like the Chicken Dance rumor the best of all! I think they should adopt this just BECAUSE - - you know, in reference to, and in celebration of all those SILLY rumors! WEEE DAWGEE have there been plenty this time, eh? Chicken Dance - ready everyone?
Parents outraged about cyber-bullying
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 19:34 — AngelaWThey say though the students involved attend Martin Middle School, they did not use school computers to access Facebook, since it is not allowed. They also say the school learning environment did not appear to be affected by the Facebook group page.
So the school said it had no obligation to intervene, according to a policy adopted by the school board just last week.
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=7134647
How would the learning
Tue, 11/24/2009 - 09:30 — red_balloonHow would the learning environment not be impacted? You have one student as the victim whose learning is probably impacted. Next, you have scum spending time in school bullying the victim and continuing that activity outside school. I say the school should penalize these rats.
Yuck
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 21:54 — Dadof3Ugly. This is a pure parental problem, unless they can trace the IPs logged at the Facebook server to MM. But, really, if you let your kid use Facebook, and you don't check their usage and they do something like this, that is criminal neglience. (Yes I have a middle schooler on FB and we talk about what's appropriate all the time)
Facebook allows you to flag content as inappropriate on the group page. You can also see who else is posting or has joined, see the kid who made the page (it's all right there, if you're English literate) and (gasp) CONTACT THOSE KID'S PARENTS. Why involve the school? It's so freakin' easy to stop this stuff. Let's just say I'd calmly read the riot act exactly one time to each involved family if that were my daughter being bullied.
Ugly indeed
Tue, 11/24/2009 - 00:04 — TrailerParkGirlFB was the weapon of choice in this case not the root cause of the problem. If FB did not exist or if the parents were monitoring FB use, it seems another method of attack may have been chosen rather than the attack not occuring at all. Really the core problem is what made the students involved decide doing something like this (i.e. bullying) is OK?
I always wonder what the parents of kids who bully are like. I tend to imagine they are not otherwise stellar and helpful but oops just forgot to teach the 'bullying is bad' lesson. Not that reading them the riot act isn't worth a try, but there are some nutty parents out there so you're rolling the dice a bit. I would imagine people would involve the school on the theory that the bullying would tend to spill over into school and not just be limited to outside school hours. Also, the connection these kids had to the victim and those they were encouraging to join was through the school. In this case it sounds like the school checked into it and it was not happening at school, but you don't know before you raise the awareness and investigate the situation.
yes, yuck!
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 23:13 — SDR256Dad2 - sadly I think this is a matter of parental time. You either think it is your job to watch your kids - as best you can - until they are _YES!! - 18, .... or ... you think you just cannot WAIT until they can find the cereal box in the cupboard on their own and you are DONE.
Its a frame of thinking - "I am ON DUTY" - or "I CANNOT WAIT UNTIL I am OFF Duty". And so, you either know that they are on FB - and what they are doing - or not therefore.
It's not just watching or not watching
Tue, 11/24/2009 - 00:19 — TrailerParkGirlIt's about teaching life lessons about right and wrong, character building, etc. My dad died long before I turned 18, but he taught me those life lessons, so he didn't have to be there to watch me. It seems to me the bigger problem than not monitoring FB is that the parents didn't teach their kids not to bully.
BTW - I know some people parent by the "potted plant" theory - feed them, keep them watered, talk to them and let them grow. It's not that they want to be off duty, they just believe this is how to raise kids. I know some pretty amazing people who were raised this way and they tend not to still be living at home at age 25 :-)
Hmmm...
Tue, 11/24/2009 - 06:02 — Dadof3My dad died at a young age, too, BUT despite yours and my dad's excellent life lessons teaching, actively involved parents is better than not. There was a third point I only alluded to: there's more than one family involved. One of the other parents should have seen the bullying and stopped it immediately.
What I see with my teen and FB is that she and her friends don't think in the right context of what FB is and the nature of the medium means. Yes, there's nothing new under the sun, and yet, there was nothing like FB when I was her age. Understanding publicly-available comments is an abstraction that takes a bit of life-experience to wrap one's mind around. Many teens adopt the identical patter of their far-more private cellphone banter and the idle teen hyperbole of private conversation on FB are often inappropriate.
We may have to agree to disagree; but I see it as both a strong moral framework and active parental guidance.
True
Tue, 11/24/2009 - 01:12 — SDR256"My dad died long before I turned 18, but he taught me those life lessons, so he didn't have to be there to watch me."
Very intense stuff, TPG. And very true. You're very lucky, and blessed to be such a person who would receive such lessons and who had someone who would impart such lessons. I agree, wholeheartedly that it has to do with teaching your kids how to treat others.
Thing is, I think some are keen to the big headlines like: "don't say that because it is mean" and others need a bit more micromanagement, for whatever reason. So, potted plant - I get it. I don't want my kids living at home at 25 - still, some are like the spider plant - light and water once a month and they're good.
Others are like the African Violet - needs to watered a certain way, vitamins, pick off their dead flowers, fed just when and - - overall, be watched more carefully.
Both are prolific when nurtured, you know.
Its an awful situation for
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 20:24 — shank56Its an awful situation for the child and family. We had a similar situation several years ago at a school that did not involve sexual references, but it did target the person for being "not cool" in the eyes of a few It was not handled thru the media though. Parents in the know called other parents, school counselors adn admins were made aware and an info session in re social networking sites was included in the next PTA meeting. In our situation , word of mouth with parents and talk amongst the teens was able to stop the "harsh words". However, it could not help the victim as everyone hoped.
Thers's not much the school or WCPSS can do legally except what I read above. Same with underage drinking. Can outraged parents expect the schools to intervene if their kids attend a party involving alcohol at another student's house , outside of school hours?
Is this information only
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 19:44 — supportwcpssOr are you starting a new off topic conversation?
This is part of the problem......
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 13:55 — Jeff_morse"education law has gotten a lot more complicated since 1976"
What?????
No Education should be simple.
1.) Need Kids
2.) Need Teachers that want to educate children
3.) create a Measurable scale to grade children and Teachers on. ( Both need to held accountable for their actions and lack of actions.)
4.) Need a school system that helps the children, Parents and Teachers........
5.) Lawyers aren't in the formula. They are there to defend crazy situations... Like The P.C. police.
I agree, but
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 14:28 — Dadof3Yes, it should be simple; but it isn't.
We should hew to your 5 points, but the current system doesn't. To ignore that reality is to set up for failure. We need to struggle to return education to education, and tort reform. But given our current lawyer-archy, (Causidiarchy? Is that a valid neologism?) I'm not holding my breath.
"I would be very surprised
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 11:15 — woodstock"I would be very surprised if they colored their advice to the new board based on their own political opinions."
Wade Smith publically participated in the race-baiting and insulting fiasco called Friends of Diversity. In my view, he single-handedly destroyed any potential for a working relationship between his firm and the BoE. If politics were not a factor for him, he would have refrained from any involvement. Additionally, his statement wasn't a simple disagreement on policy, it was an offensive attack on the integrity on what are now the newly elected BoE members.
As for Parker Poe, Meeker and Killian were just as involved in the Friends of Diversity as Smith. And, with Meeker's wife sitting on the BoE, it would be HIGHLY inapproporate for them to be awarded the $500K yearly contract.
It is time for the old guard to move on. Too many of the same faces have been making the decisions and setting policy year after year, and we are not progressing. In many ways, we are regressing and the students most in need are suffering the most.
Eek...
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 09:45 — Bob_SconceI don't think switching attorneys is a great idea. Education law is a fairly distinct specialty -- you can't just hire any lawyer and expect him to learn on the job. The attorneys over at Tharrington Smith know their stuff and have excellent reputations. I would be very surprised if they colored their advice to the new board based on their own political opinions.
But, if Wade Smith's involvement is too much, Parker Poe is a reasonable alternative -- they're a much bigger firm, which means that Meeker and Killen have a relatively smaller role in the practice.
In-house attorneys can save money, but they do not do away with the need for outside counsel -- you still need to have the ability to bring in other attorneys for labor-intensive work, like litigation.
OT: A working solution to the achievement gap that doesn't involve reorganizing deck chairs: http://bit.ly/3OQ1Ir
Umm
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 12:50 — TrailerParkGirl"Education law is a fairly distinct specialty-- you can't just hire any lawyer and expect him to learn on the job"
Umm - did you read the history of Tharrington Smith's Education Law practice?
It was started in 1978 - shortly after Wade Smith helped push the school system merger through the General Assembly (1976). Tharrington Smith was started in 1964. Why were they not doing education law the first 14 years? Looks to me like maybe the firm got the contract from the newly merged system, which resulted in them learning how to do education law.
George Rogister joined
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 13:18 — KeungHui (author)George Rogister joined Tharrington Smith and brought his clients, including the Wake school system, with him. He ran the education law section until he died in 1996. Ann Majestic took it over after him.
So...
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 13:01 — Bob_SconceIt's possible that they started by hiring somebody experienced in education law from some other firm. I don't know. Also, education law has gotten a lot more complicated since 1976.
So
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 14:28 — TrailerParkGirlFrom what Mr. Hui wrote they did hire someone experienced as you suggested. So, couldn't a different law firm do the same thing?
I'm just wondering because it seems the same intereconnected Raleigh power brokers keep showing up over and over.
Hmmm...
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 17:59 — Bob_SconceSo, it doesn't really work that way. You're suggesting something a bit like going to your plumber and saying "I'd like you to handle all of our electrical work for us. We're sure you can hire qualified electricians." In general, you find a qualified attorney who you like, and go with whatever firm he/she is with.
There may be other people in the area who can do the job. But, anybody in that position is going to be politically connected one way or another.
Actually
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 22:49 — TrailerParkGirlI don't think it's like going to a plumber to seek electrical work. It's like going to an electrical contractor and asking them to do "controls" work rather than "lighting" work - it's different specializations within the same field, not different fields. They both entail the same basic knowledge and skillset. We are not talking about asking an accounting firm to perform legal services.
Not sure how common it is in the legal field these days for lawyers to change firms and bring clients as they may face noncompete agreements, which were not common some years back. I know it's not unheard of in other fields both from within a community and bringing outsiders into an area.
As far as education law, is there a law class on school calendar law, which is one of the bigger suits that WCPSS has dealt with lately or did they use their general legal skills to handle that?
Are all lawyers politically connected? I suppose many are, certainly many politicians and powerful people around here are lawyers and they seem to be rather interconnected. People keep trying to make Raleigh out to be so urban, but it sure seems like it's a small world after all (sorry for putting that annoying song in anyone's head).
TPG, again wise beyond your
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 15:47 — CaryCurmudgeonTPG, again wise beyond your years. For too long, Wake County has been ruled by this small power center. I'm sure there are lawyers out there who are better than Ann Majestic.