AN INQUIRY INTQ THE FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIGNSHIP BETWEEN SCHOOL ATTORNEYS. SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS. AND BOARDS OF EDUCATION IN MICHIGAN Thad: Io? IIM Dogma aI Ed. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY HamEd Clive Wells 1960 This is to certify that the thesis entitled AN INQUIRY INTO THE FINANCIAL AND AININISTRATIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCHOOL ATTORNEYS, SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS, AND BOARDS OF EDUCATION IN MICHIGAN presented by HAROID CLIVE WELLS has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for n e» __mI.D.!—__ degree in I - a]. A trat ion /_./ ty/ ,/ 7/3” /' / I I! t Major professor Date Marc}! 1‘1 1960 0-169 LIBRARY Michigan State University AN INQUIRY Izm m2 FIMIN'ZIAL AND ADI-IIVISTRATI-ms Tir-‘LATICN'JSHI? semicjsw SCHOOL ATTORNEYS, SCHOOL supsalrn‘sxznizxns, Am BOARDS OF LLDUCA'I‘ION IN MICHIGAN By Harold Clive Wells A THESIS Submitted to the School of Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Department of Administrative and Educational Services 1950 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is with profound gratitude that the writer acknowledges his debt to all those colleagues, friends, and relatives who advanced this study by their various contributions. Patience, faith, inspira- tion, and technical assistance all were needed and generously given. Particular gratefulness is expressed to the writer's family for their many sacrifices. To Dr. William H. Roe, chairman of the committee, special recognition is given for his unusual interest and assistance on the project. The writer is also indebted to committee members Dr. Clyde M. Campbell, Dr. Charles R. Hoffer, and Dr. Harry Sundwall. AN INQUIRY INTO THE FINANCIAL AND ADMICISTRATIJ; ReLATIUNSHIP BETWESN SCHOOL ATTORNEYS, SCHOOL SUPERINYENDENTS, AND BOARDS OF EDUCATION IN MICHIGAN By Harold Clive wells AN’ABSTRACT Submitted to the School of Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Department of Administrative and Educational Services 19 60 Approved Harold Clive Wells An Abstract The problem to which this study is addressed is the finctcial and administrative relationship between school attorneys, school super— intendents, and boards of education in Michigan. The study critically analyzes the present conditions of employment of school attorneys in this state, ascertains problems deriving from the three-way relation- ship between counsel, superintendent and school board, and isolates criteria useful in establishing the school attorney as an integral part of the school administrative organization. The following questions have been selected as being the most important to be answered for the purposes of this study: 1. What are the elements of a successful relation- ship between the school attorney, board of education and superintendent? 2. What contractual. or employment relationship do school boards have with school attorneys? 3. How much do school boards pay for legal services on bond issues? A variety of methods were employed to secure data pertinent to the study. A questionnaire was sent to all school superintendents in Michigan. Case studies were made of ten randomly selected school districts in the state. The Michigan Municipal Finance Commission files were searched for data on legal fees in connection with bond issues. All of this data was secured in an effort to ascertain the present conditions of employment of both local legal counsel, who provide general legal assistance to school districts, and special bonding at- torneys, who provide legal services in connection with bond issues. A scale was needed with which to "measure" the present status of the attorney-superintendent-board of education administrative and financial relationship. This measuring scale was developed from a series of statements that were evaluated by a jury of experts. The evaluation of the statements resulted in criteria established by agree- ment of eleven men who have acknowledged expertness in the fields of school administration and school law. The conclusions reached in this study in relation to the central questions and hypotheses are: l. 3. The l. .‘\J No accepted pattern for the establishment of the school attorney in the local school organizational plan existed in Michigan prior to this study. Failure of Michigan school officials to pay care- ful attention to sound administrative procedures in the establishment of the attorney-superintendent- board relationship has created difficulties in that relationship in a significant number of school districts. Criteria exist which can be isolated and applied to the problem of establishing an attorney in the organizational plan of local school districts on a sound basis. These criteria have been isolated in this study. Michigan school districts do not meet most of the criteria. There is a tremendous disparity between Michigan school districts in the amount paid for comparable legal services in connection with school bond issues. most important implications of this research seem to be: There is a need to impress upon school board members the necessity for qualified local legal counsel in their school districts. There aspears to be a great need for the adoption of adninistrativs policies by school boards. The dearth of policies governing the relationship of the attorney to the board and superintendent is only one aspeCt of this need for policies. A perhaps greater problem lies in the fundamental twoaway'relationship of board and superintendent. It is suggested that a third party cannot be successfully introduced into a relationship that is already inadequately defined. School officials must be made aware of the tremendous disparity in fees paid to local legal counsel for bond issue services. State Departments of Education should immediately give consideration to the eXperts' suggestion that they em- ploy both special bonding attorneys and local legal counsel for assistance to school officials. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LISTOFFIGUFLES Chapter I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . Assumptions and Hypotheses Concerning the Study. 0 O 0 0 O O O I O O 0 O O O O 0 Procedural Steps and Methods . . . . . . . . Limitations of the Study . . . . . . ... . . Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . Organization of Remainder of Study . . . . . II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . School Districts' Authoritv to EmTlO‘ J ; Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Importance of Special Bonding Attorneys The Local Legal Counsel's Role in Bond Issue Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . The Place of the Attorney in the School District Administrative Organization . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10 12 1h 31 Chapter Page III. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 The Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 The DeVQIOpment of Criteria . . . . . . . . . . 35 The Structured Interview Schedule . . . . . . . 35 Municipal Finance Commission Data . . . . . . . LL Sununazjr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Iv. DEVELOPMENT or CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . a; Special Bonding Attorneys . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Local Legal Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 V. PRESENT METHODS OF SELECTION AND ADMINISTRATION OF SCHOOL ATTORNEYS . . . . . . . 8h Analysis of Questionnaire Data . . . . . . . . 3h Analysis of Case Study Data . . . . . . . . . . 97 Municipal Finance Commission Data on Fees for Bond Issue Services . . . . . . . . 122 Summary.................... 137 VI. CONCLUSIONS AND IHPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATIONAL LEADERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lbl Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lb2 Special Bonding Attorneys . . . . . . . . . lh2 Local Legal Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . 1&3 Implications for Educational Leaders . . . . . 159 B IBLIO’IRAPIIY o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 159 Page APPENDIX A: The Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 APPENDIX B: Verbatim Responses to Question Fifteen on the Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . 173 APPENDIX C: Statements for Isolating Criteria Relative to School Attorneys . . . . . . 177 APPENDIX D: Jury of Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 APPENDIX E: The Structured Interview Schedule . . . . . 191 APPENDIX ’11 Tabular Data Pertaining to Crse Study Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 Table Para 1. Numoer of Schools 12turn‘ng Questionnaires by School Snrolhnent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3h 2. Enrollment. routi: gs from which School Districts wezs Selected for Case Study . . . . . L3 3. Summary of Background Information of Case Study School Dis stricts 81d Interviewees . . . . . LS L. An.: 1,515 of Jury Rating of Statements for Isolating Criteria Relative to Special BODdiflD hvaI'fl't‘ S o o o o o o o 0 o o o o o o o O 51 5. Analysis oi Jury Rating of Statements for Isolating Crite”ia Relative to Local COKXUSSTI’ . C O O D O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OO 5 y' .1.:....;-. - ~ 1 F' . n ".1; , . llaujudu LquClpa anan(e Commie ion Aggrnvedo ‘ chool Bond Issmes from September, 1955 to November, 1955 . . . . . . . . 12h 7. Summary of Fees Paid for Level Services on 2&3 School Bond Issues in Michigan by Size of Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 9. Analysis of Fees Paid to Bonding Attor rneys for flxclusive Services on Selected S l\ool BO‘IC ISSQIE‘S 1n I'f-IChigan o o o o o o o o o o o o o 132 9. Analysis of Fees Paid Wten Bonding Attorneys were Assisted by Local Loyal Counsel on Selected School L"ond Issues in Kishi£au . . . . . 132 -\ 1. Analysis of Fee Counsel were on Selected es Paid when Local Legal Assisted by Bonding Attorneys Ch Sh ool Bond Issues in Michiga . . . 13h Table Page 11. Analysis of Fees Paid to Local Legal Counsel for ExclusiVe Services on Selected School Bond Issues in Micbigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13L 12. Summary of Fees Paid for Lega Services on 2&3 School Bond Issues in hicnigan 12'3” Tffpe 01‘ L858]. SErViCLD O O o o o o o o o I o O 13‘:I 13. Case Study Data Pertaining to the linancial Arrangements with Special bonding Attorneys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 lb. Case Study Data Pertaining to Employment of Special Bonding Attorneys . . . . . . . . . . 201 15. Case Study Data Pertaining to the Financial Arrangements with Local Legal Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 15. Case Study Data Pertaining to Employment of Local egal Counse . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20b Table 12. Analysis of Fees Paid to Local Legal Counsel for ExclwsiVe Services on Selected School Bond Issues in ." l: a Illc.';g(1n o o o o 0 Summary 0 F Fees Paid for Is; on 233 School Bond Issues in Licnigan 1-1 1 f 4“- by Type of Legal Service . . . Case Study Data Pertaining to the c: 3 1 ”1 "o O _ . fly ‘ .‘ ‘-:v~ linanc1al arrangements with bonding Attorneys Case St of Sp 333 c F' Laval Counsel . . Case Study Data Pertaining to Employment of Local Legal Cou ‘ r 1L5!) O 1 (‘ ‘3‘ ...\ - .I e study Data Pertaining to the 1n“ncia1 Arrangemen s with Local 0 1: . _ , .‘JF‘TI‘UfiLL't'fi 13L 13:. 203 2 Oh 1. Line and Staff Organization. . . 2. Organization Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Organization Chart of a Large Orvanization U 0 f\) \O \A) L) \J.‘ CHAPTTR I INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM This study deals with the financial and administrative relationship between school attorneys, school superintendents, and boards of education in.Michigan. It inquires into the financial and organizational arrangements of school districts in relation to the school attorneys--both local legal counsel and bonding attorneys. It seeks to reveal the conditions of employment of legal counsel in this state. The study attempts to pin-point possible sources of friction in the three-way relationship and makes recommendations relative to all of these matters. This study is undertaken in an age when school district organization in this state is characterized by tremendous growth, due primarily to the continuous reorganization of school districts into larger and more complex entities and to the remarkable increase in the birth rate since the war years. As school districts exper- ience rapid growth they are confronted with a multitude of admin- istrative and legal problems, many of which are not found in stable units. The acquisition of new territory by an existing school district through annexation or the consolidation of several small districts into a larger, more efficient unit are, in themselves, complicated legal actions that most school officials have not faced 2 previously. The formation of these larger units frequently necessi- tates the purchase of school sites, often by condemnation, an extremely complex legal procedure that school men can not be expected to undertake. Related to the purchase of sites and subsequent construction of new schools is the vital problem of bonding the district for funds. Again this involves a series of complex activities, the election, the sale of bonds, and the proper use and accounting of funds. These matters, too, call for specialized legal assistance. The number of school districts in Michigan voting to place their teachers under the provisions of the Michigan Tenure Act continues to increase and with this is a significant increase in the number of questions calling for legal opinion or action. Teachers' contracts, negotiations with unions, unique fringe benefit provisions, all create the need for legal advice. The activity programs in classrooms, the enlarged extra- curricular programs, and the generally enriched curricula have been said to contribute to increased hazards in the educational venture, and the consequent increase in litigation. As indicated, these factors and many others seem to point directly to the introduction of a school attorney, or attorneys, into the administrative organization of school districts in Michigan. The selection of attorneys who can provide the technical-professional services needed, and the establishment of a satisfactory working relationship between the three parties most intimately involved, the attorney, superintendent, and board of education, is a matter that requires serious attention. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The prdblem to which this study is addressed is the financial and administrative relationship between school attorneys, school superintendents, and boards of education in Michigan. The study critically analyzes the present conditions of employment of school attorneys in this state; ascertains prdblems deriving from the three- way relationship between counsel, superintendent, and school board; and isolates criteria useful in establishing the school attorney as an integral part of the school administrative organization. The following questions have been selected as being the most important to be answered for the purposes of this study: 1. ‘Hhat are the elements of a successful relation- ship between the school attorney, superintendent and board of education? 2. What contractual or employment relationship do school boards have with school attorneys? 3. How much do school boards pay for legal services on bond issues? ASSUMPTIONS AND HYPOTHESES CONCERNING THE STUDY In the development of this study, the basic assumption upon ‘which the entire project is based is: School officials must, in this complex modern age, depend upon legal specialists for counsel on many problems. There are several hypotheses which impel and give meaning to this study, too. These hypotheses, unlike the assumption made above, will be tested in this dissertation. 1. Some school districts in Michigan have been paying legal fees for bond issue services far in excess , of what have been paid by other school districts for comparable services. 2. Unless careful attention is paid to sound admin- istrative procedures in the establishment of the attorney-superintendent4board relationship, difficulties in that relationship are probable. 3. There is presently no accepted pattern for the establishment of a school attorney in the local school organizational plan. b. Criteria exist which can be isolated and applied to the problem of establishing an attorney in the organizational plan of local school districts. These will foster a more successful relationship between the attorney, superintendent and board. PROCEDURAL STEPS AND METHODS In order to provide the reader with a general view of the steps taken to secure the data required to meet the indicated purposes of this study, the methods used will be briefly reviewed at.this time. A more detailed account of the methodology employed in this investigation will be found in Chapter III. S l. The Questionnaire. The Michigan State University College of Education, Department of Administrative and Educational Services, as a result of a grant from the institution's "AlléUniversity Research Fund,"was in the process of collecting certain data relative to this study when the author conceived the idea of developing and expanding the material as a dissertation. A questionnaire had been mailed to all school superintendents in Michigan. They were returned and given to the author for analysis. This data combined with a thorough review and study of the literature pertinent to the topic led to the second step in the study. The questionnaire can be found in Appendix A. 2. The Development g£_Criteria. It was deemed essential to this project that present employment conditions and other factors related to the attorney-superintendent-board relationship be deter- mined, and further, that these factors be measured against some accurate scale. The scale which seemed most satisfactory for this purpose was a set of criteria developed by experts in the field under study. The criteria were isolated from responses from a jury of experts; professors of school administration, representatives of school board associations, and authors in the school law field. Appendix G contains the instrument Statements for Isolating Criteria Relative to School Attorneys. Appendix D lists the experts used as the jury in this study. 3. The Structured Interview Schedule. The criteria finally Ideveloped through the use of the "jury technique" were converted into a structured interview schedule. Interviews were then conducted from a sampling of superintendents throughout the state. The 6 interview results were recorded and compared to ascertain differences, if any, between what experts maintain should be done and what is actually being done. The structured interview schedule can be found in Appendix E. b. Analysis pf Municipal Finance Commission Data. The Municipal Finance Commission is a state agency that reviews for approval all municipal bond loans. From the files of the Commission it was possible to secure data pertinent to this study. The form "Application for Approval of the Municipal Finance Commission" was studied for 2h3 school bond issues. The applications represented all of those submitted by school districts over a fifteen month period from September, 1955 to November, 1956. The applications call for the estimated fees for the services of both local legal counsel and bonding attorneys, as well as the total amount of the bond issue and other similar type data. It was thus possible to secure the percentage of the bond issue that was to be paid for legal services. Comparisons were made between local counsel and bonding attorney fees. Conclusions and recommendations resulting from this study are detailed in the final chapter. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY This dissertation has certain limitations that must be forth- rightly acknowledged. It is a study that is limited to the State of Michigan. It is apparent from descriptions in the literature that this study has applicability outside of Michigan. It is, nevertheless, true that the uniqueness of each state's laws in relation to some of the factors involved in this study are such as to require further definition for each state in question. The study is limited also by the inherent weaknesses of the normative survey method. These weaknesses have been discussed by Good and Scates,1 and Mildred Parten,2 and others. The primary difficulty with the survey method, of course, is that the investigator is unable to get "depth" information. The respondent is restricted to those limited areas covered by the instrument and even those areas can not be explored for the reasons behind the response. The “jury technique" used in this study has certain limitations as well. Foremost among these is the fact that expert opinion does not necessarily mean "truth." It is generally acknowledged, however, that in the absence of ”scientific" evidence, expert opinion is certainly valid as an indication of where "truth" will most likely be when it is disclosed by better instruments at some later date. The reader must be aware, also, that the investigator did not participate in the development of the original questionnaire. This instrument was carefully designed and pre-tested before it was sent to the school superintendents. In spite of these precautions later developments would have influenced the design of the original question- naire had it been possible. 1Carter V. Good and.Douglas E. Scates, Methods of Research: ggucational, Ps holo ical, Sociological (New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, Inc., l9EK), p. ?D0. 2 . Mildred Parten, Surve 3, Polls, Samples (New York: Harper & Bros., 1950), p. 133. (.0 One must not conclude that these several limitations have resulted in a poor study. They have not. Every effort has been made to minimize the weaknesses and maximize the inherent strengths pos- sessed by the research tools used in this study. DEFINITION'OF TERMS There are few terms used in this dissertation that are not commonly used in the vocabulary of any person who might read the study. It is important, however, to establish the interpretation that will be given certain words and phrases as they appear here. lawyer - "A person learned in the law; as an attorney, counsel, or solicitor; a person licensed to practice law."1 As indicated by Black's definition, the terms "lawyer," "attorney," "counsel," or "legal counsel" may be used interchangeably. In this study "local counsel" or "local legal counsel" will be used to designate the lawyer who is retained to perform routine general legal services on behalf of the school district. Bonding Attorney - A lawyer who specializes in municipal bond law. These men do not ordinarily serve as general legal advisors, but are employed specifically for services in connection with bond issues. Attorney-Superintendent-Board Relationship - This phrase will be used frequently throughout the study to describe those profes- sional activities concerning legal aspects of education 1Henry Campbell Black, Black's Law Dictionary (St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 19555, p. 1579. 9 in which the school attorney, school superintendent, and the board of education participate. Criterion - webster defines criterion as, "A standard of Judging; a rule or test by which anything is tried in forming a . . . 1 correct Judgment respecting it." ORGANIZATION OF REMAINDER OF STUDY This study has been divided into six chapters: Chapter I includes a statement of the problem and a general orientation to the study; Chapter II contains a review of the existing literature on the topic under study; Chapter III consists of a detailed review of the methodology involved in constructing and validating the instruments; Chapter IV reports on the development of criteria for selecting school attorneys and organizing the attorney-superintendent-board of education relationship; Chapter V discusses the present methods of selecting and administering school attorneys in relation to the criteria; Chapter VI is the final chapter and includes the conclusions and implications for educational leaders. 1 webster's Collegiate Dictionagy, Fifth Edition (Springfield, .MAssachusetts: G. h C. Merriam Co., I9h7), p. 2h1. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATJRE This second chapter is devoted to a careful review of the literature of both the educational and business administration fields. It begins with a brief summary of school districts' legal authority to employ counsel. The educational administration literature is then screened for information on the special bonding attorney. A section is included on the role of the local legal counsel in bond issue pro- ceedings. Expert opinion as found in the literature is then discussed in relation to the place of the attorney in the administrative organ- ization. SCHOOL DISTRICTS' AUTHORITY TO EMPLCY COUNSEL It is abundantly clear that school districts may legally employ a special bonding attorney for bond issues as Well as legal counsel for general legal advice. Dr. Lee 0. Gerber, Professor of Education, University of Pennsylvania, has said: Many states now have statutes that permit boards to employ legal counsel. In the absence of such statutes, however, the courts are rather well agreed that a board may employ legal counsel to represent it when its rights are involved. This rule, however, iSllOt a simple one and is subject to some rather special exceptions. It is a fundamental principle of law that a school board is possessed of only that authority which is specifically granted to it, that which is necessarily implied therefrom, and that which is essential to carrying out the purposes for which the district was created. 11 Courts, in holding that a school board has the right to employ legal counsel even though the statute does not specifically give it this authority, reason that it is implied within a general grant pf power to manage the affairs of the school district. Dr. Gerber goes on to explain the meaning of the court in Arrington v. Jones, 191 S.W. 361 (Tex.) which dealt with this question: There is no authority expressly given to trustees to employ an attorney to bring suit in behalf of trustees . . . But, having the power . . . to contract and to sue and be sued in the courts, the authority on the part of trustees to employ an attorney to institute and prosecute an action in their behalf would exist as a necessary incident of the powers to contract and to sue and manage and contract the affairs and interests of the public school.“ Hamilton and Mort emphasized the necessity of employing legal counsel: To deprive them (school board) of the right to employ counsel.would render them helpless to enforce the legal rights of the district. Of course, the right sought to be enforced must be a rivht of the district and not that of a private individual.3 The School Code of Michigan specifically authorizes school districts to retain legal counsel. Under the general powers and duties of boards of education: The board shall have the authority to employ an attorney to represent the school district or board in all suits brought for or against the district, and to render such other legal service as may be for the welfare of the school distri t. 1 Y 0 O ‘ | o A Lee 0. Garber, "diring an attorney," Nations schools,63 I aJuly, 1957), p. ?9. 2Ibid., p. 50 3Robert a. quilton and Paul a. Mort, The Law and Public aclucation (Chicago: The Founwation Press, 1921), p. 96. flichigan, The School Code of 195;, Sec. 363. 12 THE IN? RTAUCE OF SPECIAL BONDIjG ATTORNEYS With the clear understanding that boards of education may legally employ counScl, let us turn specifically to the special bonding attorney; What have writers interested in this aspect of school admin- istration had to say about the important functions of the special bonding attorney? About his fees? Nearly all authors on the subject emphasize the need for the retention of a special bonding attorney when a bond issue is antici- pated. There is general agreement that though school superintendents must be familiar with the laws relating to their work, they are not prepared and cannot be expected to handle bond issues without competent legal advice. Phere is agreement,too, that local attorneys are seldom well enough versed in this special field of law to under- take counsel on bond issues. As one writer succinctly put it: The legal procedure (of bond issues) is nountainous and detailed. Not only are the procedures too lengthy to describe here, but laws vary so much from state to state that general- ization is impossible. Expert advice needs to be sought. Usually a start on this can be secured from the state depart- ment of education or the county superintendent of schools. Ordinary lawyers are seldom useful as they often know less school law than host educational a mi istrators. Support for this point of view is given in a recent volume by Rosenstengel and Eastmore. They point out the use of bonding attorneys and even make mention of the fee arrangement: If the board of education is holding an election with a view to issuing bonds, a bonding attorney should be employed. Most local attorneys are not approved as bonding attorneys. This lack of approval is not a reflection on the competence of the local lawyer; it is merely that investors will require g A 1Albert J. Huggett, Practical School administration (Champaign, ‘Ill.: The Garrard Press, 19567, p. 2h7. 13 the approving opinion of a legal bonding specialist. It will save both time and money for the board of education to employ the bonding attorney at the very beginning of the procedures which take place leading to the issuing of bonds. The fees aid to a bonding attorney will va with locali ies p (D I 3 but usually they are a small fraction of 15 of the bonds. Writers in the field seem to fear that with the "mountainous" legal detail required, an error might invalidate the whole election. Greider and Rosenstengel made reference to that fact when they wrote: In many states where elections on proposed bond issues are required, it is extremely important that every legal require- ment be observed meticulously. Any deviation by accident or intention may result in protests culminating in the election's being declared invalid by the courts. wahlquist and Arnold,3 Miller and Spalding,h and many others have written similarly. Weber has perhaps caught the need for the bonding attorney's services most accurately and expressed that need most clearly: The preparation of transcript of the complete procedure pre- paratory to issue of school bonds is a precise and technical task. It should be done in entirety, or at least supervised by an attorney well versed in the field of public school bonding. Otherwise some technicality may be omitted which may completely invalidate the issue or at all events handi- cap the sale. In many communities none of the resident lawyers can qualify for this service. In such cases an outside man should be employed. This consulting attorney should be engaged even before any resolution or*motion of 1William E. Rosenstengel and Jefferson N. Eastmcnd, School Finance, Its Theory and Practice (New York: The Ronald Press 50., 1‘31” 7 , .‘2'38. 2 Calvin Grieder and William E. Rosenstengel, Public School fidministration (New York: The Ronald Press 00., 195h5, p. 120. 3John T. Wahlquist and William.E. Arnold, Thg’Administration .gg Public Education (New Yort: The Ronald Press 00., 19§27:.p. 516. hVanl‘liller and Willard B. Spalding, The Public Administration vm vmppommg poprmHv m can; mmofiwpmcH meow :H Ucmfi wwx mHmwQ mco 2mg» mpos gnu wOHpomwp muowhpch pmcp powm my» op can meuaprm cusp Hmumcpm ma m :EsHoo CH HmHOp m£e* .muoHpumwv Hoozom MHmlzwam hp vmapommp mmHHmc20Hpmwsm fimpmHQEoo 509m COHpmeuownH «monsom 00m *mm mHH :m m: mm mpoprmHQ HH< mHmpoe mm MM II. II. II H0m¢doo Hammq Hmooq 02 :HH3 mHOHpgmHa HQH NH mHH 4m a; mm m$280 Hmmoq Hmoog .II :sz mpoflppmHn pom mHmpoa m w H H MI. 44. mmsme mepo you mmm cw vmvsHOCH CH m 0H m pmchpmm stsc¢ CH UmUSHQCH m m H H H H vmpmHuowmz 0H m H: m m N UmHme m< mm mH mm mH mews 4H «H 0H m a m 8m pmHm m m m m i HmcpoppH mCHucom HmHomcm mo mmm mo mwmpcmopmm H H H H mpmoo 20Hposppmcoo Ho wwmpCmopmm mH mm 4: MH H: 0H 05mmH @ccm mo mmwpcmonom wecmmH mpngpch memmH mpOHupmHm wwfimmH mpowppmHn mo 0 Ho «o .o o mHmmm .. .-.C.,:Bw ..H me52 .H @355 .H mmfisz .H MESS,“ .H mmsfiz mamgoe mom m.Hmwcnoo Hmooq CH cmvsaocH p0: zmcLOpp< mchcom HmHommm mo 0mm wmm m.Hmmcsoo HmooH CH vaSHocH AQCH0pp< wCHUsom HmHomam mo mmm HmzmopHH oanzom HHHummm mo mmb no ZOHmDHOZH OH oZHQmooo .mmammH 98 mo SB; 92 2.353s .8 mafia Hm .mmBmH 98m 80QO :eHzlonHomzzoo 2H mmoH>mmm mom Hmmzm o HHooq mo mmm mo onHHZHzmmHmo mom mHmHm H>H m5 QB 23 emphasizes, however, that though interviews with school officials indicate "several districts" are studying possibility ofeamfloying local legal counsel on annual retainers and including bond issue services in the retainer, the evidence clearly shows that the percentage of bond issue basis still is the most popular method of determining fees ?or the work. A further arresting fact is that thirteen districts reporting on fees paid on twenty-seven bond issues were determined on basis of time. The total of the twenty-seven issues reported is 52h,302,500 and the total of the fees paid on a time basis for services rendered in connection with these issues, including all costs for extra services, is $60,031.62. The average cost per bond issue is $2.h7 for each 31, 30 of the issue or approximately .25 of 1% of the total bond issues. On only one of the twenty- seven issues reported, on which the fees of local legal counsels were determined on the basis of time, was the fee in excess of 1% of the bond issue. In this instance, the bond issue was for $30,000 and the district reported that the purpose of the issue was the acquisition of two sites and that the local counsel also acted as the board's agent in purchasing any individual parcels of land. Several of the fees reported as determined on the basis of time were less than .1 of 1% of the bond issue. It must be remembered that the work load for attorneys can vary ‘trfnnendously from bond issue to bond iSSue and school district to school ‘jifiatrict. Consequently, it is a practical impossibility to estimate ‘fiitdi accuracy the time that will be required for legal services in this Connection. It is precisely because of this variation in circumstances int}l each bond issue that time and labor required, rather than percentage Of. tide issue, is considered by Byrnes the most justifiable and equit- able method of determining attorney‘s fees. \ IIbido ’ pp. 63-6110 for services related to school bond proceedings in the Few Metropolitan area by listing the major findings Of his Bind? a CX 2h Byrnes concludes his study of the fees of local legal counsels *4 “a ('1. ~. or a ulty L1 . ‘3 U y... FJ O 5.. U) 0 Bond proceedings are technical matters and all statutory reqiirements must be complied with by the district. It is important that the special bondi n5 autorney be retained by the district in the early plannin: stages of the uond issue. Alth01g;l1the statutory requirements for bond proceedings xay differ in the several states, the documents and papers that a1c require for the record of proceedings are quite similar. The work involved in the preparation of the required documents is precise but not difficult and is being done in rany cases by school officials without assistance local le gal coznsel. State departments of education do offer potentially valuable assistance to school officials through publishe materials that are related to school bond proceedings. In New Jersey the forms required for the authorization of a bond issue are provided by the Department. The majority of school districts do employ local legal counsels for services in connection hith school bond issues in addition to retainu u.g the special bonding attorney. Only seven of the sixty-six districts report- ing did not retain local legal counsels for services directly related to the bond proceedin's. There is no consistent patt<2w - in tie method of deter- mining the fee of lo c.al legalc m1 sel for services related to a bond proceedings. Big 1t different bases were reported by fi ty—ni-nv dis t mi ts with the percentage of tot’l bond issc:— being th 13 bise :nost frequently used to determine tlie fee of 100511 COnnsel. The study of actual practicesi ndica ted a significant trend awa ' from the one par cent fee towards a reduced p;rcentage fee, a "sliding scale" of percentage fees or employment of local legal counsel on a more ssb- stantial annual retainer basis with a flat fee for each bond issue. Many (but not all) of the fees of local legal counsels, particularly those determined on a perCentagc basis, include the fees of the special bond: 13 attorney. Many school districts do not know that they are payfiz. for the services of the sp:ci l bcu din" attorney. Fees h) .. ;Contd.7 o: the sne ial bondizg attorney were not reported for thirt- eight of the forty-one issues on fCuV of loc l 1 gal ccansels were r+=rnined J ‘ Q.'y« " Vv' A x11 ,‘wtage of the )(nd irsue and which included as of specia1111drv, attorneys. . In general, fiscally dependent; school districts paid lower fees to local leral coun se.ls since in ne.n, the services x::%r readezed by the local minic igal goverrment's cout’ 189...] This was esp ecially true in the Chapter 6 dis trists of New Jersrzy and i: all of the Connec’icut districts Cont'ct:d. (385628 9. The services rendered by local le;al mo nsels vary consideratly. The services reported [nest frequent were those related to the local 1:; al coun ml actin: as liaison with the special bonding attorney, the review and approval of contracts and the eiaminaticn of performance and payment bonds. Without further comment on these findings he role tes his conclusions in this most important study. The summarizing para3raph l. The fees of local legal counsels for services related to school bond pr ”e dings shoali be reas .ahl and ade Iate r17. cc 6 o and shauld be date ;ined on the baSIS 01 time. 2. t is desirable that state make a survey of the 1: a1 counsels for bond proce departments of educati fees paid to local 113:1 dings within t 9 state. .3. It is good practice for school districts to reach an a3re€nent with local legal counsels before any services are rendered. ‘ II. I o '3 good practice for sch )ol dis yri cts to pay the fees he sgscial hon ding attorneys dir ctly. “at" c“ H . It is good practice for school districts to haVe the record of proceedings, or a photostatic copy of the record, for each pond issue on file in the board of education office.‘ 2 1Ibid., pp. 87-88. Ibid., pp. 93-93. [\J (j\ -J H 1.4 ‘\ ‘1'- , ... . :1 -£t'.‘ .‘VLL Ir r~‘ “0/5 ,1“.Y1‘~ (\\ ".. t,“.‘0c' I‘ 9"“.q u” ‘~' !‘ ‘,".r4,_Jr»./‘ l _V)ul’.l I ;--l\_-.1. 1L2: a'»!r-~p “I ‘J C'. VLL].\ S -.’=4‘(_1.‘l 1.16: I \-. L) NJ; x. his linvirus to the Findings and conclusions of Byrnes. This will serve to point up or give more meaning to the work under dLSC‘ssi an here. THE PLACE OF THE ATT 3N3Y IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ADIINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION A key part of the investigation undertaken in this study was ' reference the organizational pattern of school systems with particular to the position of at orneys in relation to the szhool board and superintendent. Information on this subject was sought in lite.ratu1e, both from the field of school administration and business administra- tion. The literature in school administration deals with a the administration ‘tremendous variety of topics ar d n::cess aril; so, as (if a school district entails thexnanagement of an unusually varied assortment of activities. Of the t:e- its which place partic liar emphasis on aniministrative orga rization, the experts seem to divide between those Who’ accept the ancient line-staff nilitary organizational pattern and thosfia who seek a more "democratic" pattern. In neither instance do the auithors give consideration to the place of legal counsel. More oftenu. they deal in generalizations with fre uent attacks on the dual admIl-rlistrative organization and defense of the more common unit 3Y3teh-. Because so little has been written by school administration authors on the topic under study, the author was forced to turn else- 71119 . “'MP9 :for expert opinion. ‘ .. "‘. '— 9. ' .-..'.. .-.:..»‘L.r' '1 --'—:»»~‘ Some sinners in tie Lu31ness idl-ui5biutlon field haVc lUUJCsLBQ the analogous relation of the corporation Board of Directors and an elected governmental body such as a Board of Education or City Council. Peterson and Plowman have made such an analogy: The Board of Directors of a Corporation must exercise its powers as a group and not singly as individual members of the organization. In this respect the board functions precisely as any other representative bod". For instance, a city-council elected by the people of a community can act only when in session as a council. Similarily, directors must nake their decisi0ns in board meetings, formal minutes of whicn are required by law, to be kept by a designated officer. They then outline the basic functions of an effective board of directors a: follows: In spite of the great variations that exist among corporate directorships with respect to the details of board activities, the basic functions of an effective board of directors may be summarized as follows: 1. The eXercise of trusteeship by appraisal of the prOgress of the company hereby be'ng alert to danger, on the other hand, and advantageous opportunity on the other. 2. The conside~ation and establishment of the uajor policies and objectives of the corporation. 3. The selection of the chief executive and senior officers and the determination of their compensation, conditions of retirement and pensions. 14. The delegation of adequate managerial authority to the chief executive and his subordinates. Those familiar with school board operations will note the appropriateness of this list f functions for school boards. \ 1T5 . I1 I ‘ almore Peterson and E. crosvenor Plowman, BuSiness Organization 333 M. anagement (Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, 155771—9537, p. 2Ibid., pp. 152-153. Ilh9. DJ 1.1) ‘ ~ v- sh .~-— ' - .3 _' '- r v- 1' .lr "\ .1 . ~\"‘ -v- - If tue analOgy, as contendru, is apt, tie” litn.atu.e on the organization of businesses or corporations ought to provide insignt on school district administrative organization, at least as it relates to the legal counsel. A survey of the business administration litera— ture reveals the expected differences of opinion on where the legal counsel fits into the organization pattern. General Electric employs legal counsel at the vice president level and, in fact, call him "vice president and legal counsel." He is a member of the executive office and reports directly to the company president.1 Many business and nanufacturers' organizations include legal counsel on their boards of directors. Such a pattern is not possible, of course, in publicly elected boards of education, except as an elected member happens to be in the legal profession. Hoxever, in such instances, it is generally advised that the board member refrain fhnom actual legal service to the school district. The most common organizational pattern, however, is for the legal counsel to appear as a staff person to the president or general manquer. Hodges charted the position in such a way: \ Ric}; lFranklin G. Moore, Manufacturing_Management (Homewood, Ill.: £1113 D. Irwin, Inc., 1953), p- 35- 29 __ fl . Legal f’ Counsel Secretary Corporation %__‘1 l L' - -# President - «4 ' l I Corporation _1_ _! L-—.— _fianagement Treasurer ‘d’ Counsel General Manager 1 Though his chart does not include a board of directors, it is assumed that Hodges was simply trying to show the upper administra- tive strata and was not concerned about the governing body. It is clraar tha+ had Hodges felt the legal counsel should report directly to ‘the Board of Directors he would have included that group in his chart. his emphasis on the attorney serving as a staff person to the’ Firesident or general manager with no direct contact with the board Figures 2 and 3 both or diirectors is evident in other publications. JJKriCBEIe clearly the concern of the authors with this relationship. \ Pr lHenry G. Hodges, Management - Principles and.Practical -—JE§ELE§3§ (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1936), p. lhh. T-s‘T-qvvx" ‘ - .‘JU —;.J ‘I " q q P not" 1 Cd}r..T 1.3.11- IX”: J 'D‘T‘ \)AL‘Lb.L “' '1 AJ Legal . usinc—ss Flaming Counsel - — -1 President - and Control Consultant General Manager Safety Plant _ __ _|Wa‘;e incentive Consultant __ - - q Superintendent Consultant FIGURE 3 ORGAHIZ ATIQN CZIART (F A LARGE CORPOFJ Tl C1 3 Lock? :01 de 1‘] lBoard 01'" Directors A , President and A Assistant Chairman of Board Legal Counsel Ha l‘loyd . Rowland, Business P13Y1.'1i2_1£; and Con trol (New York: ‘93P and dros., 19117), p. 1'35. (Ho 2Ric1'1’ard 1'3. Owens, Managment 9;: Industrial Entegirises "‘6 Wow, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 19537, p. 115. -11 - ‘.'.‘-‘- J C‘ -.-_ 3 ~ 4‘. » ~‘.—.. 1'. .- . an + .r Hcic»_, -1sh the unite .«CCTluE 1urt. r c.e uurpos: o- 3, 1f " ‘ ~ ‘- " 3 ‘O . ‘4 \' a - “ 1 ‘ ‘r . .r» ' .x w Q ~- “‘1 personnel nc ' t..1(,z...-‘:’ that 161331 0063.331 S (3% 1;; .1 ~-; 30 L.(){;Llfit’li;‘-a: The nrimary purpose of many staff agnncies is to render specialized advice and co zsel to managerent upon request. i Sucn agsnc es normmallr hfils no directionil, RCHLJlSvP ti*c, or caitrcl funct:_cmx , 01~. give authocit.t opi1ions when zsked and often ‘czinb to nanadenent’s 1ttenti on dc».1o)1snti of i Lures vithwn their respectiVe fields. among the or' in c1lsracter and fall 1113-4: 33101213115, Economics, 4. 1 Persc nrel Ad1-ni tr: ti on. L‘-' . -, ' within 1-15 Craig are: neéa The effectiJe organization of such ercncies, a ru presents no unu31al prollems. They normallvi’ re mp rt 0 tne president or general management, or to the iiv vis enal executive most closely concerned, nit are u51ally ava ilathle for 00 s‘ : tion hv anJ°igru3rested ;m:ar1tive-Guernzpartment.1 f" ¢+P This limited number of references summarizes and in fact, ,1 . ‘n . . .v1~o- ’-~ .n—. .r n J,‘ » . .—» fl ‘ '5‘? -. . n -.._ ‘Vlrnnjallgr CXJKJ18b5 1w;ntinxi or Lane le_c: ufltfllsel'iyk)pbeet1031.Ld i1e '-. .v"3 ‘, . - I' '(I'\‘~‘Vr 2 o .. l 1', l1" ,7 nix.- 1.) L.l SUEflmEZ" In "his c";.’..;rter the: author has a tteipted to pass-ant the 11:3. 1; Eng of’\;r1ters 1: the field of ed1c1tional administration on the organiza- ti3nial 'claticcsfiio of £39 3‘h301 attorney to the superintendent and boaurd of education. Realizing the similarity net 413n the nornal sc?1cu31 system orb.ni.’tionul p t.ern and .hét oi na1, bJSiuet s anr man‘zif'acturing concert-s, the rcsv-ath‘IGr also t'lf‘ med to the field of bugfileess aiui istration for exyert opinion tLat night throw light on *1... - . "“ rflroblems unders tudy. The business literature can b; summarised rather briefly. ‘11: l "‘ J—ters in this f‘ixgld seen; to concur witr' 3011001 adMJ1i51,1€'tti13n lPaulE.Holde1, L.S. F -41;;;;J§aticn and Control (New Y is}; Pd H11 Irzi‘t 1.35:1131, Tel) "in: 4"; rent 0 McGraw-Hill Book 30., I??? , p.—HL. J' - (q ' . ‘ a '1‘" u o 'u n ‘. v D:\ ‘ ' ‘r I‘ a 1 ’ ‘ J“ .1 ‘ ongoinai1st«.1r.o 11 t .11: ncbeakfliuf iol kynutzai ILRI‘L _ounsr1. ifllbl 33 0* .1‘ . ‘ a_ “ ‘ ,a~:~-- 4 \Ah 1..., ._ - w u ‘I. Q \_’ hi 0 ’,.‘,':‘ ~ 3., 1‘“ 121.1611: :JO x". to "u . ”1. 0-1;. taunt ivy-ml natillscl s-:<.ulo 4.1 Lian-11 S E u .11 it" r 11).“o ")‘-’ ‘- n l. Yz‘xo‘l -/‘ -\--~"b ‘ifi"! '1 f"""fi C ‘- £138.. ltfiS -IO 1.1.: EH 3 LxA-‘..nu O. L31:2.1’7. d .~.arlt.é’"l T - ’11 1ka'3'vx)... O\‘L" tions to tne schorl superintendent. The actual applicability of this recommendation will have to await further analysis in later chapers of this paper. The school administration experts dealt more extensively with the need for Special bonding attorneys than any other asp8ct pertinert tudy. There is unarimity of opinion that municipal bond law d O S: 1.0 U) specialists must be used by school districts to manage the intricacies of bond issue procee’ings. The same degree of agreement is not found When the question of the extent of participation by local legal counsel in school bond issues is raised. The study that was reported most extensively on this subject was that of Byrnes's. Dr. Byrnes concluded that it is good pructice to retain local counsel to render services Iflclated to school bond proceedings. Byrnes's Second major conclusion 1" determining factor in the lee was that time and expenses should be the aruflangcment with local counsel rather than tLe acre common perceutége f‘ ' 1 ‘ 01 time ocnd issue amount. CILXPTER III IETHODOLOGY OF THE S'I'TTDY In the previous 0‘ :tor d aliig with the review 0 the investiga ions and thoughts of various individuals were cited to provide an orientation to the subject under study. The pres discussion is concerned with creating an undeis tLLding of the type of instruments utilized and how they were developed, the prew-t sting of ring the instruments, the instruments, the proce ire c;ployed in administe the collection of data, and now the data will be hand led in this ; per. Thu Sim-ST: mvnAI'ib As indicated previously, the as her is indented to the M State University Department of A ministrative and fiducatio n31 C) O 1 .L higan fisrvices for making available the data collected from a questionnaire pertinent to this topic. The questionnaire was mailed in May, 1957, This represented every school The t'0 698 school districts in Miclr'zigan. distxrict.in the state that employed a superintendent of schools. the: questionnaire and return superintendents were asked to complete it tC3 Professor William H. 30:, Department of Administrative and hduceitaional Services, who also wrote a "COVering" letter to accompany the questionrlaire. Cf the 693d "u estiom aires mailed out, LB} were returned. percexntwage of return was 62. 9% which, according to current rese p.2'é'1cgtin . . . . yes, is large enough to pPOVlQe a valid savnxile of the state as a Whole . ./ Table 1 shows the nzdbvr of school systemS'wkose superintendent ‘ . .z' ,. °.,‘ m ,9, . '\ ,. , I , ..1.. ., ‘, , ., returned tne quesplon‘alle. lhe idols Jreqks noun the rut.r¢s “g vhf sing of the school system as indicated by student enrollments, Hay, 17$? TABLE 1 NUMBER OF SCHOOLS RETURNING QUESTIONNAIRLS BY SCHOOL ENROLLMJNT T E School Enrollment Number Reporting O---l99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 200--399 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 hoo--S9? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 soc-~99? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9S l,OOU--l,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 2,333--h,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 5,.ooo--7,999................... 10 8,(]DO--ll,9§9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 l2, improve school administration t; promoting interest in llruierstanding of school law throughout the United States, 135' holding meetings for the presentation and discussion ‘31. school law problems, by stimulating the teaching of Euzliool law, and by issuing publications on chool law ‘Subjccts. The O 'ganizntion shall serve as a clearing ‘lcnlse for information on r search and publications, and I“3rhder oth:r related services to those who become members of the Organization. It seems clear that mzmbersnip in this Jrvrni4ition indicates consider— dole interest in the fields of 121:: 713m. school administrauim. The l‘atioi al Organization or. Legal 'Prollms of Jduc1* ion sponsored a recm‘, volume entitled "Law and the School Superiitznownt. Ten of the schnteon contributing euthors of this book were asked to be panel members. These men are school Sllo‘.l‘7;1ttll’ltf'b8 or professors of education at various colleges and universities. Three additional panelists from the faculties of the three 11% st universities in Michigan were asked to participate. Each of these men is a specialist in school administration and each has written or ot‘m—umise exhibited an interest in the field of school law. Eleven of the thirteen men asked readily assented to serve on the panel. Their names are. listed in Appendix D. .The .ext step in the study was to present to the panel numerous statements about the topic under stud.)r that could be evaluated by the Wiperts. The assumption was that agreement on a particular item by experts in the field could be considered a criterion with which to evaluate present practices and guide future actions of school boards and superintendents. The virtual void of literature on the topic under consideration put great respor xsibil itv on the author in formulating ' tne initial draft of statements for surveillmce by the jury. Howover, mucn help was received from the author's comiiittee, other staff manta-2r: . I 'n o o o n o o 1“ tote Department of educational Services at Michigan state UlllVBI‘Slt;', P . ‘ o ‘ V and 4 rom practic inr attorneys and school superintendents. when tne i ' . nitlal stat 1. .1 ts were prepared they were sent to an informal g ‘oup statements appeared of ' , , . . . . . Jude—568 who were asmed Simply to indirzatm, if the “\J 3 to be suitable for isolating criteria for establishix; a saoeessful attorney-superintendent-sohool board relationship; if the statements were clear in their intent; and whe her they hrd any additional so»te- ments that should be added to the list. Several revisions were made as a result of his procedure. The statements for yotential :riteria for both the special bonding attorne3 and local counsel #5 Finally revised are fmmd in Appendix C. ‘1 A J' ' ' v.‘ -I. ‘ ‘ .' "‘v .v " "c‘ go '30.” .UIIV Oil £913-- St-ab‘ari‘uilb PUD Provision For one expert. deemed important for clarification of th:ir r:sponses if they so o 05?. Further examination of tLe form will rzv&al that tfle rnsfondsnt was presented with Your classiiicetions from which to choose his response. .- -,, 3“ It was ?elt that tfiis range of options fr0m "strongly agree so "strongly dLsaéree," was su?ficient to provide for each expert to indicate His judgment of the relative value of era several criteria. In order to disting“ish objectively between those statenerts desmned of sufficient value to qualify as criteria and those not, runne'icel values were assigned. The response "strongly agree" was assi4gned three points; "tend to agree" was assigned two points; "befni to disagree," one point; and a respons~ 0? "strongly disagree" 155% ;;iven no val;:. ?ci1ure to respond to an item was deemed gridunce 0? S bisong disagreement and hence was also given no value. The distribution or value ratings by the experts is shown in Tablxas; h and S on pages 51 and 66. he statemen s for isolating Crit&arfiia are shown with the various sub-statements. The points nocim - latumj r~ .- . _ __. ....-,- . . . .. . ~- 4krom the ratings on easn seatenent are totaled and the median ALV sco . . . . . re: Chalculated. a median score of 2.0 was arbitrarily set as tue *‘ Sm“?! ‘mUv‘, tf-r‘ TIN“ \r r-r. 7* QH-rfT 7‘1- 7‘ "1 .o-JJJ JJ+JLULIH UJ4LAJJ'J’J l: was felt insufficient for the purposes 01 onis s toy to o 1" limit tne datz - twurizg to the queHstionn .11 e. rurther information on ‘ present conditions in reopect to tne employment of school attorneys was cquircd; the requirement steaming from the lim'tations of the question- naire technique as discussed in Chapter 1. The. case study let‘co cl \oES ‘ ' ' . 1 ‘ 1‘ ' - r' .0 °‘| “' - ‘1 r'V‘ "\'- F“ ‘ I“ 1.3 'I \ ‘v ‘r ‘r‘\ 0110860 to Stf‘o'ul e L 1‘3. denoted 5’.A;)11Lel'.“'.1tdL (184521. Txii‘ tool ”sec. v, ~15 {Me ‘‘‘‘ ‘ '. ' <- '. ‘2 ‘ " W 1 .4 slwhm;tdremi (r ((:usec L.t€l\LL£N besmlit.. 3 n Good and ocates have written of the Int?,1._ie: technique: 0 Certain t pes of infonvm ion can be secured on 771 4D,)" direct contacts Akll 0~0\le' For e«llnie, i1,in:te. foc A history, of ;*r onal h bits aoxd clicactr— Estics of Fazily life, and oiizfiorrw :rd belief. ifi;ile u Ital; 0 this infor- motion can he olta ixod through use of question air:s, Check list, or trr'4-s (1191123.: “U: to {go In. of' IKSIJOICLL its, 15.1 1" ara unique characaeristics of tfio int [View t3?! rondzr 1t muchrmne than Il"31417L&6£."L Thea; go on to cite tie spzoial values of t}; *nLHVVLeN, i: conparison 'l. The interviewees may provide personal and confidential irfoznat.iora nhl”ll they would not ordinarily place in wr ting on paper, they may wish to see the investi- ~;tor Mllo is see urin' the information and to receive guarantees as to how the facts will be used; they may need the stimulation of personal contacts in order to be "drawn out"; o:1o sozr.e interviewees may be too ignor- ‘ 9117.; U) read 33111 hl‘L-JE. “J . The interview enables th : investigator to follow up leads and to take advantage of small clues; in dealinv L) ”d Carter V. Good and 3033133 B. Scates, Hethods of Re eorcb: 4.; i "I ' 'IT *— —_ w. W; Psychological, oociolgical (new York: Appleton - tentury - rof t3, Inc., 1951;), p. 35L. 2. (Ccntl.l with CJHLIICX Log} 5 Igd 1; stints, URI r 1610“ mcnt or trend oi tun ion:.rs1)icu is lifinl; to lrccsafl in any dil‘ac .103, and 3.0 11' S:_‘.‘1H"1?- lei-paysd ix. ,: lvsnc: can fully meet tins it»: at‘: on. J. The int~rvis4 ;~3:its t;.o llJ‘Sti’«t0r to form an impxcssion of tic person WlC is ;l ving the information, to (Hrrivs at some jud51:nt of tut truth of the WLHSttIS, V. and to "rand belmvv n the lines tnings that may not have oren said in words. L. The intorvisw provides an opportunity for the intcr- viewer to Jiv~ infornat an and to d velcp ccrtai; attitudes on the part of the respondent, a procedure that is not ri\~<*‘)l 'sz using-,7 a Qtnwtflui: air or a t 31‘. This oppoxtinity for "giva and tune" is ”CU\VL~LLJ im- portant in the "treatment” or "thsrfipsatic" intc"‘viIu, uS&d extenSEley in case work.1n tfiis r“" thc irt»r- View psmits 5.:‘1 iz‘XO'SE"..'.g€: 0.2" tdf: as 5:1" ‘11 fo nation, it is HOtffiCBSSflrlLfTACK?4W%’Strmfit. Parten2 has ind Cited U at most r~syo ndents mould rat 3r t lk than write and the interview inch: iqis rslicvcs thc informants of that responsibility. Morton and Kendall point out in Chorus with the abovn 'that such a non-diraotivc approach, "...gives the subject an opportunity to 8 (press himself about matters of central Significance to him rather theui those presumed to be important by the in1~rvieuer .'3 In the above statement Merton and Kendall are describing the focnised interview which was adopted for this study as best meeting the demands of the situation. They go on to further describe the focused intfl31*view as follows: 3.. The srsons interviewed are knovn to have been ir:VoI Ivcd in a particular concrets si nation, sucn as viewing a film or hearing a radio pr03ran. 1Ibid., p. 356, Quildrvd Pfirte~ Survsys, Polls, Sample 5 (Cow Yart: Harper & BFOS., 1025?), p. 9} o 1 Th “nobcrt K. Norton 1 nd P-Itri cia L. K3nd$ ll, "T‘e Focwsed Intuxvi t,‘ e American Journal of‘ Sociclwxz', 51:51: 1.3.; 1, 10;). 2. '1ku 1 q ot31 hi.n.llJ':3-J ‘ F10 it 1: .Ls, grit- ~xys, r.i tot: l s‘ Aril‘ of t? p:rt-cul;r Sifustior 1.”, E r fl:zivio le an:lJzed (cowtcnt enaldsis) by the i v ~ti— gM';oz, and EL? has arrivsd at a set of si;nificsnt hy- goghe8es concerning the meaning and effsots of Qctr-r- minste aspsc s of the situation. 3. On the basis of this analysis, tho investigator has rView guid3, outlining 1H3 major and the hypotheses which locals the data to be obtained in the interview. develcxuai an inte areas of inqaiqy pertinent c of the L. The interview itself is focused on the subj Mix ox- ;srisncss of bk) persons exoosed to th: pr? — Ha vzud sitlation; those reported res 01563 e mile t?9 investi- ator to test the validitd of Ezis hypo' 2v ses "d to ascertain unanticipated responses to ‘Mo 51 Mt ation, thus giving rise to fresh hypotheses. The ossontial purpose of this st :1), it will ‘or rwcalled, was to critically analyuv tn? currsnt situation as it relates to the attorney-superintendentAboard of education relationship in terms of writ ria established by asserts. This led tile case study or interview poriion of this st d" do.»n a particular pa th. It indicated a need to seemie dept? iniormation Abojt existing con ditious and, by implication, ixu)elled the investigator to determine what the attitudes of the people wars: abost their olrrsnt situatiofi. While the criteria were designed, in part, to measure the fOITnifl administrative organization, the investig~;:r realized t‘lat forwnz£1 patterns of association are often not so important as the ianDIfinal systems. Atto”19”S-€1p9?]ht9nd9nts and scoool boari wwters Partlixzipate in rstnsr unioue soc 51 systems. Tke T016‘ 8 they Play in ‘Uu3il‘ periods of interaction and, in fact, the persons 1 ”it‘1 are dste~~inod quite informally in most csscs. The whol» web of "_'A‘ ‘“”““fl intwr: otions is c 4?.3r at from case to ca .39 as thv members 11mm, 55. ‘ . ‘_ u . 1- J. n 1 1 ‘ ituation. i, 4;; me themselves bring different bacigrcunds tc the 0’) found later in this study that the participants descrited their intar- actions but couldn't tell why they interact in that may. Often the "I“ ‘ .1 U I |o . r' '~ ‘ . .‘c. ' ~ ‘9" " ' ’3 ‘a x " (I h ' "‘ ‘ ‘ 'I ‘ patterns were estaoiisued o.,r past yeuzs osforc any of tn~ curr‘ participants were even on the scent. But this is part of the study--u portion of the information sought in each case. The author was directed by this line of reasoning to construct an interview schedule that included questions eliciting both current factual data and furtker questions of trs open-ended or focused interview type seeking opinion and attitude data. Examination of the final interview schedule in Appendix E reveals that this "dualism" of . questions, so to speak, was accomplished. The writer believes that a careful consideration of the tcharacter of the people interviewed, the structure of the study pre- itbuinary to the interviewing, and the chedule employed in this phase of the investigation will reveal many elements in common between the netfliodology used in this stud; and the focused interview described by Merton and Kendall. Since the factual questions could be easily answered by either Twesr' or "no" or a numerical response, this portion of the interview data, ~ eesi’" tabulated for analysis. However, the crucial parts of was V .‘.d the iieterview were Open-end"l questicns. he responses to these, of couI’SE , are not tabulated but are treated in tnr trxt material in “ensuing ci‘mptt—ms. Like the ot‘z‘wr instmm--:;1ts {13:13 in wigs study, the ‘1.A;’..‘.rview' S1,}: i ’~- 0 I l g ‘~Qu§lo was carefully refined prior to use by pro-testing and tne v" ‘ . " 1'» » 4— mu” .4 . ~., . EJX‘LKZ’LIEEIIJ }3'II)| ,‘ S ~ h‘JA‘ ) 0‘ i‘ A‘ C‘ ~1‘J'lor' S C(JL u 11,4 V‘ 1 11L &) JIL.‘ Iv._-]_* ‘1L (‘1/‘ O . Y' .. .—- . H .‘ ‘ “’ " ' " 1" ‘ ‘ I ‘15 : r. 9" . qu/ ' -. ‘Jt’ft'c 15.1; QI‘SIt ' VJ .L'r.:n.>~.—-I‘:~.. 111:. {Jrg-tJELl..‘,‘_; 3 uiSILu'LLl Of 111,323?“ ' " ‘ ‘ “ "‘ \ 1 f 't I N rr "1' ' v- ,“1 J USlrlg tn; SCIICU,’ l2! «.ltu Sh. LI'L L 5'11): teuxmetb. inn-as Limb w Cw. .u - ,.~~, ~ - . n, ,. . 1 "3 1.. L' -. -. y.) ._ .. .- ‘°,,l:‘, 5,.1 bc aqucu Mule luuud «3 H51; ob Lassa LHIt Hfiebcu LlI1111,Lvlud uhL . .5 3. fi‘ V,‘ .- - arrangsa mt. 1:; L me two 1‘8 test activity. EHZJf' J m" N P 1 ’ d 4 I 1‘ ‘ . A. ' 0’.‘ int; 4.0%-].1393- 4.11UCIVl‘3“ ab: .L‘ ”r.- L,‘ O . " J ." .‘ monsa of ng, l 5,, 1” Len scua'l selected by a proper ionate s >—. 4 a” . 3.1.3 .. laxfi’ ililbufl'ho b" BC’ausL-g d strut. 1511 5:191; ; of uniVJrse par; 54L rs frrv t it is 3 Mar: rfriclcsf net Cd randcmlzwzthuds;rnui, if flagsib nt"3$9W'-Oxndfidg€is A~=ilwh f 5 5 ‘ .5 1‘ ,. 5‘ c ‘ ‘5' ‘ 2" [r r _ u 5... o ‘ c PzDFC sp filllfi‘lLJ Lu tst s,nu5, AuQOOd dad PTlLt point 015: 5 ' n ,_ s 1 I .L .1“ 1 a " - ‘_ 'x , ‘ o - . Nhe onever do ”H3 t3» ulSurldutlUl Ofc 1.1deLPlbth '- ‘ \ V" . . L‘ 7" .V’“ uss sociatod wiLn tie me .c uIv 1-t;“l ,stad Sbldjlug, ‘ . .. .. .. . ' ‘ ”1‘2”. . n ‘.-... -- 2". a: can atllize thls incglpu5c to NLJanta5 e 03 Strabgl)" ~. «1 ~. - ." ' I- ‘u " Pl‘y‘ ‘ ‘r ' ‘ : I “ " ' "“ : . ' ‘A' ‘\ . " ‘ lug she UALJUIDG on he UJbLS nf bJ‘ “nova ulstLloutLuu r > ' , - ” a~- L" r w H - :3 A~ r- ~ ‘ .. dud 1 I; .L I \Jnrl gm; : t, lut‘wl S‘ul {Mu—1 rgnduxn Sdfl‘ )1 :S i) "J— I , : , L, , ‘-. 1 .2 q ‘ . ,. . ' . ‘pOILLOJcl t tnL s-Le o- tn: sLIaLa." V,’: ‘ , . ‘. ‘ f 3‘. ‘5 a ‘ . _ a 4L ‘0 a ‘ 1" u ‘0 P _. " NLL.1 tlcse tuoabnts 13 11 d, L»LIJ {Chflwl hiSurlvt 1n mlchl5an ”not 5 l- -w., , . r, 3. . m.hwnu,..3 ‘ p. ‘ ~;J . a.« \ Op; (cats; d tWelve _r$uU system \Kludfiturlv'x t.za45; 535‘ su Jul; wr 7 5r. V ._ \ \ _ 5 _o _ _ "I n ‘. y ‘ _‘ ‘I I _ ‘w- 1 _ . >’_ u 5‘ _ -\ a r . 01 AL>~& a; h)’ o- sll(;ut t31311u.3t. Thydo :wr: HIE? “rely: rvw5 "" - 4- ‘ . . '. , . . , . , _. fl _, . , £13 1 sse s 1001 i sbzi .UH of less I an 5'1 st :k:3ke to a 5334p L'Vb dIStI‘icts with student populations in excess of 27,007) from - w A E; I. pl» ert V]. revisions as a result ‘31 A‘»-. . —- ‘J “‘ c. 'O QLLC ua~ sumln;stercu CJllfis the syster 18. he t9” districts war; f ed sampllx Ha5ood éwd Pris: ; We get nave reliable :stinates he same Ilmt:r of obs~rvntions, 07 arglli5 tunltfla sirflm 3, she 1d b3 used whun the "-1- EgaCh group ’3 S3190t€d 1] random Ssmpli “3 except the 1,307 to M- 1 “‘0' ML~5cgng °° *~;39' , ' J9 * " C. ?rl:e, Statistics for dag“ _| - v - . A ‘ m "1,5 ._: W (“JV ‘Iala'o I 21].} :.J H :1; -L\., fiLE’?-' I, L). ,217. of this pre- One district L3 1,999 student enrollment group within which a very high proportion of the school districts in Michigan fall. Two districts were secured from this group. Table 2 shows the enrollment groupings from school systems which were selected. TABLE. 2 ENROLUVEdNT GROUPINGS FROM WHICH SCHOOL DISTRICTS WERE SELECTED FOR CASE STUDY Student Enrollment School Districts 0-399 A boo - S99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B 600 - 999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C Loco-1,999...............D,E 2,000 - h,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F S’m-7,9990000eeeeeeeeeee G 8,000 - 11,999 - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H 12,000 — 19,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 20,000 - over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J The author traveled about 1,200 miles in making the interviews arui spent the equivalent of a full week in getting to the interview sites, conducting the examination and returning home. In several cases two interviews were conducted in remote parts of the state on the same day. Every interview was made by the author personally. The focused interviews were with school superintendents with only two exceptions. In the two largest districts preliminary investi- gatimari disclosed that the assistant superintendents in charge of business “fairs actually had more day-to-day contact with the attorneys of their districts than the superintendents. These assistants also attend all ach°°1 board meetings so are familiar with that aspect of the school district operation. Each interview was preceded by a telephone call expl‘lfi-Iiltimg the study and requesting an onintment. In every case the M; prospective interviewee was exceedingly cordial in his reaction and set an early date for the interview. The districts chosen represented an excellent geographical and sociological distribution. Only the Upper Peninsular was not represented geographically. Large cities, fast growing metropolitan area districts, and rural school systems were all included. Table 3 summarizes back- ground information on the school districts and interviewees. It can.be seen that all of the districts had passed at least one bond issue in the last five years with three of the districts having experienced three bond issues. It is evident from the table, too, that the smaller districts were under the leadership of less experienced men; the two smallest districts had beginning superintendents. This, combined with ‘the startling lack of training in school law of the same men looms as an important fact in this study. MUNICIPAL FINANCE COMMISSION DATA The final source of data for this study was the files of the Mix:fnigan.Municipal Finance Commission. This agency is charged with the responsibility of reviewing for approval all municipal bonds prior to the sale of the bonds. The Commission is composed of the following members of the State Administrative Board: the Auditor General, the State Treasurer, the Attorney General, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction. The Commission employs a small staff who gather data from municipalities for the use of the Commission. Among the documents 8ub"'*1‘l‘o‘l&ed to this state agency is the fom Application for Approval 0” the Municipal Finance Commission. After a successful bond issue 5 LL mmasoo chopmmm mp0 mm 5 03» cant: -epaom cam ooe.m m momasoo chopwmw 02» mm o omega cant: nepsom chm Nem.m o mmasoo vcwam mco 5N mm manna ceptsnzm Hakeemo a»: oom.m a empaoo mowmcmq coo w .moe m 03» cecazcsm Heapcoo an: ommaa m pcaam once 5 m one cantsnsm Happemo 2p: omm.~ a mmmasoo mcwman 039 mm m one Hausa Heapcoo no: 0mm 0 mcewcmq moo: m m coo amasm Hmnpcoo a»: co: m one: H H mco Housm means an: mmm 4 sea Hoocom pneumamm< :OapHmom mosmmH coon mpwcsssoo opmpm poflppmwn poms aowppmao ow no .pmzm pcomoam pcooom mo ca mo uHHopcm Hoonom maficHeae mammw Hence cw .mpw mo .02 ooze coaueoog wmmao Hence mmm3BH>MMB2H 024 mBOHmEmHQ Aoomom Mabem amdo mo 20He was reported that Rosenstengel and Eastmond found: "The fees paid } to a bonding attorney will vary with localities, but usually they are a $312.11 fraction of 1% of the bonds"! This seems to imply that usually fees for this type of service are based on a percentage of the bond issue. The question is, "Is this the best type of fee arrangement?" The Jury did not. supply a conclusive answer. Once again at least one juror I! Strongly agreed" and at least one ”strongly disagreed" to every other uternative. There was more agreement for a sliding percentage of the _ _ N nu." -— ._._—— ._.—. _‘-m‘ h - 6O bond issue, but the total of fifteen points resulted in only a l.b median score which is not sufficient to qualify it as a criterion. The only conclusion possible here is that once again there is too little agreement among the experts on the method of payment to say with convic- tion, "this is the way it should be 1” Statement 10. The special bonding attorney should be expected to attend public meetings held to discuss the bond issue pro- posals. Five of the Jurors "strongly agree" with this statement and two others "tend to agree." Three "tend to disagree,” including one who strate,"NOt usually, but in a few special cases, yes!" One person "stmongly disagreed." This scoring resulted in a total of twenty-two points and median of exactly 2.0 which means it barely qualified as a czxtiterion. Criterion VI. The special bonding attorney should be expected to attendgpublic meetings held to discuss the bond issue_prg- posal . Statement 11. The special bonding attorney should be expected to attend school board meetings where the bond issue proposals are being determined. There were two comments of note made on this statement: "Details, 'yes,‘ general proposal, 'no"; and "Might not always be necessaryudepends on the circumstances.” This statement needs little cl‘rification. The total points scored were twenty-six with a median of 2‘1‘ which results in: (3riterion VII. The special bonding attorney should be expected 159 attend school board meetings where the bond issue prgposals Eire being determined. r-m. .. 61 Statement 12. The special bond attorney should be expected to attend the board meetings at which bids for bonds are being opened. ane of the experts disagreed with this statement. It totaled twenty-six points and received a median score of 2.L. The only comment made was, "It might not always be necessary; depends on the circum- stances." However, the scoring is so favorable that the criterion must be stated just as the original statement. Criterion.VIII. The special bondiggzattorney should.be expectgd to attend the board meetings at whicILbids for the bonds are being opened. Statement 13. The bonding attorney should be expected to prepare the bond circular for potential bond buyers. This statement is one of the "near misses." Although eight experts "agreed" with the statement as opposed to only three who "dis- agreed,” the statement did not garner enough total points to qualify as a cszriterion. The median score was 1.9 points. The limited number of Garments seemed to indicate that the bonding attorney should assist in the: Ioreparation of such a document but school officials themselves or a fiscal agent employed by them should be responsible for its preparation. Statement 1h. The bonding attorney or his firm should be Qualified to render an approving opinion on the bond issue. There was complete unanimity on this statement, all jurors n”ti-"Ongly agreeing," making the median score 3.0. Hence, Criterion II. The bonding attorney or his firm should be Qualified to render an approving opinion on the bond issue. Statement 15. The bonding attorney should arrange for the sign- ing and delivery of bonds. 62 Reference again to Table b will indicate that nine of the jurors ”strongly agree" with this statement, one "tends to agree" and one juror "strongly disagrees" with it. There is no comment from any of the Jurors. The median of 2.6 qualifies this statement as: Criterion X. The bond attorneygshould arrange for the signing and delivery of bonds. Statement 16. The selection of a bonding attorney should be made by the: (a) superintendent (b) board of education (0) superintendent and board jointly (d) other (specify) Statement 17. The termination of relations with a bonding attorney, if necessary, should be initiated by the: (a) superintendent (b) board of education (c) superintendent and board jointly (d) other (specify) Here again are two closely related statements that can most efficiently be treated tOgether. These statements stemmed from pre- linrixiary interviews and reports that indicated difficulties sometimes arose in this area. The summary of scoring is complicated by comments offered by the .Jlary members. In both instances the "board of education" alternate received a high enough median score to qualify as a criterion. Four jurors selected "board of education" as a ”strongly agree" item and then commented "on the recommendation of the superintendent." One wfinders if those who selected "superintendent and board jointly" were “0‘3 thinking the same thing. In the words of one juror, "Board of 63 ’ Education is the only legal answer. Actually done with advice of the superintendent." It is the conviction of the author that few, if any, of the jurors meant that either the board of education or superintendent should select the attorney, at least, without consultation with the other. With that thought in mind the researcher feels well advised to state the criterion as: Criterion XI. The selection of a bonding attorney should be made by the board of education upon the recommendation of the school superintendent. The matter of termination of relations with a bonding attorney exacted less comment than the selection. The "board of education" alternate received a median score of 2.1 points. However, again the "superintendent and board of education" choice drew many points; a total of seventeen. As one juror wisely pointed out, however, "The school board and superintendent are not coordinate in this action." Again one wonders about the real intent of the Jurors. How did they interpret the tem "initiate”? Does it make a difference who is dissatisfied in who initiates the action? The author is required to presume on the b38215 of the actual checked responses and cements that Statement 17 can most satisfactorily be stated as: Criterion XII. The termination of relations with a bondigg attorney, if necessaryL should be tithe board of education Bpon the recommendation of the school superintendent. Statement 18. The bonding attorney should be expected to Participate in discussions at school board meetings of purely educational matters that are involved in bond issue proposals. Statement 19. The board of education should be influenced by the bonding attorney on educational matters that are involved in bond issue proposals. There is considerable agreement on these two statements. Only two points were recorded for Statement 13 and only a single point was all that Statement 19 garnered. In other words, the agreement was entirely negative. This is another instance when preliminary investiga- tion disclosed a problem area. The criterion in this instance can gyrobably most effectively be stated in negative form. Criterion XIII. The bonding attorney should not participate in school board discussions of purely educational matters that are involved in bond issue_proposal§. Statement 20. Qualified legal advice on school bond issue elections should be available from: a (a) state departments of education (b) county offices of education (c) county government offices (d) city government offices (9) other (specify) There was surprising concurrence that "state departments of Education" should provide qualified legal advice on bond issue elec- 1lions. Not a single juror recordeda "disagree" vote although two jurors failed to respond to this alternate. Six of the jurors "strongly agree" x'1‘1-131'1 this item. The median score was 2.2 points, qualifying it as a (trite rion. Although ”county offices of education" found some favor, there ‘wer‘i riot enough votes to come close to qualifying. An interesting note is t'hoze complete rejection of county and city governments as a possible “Mme of this type of assistance. Neither of these sources attracted a single "agreement" vote. 65 Criterion XIV. Qualified legal advice on school bond issue elections should be available from state departments of education. From the twenty statements in the section on special bonding . attorneys, fourteen criteria have been isolated. These criteria selected by'a jury of experts in the dual fields of school law and school admin- :istration Should be of significant assistance to school board members and superintendents as well as members of the bar who specialize in municipal bonds. IDCAL LEGAL COUBBEL The author will turn his attention now to the equally important local legal counsel. It must be remembered that the local counsel is the lawyer who is retained by the school district to provide general legal services. Throughout this attempt to isolate criteria relating to the local legal counsel the similarity in both the statements and responses to those relating to the special bonding attorney will be noticed. As much as possible repetition will be avoided. The reader will, in some instances, be referred to the comments previously made about the special bonding attorney. Always the attempt will be to present the material clearly and succinctly. Table 5 on the following pages presents the jury ratings of 8tfldierments for isolating criteria relative to local counsel in tabular form. A detailed explanation of this table was presented on page 50. TABLE 5 FOR ISOLATING CRITERIA RSLATIVE TO LOCAL COUNSEL ANALYSIS OF JURY RATING OF STATEMENTS Total Points Jurors 1 2 3 b S 6 7 8 9 10 11 Median Statement 7.2230 02h7509913332393h25676h153313 30000003.]. 1232;2111111122 29.0. 21 190.1 82233000000325 9% :22 hon.) 1 7h6907626 523 10003. . . . . .311233333123011333033113.312. ....3......3..3.3333..3..3.22.32.3.33... 00003. . . . . .330323333113112332033311.311. 3000300000030003333.3. .3.303303303000300 11113. . . . . .322333321121132122133131.031. 00003000000321223333033031211032132 .132. 00003. . . . . .30023333333033. .333.3030.0300 ....3. . . . . .3. .333333. .3. .3.31.23.3.333.3 ....3. . . . . .330.33333. .3. . .312.33. .30.33. 31.1.23. . . . . .311133231231233233233132.123. ....3......3...3333.3..3.3.32.32.3...3.. abodeabcdefgabcd abca 145:1 ab ab :muu Bbu 67 TABLE 5 - (Continued) W Jurors Total Statement 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Points Median 16 2 3 l 2 3 l 2 3 O 1 3 21 1.9 17 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 29 2.6 13 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 32 2.9 19 3 3 1 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 28 2.5 20 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 29 2.6 21 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 32 2.9 22 3 3 1 2 3 2 2 3 O 2 3 2D 2.2 23 3 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 29 2.6 2b 3 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 29 2.6 25 01000000000 1 .1 26 01000300000 1 .1 27a - 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 l 27 2.h b - 1 3 l 3 2 1 O 3 2 2 18 1.6 c - l 3 O O O O O O - 1 5 .h d - 0 - O O O O O O - l 1 .1 e 33--------- 6 .5 Statement 1. Qualified legal advice should be "on call" for general legal prOblems arising in the operation of the school district, depending on the 2a) size of school district b) comunity setting (rural, urban, suburban) (c) superintendent's knowledge of school law (d) number of legal problems arising (e) ”on call" for all school districts (f) other factors (specify) Statement 2. Qualified legal advice should be "on call" for general legal problems arising in the operation of school districts of: (a) less than h99 students (b) from 500 to 999 students (c) from 1000 to 2999 students (d) from 3000 to 5999 students (e) from 6000 to 9999 students (f) over 10,000 students (g) all school districts 68 The reader will note that Statements 1 and 2 are similar to the first two statements under the special bonding attorney. The attempt here was precisely the same. Should all school districts have available qualified legal assistance? If not, what factors determine that such assistance is not required? If size is the factor, what size? Once more the experts unanimously "strongly agreed" that all school districts should have a qualified legal advisor "on call”. Table 5 shows a median score of 3.0 for both Statements l(e) and 2(g). The criterion then is stated as: Criterion I. Qualified legal advice should be ”on call" for general legal problems arisi_ng_in the aeration of all school districts. Statement 3. General legal advice should be provided school districts by: (a) the school superintendent (b) an attorney on the board of education (c) a local attorney (d) a school law specialist (e) other (specify) There is some feeling that a local attorney can provide general legal advice to school districts although most of the jurors prefer a Behool law specialist. Several jurors preferred the specialist but gave rec3<>gnition to the local attorney also. Four men remarked that a °°mPetent local attorney who "prepared himself for school service" "mu-d be satisfactory. One Juror added, "All attorneys are not good school attorneys!" This comment was repeated many times by superintend- °nt3 interviewed in the case studies. This is an important point. Every district should have legal counsel "on call" but legal counsel must be a 69 qualified person who has specialized in school law. This would seem to indicate that the rather frequent political appointment of local resi- dent attorneys is not wise. The complexity of public education and the general unfamiliarity of attorneys with the mountainous legal provisions governing education warrant the best legal service available. The tabulation of points on this statement revealed that only the ”school law specialist" totaled enough to qualify as a criterion. The median score for this item was 2.5. Criterion II. General legal advice should.begprovided school districts by school law specialists. Statement h. The financial arrangements with the local legal counsel should be spelled out in written form and agreed upon by both parties in advance of actual services. Statement 5. The administrative relationship of the local counsel to the board of education and staff should be written in the bylaws or policies of the board of education. Statement 6. The administrative relationship of the local legal counsel and the board of education and administrative staff should be agreed upon by both parties in advance of actual services. These three statements are, of course, closely related and Consequently shall be considered together. They all apply to rather fundamental administrative arrangements that, as said before, seem to be simply "good business." One would suppose, then, that all three 81Miternents would poll a heavy point total, as they certainly did. It might reasonably be asked, if all this is true, if these statements are truly- fundamental, what is the need of incorporating them in the study. Anti-C ipating only slightly, the author is compelled to remark that the 70 research disclosed a startling disparity between the responses of the jury to these statements and the actual situation among school districts in Michigan. The jury found much agreement on these items. Statement b was "strongly agreed" upon by all eleven jurors and thus can be stated as: Criterion III. The financial arrangements with the local legal counsel should be_spelled out in written form and agreed upon by both parties in advance of actual services. Statements 5 and 6 each polled thirty-two of a possible thirty- three points, for a median in each case of 2.9 points. The only comment on these items referred to the possibility that these arrangements might be provided by law in some states. In any event that particular jury member "strongly agreed" with both statements. Criterion IV. The administrative relationship of the local counsel to the board of education and staff should be written in the bylaws orgpolicies of the board of education. Criterion V. The administrative relationship of the local legal counsel and the board of education and administratige staff should be agreed upon by both parties in advance of .gptual services. Statement 7. The local legal counsel should generally receive dbnstructions from the: (a) superintendent (b) board of education (c) superintendent and board Jointly (d) other (specify) 71 Statement 3. The local legal counsel should generally report to the: (a) superintendent (b) board of education (c) superintendent and board jointly (d) other (specify) There is considerable divergence of expert opinion on these two statements, particularly the latter. However, it would seem that the thinking issnmewhat clearer on the local counsel's relationship to the superintendent and school board than the bonding attorney‘s. In response to Statement 7 the jurors scored twentybthree points with a median of 2.1 for the ”superintendent" alternate. None of the experts specifically indicated "disagreement" with this selection. This state- ment can be stated as: Criterion VI. The local legal counsel should_generally receive instructions from the superintendent of schools. It is commonly considered a sound principle of administration tflnat a person report to and receive instructions from the same person. c3onsequently, it would be anticipated that the jury would vote identi- cally on Statement 8 as it did on Statement 7. Such was the case except for minor differences for all except one juror. Juror S, as shown in Taflxle 5 "strongly agreed" in Statement 7 that the superintendent or board, or superintendent and board jointly, should issue instructions 'UD tame local legal counsel. This juror explained in a comment that the source of instructions depended upon the nature of the legal assistance "C111 ired. In other words, instructions should emanate from the "superintendent in case of some matters, board in others, and jointly in some," The same juror "strongly disagreed" that the superintendent 72 should be the person to whom the local counsel reported, preferring him to report either to the board or superintendent and board of education jointly. One can only surmise that this juror thinks the complexity of law requires that interpretation should go directly from the legal authority to the board rather than pass through the superintendent. The reader is referred to page 57 of this study for a summary of the same two statements as they apply to the special bonding attorney. Much that is said there is applicable here. Even though a criterion is not forthcoming from the responses to this statement, the thoughts of one of the jurors perhaps should be remembered in connection with these two statements: Instructions might be formulated by the board, of course, and conveyed to counsel directly if he is present at the board meeting or else by communication from the superintend- ent. The local legal counsel should generally report to the superintendent and to the board also when the superintendent and legal counsel feel recommendations are of a policy nature or of sufficient importance that the board should be informed directly. It is suggested that the above comment may capture the feeling of the majority of experts. There is not sufficient evidence, however, that this is true to attempt to construct a criterion from the thought. Statement 9 Local legal counsel fees for routine services should be based upon: (a) an annual retainer (b) time and expense (c) other (specify) ByTnes was reported in Chapter II of this study as finding no CODSistent pattern in the method of determining the fee of local counsel for services related to bond issues. He found a trend away from the one per- CWant fee towards a "sliding scale" of percentage fees or a more 73 substantial retainer with a flat fee for each bond issue. It was Byrnes' recommendation that fees of local counsel for services related to bond issues should be determined on the basis of time. The jury in this study was asked to indicate the best fee arrangement for local counsel in general, not specifically as the fees relate to bond issue services. There was not sufficient agreement to isolate a criterion. There was considerably more favor for an annual retainer than anything else. twenty-one points, one less than the total required for a criterion. The "annual retainer" alternative polled The "time and expense" selection polled fourteen points with a median score of 1.3 points. There were no other fee arrangements proposed, although one juror suggested that the fee arrangement might be provided for in the school laws of some states. It should. be mentioned that no Juror "strongly disagreed" with an annual retainer. The author would suggest that the advice of one of the jurors who wrote, "A moderate annual retainer plus fees for special services," perhaps would receive more support among the experts than any other arrangement. The response to Statement 10 supports that argument. Statement 10. If local counsel is on retainer, legal activities involving unusual time and expense by the attorney should be reimbursed above the retainer. The experts found much more agreement with this item than the The median on this statement was 2.11 points, more than Previous one. enough to qualify it as a criterion. The intention seems clear; the experts aren't sure whether or not an annual retainer is the best fee arrangement for local counsel, but if that is what the SChODl diStPiCt °h°°ses to do, the retainer should be moderate and unusual activities 7h reimbursed separately. This intention seems to be embodied in the recommendation of the juror quoted above. Criterion VII. If local counsel is on retainer,glegal activities involving;unusual time and empense by the attorney should be reimbursed above the retainer. Statement ll. The local legal counsel should serve as liaison between the school district and bonding attorney for bond issue election proceedings. This statement relates precisely to Byrnes' study. As reported earlier, Byrnes found that fifty-nine of the sixty-six school districts [walled in his research used local counsel as liaison between the district aund the special bonding attorneys. The Twenty-Seventh Yearbook of the American Association of School Administrators was quoted in Chapter II as saying, "The board's local attorney should assist the bond attorneys ix) every possible way." The jury of experts in this study gave a total score of twenty-four points to this statement indicating agreement with the policies of those districts who so utilize their local counsel. The criterion based on a median score of 2.2 points is: Criterion VIII. The local legal counsel should serve as ‘liaison between the school district and bonding attorney .for bond issue election proceedings. EStatement 12. The local legal counsel should attend school tJoard meetings: (a) every meeting (b) on request The panel rather "strongly agreed" that local counsel should attend. school board meetings on request only. One juror "tended to 75 agree" and a second thought local counsel should appear at every board meeting. Four jurors "strongly disagreed" that counsel should appear at every meeting. The logical question to ask here is, Why do the experts feel so strongly that local counsel should not attend every meeting? It does not appear to be just a matter of the panelists' feeling that the attorney and board of education can save one another time by the attorney appearing only on request. If this were the case it is not likely that four of the eleven jurors would have deliberately "strongly disagreed" to counsel showing up at every board session. It would seem something of deeper significance is at play in this situation. It is possible only to speculate in the absence of evidence. None of the jurors made comments on this statement. Preliminary testing of the instrument used in this study and the interviews that accompanied pretrial administration of the instrument were revealing on this state- ment. It was suggested several times in discussions of this and Statements 25 and 26 that continuous close association with school Officials at board meetings might lead to participation in purely Gililcational policy matters. This, of course, was deemed undesirable. It was also felt much less likely to occur if the attorney attended board meetings only when requested. Whether this is the reason behind the jurors action or not cannot be told with certainty. In any event the intent of the jury is very clear in this statement. A median score of 2.6 points was a“""vfitrded the alternate "on request" while only a .S median was recorded for counsel to attend every meeting of the board. 76 Criterion IX. The local legal counsel should attend school board meetings on reguest rather than every meeting. Statement 13. The local legal counsel should be expected to attend public meetings on request. This seems like a reasonable demand on the time of local coinsel. The 'ur" of experts "agreed unaninouslr" and awarded this statement at J t a thirty point total and median of 2 7 points. It beeches: Criterion X. The local legal counsel should be egpected to attend public meetings on request. Statement 1h. The selection of a legal eminsel sionld be made by the: (a) superintendent (b) board of education (0) superintendent and board jointly (d) other (specify) Statement 15. The termination of relations with local legal counsel, if necessary, should be initiated by the: (a) superintendent (b) board of education (c) superintendent and board jointly (d) other (specify) The jury decreed that the board of education, upon the recom- mendation of the superintendent, should both select and terminate I‘elations with the special bonding attorney. Table 5 reveals a similar sitination with respect to local counsel. The experts named the board ‘31? education as the agent to select and terminate relations with the 100.31 legal counsel as well. Again one ponders over the possibility of misconception of teIr'ms. The term "jointly" was intended to mean "together" as it is 77 commonly used. The accepted method for a board of education and super- intendent tO'work "together" in matters of this kind is for the superin- tendent to recommend action to the board. This assumes that the action is within policy, if not, the superintendent would recommend a policy. Did the jury members who checked the alternate "superintendent and board jointly" have this method of operation in mind? Only one of those jurors commented on either statement. He wrote in relation to Statement lh, "The superintendent should nominate counsel." Two jurors who checked "board of education" explained "Upon the recommendation of the superin- ‘tendent." Another problem of interpretation was with the word "initiate" ‘in Statement 15. One juror asked, "What constitutes initiation?" Statement 1h seems to be clear enough to state it as: Criterion XI. The selection of local legal counsel should be made hx#the board of education upon the recommendation of the superintendent. As was the case with the special bonding attorney, an adjustment :in Statement 15 perhaps should.be made to clarify the apparent intent of ‘the jury. Criterion XII. The termination of relations with local legal: counsel, if necessary, should be by the board of education upon the recommendation of the superintendent. Statement 16. The local legal counsel should'be expected to supervise the annual school election proceedings if a bond issue is not involved. Seven jurors "agreed" with this statement, but four did not. The resulting total score was twenty-one points which computes to a 1-9 median. It seems clear that this is an area that school officials may wish to use local counsel. A millage proposal, inexperience of the superintendent, the press of other duties, and community expectations are all factors that may create the desirability of counsel supervising the annual election. 0n the other hand, most school men have had experience with these proceedings and even those Who are serving their first superintendency probably find sufficient help in the prescribed forms, the school code, and fran neighboring colleagues to handle such an election. Statement 17. The local legal counsel should be expected to prepare architectural and construction contracts. Statement 18. The local legal counsel should be expected to review for approval architectural and construction contracts and performance bonds. These two related statements attempt to further define the rnajor areas of assistance that should be rendered by local legal counsel. 130th statements received a high point total and qualify as criteria. Many school districts use architectural and construction (:ontracts that are standard forms approved by the American Institute of Alrchitects. If an attorney chose to use a standard form, fill in the zuecessary information, perhaps even modify the original document, this tqould be considered as "preparation" of the contract documents as the ‘term is used here. If the attorney drew up a complete contract form to 1>e used by architects and contractors as a standard form for that IDazmdcular school district, that would be considered as "preparation" of the contract, also. Many times the architects assist in the prepara- t«ion of the contracts and in some cases actually prepare them for aPproval by the school district's counsel. The experts prefer to have T9 the contracts actually prepared by the attorney, however, as evidenced by the median of 2.6 points, Statements 17 and 13 can then be stated as: Criterion XIII. The local legal counsel should be expected_ togprepare architectural and construction contracts. Criterion XIV. The local legal counsel should be expected to review for approval architectural and construction con- tracts andgperformance bonds. Statement 19. The local legal counsel should be expected to attend bid openings for new construction. Statement 20. The local legal counsel should be expected to attend board meetings when construction contracts are to be let. Statement 21. The local legal counsel should be expected to review final payment certificates and documents for contractors. There is little comment needed on the above three items. Only cine juror ”tended to disagree" with Statement 19. The responses to the crther statements were entirely affirmative. ‘With median scores of 2.5, 22.6, and 2.9 points respectively, the jury agrees that these duties are to be expected of local counsel. They become: Criterion IV. The local legal counsel should be expected to attend bid opening; for new construction. Criterion XVI. The local legal counsel should be expected to attend board meetings when construction contracts are to be let. Criterion XVII. The local legal counsel should be expected to review final payment certificates and documents for contractors. Statement 22. The local legal counsel should be expected to negotiate on behalf of the board of education for the purchase or sale of property. One person "strongly disagreed" to this statement and two others explained that the school board may want to have someone else negotiate but "transactions should always be cleared by counsel." The generally strong support for this item probably stems from the jury's awareness caf the legal technicalities involved in title clearance, fee-simple 'titles, legal property descriptions, options, resolutions leading to (zondemnation and so on. Sometimes taxpayers are prone to point their J?ingers at school board members and administrators over property negoti- zitions. Perhaps the jury had such thought in mind when it recommended ‘that legal counsel do the property negotiations. 0n the strength of a median score of-2.2 points, Statement 22 t3ecomes: Criterion XVIII. The local legal counsel should be expected to negotiate on behalf of the board of education for the purchase or sale of prgpergy. Statement 23. The local legal counsel should be expected to try condemnation cases when necessary. There is no disputing the experts' intent on this statement. 01‘ a possible thirty-three points, this statement polled twenty-nine EUTCi no dissenting votes were cast or comments made. Rather than write O 1 ‘J 1, this statement as a criterion, it seems more economical to combine it with the succeeding statement. Statement 2h. The local legal counsel should.bo expected to perfonn other court services as may be required by the school districts. Each expert voted on this item exactly as he did on the previous statement. However, three jurors recorded comments. A typical comment was, "with special assistance if necessary." One wonders why the same comments were not made concerning condemnation trials. In any event the statement qualifies as a criterion. A slight change in the wording incorporates the intent of the previous statement. Criterion XIX. The local legal counsel should be expected to_perform condemnation proceedings and other court services as may be required by the school district. Statement 25. The local legal counsel should be expected to participate in discussions at school board meetings of purely educational matters. Statement 26. The board of education should be influenced by the local legal counsel on educational matters. It was suggested in the discussion of Statement 12 that attend— atnce at every school board meeting might promote the possibility that <30unsel would become an active participant in all board discussions. The ;TUry'was positive in its declarations that counsel should attend meetings Cnnly on request. Whether the reason stated above was one of the reasons the jurors had in mind is unknown. What is known, however, is that the .jllrjy unanimously "disagrees" that local counsel should participate in discussions of purely educational matters. This is a point that must be I‘lfinembered by board members and superintendents as well as attorneys. 82 The tabulation of scores for these tho statements shows a total point score of only one for each item. It is clear that if counsel does not discuss educational policy matters except as they require legal interpretation, that the board will not be influenced in purely educa- tional matters by him. Hence, Statements 25 and 26 can be consolidated. The extent of agreement and importance of these statements are too great, it seems, not to restate the items in negative form and offer them in consolidated form as: Criterion XX. The local legal counsel should not_partici- pate in school board discussions offlpurely educational matters. Statement 27. Qualified advice on general legal problems arising from the day-to-day operation of the school district should be available from: (a) state departments of education (b) county offices of education (0) county government offices (d) city government offices (e) other (specify) It will be remembered that the jury felt state departments of ewducation should provide legal advice on bond issue proceedings. The jiiry reached the same conclusion about general legal advice to school (listriets. Only one juror "tended to disagree" with this statement. Bhbne of the other alternatives, e.g., county offices of education, or Ccunty or city governments, attracted enough favorable reaction to qualify as a criterion. In fact, eight of the eleven jurors "disagreed" “E11Jh having either the county or city governments provide legal assist- ance to school districts. It would seem by the strength of the negative V°te, both here and on the same statement under the special tending 83 attorney, that these school law and administration authorities are very concerned about the possibility of inexpert legal advice being given school officials. Statement 3 detennined that "school law specialists" were the choice of the jury for rendering general legal advice to school districts. The rejection of legal departments of other governmental units seems entirely consistent with this stand. The median score on the "state department of educa ion" alternate was 2.L, qualifying it as: Criterion XXI. Qualified advice on general legal_gr0blems arising from the day-to-day operation of the school district should be available from state departments of education. SUMMARY Forty-seven statements were sent to a jury or panel of experts. frhe statements were divided into those dealing with the special bonding Eittorney and those related to the local legal counsel. The experts were iLO judge each item on the basis of "strongly agree," "tend to agree," "tend to disagree," or "strongly disagree.” These ratings were awarded rnamerical values of three, two, one and zero, respectively. A median value of at least two was necessary for a statement to qualify as a <3rdterion. From the forty-seven statements, thirty-six criteria were isolated, fourteen on the special bonding attorney and twenty-two on tile local legal counsel. These criteria are summarized in the final Chapter. The following chapter will use the criteria to "measure" exist- 141%; practices relative to the administration of school attorneys in r'Tl chigan. CHAPTER V PRESENT METHODS OF SELECTION AND ADMINISTRATION OF SCHOOL ATTORNEYS The previous chapter isolated very important criteria for the financial and administrative relationship between school attorneys, superintendents and board of education. This chapter will be divided into three main sections. The first will be an analysis of the responses to the questionnaire sent to all school superintendents in Michigan. The analysis will be made in relation to the criteria established by the jury of experts. The second portion of this chapter will be a similar analysis of the data found in the ten case study school districts. Thirdly, an analysis of the records of the Municipal Finance Commission will be undertaken. Two hundred forty-three school district bond issues will be analyzed for information on fees to both bonding attorneys and local counse . These bond issues were approved by the Commission in 1955 and 1956. ANALYSIS OF QUESTICIWAIRE DATA The questionnaire, it will be renembered, was sent to 698 school districts in Michigan. The mm‘oer returned was 1:33, or 62.37% of those sent out. It contained fifteen highly select questions, most of which applied to local legal cmnsel. The term "attorney" or "school at‘tor'ney" was used to designate the general legal advisor to the school di Strict. "Bond attorney" was the designation given the municipal bond law specialist. The questionnaire contained an item that asked the size fir" J) of the school districts participating in the study. The grouping of school districts by size was shown in Table l on page 3h. The entire questionnaire, as stated earlier, can be found in Appendix A. The vital question, "Do you employ a school attorney on a regular basis?" was asked as one of the first questions on the instru- ment. The reader will recall the unanimous agreement of the experts that all school districts,regardless of size, should have counsel available. 3riterion I was actually stated, Qualified legal advice should be on call for general legal problems arising in the operation of all school districts. The questionnaire returns indicated that nearly two-thirds (61.2%) of the school districts in Michigan do not employ or retain local counsel on a regular basis. Only 162 superintend- ents responded affirmatively; 265 reported they did not. Six failed to respond to this item. However, Question h asked, "On what basis is your attorney employed? Fee? Salary? Retainer?" In this case 223 returns reported a fee basis, 12h a retainer, only 13 a salary, and 68 failed to respond. There seems a discrepency at first glance between the 162 school districts reporting the employment of an attorney on a regular basis and the 365 districts who employ counsel on a fee, retainer, or salary basis. It seems reasonable to assume that a very large number of those reporting employment of counsel on a fee basis do not seek legal advice frequently enough to consider it "regular employment" 0? the attorney by the district. Clearly, any school district that has a man on retainer or salary would answer that they were employed on a "regular basis." There were 137 such districts, or a clear majority of the 152 school systems that employ counsel regularly. On the other \0 I 0 hand, there weze 2?_3 fee-11Jin, dist icts. Lnesc mucn wore than make up tiw difference b=o en the 137 systems that employ counsel on a retainer or salary basis and the l$2 that employ counsel regularly. Is '11) )- p‘.‘ g. (I‘ it enough to have an attorney around to be called on a fee basis term "on call” in the cri crion means "readily available." It i1plies a stable relationship over a period of time so stool offi1cia ls f:t e1 free to call whenever a legal question arises. The vertatim connents by respondents included in Appendix B contain several interesting statements on this point. One superintendent wrote, "It would be helpful to be able to consult one (an attorney) more frequently dithout worrying about the cost!" (3) Still another said, "It "o1ldl e very helpful if a superintendent could pick up the 'phone and receive a quick answer to some legal quest ions. "(1L) A th:11d superintendent indica ’3d satis?ac- 3 t on witn the availability of counsel; "I feel that the school attorney F" is an inportant member of m1r staff, always at hand when needed, never inflicting unwanted advice." (lS)l It seems clear that a great many school districts in Michigan do not nave the kind of leg 1 service described by these school officials. Nor do they have the "on call" service deemed very important by leading experts in the fields of school administration and school law. It appears then, that although 265 districts do not employ counsel on a regular'basis, many of them occasionally seek legal information and pay a fee for the assistance. The fifth item on the questionnaire asked, "Do you employ a separate and specialized attorney for advice and counsel on bond issues, w 1The number in parenthesis refers to the numbered verbatim response found in Appendix B. elections and similar specialized agtivities?" O? the L3} school districts in Michigan reporting, CG.hZ stated that an attorney who was experienced in handling bond issues was employed when the district engaged in bond issue proceedings. There are only two finns in Michigan that are recogniz d by bonding companies for writing legal opinions on bonds. These firms, of course, were named repeatedly by the variogs superintendents responding. There are several other attorneys in the state who have specialised in school law wnd who have unflartaken to handle bond issue proceedings. They do not render an uroving opinions A on tie bonds, but do most of the other work usually performed by the larger municipal bond firms. Because f their specialization in school law these men serve as local counsel to a large ndmter of school districts in the state. This accounts for some of the 33.6% of the school systems that do not employ "a separate and specialized bonding attorney.” Some of the others can.be accounted for in a similar manner. Instead of employing local counsel who also performs bond issue services, many districts in the state employ one of the large municipal bond law firms for bond issues and then seek their advice on general legal matters. This may'be a natural outgrowth of two things, a satisfactory relation- ship established by working together on bond issue proceedings, or recognition by the superintendent that he has found a school law authority. In many cases the municipal bond firms do not charge the school districts for their general legal services.unless a written opinion or other more involved request is made. These two points seem to be substantiated by both the case study and questionnaire. It appears that Michigan school districts meet, for the most part, thecgritcrion isolated previously as Criterion I under the co 0".) Special Bonding Attorney, Qualified legal assistance on bond iSSu§_pF0- ceedings should be employed by all_school districts. The sixth question on the instrument sent to all school super- intendents in Michigan was, ”If your bond attorney is paid on a percent- age basis (percent of total issue), whit is the percentage?” Only 8 ghty-three people answered this question; 353 failed to respond. '3at possible reason can be assumed for this startling fact? It will be discovered later that several of the superintendents interviewed in the case study portion of this research did not have accurate knowledge of the basis for their bonding attorney's fees. It may be possible then to assume that that may be one of the reasons so few superintendents responded to the sixth Duestion. There also may have been some reluc- tance to disclose this information for comparison with other school districts although strict confidence was pledged in use of the returns. Two respondents reported bonding attorney fees of $1 per bond. All others reporting indicated fees based on a percentage of the total bond issue. The range of fees was from .01% to 10%. Most districts paid .3%, however. Several superintendents reported that the percentage was figured on a sliding scale where the percentage varied inversely with the amount of the bond issue. This accounts in part for the extreme range in fees. It is doubtful, however, if a 13% fee for bond services is ever justifiable. More will be said about this important aspect of the study later. The question, "Who participated in the selection of your attorney? Board only? Superintendent only? Superintendent and Board?" drew an overwhelming reSponse indicating a joint selection. Only five o q f 0 ‘v -1 0“ .-.‘!',v v“ _.‘ :3: ‘0 superhtsndents made "3&8 selection on flail}? (In-'1 Hal it! Slush mart“; ul 'd .ducation employed co;nsel without the advice or recommen ation of their "D superintendents. Twent -.ivs districts failed to respond to this item. Three hundred forty-three, or 793 of the districts, reported a joint selection of legal counsel. Whether this means the superintendent actually'recommended the attorney or whether the superintendent and board simply agreed that a particular person should be employed is not known. It may not be significant in any event. What is significant, however, is that approximately 152 of the school districts employ counsel on the basis of either the superintendent's action or the board's; in each case without the participation of the other. This is clearly a violation on the part of a relatively large number of districts of a basic administrative criterion established in this study. Criterion.XII stated, The selection of a legal counsel should be made by the board of education upon the recommendation of the superintendent. It is clear from the responses to the seventh item on the questionnaire that although most districts in Michigan conform to this policy, many do not. "Does your attorney attend board meetings; Regularly? Only when asked? Never?" This eighth question corresponds to Criterion IX which states, The local legal counsel should attend school board meet- ings on request rather than every meeting. The response from the school zuhninistrators shows that nearly one-fourth of the school districts in Michigan do not meet this criterion! In a total of 296 systems the attorney appears at board meetings "on request." This represents 63.b% of all districts in the state. Thirty-nine, or 9%, attend "regularly," while sixty-four, or 1h.8%, never show up at school board sessionst 90 One superintendent recognized the potential problem that seemed to concern the experts. He wrote, "It is very possible that difficulty could arise when the school attorney is present at all board meetings. He could influence the board regarding matters which are not *within his jurisdiction." Another question dealing with the potentially sensitive area of administrative relationships is Question 9, "Do you feel that.you, as superintendent, could recommend to the board that you change school attorneys without causing friction?" It would seem that a relationship between the board, attorney and superintendent built on the criteria isolated by the experts in this study would enable the superintendent to answer Question 9 affirmatively. Much agreement by the jury was evident on the criterkxxthat urged board of education written policies setting forth the administrative relationship. Criterion V stated the need for agreement on the policies governing relationships prior to services of the attorney. Still another criterion directly related to this question is Criterion.XII; The termination of relations with local counsel,#if necessary, should be by the board of education upon the re- commendation of the superintendent. Only 55.7% of the superintendents in.Mdchigan gave an unqualified affirmative answer to the question, "Do you feel that you, as superin- tendent, could recommend to the board that you change school attorneys without causing friction?” Slightly more than 11% said, "Nb!" 'While nearly one-fourth responded, "Don't know!" One wonders if the absence of clearly defined written policies accounts for most of the 106 school officials who "Don't know!" Perhaps many of the forty-eight who answered 9l negatively and the thirty-eight who failed to respond can be counted among those who have not written a policy governing the attorney- superintendent-board relationship. The case studies revealed the possibility of still another reason why this question was answered as it was. The point must await discussion until the case study data are presented. Questions 11 and 12 pertain to the attorneys' offering advice on matters that are strictly educational rather than legal. The first question asks if he ever has given his unqualified opinion.and the second inquires if the school board was ever influenced by such Opinions. It was stated earlier in the study that these questions were included because preliminary investigation disclosed a problem in this area. The problem is substantiated by the response to the questions. Nearly ten per cent of the school boards in.Michigan have heard the lay opinion of their local counsel on strictly educational matters and have been influenced by that opinion. Approximately 20% of the superintendents either did not answer the questions or did not know if their board had heard the attorney offer his opinion on such non-legal matters. Some interesting comments were made on these two questions. Several superintendents supported the proposition that the attorney should restrict himself, or be restricted, to those matters which require ‘his specialized training. ”He is for advice on legal matters and not on educational. Act as an adviser when asked and not on whole agenda. Let the board make decisions without comment unless it is a legal prob- lem," wrote one superintendent. Another said,"Restrict to legal aspects of problems only." Still another; "There is need to clarify distinctly 92 the province that the superintendent and the attorney each prevail in, and to insure that neither invades the other's area." One superintendent thought not only should the attorney stick to his field but admonished school officials as well, "Yes, attorneys should give legal advice only and perform duties related to his profession--superintendents likewise-- boards likewise!" One man worried about what could happen. "We have an excellent relationship. If the attorney were local, sat at the board table, and was in politics it could be unfortunate." The twelfth question asked, "From whom do instructions to your attorney originate?” It will be recalled that the jury of experts were unable to agree on this question in regards to the bonding attorney. However, the Jury did agree that the local counsel should generally receive instructions from the superintendent of schools. This is Criterion‘VI. Once again school officials in Michigan fall far short of meeting the criteria established. In only h1.3% of the school districts in the state do the instructions to local counsel originate from the superintendent. In 31.9% of the cases the superintendent and board issue the instructions. It is not clear whether the respondents meant the superintendent and board both gave instructions or gave instructions together. It is possible that some respondents meant the board gave instmctions on some occasions and the superintendent on others. On the other hand, some respondents may have interpreted the question to mean that the orders were given at a meeting of the board by the board and superintendent working jointly. It is not of great moment in either case. The jury was clear in its intent that the superintendent was the 93 agent for actually instructing the attorney. It is presumed, of course, that the superintendent has kept the board informed of his activities with counsel or has actually been requested to seek certain legal advice. In slightly over 17% of the Michigan school systems the school board itself exercises as its prerogative the communication of instruc- tions to counsel. The related question, "To whom does the attorney most frequently report regarding progress on legal work?" found a different alignment of responses. In this instance 70.2% reported the superintendent as the agent receiving the reports. Only 8.5% of the boards of education in Michigan receive reports from counsel directly. As in the previous question, only a small number of districts have an arrangement different from those discussed above. In those few cases the business manager is most often the one from whom instructions originate and to whom counsel reports. It is important to note that the ”superintendent and board" response was not an option stated on the actual questionnaire in either Question 12 or 13, yet 138 respondents chose to write it in on Question 12. No one did on Question 13. The instrument for isolating criteria relative to school attorneys contained statements similar to these two (vmestions. An alternate "Superintendent and Board jointly" was included. The jury did not look favorably upon the alternate in either statement. (hl‘the other hand, the practicing school administrators reported instruc- tiOuis originating from the superintendent and board in nearly 32% of the 3‘:110931 systems in the state. Strangely, the jury failed to agree suffi- cieXItly to establish a criterion on the important matter of to when local 9h should report. Yet in practice there is a clear pattern. Somewhat over 70% of the systems, as reported above, have counsel report to the super- intendent. On the previous question regarding the issuance of instruc- tions the jury was able to isolate a criterion, but the practice in this instance is far removed from what the jury agreed upon. The final question concerned the specialization of the local counsel. It asked, "Is your attorney also employed by another school district? Is this an advantage? A disadvantage? Not important?” Nearly 59% of the school districts in Michigan share the services of their local counsel with another district or districts. Slightly less than 20% do not and the remaining superintendents either didn't know or failed to respond. More superintendents said that it was not important that the attorney was employed by another district than felt that it was an advantage. Only seven superintendents felt it was a disadvantage. It will be remembered that Criterion II was, General legal advice should be provided school districts by school law specialists. Attorneys serving more than one school system are more likely to be considered specialists. The different experiences gained from working with more than one district should serve to deepen a lawyer's understanding of school problems and school law. One of the most favorable findings in this study of Michigan school districts is possibly this revelation that nearly 60% of the districts share their legal counsel. It is possible that many of those who felt that employment of their attorney by another district was not important failed to sense the positive value of "specialization." 95 Many cements were made about the need for specialists to assist school officials with legal problems. Some typical comments were: With the reactions of communities as a whole, Board of Education can hardly afford not to have a good attorney understanding school law. (13) I feel (purely personal) that few attorneys are really acquainted with school law. (23) Use only those who specialize in school problems if possible. (b3) The average attorney knows very little about school law and does not have time to specialize. (65) Some superintendents suggested several districts banding to- gether and employing counsel to their mutual benefit. The benefit being accurate and immediate legal interpretation rather than financial. The schools of Washtenaw County tried to work out a plan for retaining an attorney by several schools to make it worth his time to study school law. Under the present plan each district has a separate attorney and each must give considerable time and effort to study before an opinion can be rendered. It would be helpful if a superintendent could pick up the ' phone and receive a quick answer to some legal question. (1b) We have used an attorney for specific purposes only. Advise securing one experienced in school problems. May be just as well if retained by several schools so as to make it worth his while to keep up on school legislation and able to advise on colmnon problems. (25) One of the criteria isolated in the previous chapter concerned the possibility of securing legal advice from other quarters. The sug- gested possible sources were, state departments of education, county 01' fices of education, county government offices, and city government °ff ices. There was a strong negative reaction to the city or county governments providing legal assistance to school officials. Eight of the eleven jurors "disagreed" with such an arrangement. 96 Three superintendents in Michigan wrote that they received legal advice from these sources. One of the case study schools used the county prosecutor. The criterion isolated was, Qualified advice on general legal problems arising from the day3to-day operation of the school district should be available from state departments of education. Several superintendents suggested this source. Among the comments were these: The Department of Public Instruction should have a corps of attorneys who could give advice and help to the hundreds of school districts. ‘Why should these districts be forced to spend thousands of dollars for advice when one attorney could draw up forms (in hundreds of similar instances) for districts. Years ago the department answered legal questions and boards of education frequently could get the necessary help and in- formation for bonding, etc. Today, when hundreds of districts are annexed, one procedure should suffice for most of such districts. Today when we ask for such help we are told to have our attorney make the contact or inquiry. -The legal hierarchy or fraternity is too strong. The fees charged districts today are frequently unreasonable. For instance, in my thirty-six years as superintendent, it was not necessary for any of my boards of education to hire a lawyer for any reason until a very few years ago. (Ll) Eliminate use of local attorneys. Have state supply opinions and direction through a Department of Public Instruction attorney. Let boards hire own bonding attorney. (uh) I believe school attorneys should have some official in the State Department of Public Instruction whom they may contact, if need for such contact should arise. (53) The questionnaire did not provide for seeking data relative to POI-tions of this study. It was explained in Chapter I that one of the 1imitations of the research was the adoption of the questionnaire by the iuthor after it had been sent out by others. As the research project CieVeloped many areas of inquiry were added. Questions eliciting further information about such matters as the duties of counsel, attendance at meetings, and the administrative arrangements boards have with counsel 9'? would have been helpful. Nevertheless, a great deal of importamt infor- mation was gathered by the questionnaire. The existing conditions rela- tive to the employment and use of attorneys as determined by the questionnaire returns have been assessed against the criteria established for that purpose by a jury of experts. The questionnaire returns will be supplemented now by the case study data. Further data that will assist in completing the analysis of Michigan school districts for this study will be presented from the files of the Municipal Finance Commission later in this chapter. ANALYSIS OF CASE STUDY DATA The case study data was intended to supplement the information sought through the questionnaire. It was designed to provide both factual and opinion data. A structured interview schedule was developed to meet these demands. Included in the interviews were periods when the interviewee could take over and talk about what was on his mind in rela- tion to the study. Besides these periods there were open-ended questions that sought to find data on a particular aspect of the study. These questions were followed up in the interview by whatever questions were suggested by the initial response of the interviewee. Ten school districts were selected by proportionate stratified I‘findom sampling for case study. Table 3 in Chapter III shows that the districts range in school enrollment from 335 up to 29,500 students. ThI‘BO of the districts were classified as "rural," three are regarded ‘13 "suburban" and four are "urban" districts. In the two largest districts the assistant superintendents in charge of business were 98 interviewed rather than the superintendents. This was done because they actually had more day to day contact with the school attorneys than did the superintendents in those districts. They were completely familiar with both the financial and administrative arrangements made with counsel and with the extent of participation in school board meet- ings and other school district functions. A complete analysis of the data secured from each school district will be presented in the following pages. Aspects of the study that have been discussed previously will be incorporated in this section to clarify _and give continuity to the presentation of the material. A tabular pre- sentation of the case study data can be found in Appendix F. Analysis of the ten districts in terms of the criteria will be made primarily in summary paragraphs after the data from all of the districts has been carefully sifted for pertinent facts. School District "A" School District "A" is the smallest in the study. Typically, this small rural community was provided leadership in its educational enterprise by a man of limited experience as a superintendent. At the time of the interview (May, 1959) he was serving his first term as an executive officer of a board of education. Table 3 reveals that he had never had a college course in school law. In spite of the superintendent's lack of experience, he had "imaged to guide the school district through the intricacies of a $150, 000 bond issue. The school board had accepted his recommendation and employed a municipal bond law firm whose headquarters was in Chicago. The firm also had an office in Detroit, a distance of approximately fifty 99 miles from Village "A." The superintendent asked neighboring colleagues for their recommendations on a bonding attorney and was referred to the firm that was ultimately employed. No other system among the case study units employed this firm. The fee arrangement with the bonding attorney was made orally in the nature of a "general estimate." The final billing by the bonding firm was for $700 which included all expenses as well as the written legal opinion covering the bond issue. The method of computing the fee was not known by the superintendent. It actually represents .1177; of the bond issue, although this probably was not the basis for the fee. As no local legal counsel was employed by this school district none assisted the bonding attorney. The attorney reported to and received all instructions from the superintendent. Neither the super- intendent nor board of education had ever seen the bonding attorney or any representative of the firm. All transactions were by mail or telephone. No administrative chart existed in this small district where the only administrators, other than the superintendent, were the high school and elementary school principals. The board of education had no written policies. Obviously no administrative provisions were made for either the bonding attorney or the local legal advisor, if such should ever be employed. The superintendent expressed reasonable satisfaction with his SCZ‘I‘UI‘Ces of legal information, although he would have preferred a school law Specialist on retainer. He presently calls the county prosecutor whose office is in a nearby town. Occasionally he seeks information of 1.30 a legal nature from the county superintendent of schools. The superin- tendent has asked the county prosecutor questions concerning the legal uses of bond money, title clearance and sale of school property, eligi- bility of voters for school elections, school bus accidents and insurance. The superintendent in District "A" would have appreciated a source of general legal assistance at both the State Department of Public Instruction and the County Board of Education office. While he did not feel similarly about a special bonding attorney, he suggested that the State Department might keep a list of approved municipal bond law firms that school officials could use as reference. This superintendent was rather firm in his belief that a school law specialist is required to offer the assistance needed by school officials in small districts. He thought all districts needed such help, but was under the impression that the cost of qualified legal counsel would be prohibitive for poorer school systems. Ehool District "8" School District "B" is also a rural system with an inexperienced Superintendent. Table 3 reveals that he was serving the second year of his first superintendency. He had never had a course in school law, but Subscribed to a publication devoted exclusively to reporting school law matters and did considerable other reading on school law topics. The only school bond issue election held in this community in I‘3'33e‘r1t years was a $30,000 issue in 1955. The district employed a laWer from a rather distant part of the state, a man who had only begun to do municipal bond law work. He was not qualified to render a legal opinion on bonds for bond buyers. The attorney's fee for the issue was 101 $300 which represents 1% of the bond issue amount. The superintendent, who was not present at the time, was not aware of how the fee was computed. There was no formal contract or agreement on fees with the bonding at— torney. It is not known if an oral agreement was reached. As in the previous case the employment of the bonding attorney was recorded in the minutes of the district without reference to the fee arrangement. There was little to distinguish this school system from the others in respect to the administrative arrangements with attorneys. The district had no written or charted administrative hierarchy. However, in practice, any source of legal assistance reported to and received instructions from the superintendent. The sources of general advice had been college professors of school administration at a nearby univer— sity, neighboring superintendents, and occasionally an attorney residing some thirty miles away. The attorney was recommended by a colleague of the superintendent. He was not a school law specialist. The status of married students, the district's liability for spectators and partici- pants at athletic events and many questions concerning school district reorganization had been referred to these various sources for advice. As might be expected, the superintendent reported dissatisfac- tion with the arrangement he had for securing general legal advice. He felt himself inadequately prepared to handle the several reorganization and annual school elections and other things that often are done by local counsel in larger districts. He realized the limitations of the college professors and the attorney he sometimes turned to for advice. He felt little security in accepting the advice of these people. He expressed a strong desire for the district to retain a school law 'ov "l-t.‘ a! 192 specialist and for further training himself, fEeling that it should he at school district exoense. The superintendent said every district needed sound legal assistance "on call." He did not favor either the State Department of Public Instruction or County Superintendents as a source. He preferred individual districts solving their own problems of securing advice, although he suggests? that several small Lu'lits nib-ht profitably band together for retention of a school law specialist. School District "C" School District "C" is a slightly larger system with an enroll— ment of nearly 1330 students. It is a rural district centering in a small community about fifteen miles from Lansing. The superintendent had been in the system only three years but had served for nineteen years as superintendent of other districts. Table 3 reveals that he had had two courses on school law. In 1955 the district had voted approval of $65,000 in bonded indebtedness. The superintendent interviewed was not in the district at that time. The largest municipal bond law firm in Michigan has an office in Lansing. This firm handled the bond issue for School District "C." The superintendent and his secretary were unable to find the amount paid to the bonding attorney. It was stated that the amount was probably determined by perCentage of the bond issue but what percent was unknown. Of course,the superintendent did not know if an oral agreement on the fee for the bond issue was reached or not. There was no record in the official minutes of the school district of the employment of the bond firm. There was no formal contract or written agreement on services to be found in the school district records. The superintendent did not 103 have an organization chart or written policy on the administrative rclae tionship between the board, superintendent, and attorneys. Just as in the two previous distr‘cts, the superintendent both issues instructions to the attorney and receives reports from hin. .It was mentioned earlier that many school districts use their bonding attorney for general legal advice. This was mentioned many times by respondents to the questionnaire that went to all school superintendents. Such was the case here. There was no formal agreement, no retainer, simply a tacit understanding by the attorney, the board of education, and the superintendent that general legal assistance would be rendered when requested. The fee depended on the nature of the request, of course. When the attorney was asked to help with the annual election he submitted a bill at the completion of the services. When the super- intendent called for advice on a rather routine matter, the attorney did not charge the district. The district in any case paid "as billed." The basis for the billing was unknown by school officials in District "C." The superintendent felt he could change attorneys without causing friction between himself and the board. He expressed satisfac- tion with his present arranrement for legal advice because of the competence of the bond law firm. He favored, however, the State Depart- ment of Public Instruction having a qualified person on its staff for general legal assistance. ’He did not feel the same way about the County Board of Education. He did not feel that municipal bond law advice should be available from either the state or county school authorities. His fear concerning the county unit was expressed by others, i.e., the small and relatively poor county school offices may end up employing inexperienced school attorneys. 13h School District "D" School District "D" is about twice as large as "3." It draws its 1350 students from as wide a variety of circumstances as any district in the study. The school system is centered in an unincorporated village on the outskirts of Lansing. It is an established community, having had its own identity for as long as the City of Lansing itself. The student body cones from the rural areas annexed to the district, fron the stable sections of the village, from the new project homes in the village, and from the teeming suburban area adjacent to Lansing. The district had lost its superintendent to a larger system nine nonths prior to the interview. The new superintendent was experienced but unfamiliar with many of the details pertinent to this study as far as this school district was concerned. As a result, the author Spent some- time with the ex-superintendent as well as the present superintendent. The district had successful bond issue elections in 1952 and 1956 for $343,309 and $1,525,373 respectively. The same municipal bond law firm that served District "C" handled both bond issues. In other ways Districts "C" and "D" are very much alike, too. District "D" did not execute a formal contract with the bond law firm, nor was there a written agreement. The two parties apparently agreed orally on the financial arrangements. The official minutes of the district recorded the employment of the bonding attorney, but did not mention fees. The actual fee paid on the 1955 issue was $2975 which is approximately .23 of the total bond issue amount. School District "D," like "C," had no administrative chart or policy showing the relationship between attorneys, ne COEFd, and 1.35 superintendent. The superintendents interviewed thought it was likely that the board had originally selected the bonding attorney. However, the new man was confident he could change attorneys without causing friction with the board of education. The attorney received instructions from and reported to the superintendent. Again, like District "C," this system uses the bonding attorney as local legal counsel. The superintendent was grateful for the excellent service he received in this respect but expressed dissatisfaction never- theless. He would have preferred to have an attorney on retainer, a person who would attend board meetings when necessary. The present attorney offers highly competent service on general legal matters, but he does it without charge and the superintendent feels restricted in the amount of help for which he can ask. The bonding attorney, when asked to go on retainer, refused. This district had had experience with other legal counselors. In a condemnation case the superintendent had to carefully tutor a Lansing lawyer in school law. He found mistakes in the lawyer's advice due to his lack of knowledge of the Michigan School Code. Both superintendents had sought legal advice from the State Department of Public Instruction. Such problems as annual election procedures, charg- ing tuition to non-residents, and clarification of a board member's status as a vendor-owner had been referred to counsel in recent months. As a result of their experiences both he ex-superintendent and present superintendent of District ”D" spoke of the necessity for all school districts to have available, preferrably on retainer, specialized school law counsel. 106 The present superintendent did not favor the Department of Public Instruction or county school office employing either general counsel or bonding attorneys for the assistance of school districts. He expressed the concern that too much help would be required for too many school units resulting in too little individual attention to any of them. School District "B" Table 3 shows District "E" to be only 100 students larger than "D." It, too, is a suburban district of rapid growth. It is located in the Flint area. The most striking differences between Districts "D" and "E" are the socio-economic status of the residents and the tax base available to the districts. District "E" is populated to a much greater extent by professional people and, in the words of the superintendent, "A wealthier class." District "D" is a "bedroom community" for factory workers in Lansing. It has very little industry of its own and the resultant property value of the district is low. On the other hand, District "E" houses a huge Chevrolet plant and other lesser industries. It is one of the wealthiest school districts in Michigan. The superintendent of District "E" reported a $3,500,030 bond issue in 1959. The bonding attorney's fee, exclusive of expenses, was $3500, or .lZ of the issue. It was not known how much the bonding attorney's expenses would be. The district employed the same municipal bond law firm that Districts ”C" and "D" retained. In keeping with the pattern of the other case study districts, there was no formal contract or written agreement on the fee arrangement nor did the official 107 -inutes of the district mention the fee. There was an oral agreement between the firm and the district, however. This was only one of two among the case study districts that utilized the services of a local counsel in connection with a bond issue. The local legal counsel charged a fee of 37500 for his work. The fee was agreed upon in advance of services and a formal contract was executed. The fee was simply a flat amount SUggeSted by the counsel for "any work connected with the bond issue and construction." The retention of local counsel for this purpose was recorded in the district minuteS'wbich included the fee. It is interesting to note that the bonding attorney's fee does not appear to have been significantly re- duced eVen though local counsel assisted in the proceedings. The fee of the local counsel for general services, other than in connection with bond issues, to the district was computed on a flat rate basis. The superintendent was not aware of the basis for the rate, he simply saw that whatever amount was billed by the attorney was paid. This was the first among the case study districts to spell out the administrative relationship of the board, local counsel and super- intendent in written form. The relationship was described in the board's policy book and the local counsel had read the policy. The same condition did not prevail for the special bonding attorney; the policy did apply to him. Instructions to both attorneys originated with the board and superintendent jointly and in both cases the attorneys reported to either the superintendent or to the board and superintendent together. It was not known who selected the special bonding attorney, but the board of education acting alone selected the local counsel. 1.08 The situation regarding the selection is important to describe. Fifteen months prior to the investigator's interview of the superintendent, District "E" employed a different attorney for both general advice and bond issue services. This man was described by the superintendent as "The best qualified bond attorney in the state.” In other statements the superintendent made it clear that he held the initial attorney in very high regard. As a result of a political issue the school law specialist's services were terminated with the school district. The sup.rintendent described the reason as follows: "He was associated with an element in favor of extension of Flint's boundaries!" The present counsel is not a school law specialist. He "happened to he present" at a meeting of citizens that favored the point of View on the boundary extension that the board held. He became acquainted with hoard members that night and subsequently was retained. As a result of this superintendent's experience he felt keenIy that school law specialists are needed for the type of work under study here. He remarked, as did several others, that he had had to correct many mistaxes made by attorneys not familiar with school laws. His remark that "the average attorney doesn't know as much school law as the average superintendent" is a thought shared by many superintendents encountered in this research. He also supported the View that the State Department of Public Instruction should have on its staff both a bonding attorney and a school law specialist. He would have liked the county school offices to staff general legal counsel only. He thought districts of less than 1003 students might be able to get by without counsel "on call." He suggested they could use the services of the Department of Public Instruction. yd \7J School District "E: School District "F" is also a suburban Flint system. It is considerably larger than "E," having an enrollment of 3300 students. The district is slightly below the state average in property valuation per child enrolled. The superintendent had been head of this system for twenty-three of his twenty-seven years devoted to school administra- V tion. Lime most of the superintendents involved in this study, his training in school law was limited as seen in Table 3. District "F" has had three bond issues in recent years. In 1955, thho,ooo; in 1957, $600,090; and in 1959, $975,000 in bonded indebtedness were approved by the voters of the district. The bonding attorney for the first two issues was a local resident lawyer who also acted as general legal counsel for the board of education. He was described by the superintendent as being, "extremely'interested.and favorable to the school." He served the district as local counsel without charge. His fee for the two bond issues was $500 each. This represents a fee of only .33% and .39% of the total bond issue amounts. This man was not a specialist in municipal bond law or general school law. He was not qualified to render a legal opinion on the bonds. There was no financial arrangement, either oral or written, with this attorney in advance services. No administrative policy existed to define the relationship the attorney had to the board and superintendent. The man was released from scrvics with the school district as "part of an election campaign." He had become identified with certain school board candidates and those candidates lost the election. 110 The 1959 bond issue proceedings were handled by a widely exper- ienced Flint attorney who is considered a school law specialist. He is not qualified to write legal opinions on bonds but does all other work in connection with bond issue elections. This is the attorney who was released by District "E." Ironically, he was replaced in "E" by his predecessor in District "F." The fee for the 1959 bond issue jumped to $h375 or .5% of the $975,033 total. Again no written agreement or formal contract was made between board and attorney prior to service. The board apparently knew of the significant increase in fees in advance, however, as the result of an oral agreement. The off'cial minutes of the district carry the record of the employment of the attorney--not the fee arrangement. The same man was retained by the district for $150 per year for general counsel. Unusual activities requiring considerable time and expense by the attorney are reimbursed as billed. There still is no administrative policy or chart that clarifies the counsel's role in the administrative organization. Counsel reports to and receives instructions from the superintendent. It was clear that counsel in this case, as in the previaus district, was the board's man, however. He was selected by them and the superintendent frankly reported that he did not feel he could recommend changing attorneys without causing friction between the board and himself. Further, this was the first instance among the case study districts where the attorney was reported as having offered his lay opinion on matters that were strictly educa- tional. It was stated that the board was influenced in its educational policy deliverations by the opinion of its counsel even though no legal lll considerations were involved. Individual board members telephoned the attorney to discuss both educational and legal natters. The superintendent of District "F" felt that the State Department of Public Instruction and county boards of education might employ lawyers who are not sufficiently specialized to perfonn the required bonding and general legal service for school districts. Consequently, he preferred having individual districts secure their own counsel. He was quick to assert the need for specialists in school law for all school districts. He pointed out that smaller districts in particular needed legal assist- ance because of "the usual inexperience of small system superintendents." School District "G" District "G" is an urban system located in a "college town" in the southeastern part of the state. The enrollment at the time of the interview was nearly 6000 students. The superintendent has had twenty- five years experience as a school executive, six in District "G." He is a pOpular figure in both the Michigan and national organization of school administrators. Many years prior to this study he had had two school law courses. He possesses a Ph.D. degree in school administration. District "6" had successful bond issue elections in 1952, l9Sh, and 1958 for $2,130,001, $3,100,070, and $h,§O0,000 respectively. The bond attorneys for all three issues were the largest aunicipal bond law firm in Michigai. The same firm handled issues for seven of the ten case study districts. Their fee for the fL,SOD,DOO 1958 issue was SL339, or .1% of the total. There was an oral agreement on the fee prior to service and the employment of the bond law firm together with the fee was recorded in the distrizt minutes. The board of education‘s policy 112 book contains a description of the administrative organization oz" the district including the relationsl‘dp of the attorney to the board and superintendent. The description applies to but}- the bonding attorney and local counsel. Both have seen the policy and operate within it. The policy specifies that the attorneys are consultants to the super- intendent. All questions addressed to the. attorneys go through the superintendent and the attorneys report to the superintendent. The only exception permitted is that the bonding; attorney may receive 1. instructions and report to the business aci'ninistrator if the problems fall in his realm. Even though the local counsel resided in town and consequently was easily accessible to individual board members, both he and the board members understand the policy and adhere to it strictly. The local counsel has had to deal with such legal matters as property negotiations, review of possible improper registrations of children, a State Tax Connission appenl, and the legality of board members personally serving as precinct workers at annual school elections. For this type of service counsel ms paid on a time and expense basis. The superintendent reviews each billing submitted by counsel. If he considers it out of line he asks the attorney to explain it so he can Pele] the explanation to the board if necessary. In some cases counsel adj‘ls ts the billing. The local counsel for District "G" rarely attends school board Q meetings, perhaps only once or twice a year. Consequently, h nas littl: Opportunity to participate in educational discussions and has not done 80. 113 Once more th: superintendent on the job spoke for specialized ‘ L 194— :11 assistance. Eie thought perwap a "one on ilding; distric t" might U) not require counsel "0:1 call" but all others should have such service vaila’ole. He thought the State Department of Public Instruction should 0 employ both a bondinga ttorncy and general school lav; spa-:81 list for assistance. to school districts. He res . sorted having used such a person in the past and finding it valuable, particularly for legal .11e stions rela ting to such t‘w.i1"gs as tr 1311soortatnio ., hot lunches, and sc‘ool district reorganization. He also thought local bar associations might organize to provide counsel to districts 31-1011 like sometimes do. 3931031 District "'41" Table 3 shows School District "H" to be the second urban district in the case study s::1ies. It is a larve city on the fringe of Detroit. The school poyulation is 8600 students. District "H" has a Widely exper eon red superintendent. The man has been a school executive For twenty-time‘s years and. head of istrict "H" for seven years. In recent times this dis ri ct E‘dd h d :1 rge bond issue of 7,231“, 901. and a refunding bond election invoiviug 317,000,003. The 6155': L-ior. on ti 1: larger issue «IE-IS in 1921,1411ile the refunding prov LOC’H: place in 193'3. Table 3 refers to the earlier bond issue in order to keep the fee figures on a comparable basis with the other districts. '7'. “ ‘0 o o C O \ J _ --16 I‘ef'1171(:1;'g issue involved some Cthqillca'QlOX'lS that undouooedly affected 1’1": fees. t was very interesting from the. point of View of this study, 6“ loweV-‘er, and considerable space will he devoted to the refunding program 1 h 1 o ‘ c1 ' - “me. Before domg that tnough, a study of use regular bond issue and the administrative arra: garments for attorneys in the 1- istfi‘zt il profitable. The 1935 bond issue was handled once again by the large :nunicipal bond law ?irm.that Districts "C," "D," "E," and "3" used. The fee was reported as "one dollar per bond," or .133, which amounted I '0. As has happen d so frequently 11th th: otter school districts, the ‘oond law firm proceeded wi ti: only an oral agreement on the fee estructure. There was no record in the minutes of the district that the firm was even retained b" the board For services in com ection with 121.9. then pending bond 1.3.9.13. It is '12.;1‘1ortant to note at this point that the local counsel was not involve-d in the 19511 bond issue. This district also failed to provide any (idfliillSLI‘rfithe: direc- tion to either the bond attorneys or local counsel on their roles in relation to the superintendent and board of‘ education. No policy existed of this type and the district's administrative clargedid not Po nolade school attorneys. In practice, both attorneys reported to and 8 Ceived instructions from the superintendent. The local counsel's fees for general legal services were based 051 a flat rate 01 approximately $25 per call by the superintendent. The COll‘nsel submitted bills for services periodically taking into corn-widen- + \ 0 - A 3 o c 1 o 110:1 his tinc- and expenses aluhough these were not itemized on the bill. hanged local legal counsel between l9Sh and 1—3 L; P (0 Q. (—0. U) (1- "3 Ho 0 ( f O 1953. The pattern was nearly identical to that of‘ District "13." It L ”'18 another instance of a political upheaval in the communi ty. In this C‘ 5*er it reuolved around a board of education proposal to update exist- 1213 School buildings by remodeling rather them constructing new plants. 115' A. group of citiz zezs took emeonn to the plan presented in public P h comlunitv lost its superintendent of schools ki’ meetings. ”hit! in months by resignation and certain board neruhers by defeat at the polls. The new board majority es'iployed a new superintendent ar 3 retained new legal counsel, the previous counsel having been identified with the unpopular plan to remodele x sti: .5 school buildings. The new attorney w? 5 selected by the board because "he was a .aan of high stature in t1 «3 wmmity." He was not a school law Specia When the matter of refunding bonds was brought before the board in 195‘}, the superintendent was authorized to rsult with various legal and financial enports about the oossibiliti use of such an action. The superintend . nt worked for several mont IS with a well—known financial consultant to I-Iiohigan school districts and with the bond law firm that the system had retained in 1951;. The negotiations were informal. The oral understanding was that the financial consultant would be paid for his services. The tacit understanding was that the bondinc firm would 0 1* imately e1 ter into the proceedings formally. At tii lS sta age toe district's local counsel, wire was not involved, called the school board President and as {ed to become a part of the proceedings. He felt he Conld provide a valuable service to the district on the refunding issue. At a- sul::sequent board mee =‘ti the matter was. raised. The local counsel argued that he could perform ce tain i Lportant liaison functions for the board. This liaison he viewed as essentially political in nature. He suggested that someone of his own political hue was needed to influence Politicians in the state capitol to approve the refundi‘g issue. He set his fee at £115,000 which the board orally agreed to pay. The minutes D o— o" dist: '1..+ 1 carry th: record 0... his eiployneut but not his fay-13. The local counsel was associated with 3 diffs Ient to 1:11’111, firn from the one previously used b;, the. distric t. He asker‘a the board to terminate rela- tions on this issue with the original bond law firm and formally re tain the one he was associated with. The boar}, after investigation, agreed to do so. A fee for the new bond law fi 1 was agreed upon orally. 1 1‘ .. (X) Again no mention of the fee wfzs made, in the minutes of district, although 441137111 nt 0: the firn was recorded. The fee was 312,030, or .1775 of the total mnount. The combined legal fee was $27,303 which represents .383 of the total 37,930, 03’) issue. The finar cial consultant was "so incense d by thc size of the local attorney's fee that he refused to submit a bill to the school distric t." It must be remembe 121‘ d in tais case that th: refundig issue was 1.1ore complex than the usualt Jpe of bond issue proceedings. The superintendent of District "H" felt he could change bonding ttorneys "with cause" but could not recom'zend c1'1an‘5ing local counsel without causing frictio on between the board and himself. Be 9130 felt that all school districts need competent legal assistance and that t""ils was a matter for each individual distric to procure. He did not favor the county or state ducation 0 (Time providing such service. khooi District "I" School District "I" is another "college town." It is located in the Southwestern section of the state and is on: of the laro est cities in Michigan. The. industries are varied, but the 171a11ufacture of paper is undoubtedly the largest and best known industry. The school population at the time of the interview was 17,061: which ranks it among th 2 five 11? highest in the state. The person who deals most directly with the attorneys emplo;,'ed by the district is the business manager. This man, who has the status of assistant superintendent, is widely experienced, as shown in Tablo- 3. He has serveri in his present capacity for eight years. He‘ mas 1)L M a Slprl- rinuendent or business manager f‘or a total of twenty-four years, the service. being perfozmcd i1 sewer :1 school :iistri cis. The business manager is well-known among Michigan public school lat-icicrs, being considered an aut‘m Tit]; on school fire insurance for his work in that field for the State Business Of'. f‘ci ia1s Association. Distric "I" had had only one recent bond issue election, but it was for a huge amount, $13,013,003. The election was held in 1956. Once again the municipal bond law firm that does most of such work in the state was employed. They performed t} cir services for 19,13 030 which represents .1Z of the total issue. The assistant superintendent described the bias 3 for payment as being a "flat rate." In keeping with t} 1e pattern of the previous districts in this study, District "I" engaged the bond law firm with only an oral agreement. The onployment of the firm was not recorded in the district's minutes. Selection of the fir-n W88 made by the board. of educ. t1 on. Assistance in the. form“ of lia is on between the bonding attorney and the school district was obtained by retaining the district's local legal counsel for that purpose. His fee was 215,900 which again was simply a flat rate billed after the services were rendered. The fee in<31uded. dwhatever expenses were incurred by cows 1. The combined fees came to $13,073:? for all legal serviccs in connection wi th the ($13,000,000 issue. This still repres sents 0:11,} .125 of the total. Intt'BI‘eStif’lL’jlY: the board rstaincd .“inancial r'o‘1‘1sultants on this issue £21034 1.6-13s to on. w 0 $17,930, but that is not a. 1- art of t .lS stud'f. Returni‘; {1:1 the 2:214 n— w 0 istrative and fiziancml arrangements made with the loo-l counsel on this issue, it was reported that the boar-9 did not execute a formal contract with counsel for services, did not have 3 written 4;; ‘eezqznt, did not have an oral agreement on fees ant1 did not record t‘rc retention of counsel or his fze for th-: work in th: officitl minutes of tie district. District "I" did not have a description of the role of its 1. attorneys in the: adminis=.rativc organization There N113 no indication on the district's administrative chart of the relationship of the ca on bond issue proceedings Ho attorz‘xeys to the board and stuff. The pract was for the special. bonding attorney to receive directions from and report to the local counsel. This is the first instance of this admin- istrative arrangement that has been disclosed among the case study districts. When cowxsel was l‘seFFfOI‘flifl‘d his more cormon general legal see rviccs hr.- rccuivc-z] insbructions from the superintendent and board of education and reported back to the board. The local counsel was selected by the board only, the same as :as the bonding attorney. The assistant S‘Jpzxrintendent reported that the superintendent would be able to rec-om- mend changing either attorney without causing friction between the The local counsel was a school law specialist who was paid a salary by the school district. H1: received 13"00 per month. If the C()‘ll’Isel became involved in litigation on behalf of the school district, “e 1“: ceivcd extra compensation. The basis for computing the extra 119 amount was "actual costs which are approved in each case by the board of education." .The assistant superintendent, like most of his colleauges, favored the State Department of Public Instruction employing counsel for assistance to local school systems. He did not feel that the cohnty offices should perform such services and expressed a rather common concern that the county school offices had "no jurisdiction over local districts in Michigan." He felt that local districts should take care of their own bond law problems because of the unique characteristics of each bond issue. As others have suggested, he thought the State attorney-general's office should provide more assistance of a general legal nature to local school districts. School District "J" The tenth case study school system is District "J," one of the state's largest and wealthiest districts. The school district boundaries of "J" are coterminous with the city limits. The school enrollment approaches 30,000 youngsters. Though the population of the city is entirely white, the range of socio-economic classes is broad. However, there is an unusually large managerial and professional population. The school district is located near'Detroit and is the home of one of the nation's largest manufacturers of automobiles. The assistant superintendent of schools in charge of the 'bmsiness affairs of the district was interviewed on the job for this study. He is a long-time school administrator, having served eleven JYears in his present position and a total of twentyatwo years in top administrative posts in different parts of the country. He is the 120 author of a book and other publications in his field and possesses a doctorate degree. He was the person in his school district most familiar with the information required in this research. District "J" had incurred bonded indebtedness for $27,950,000 since 195h. In 19Sh, a $9,000,000 issue was successfully passed and in 1956, a $1b,000,000 issue. The most recent bond election was in 1958 for $h,950,000. Although the 1958 issue will be discussed here, it is important to note that all three of the elections and proceedings were conducted by the same firms and with the same arrangements, except, of course, the fee varied with the size of the bond issue. This is the tenth case study district to be discussed and the seventh to use Michigan's largest bond law firm. The fee was reported to be one dollar per bond, or .1% of the total issue. For the 1958 issue the fee amounted to 3&950. The district requested a letter from the bonding firm prior to the l9Sb bond issue in which was to be stated a general description of the services to be performed and the basis for computing the fee for those services. Arrangements prior to subsequent bond issues included an oral agreement on the fees and an item in the district minutes re- taining the firm for bond issue services with fees based "the same as for the previous issue." This district did not utilize its local counsel for bond issue proceedings. The local legal counsel for District "J" was chosen by the kaoard of education. The board solicited letters of interest from the Imembers of the bar practicing in the city. The man selected was not a specialist in school law and did not serve any other school district. J He was placed on an annual retainer of $2500 per year plus court 121 appearances. Such varied questions as those relating to teacher tenure, the liability of the school district and its agents, and whether in financial crisis the board can refuse to furnish textbooks free of charge when such had been the policy, have been referred to counsel. The administrative arrangements with the attorneys was not spelled out in written form nor was it charted for clarification. The assistant superintendent was not concerned about the absence of formal administrative provisions for the relationship of the attorneys to the board and staff. He expressed the conviction that "if the right personal relationships exist between the various parties, everything will work out satisfactorily." In District "J" the bonding attorney received instructions from and reported to the assistant superintendent in charge of the business affairs of the district. The local counsel received instructions from the board president, or secretary, or superintendent, or assistant superintendent. He reported back to the person who initi- ated the instructions. There was no hesitancy in the interviewee's reaction that the superintendent could recommend changing either attorney without causing friction between the board and superintendent. In this largest district involved in the case study portion of the research, the local counsel attends school board meetings only on request. The assistant superintendent thought relatively stable and Small school districts might get by without retaining local counsel. However, if property was being purchased and a building program conducted he thought even small districts should have general legal advice "on call.» He also felt that the general legal service should be competent in terms of school law. He favored the State Department of Public 122 Instruction employing both types of attorneys. He specified that the special bonding attorney might be best used to give general advice on bond issue proceedings to other attorneys retained by the local school districts. He felt that expanding the county school district services was not particularly efficient and money diverted in that direction only made less available to the individual school unit which could use it to better advantage. This analysis of the case study data will be summarized at the end of this chapter. It now seems advisable to delve somewhat deeper into the matter of fees for bonding attorneys and local counsel for bond issue services. MUNICIPAL FINANCE COMMISSION DATA ON FEES FOR BOND ISSUE SERVICES It seemed essential to the execution of this research to secure better comparison data on fees for bond issue services than was available from the other instruments used in the study. ‘With this in mind the author spent two days in the Michigan Municipal Finance Commission offices. The commission employs a director and assistant director and several other staff people. It is charged with the responsibility of reviewing for approval, among other things, all municipal bond loans. The Commission officials have not had sufficient numbers of employees to maintain many records they would like to keep. For example, they had only recently begun to request those using their services to submit a report which includes the fees actually paid to attorneys and financial consultants. For this reason it was necessary 123 to use forms that school districts had submitted to the Commission which contained only estimates of the fees to be paid. This is an important point because, as already shown, many school districts do not have accurate knowledge of what fees will be charged byxeither bonding attorneys or local counsel for bond issue services. The form from which the data in this section of the study was taken was the Application for Approval of the Municipal Finance Commission. Table 6 contains the pertinent data from 2h3 school district bond issues approved by the Commission over a fifteen month period from September, 1955, through November, 1956. In order to facilitate compari- sons,a column was included in the table giving the per cent that the total legal fees were of the total bond issue amount. This column reveals a range of from .1% up to 8.75%. Several districts paid over h.00% for legal fees on small bond issues. It is clear, of course, that in small bond issues, legal fees amount to a higher percentage of the total issue than is the case in larger issues. Regardless of the size of the issue, there is a certain amount of legal work required. For that reason most large bond law firms exact a basic fee and then superimpose a sliding percentage amount above that. It is the necessary basic fee that causes districts bonding for only a few thousand dollars to seem to pay such a high percentage when the fee is calculated on that basis. Table 7 illustrates this point very well. In this table, on page 130 , the fees paid to all attorneys for their services are analyzed by the size of the issue. Bond issues that were less than $100,000 have a high median of 1.9hZ that legal fees are of the total amount. mm; 6 MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL FINANCE COMMISSION APPROVED SCHOOL BOND ISSUES FROH SEPTEMBER, 1955 TO NOVEMBsR, 1956 12h Date of Bond Approval Issue 9-27-55 1 9-27-55 2 13-h-55 3 10-h-55 h 10-18-55 5 10-25-55 6 11-8-55 7 11-15-55 8 11-15-55 9 11-29-55 10 11-29-55 11 12-6-55 12 12-13-55 13 12-13-55 IL 12-13-55 15 12-30-55 16 12-20-55 17 12-20-55 18 1-17-56 19 1-17-56 20 1-2h-56 21 1-2u-56 22 1-31-56 23 2-21-56 21. 2-21-56 25 2-28-56 26 3-6-56 27 3-20-56 28 3-27-56 29 h-10-56 30 b-18-56 31 h-18-56 32 b-2h—56 33 h-Zh-Sé 3h h-Zh-Sé 35 h-Zh-Sé 36 5-9-56 37 5-9-56 38 5-15-56 39 Amount of Issue‘_ $72,000 72,000 22,000 98,030 30,000 b5,000 50,000 55,000 b0,000 55,071 70,000 33,000 70,000 79,000 55,000 25,000 23,000 13,000 h7,000 u8,000 25,000 60,000 75,000 20,000 5,000 22,000 11,000 50,000 96,000 23,000 90,000 50,000 95,000 19,000 19,500 6,000 75,000 65,000 85,000 Bonding Local Total % Legal Attorney Counsel Legal Fee is of Fee Fee Fees Total Issue - $1,000 31,000 1.39 3300 900 1,200 1.67 - 500 500 2.27 617 - 617 063 125 - 125 .h2 - 350 350 078 150 500 650 1.30 100 650 750 1.36 300 350 650 1.62 tbs - th .31 600 - 600 .86 100 - 100 030 150 850 1,000 1.u3 500 - 500 .63 - 350 350 .63 50 300 350 1.h0 - 500 500 2.17 75 300 375 2.88 - 500 500 1.06 150 800 950 1.98 100 700 800 3.20 - 500 500 083 - 750 750 1.00 100 500 600 3.00 - 300 300 6000 100 300 boo 1.82 100 500 600 5.h5 150 500 650 1.30 - 1,200 1,200 1.25 380 - 380 1.65 585 - 585 .65 LZS ’ L25 e85 150 900 1,050 1.11 100 375 075 2.50 ' 200 200 1.03 100 Add 500 8.33 525 - 525 070 150 600 750 1.15 125 TABLE 6 - (Continued) Bonding Local Total % Legal Date of Bond Amount Attorney Counsel Legal Fee is of Approval Issue of Issue Fee Fee Fees Total Issue 6-5-56 to 890,000 8390 $500 8890 .99 6-12-56 bl 05,000 150 700 850 1.89 6-19-56 82 65,000 100 500 600 .92 6-26-56 83 50,000 1,000 1,000 2.00 7-3-56 an 6,000 175 100 275 8.53 7-3-56 h5 30,000 800 - 000 1.33 7-3-56 b6 55.000 125 600 725 1.32 7-3-56 L7 65,000 323 162 h85 .75 7-10-56 88 20,000 - 300 300 1.50 7-28-56 89 80,000 too 250 650 1.63 7-2L-56 50 80,000 905 - 905 2.26 8-7-56 51 70,000 505 - 505 .72 8-7-56 2 90,000 boa - too .88 8-7-56 53 70,000 - 500 500 .71 8-28-56 5h 30,000 100 500 600 2.00 9-11-56 5 8,000 - 700 700 8.75 9-18-56 56 19,500 300 200 500 2.56 9-2S~56 57 20,000 375 - 375 1.88 10-2-56 58 36,000 75 350 025 1.18 10-2-56 59 22,000 - 1,000 1, 000 8.55 10-9-56 60 23,000 375 - 375 1.63 9-20-55 61 113,000 685 - 605 .59 10-8-55 62 160,000 785 - 7&5 .17 10-11-55 63 130,000 635 - 685 .53 10-11-55 6h 100,000 625 - 625 .63 10-18-55 65 135,000 250 1,350 1,600 1.19 10-18-55 66 135,000 695 - 695 .52 10-25-55 67 130,000 685 - 685 .53 11-1-55 68 111,000 1,500 1,500 1.06 11-15-55 69 100,000 1,300 - 1,300 1.30 12-6-55 70 115,000 655 - 655 .57 12-13-55 71 130,000 685 - 685 .53 1-3-56 72 185,000 715 - 715 .89 1-28-56 73 130,000 785 - 785 .LA 1-28-56 78 155,000 150 700 350 .55 1-31-56 75 125,000 - 500 500 .bo 2-21-56 76 165,000 755 - 755 .80 3-6-56 77 150,000 375 525 900 .60 3-6-56 78 180,000 800 900 1,300 .72 3-6-56 79 130,000 785 - 785 .hh 3-20-56 80 125,000 150 1,500 1,650 1.32 3-20-56 81 1L0,000 280 1,000 1,280 .89 126 TABLE 6 - (Continued) 3.1:. Bonding Local Total % Legal Date of Bond Amount Attorney Counsel Legal Fee is of Approval Issue of Issue Fee Fee Fees Total Issue 8—3-56 82 8150.000 $550 - $550 .37 8-3-56 83 155,000 735 - 735 .87 8-18-56 88 100,000 625 - 625 .62 8-18-56 85 125,000 200 8600 800 .68 8-28-56 86 150,000 725 - 725 .88 5-9-56 87 125,000 675 - 675 .58 5-15-56 88 200,000 825 - 825 .81 5-29-56 89 150,000 725 - 725 .88 7-17-56 90 177,000 - 850 850 .88 7-28-56 91 195,000 815 - 815 .82 7-28-56 92 198,000 - 850 850 .83 7-28-56 93 189,000 803 - 803 .83 7-28-56 98 110,000 150 1,500 1,650 1.50 7-31-56 95 195,000 200 850 1,050 .58 7-31-56 96 130,000 300 800 700 .58 8—7-56 97 100,000 - 1,000 1,000 1.00 8-21-56 98 161,000 - 850 850 .53 8-28-56 99 160,000 200 750 950 .59 8-28-56 100 120000 - 750 750 .63 9-8-56 101 185,000 795 - 795 .83 9- -5 102 100,000 150 750 900 .90 9-11-56 103 165,000 - 1,500 1,500 .91 9-25-56 108 200,000 200 600 800 .80 10-9-56 105 175,000 - 1,500 1,500 .86 10-9-56 106 165,000 755 - 755 .86 10-16-56 107 110,000 150 650 800 .73 10-23-56 108 110,000 685 - 685 .59 10-30-56 109 160,000 - 600 600 .38 9-20-55 110 825,000 500 2,675 3.175 .75 9-27-55 111 275,000 1,200 - 1,200 .88 10-8-55 112 390,000 1,205 - 1,205 .31 10-11-55 113 325,000 1,075 - 1,075 .33 10-18-55 118 280,000 300 800 700 .29 10-25-55 115 335,000 1,095 - 1,095 .33 11-8-55 116 360,000 360 1,180 1,500 .82 11-22-55 117 280,000 1,385 - 1,385 .29 11-22-55 118 350,000 900 - 900 .26 12-6-55 119 380,000 850 600 1,050 .31 12-13-55 120 385,000 1,115 - 1,115 .32 12-20-55 121 320,000 680 2,560 3,200 1.00 12-20-55 122 800,000 1,225 - 1.225 .31 127 TABLE 6 - (Continued) I fl :- —1— Bonding Local Total 5% Legal Date of Bond Amount Attorney Counsel Legal Fee is of Approval Issue of Issue Fee Fee Fees Total Issue 1-10-56 123 $269,000 8300 82,600 82,900 1.08 1-10-56 128 386,000 386 2,000 2,386 .68 1-17-56 125 850,000 1,325 - 1,325 .29 1-28-56 126 200,000 825 - 825 .81 1-31-56 127 290,000 1,005 - 1,005 .35 2-21-56 128 350,000 1,200 - 1,200 .38 2-28-56 129 250,000 375 1,750 2,125 .35 3-6-56 130 310,000 885 885 1,690 .55 3-6-56 131 350,000 1,000 500 1,500 .83 3-20-56 132 825,000 1,275 - 1,275 .30 8-3-56 131 260,000 985 - 985 .36 8-28-56 138 268,000 961 - 961 .36 5-9-56 135 350,000 1,125 - 1,125 .32 5-9-56 136 250,000 925 - 925 .37 5-15-56 137 250,000 775 875 1,250 .50 5-22-56 138 800,000 1,225 - 1,225 .31 5-29-56 139 890,000 936 1.568 2.507 .51 5-29-56 180 300,000 850 2,050 2,500 .83 5-29-56 181 300,000 1,025 - 1,025 .38 5-29-56 182 350,000 1,125 - 1,125 .32 6.5.56 183 285,000 850 650 1,500 .53 6-19-56 188 313,000 - 850 850 .27 6-26-56 185 898,000 1,821 - 1,821 .29 6-26-56 186 800,000 200 2,000 2,200 .55 7-3-56 187 250,000 925 - 925 .37 7-10-56 188 380,000 850 600 1,050 .31 7-28-56 18 320,000 850 - 850 .27 7-31-56 150 825,000 300 500 800 .19 7-31-56 151 350,000 350 1,550 1,900 .58 8-28-56 152 360,000 1,185 500 1,685 .86 8-28-56 153 885,000 1,132 3,700 8,832 1.00 8-28-56 158 350,000 750 750 1,500 .83 9-25-56 155 850,000 1,325 - 1,325 .29 10-2-56 156 350,000 - 1,500 1,500 .83 10-16-56 157 225,000 875 - 875 .39 10-16-56 158 350,000 925 300 1,225 .35 10-23-56 159 350,000 1,125 - 1,125 .32 10-30-56 160 300,000 850 2,000 2,850 .82 10-30-56 161 300,000 1,000 500 1,500 .50 9-20-55 162 725,000 1,500 500 2,000 .32 9-20-55 163 700,000 600 2,800 3,000 .83 9-20-55 168 750,000 3,250 - 3,250 .83 9-27-56 165 750,000 1,500 - 1,500 .20 Bonding Local Total % Legal Date of Bond Amount Attorney Counsel Legal Fee is of Approval Issue of Issue Pee Pee Fees Total Issue 10-8-55 166 $550,000 81,500 - :1,500 .27 10-11-55 167 575,000 1,575 - 1,575 .27 11-1-55 168 750,000 3,000 812,000 15,000 2.00 11-22-55 169 960,000 2,385 - 2,385 .28 11-29-55 170 620,000 1,865 - 1,865 .30 1-10-56 171 600,000 1,625 - 1,625 .27 2-7-56 172 650,000 1,300 200 1,500 .23 2-21-56 173 530,000 1,300 1,300 2,600 .89 2-21-56 178 500,000 1,150 3,550 8,700 .98 3-6-56 175 550,000 1,200 - 1,200 .22 3-20-56 176 590,000 1,100 200 1,300 .22 3-27-56 177 550,000 1,500 3,500 5,000 .91 5-15-56 178 750,000 1,500 - 1,500 .20 6-5-56 179 750,000 1,925 - 1,925 .26 6-19-56 180 525,000 - 3,500 3,500 .67 6-26-56 181 723,000 1,000 1,000 2,000 .28 7-3-56 182 500,000 1,825 - ~ 1,825 .29 7-10-56 183 750,000 1,875 - 1,875 .25 7-17-56 188 500,000 1,150 - 1,150 .23 7-17-56 135 600,000 1,825 _ 1,825 .28 7-28-56 186 500,000 1,825 - 1,825 .29 7-28-56 187 900,000 1,800 - 1,800 .20 7-31-56 188 725,000 2,000 - 2,000 .28 7-31-56 189 525,000 1,875 - 1,875 .28 7-31-56 190 750,000 750 2,750 3,500 .87 3-7-56 191 655,000 1,735 - 1,735 .27 9-8-56 192 530,000 300 1,800 2,100 .36 10-9-56 193 500,000 1,825 - 1,825 .29 10-30-56 198 750,000 1,925 - 1,925 .26 10-8-55 195 1,000,000 2,500 1,000 3,500 .35 10-11-55 196 1.500.000 3.750 3,750 7,500 .50 10-11-55 197 1,000,000 1,650 - 1,650 .16 11-1-55 198 1,000,000 1,200 1,200 2,800 .28 11-22-55 199 1,525,000 2,950 - 2,950 .19 11-29-55 200 1,500,000 2,725 - 2,725 .18 12-13-55 201 300,000 2,500 3,250 5,750 .88 2-7-56 202 530,000 8,000 2,500 6,500 .82 2-21-56 203 150,000 2,000 - 2,000 .17 2.28-56 208 ,500,000 3,000 - 3,000 .20 3-6-56 205 ,000,000 1,650 2,000 3,650 .37 3-13-56 206 ,500,000 5,000 850 5.850 .36 8-10-56 207 ,885,000 1,600 1,600 3,200 .22 8-28-56 208 ,300,000 2,600 - 2,600 .20 TABLE 6 - (Continued) 123 129 TABLE 6 - (Continued) Bonding Local Total 1 Legal Date of Bond Amount Attorney Counsel Legal Fee is of Approval Issue of Issue Fee Fee Fees Total Issue 8-28-56 209 81,500,000 88,000 63,500 8 ,500 .50 5-9-56 210 1,800,000 2,825 - 2,825 .20 5-29-56 211 1,000,000 1,500 600 2,100 .21 5-29-56 212 1,270,000 2,695 - 2,695 .21 7-17-56 213 1,553,000 2,9?5 ‘ 2,975 019 8-7-56 218 1,250,000 2,675 - 2,675 .21 8-21-56 215 1,000,000 1,000 - 1,000 .10 9-18-56 216 1,500,000 8,000 3,500 7,500 .50 9-18-56 217 1,200,000 2,625 - 2,625 .22 10-16-56 218 1,200,000 1,200 6,000 7,200 .60 10-30-56 219 1,350,000 2,775 - 2,775 .21 1-10-56 220 2,500,000 2,500 - 2,500 .10 3-13-56 22. 2,003,000 2,000 1,750 3,750 .19 3-27-56 222 2,220,000 2,850 9 300 12,650 .57 5-22-56 223 2,000,000 2,650 - 2,650 .13 5-29-56 228 2,600,000 3,000 3,000 6,000 .23 6-12-56 225 2,000,000 2,300 - 2,300 .12 6-19-56 226 2,000,000 2,800 - 2,800 .18 8-7-56 227 2,000,000 8,000 - 8,000 .20 8-7-56 228 2,200,000 ,575 - 3,575 .16 9-25-56 229 2,800,000 2,500 - 2,500 .10 10-30-56 230 2,500,000 3,800 - 3,800 .15 10-11-55 231 3,500,000 5,000 1,500 6,500 .19 1-17-56 232 3,200,000 6,000 500 6,500 .20 1-17-56 233 3,000,000 5,000 - 5,000 .17 2-28-56 238 3,875,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 .23 3-6-56 235 3,000,000 3,500 - 3,500 .12 3-20-56 236 3,300,000 8,525 - 8,525 .18 5-22-56 237 3,500,000 8,750 8,750 17,500 .50 9-18-56 233 3,100,000 - 3,000 3,000 .10 10-8-55 239 8,500,000 8,800 - 8,800 .11 5-1-56 280 8,500,000 8,800 - 8,800 .11 5-15-56 281 8,000,000 8,000 - 8,000 .20 6-5-56 282 18,000,000 18,000 - 18,000 .10 8-21-56 283 10,000,000 10,000 5,000 15,000 .15 TOTALS 283 $168,961,000 $302,539 $178,821 8831,360 195.19 MEDIAN“ $695,313 81,802 81,819 01,931 .30 130 The percentage declines in each group as the bond issues get larger. Bond issues of at least $1,003,000 compose the last group shown in the table and the median percent that legal fees are bf the bond issue amount is only .28%, which is the lowest of any group. TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF FEES PAID FOR LEGAL SERVICE. ON 283 SCHOOL BOND ISSUES IN MICHIGAN BY SIZE ‘F ISSUE Number Median % Size of of Total Median Fee is of Bond Issue Issues Amount Fee Bond Issue Less than $100,000 60 82,783,000 8566 1.98 $100,000 to $228,999 89 7,191,000 , 637 .63 $225,000 to $899,999 52 17,788,000 1,h89 .88 $500,000 to $999,999 33 21,233,000 3,160 .39 Over $1,000,000 89 120,005,030 5,158 .28 TOTALS 283 $168,961,000 $2,205 .80 Most school districts used bonding attorneys without involving local counsel. Others retained local counsel to assist bonding attorneys by performing liaison work between the school system and the municipal bond law firm. Still others had local legal counsel do most of the work connected with bond issues and utilized bond law firms only for minor assistance and the written legal opinion approving the bond issue. It is not possible in Michigan for local counsel to do all of the work. There are only two firms that are qualified to render legal opinions 131 approving bonds in the state. Consequently, local attorneys always have to submit their work for review by thosamunicipal bond law firms in order to secure the written opinion necessary to market the bonds. For some reason many districts making application to the Municipal Finance Commission did not list a bonding attorney. It is probable that the local legal counsel in these districts included the bonding attorney's fee in their fees and the school district paid little heed to the negotiation. Tables 3 and 9 also organize important data from the Commission's files. Table 3 shows the breakdown of fees by size of issue where the district employed a qualified bonding attorney, but did not retain local counsel for assistance. There were 117 such issues amounting to over $98,000,000. The median fee for these issues was $1682 and the median percent that the bonding attorney's fee was of the total issue was .81Z. Again the fees decreased in percentage of the issue as the issues became larger. When the school district decided to assist the bonding attorney by using their local counsel, too, the percentage of fees to the total issue went up significantly. Only five districts with bond issues of less than $100,000 did this, and they paid a price for the extra service. The median fee in this instance soared to 2.23% as contrasted with only .97% when the bonding attorney performed the service alone. In no case was the percentage less in any size of issue category than when the bonding attorney performed the service without counsel. The median for all thirty-four issues was .63% compared to .h1% without local counsel. See Table 9 on page 132. 132 TABLE 8 ANALYSIS OF FEES PAID TO BONDINE ATTORNEYS FOR EXCLUSIVE SERVICES OH SELECTED SCHOOL BOND ISSUES IN MICHIGAN Number Median 1 Size of of Total Median Fee is of Bond Issue Issues Amount Fee Bond Issue Less than $190,000 17 $961,000 3860 .97 $100,000 to 82 8,999 25 3,658,000 737 .53 $225,000 to $899,999 26 3.386.000 1.193 -33 $500,000 to $999,999 21 13,760,000 1,721 .26 Over $1,000,000 28 70,895,000 3,616 .16 TOTALS 117 $98,156,000 81,682 .81 TABLE 9 ANALYSIS OF FEES PAID WHEN BONDING ATTORNEYS WERE ASSISTED BY LOCAL LEGAL COUNSEL ON SELECTED SCHOOL BOND ISSUES IN MICHIGAN Number Median Z Size of of Total Median Fee is of Bond Issue Issues Amount Fee Bond Issue Less than SlO0,000 5 $170,500 5512 2.23 $100,000 to $228,999 0 - - _ $225,000 to $899,999 8 2,555,000 1,876 .87 $500,000 to $999,999 5 3,113,000 1,830 .31 Over $1,000,000 16 80,290,000 6,806 .31 TOThlS 38 $86,133,500 83,902 .63 133 There were sixty-two issues among the 283 where the local counsel did most of the work and requested only minor assistance and a written legal opinion from a bonding attorney. The median percentage was high for the total, 1.235. Because of the larger number of bond issues involved here, the percentages are probably more realistic than when counsel assisted bonding attorneys as above. The difference between the median percentage when bonding attorneys handled the issues exclu- sively and.when local counsels were assisted by bonding firm is .26%. This data is tabulated on the next page, in Table 10. In those cases where it was reported that local counsel handled the entire proceedings the fees for such service again tended to be high, also. Table 11 shows that thirty districts reported this method of utilizing local legal counsel. Scrutiny of this table also discloses that twentybsix of the thirty issues were less than $225,000. This has a tremendous effect on the median percentage, of course. A study of the data gathered from the Municipal Finance Commission's files discloses wide differences in the amounts paid. Several of these variances are summarized below: 1. Two small 325,300 bond issues approved within one month of one another. In the first district the bonding attorney charged $50 and local counsel $300 for a total fee of $350, or 1.80% of the issue. In the second district the bonding attorney charged $100, local counsel 3709 for a total legal fee of $300, or 3.20 of the issue. TAB LE 10 13h ANALYSIS 0? FEE-IS PAID $51.31“! LOCAL REGAL COUNSEL WERE NG ATTORNEYS ON SELECTED SCHOOL BOND ISSUES IN MICHIGAN ASSISTED BY BOND I Number Median z Size of of Total Median Fee is of Bond Issue Issues Amount Fee Bond Issue Less than $100,000 22 $967,000 3690 2.19 $100,000 to $22u,999 1b 2,015,000 1,085 .79 $225,000 to $h99,999 16 5,6b0,000 ,202 .63 $500,000 to $999,999 3,830,000 ,SSO .85 Over $1,000,000 5,720,000 7,313 .h9 TOTALS 62 $13,172,000 .02,067 1.23 TABLE 11 ANALYSIS OF FEES PAID TO LOCAL LEGAL COUNSEL FOR EXCLUSIVE SERVICES ON SJLECTED SCHOOL BOND ISSUES IN MICHIGAN hhmber* Median % Size of of Total Median Fee is of Bond Issue Issues Amount Fee Bond Issue Less than $100,000 16 $689,500 $603 2.25 $100,000 to $22h,999 10 1,522,000 990 .67 $225,000 to $h99,999 2 663,000 1,175 .35 $500,000 to $999,999 1 525,000 3,500 .67 Over 31,000,000 3,100,000 3,000 .10 TOTALS 30 86,h99,500 $9h7 1.h7 135 One district paid a combined bonding attorney and local counsel fee of 3h832 for services on a $L3S,OOO bond issue. Two other districts paid only $h800 each for legal services on $h,500,000 bond issues. The latter districts did not use local counsel. On a $750,000 bond issue one district paid a bonding attorney fee of $3000 and a local counsel fee of $12,000! The combined $15,000 was the same amount another district paid in combined fees for a $10,000,030 issue. In the first district the fees represent 2.0% of the total issue while in the second case the fees were only .15; of the total. Still another district bonded for $753,030 at about the same time paid only $1500 for a bond- ing attorney. This represented .20% of the total issue. One district bonded for $2,500,000 using a bonding attorney who charged $2500 for the total legal fee. A second district bonded for $2,000,000 and paid local counsel $1750 plus a bonding attorney fee of $2000 for a total legal fee of $3750. A third district bonded for $2,220,000 for which the bonding attorney exacted a fee of $2850; the local counsel in this district was paid $9800 for a total fee of 312,650! 136 U1 Fees to local leg 1 counsel for assisting bonding a.torneys on issues of approximately $3,000,000 ranged from $500 to 28750. There can be little doubt from this analysis that the least expensive way for a school district to finance legal services in connection with bond issues is to retain a qualified municipal bond law firm and let the superintendent or his assistant perform many of the tasks that would otherwise be assigned to local counsel. This is shown clearly, too,by Table 12. his table summarizes the legal fees paid for the 2h3 bond issues studied by the type of legal services. In TABLE 12 SUMMARY OF FSaS PAID FOR LEGAL SERVICES ON 2h3 SCHOOL BOND ISS 35 IN MICHIGAN BY TYPE OF LEGAL SERVICE Number Median % Type of of Total Median Fee is of Legal Service Issues Amount Fee Bond Issue Bonding Attorney ‘ Exclusively 117 398,156,000 $1,6h2 .hl Bonding Attorney Assisted by Local Counsel 3h h3,133,SOO 3,902 .63 Local Counsel Assisted by IBonding Attorney 62 18,172,000 2,067 1.23 Local Counsel Exclusively 30 6,h99,500 9b? 1.h7 SPine of being the least expensive method of negotiating a bond issue BleCtion, leaving local counsel out of the proceedings may not be 137 advisable. It will be recalled that Byrnes in his study recommended use of local counsel as did the American Association of School Administrators in one of its publications. The experts in this study established Criterion VIII. The local legal counsel should serve as liaison between the school district and bonding attorney for bond issue election proceeding.. SUMMARY Both the questionnaire and Hunicipal Finance Commission data can perhaps be best understood if summarized simply in the final chapter. However, the case study data seems to require more interpretation than can be logically given in Chapter VI. Consequently, this summary will deal particularly with the case study data. It will relate that data to the criteria previously established by the jury of experts. It was found that all of the case study districts had success- fully passed at least one bond issue election in recent years. Seven of 'the ten had employed Michigan's largest municipal bond law firm for their tzonding proceedings. One district had retained an equally large Chicago fiinm and only two had failed to meet Criterion IX which stated that the t>onding attorney or his firm should be qualified to render an approving Cupinion on the bond issue. All of the districts had met the vital czfiiterion of employing legal assistance for bond issue proceedings. chwever, 201 of the case study districts failed to employ a qualified Imlziicipal bond law specialist. The financial and amninistrative arrangements with bonding attwbrneys were inadequate in terns of the criteria. The fee arrangements ”9:13 run;covered by a written document or formal contract in a single 138 district. Most superintendents reached an oral agreement on the fees prior to the law firms service. In eight school systems the fee was not recorded in the board's minutes and only one-half of the districts re- corded the employment of the bond law firm in the official board minutes. The administrative arrangements were even further from the desired practice. Only two districts had written a policy describing the relation- ship of local counsel to the board and superintendent and one of those did not make its policy applicable to the special bonding attorney. In the two districts that had such a.written policy the attorneys were familiar with it. Most of the school districts gave instructions to their bonding attorneys through the superintendent who in turn received their reports. There was little agreement among the districts on the selection of special bonding attorneys. In three cases the interviewee did not know who made the selection. In the smallest district the super- intendent did it and in two cases the board and superintendent working ‘together selected the firm. In the remaining four systems the board of education made the selection. In spite of the rather minor role played inn the selection process by the superintendents and in spite of instances car political motivation concerning the appointment of attorneys, only one superintendent admitted that he would not be able to recommend a change ill bonding attorneys without causing friction between himself and the board. No evidence was found of bonding attorneys influencing boards on Strictly educational matters. Criteria I and II concerning local legal counsel state, in effect, Ehflt evegy'school district should have ggneral legal assistance "on call" £2223_a.school law specialist. Four of the case study districts had no 139 general legal assistance available. As might be expected, they were the four smallest districts. Of the six districts that have counsel available, only two considered their men school law specialists. It must be pointed out that District "J's" counsel was reported to have become sufficiently acquainted with the unique features of school law to perform satisfactor- ily. Presumably this was the case in the other districts as well. It is interesting to note that the jury of experts could not agree on a method of reimbursement for local counsel and likewise there was little agreement in practice among the case study districts. Two paid on a flat rate basis; one time and expense; two-others had counsel on annual retainers; and the sixth district paid counsel a monthly salary. In the instances where fees were paid by time and expense or flat rate, the districts tended to pay "as billed" without understanding how the amount was computed. This was also true in the cases where counsel was paid for unusual activities beyond his retainer. This, of course, is in violation of Criterion III which states, The financial arrangements with the local legal counsel should be spelled out in written form and agreed gpon by both parties in advance of actual services. Criterion VI makes the point that instructions to local counsel should stem from the superintendent. If the four districts that do not retain counsel but often call other sources for legal advice are included, seven districts comply with this criterion. In only two districts were the instructions given jointly by the board and superintendent. The laI‘gest district permitted certain board officers and tap administrators to give instructions. Only one district expected their local legal cmlrnsel to attend every meeting which may affect the amount that various Ibo counsel were able to participate in educational discussions. However, that district was not the one that reported such participation. It will be remembered that a strong criterion was isolated that indicated at- torneys should not participate in board discussions of purely educational matters. In the single case where this rule was violated the violations seemed to occur outside of board meetings when board members called the attorney. This was a district where a political upheaval resulted in a change of attorneys. It was also a district where no board policy defined the role of counsel. The attorney who practiced this behavior was the same one who was released by another school district in this study. Most of the interviewees in this part of the research agreed 'with the panel that State Departments of Education should provide general legal assistance to school districts. Seven people responded favorably to that suggestion. Like the experts, they did not favor county school offices performing this service. Chapter V has presented the research data from the questionnaire returns and the Michigan Municipal Finance Commission files. The reader is again referred to Appendix F for a tabular presentation of the case study data. The final chapter will present the conclusions reached in the study with their implications for educational leaders. CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATIONAL LEADERS It has been the purpose of this study to inquire into the financial and administrative relationship between school attorneys, the school superintendents and boards of education in Michigan. The school district relationships with both special bonding attorneys and local legal counsel were investigated. The following questions were selected as being the most important to be answered for the purposes of this study: 1. What are the elements of a successful relationship 2. 3. between the school attorney, superintendent and board of education? What contractual or employment relationship do school boards have with school attorneys? How much do school boards pay for legal services on bond issues? Hypotheses were advanced to be tested in this dissertation. They'were: l. 2. Some school districts in Michigan have been paying legal fees for bond issue services far in excess of what have been paid by other school districts for comparable services. Unless careful attention is paid to sound admin- istrative procedures in the establishment of the attorney-superintendent-board relationship, difficulties in that relationship are probable. There is presently no accepted pattern for the , establishment of a school attorney in the local school organizational plan. lh2 h. Criteria exist which can be isolated and applied to the problem of establishing an attorney in the organizational plan of local school districts which will foster a more successful relationship between the attorney, superintendent and board. The data bearing on these questions and hypotheses was secured from several sources. A questionnaire was sent to every school superin- tendent in Michigan; ten school districts were selected by structured proportionate random sampling for intensive case study; a panel of experts was utilized to determine criteria pertinent to the study; an extensive search of the literature in the fields of educational admin- istration, school law, and business administration was conducted; finally, an analysis was made of 2&3 public school bond issues from the files of the Michigan Municipal Finance Commission. This final chapter states the study conclusions and advances some educational implications which are projected from the conclusions. The conclusions will be summarized after stating them in relation to the criteria isolated in this study. The criteria themselves, of course, are conclusions reached as a result of this research. CONCLUSIONS This section of the chapter will be divided between conclusions reached relative to special bonding attorneys and those made concerning local legal counsel. Special Bonding Attorneys Criterion I. Qualified legal assistance on bond issue proceedings should.be'ggplqz!§_§zgall schgol districts. This criterion was the result of a statement that attempted to determine if all districts should employ a bonding attorney for bond 11:3 issue services, or if there was some factor such as size that might enable certain districts to forego this service. The criterion is clear that all districts should employ such legal assistance. The case studies revealed that all ten districts had employed attorneys for bond issue proceedings. The questionnaire did not get at this matter. However, the files of the Municipal Finance Commission disclosed that on 2h3 school bond issues, over a fifteen month period, every single district reported employing an attorney for bond issue services. Michigan school districts meet the first criterion. Criterion II. Advice on legal matters involved in school bond issue election proceedings should be rendered by a.municipal bond law specialist. As just mentioned, the case studies revealed that all ten districts employed attorneys for assistance on bond issue proceedings. Two of the attorneys were not qualified to write legal Opinions approving the bonds, however. The questionnaire results indicated that an even greater prOportion of districts in Michigan fail to meet this criterion. Slightly more than 33% of the school districts in the state do not employ a "separate and specialized" attorney for'bond issue services. Although some of these perhaps can be accounted for by the fact that some districts 'use municipal bond law firms for general legal advice hence, do not employ "separate" Lirns for bond issue services. It seems clear that from.one-fourth to one-third of Michigan school districts rely on un- qualified attorneys for municipal bond law services. lhh Criterion III. Financial arrangements with a bondigg attorney should be spelled out in written form and agreed upon by both_parties in advance of actual services. The data pertinent to this criterion cones solely from the case studies. Although most superintendents reported reaching an oral agree- ment on the fee to be charged for bond issue services, none had a written statement or formal contract. Of the eight districts that recorded the employment of the bond- ing attorney in the official minutes of the district, only two included the fee to be charged. At best, only 20% of the school districts met Criterion III. Criterion IV. The administrative relationship of the bonding attorney to the board of education and administrative staff should be ‘written in the bylaws or policies of the board of education. This is a key point in the study. Hypotheses two and three refer to the administrative relationships under investigation. The conclusion reached in this stidy is that Michigan school boards and superintendents have been remiss in not establishing policies that clearly indicate the relationship of the school attorney to the board and administrative staff. Only one district had such a written policy. It may be significant that this district has a history of excellent attorney-superintendent-bcard relationships and further, that the superintendent is widely experienced and has earned a doctorate in school administration and is highly respected both state-wide and nationally. th Criterion V. The administrative relationshp between the bond- ing attorney and board of education and administrative staff should be ggreed ppon by both parties in advance of actual services. This criterion was met only in the single instance cited above where the school district had such a policy. Criterion VI. The special bonding attorneypshould be egpected to attend public meetings held to discuss the bond issue proposals. Criterion VII. The special bonding_attorney should be expected to attend school board meetings at which the bond issue proposals are being_determined. Criterion VIII. The special bonding attorney Should be expected to attend the board meeting at which bids for bonds are being_opened. It became apparent as this study progressed that limitations were required on the areas concerning school attorneys to be investigated. As the duties of attorneys were not considered central to the study, data concerning them was not pursued. Nevertheless Criteria VI, VII, VIII, and X are offered as important conclusions in this research. Criterion IX. The bondipg attorney or his firm should be qualified to render an approving opinion on the bond issue. The reader is asked to refer to the discussion of Criterion II which alluded to the point made here. It seems clear from the data that one-fourth of Nichigan's school districts use the services of an unqualified attorney for bond issue services. The second from the smallest school system among the case study districts and the only district which reported interference by counsel in strictly educational matters were the two case study districts that did not use a municipal 1146 f .: - T :- 1.- .. .. 11 re 0 I," n bond law spec-alist. he our argest systens, as we as Tour 0 hers, used qualified attorneys. There were ninety-two bond issues among he 2h3 analyzed that were handled by local legal counsels. Of these only twelve were larger than $530,030 issues. These facts seem to indicate that the smaller school districts tend to employ attorneys who are not qualified to write legal opinions approving bonds. Criterion X. The bonding attorney should arrange for the signing and delivery of bonds. See Criterion VIII above. Criterion XI. The selection of a bonding attorney should be made py the board of education upon the recommendation of the superin- tendent. Three of the case study districts'superintendents did not know who selected the bonding attorney in their school systems. This was the result of changes in the superintendency after the attorney was selected. In one case the superintendent recommended the bonding attorney for board approval without the attorney appearing before the board. In two other cases a similar procedure took place except the board inter- viewed the attorney. In four districts the board acted without the superintendent. This is completely incompatible with the proper admin- istrative relationship between attorney, superintendent and board that the experts in this study have described. The particular criterion being discussed, for example, shows the superintendent in an executive officer position to the board; a position of authority and influence where the board looks to him for leadership in the conduct of the school enterprise. In only three districts out of seven where the circumstances were known did this criterion seem to be met. 1L7 Criterion XII. The termination of relations with a bonding attorney, if necessary1 should be by the board of education upon the recommendation of the superintendent. It was found that bonding attorneys are quite stable in their associations with school districts. Only one instance was reported where the school board severed relations with a municipal bond law finn. In that case it was done by the board with the acquiesence of the super- intendent after the local counsel persuaded the board that he could provide valuable political assistance on a refunding issue. The local counsel was associated with a different bond law firm than the board had been using, consequently, the bond law firm was changed. ‘While this single instance is not sufficient to generalize on, it seems patent that if so large a proportion of Michigan school boards enploy counsel without the recommendation of the superintendent they would be likely to feel free to release the attorney the same way. However, as mentioned, there is no evidence to state with conviction that Hichigan school districts meet or fail to meet this criterion. Criterion XIII. The bonding attorney should not participate in school board discussions of purely educational matters that are involved in bond issue proposals. The impression received in making this investigation is that while bonding attorneys will attend board and other public meetings as requested, they are very rarely requested to do so. In many districts the bonding attorney had never met with the board of education, doing all business with the district bytelephone and mail. This is somewhat understandable with the large number of school districts in the state 1L8 requiring bond issues and only two qualified municipa bend law firms to service them. It would seem to require local resifence or frequent contact at school board meetings for bonding attorneys to be in a position to participate in educational discussions with boards of educa- tion. Ho instance of Sich participation was reported. Criterion XIV. Qualified legal advice on school bond issue elections should be available from State Departments of Education. This is not a criterion that a superintendent or board of education can use, of course. However, it is an important conchision in this research. The panel of experts were asked if any source of bond law assistance should be made available to school districts. The panel agreed that State Departments of Education could render a valuable service to school districts by employment of a municipal bond law specialist. Local Legal Counsel Criterion I. Qualified legal advice should he "on call" for general legal problems arising in the o oration of all school districts. It was an assumption in this study that all school distr‘cts required legal service of a general nature to be readily available for assistance in the complex school Operation. Although assumptions are not normally tested as are hypotheses, it seemed advisable to ask the experts to react to this statement. As anticipated, the panel strongly felt this should become a criterion. Four districts, or hO% of the case study systems, did not employ local counsel, however, significantly, it was the smallest districts that failed to do so. It is perhaps significant, too, that none of the four superintendents who w re without counsel were satisfied with the arrangements they had, such as calling college professors or county prosecutors for legal advice. The questionnaire returns revealed that 61.2% of Michigan school districts do not enploy legal counsel on a regular basis for general legal advice. The reasons for this decided failure to acct this important criterion seen to be several. The super- intendents interviewed in the case studies indicated that cost was perhaps the most important factor; others cited the fact that no attorney was available woo was familiar with school law; still others simply may not have requested the board to retain counsel even though they thought they should have such assistance. It is important to point out that (L (f several persons siggeste distric s banding together to ermloy counsel. sis may be a worthy suggestion although some distrists were found who only had to pay $130 for specialized legal counsel to be on retainer for a year. It is clear that on this key criterion Michigan school districts fail significantly to measure up to what experts consider an inportant ard reasonable standard. Criterion II. General legal advice should be provided school districts by school law specialists. m Sever 1 superintendents complained that the average attorney didn't know as much school law as the average superintendent. There is no question that the unique complexities of school law requires some degree of special experience or study to be mastered. Some attorneys achieve this experience at the expense of the retaining school district. This was true in four of the six districts in the case studies who 153 employed counsel. With the short supply of school law specialists that several superintendents nontioned, it may be that school officials must employ non-specialists. The -aggestion of one superintenlent might be worth consideration. He thought a special training ooportunity f'r tfiose attorneys interested in school law might be promoted by the State Departments of Education. Criterion III. The financial arrangements with the local legal counsel should be spelled out in written form and screed upon bv both I 4L1 L #14 parties in advance of actual services. The case studies sought information pertinent to this criterion. It was found that three districts of the six enplcyirg counsel based their fees on either a monthly salary as one district did, or on an annual retainer. In these insiances the criterion was met, of course. The nanaining three districts chose to pay their counsel either a flat rate or on a time and expense basis. One of these superintendents reported that the flat rate approximated twenty-five dollars per call; the others paid as billed. When extra services were performed beyond the retainer in those districts where counsel was on retainer, the fees were paid "as billed." In other words, there was a general failure to be clear about the fees to be charged by counsel before services are performed. This was most noticable in connection with bond issuer. One district paid local coinsel £12,000 for services on a refunding election without having had any agreement, oral or written, prior to service. Another district paid $5,000 with the same lack of prior agreement. Thetremen—» dous discrepancies revealed in the study of 2L3 bond issues in the fees paid to local counsel suggest that boards of education are not complying 131 with this criterion. The discrepancies also suggest most forcibly that the criterion should be heeded by school officials. Criterion IV. The administrative relationship of the local counsel to the board of education and staff should be written in the bylaws orgpolicies of the board of education.- This is another key point in the study. The second hypothesis stated in Chapter I of this report was that unless careful attention is paid to sound administrative procedures in the establishment of the attorney-board-superintendent relationship, difficulties in that relation- ship are probable. Remembering that only six of the case study districts employed local legal counsel it is noteworthy that fully 50% of those districts had had difficulty in the relationship to the extent that counsel were replaced! In two instances the attorney had.become associ- ated with a board majority that had subsequently lost an election and counsel was replaced by the new board majority. In the third<3ase the local counsel sided with a group on a community issue that was unpopular with the board. None of the cases showed evidence of exorbitant fees or incompetence. All were politically motivated. The superintendent in each case was by-passed. The question is, "Would a clearly written board policy have changed the behavior in these instances?" In one of the istricts where the local legal counsel was replaced, the superintendent reported having a policy governing the relationship, but the policy was adopted after the occurrence. Neither of the other districts met the criterion above. There was only one other superin- tendent who reported a written policy that established and described the attorney-superintendent-board relationship. This district was enjoying 152 an excellent relationship. It is doubtful, however, if a generalization could be made on the limited data available from the field. It seems apparent, however, that in the absence of more evidence to support the wisdom of the criterion, the criterion must be accepted on face value as the best thinking of eleven school law and school administration experts on a matter of vital concern to school officials. School districts in Michigan fall far short of meeting the criterion at this writing. Criterion V. The administrative relationship of the local legal counsel and the board of education and administrative staff should be agreed upon by both parties in advance of actual services. No comment is required here other than to refer the reader to the comments on the previous criterion. Criterion VI. The local legal counsel should generally receive instructions from the supgrintendent of schools. Although the experts were unable to agree on a criterion re- garding to whom counsel should report, the questionnaire returns showed greater agreement in practice than on who should issue instructions. Seventy per cent of the school districts in Michigan ask counsel to report to the superintendent, but only slightly over hlZ initiate instructions by the superintendent. In nearly 32% of the cases, the superintendent and board jointly issue instructions. This fact that reports are not made back to the person issuing the instructions is perhaps as poor practice as the fact that only hl% meet the sixth Criterion. 153 The case study data was more in line with the experts' demands. In two instances the board and superintendent issue instructions jointly. Only one case study district reported the board the initiator of instruc— tions. In every instance the case study districts had counsel report back to the source of instructions. It must be acknowledged, however, that school officials do not comply in even a majority of cases with this criterion. Criterion VII. If local counsel is on retainer, legal activities involving unusual time and expense by the attorney should be reimbursed above the retainer. One of the most striking findings in this investigation was the tremendous disparity in the fees paid local counsels for bond issue services. For example, fees paid to local counsel for assisting bonding attorneys on issues of approximately $3,000,000 ranged from $500 to $8750. It was also disclosed that fees tended to be greater when counsel 'was involved than when bonding attorneys are assisted only by the staff. hheither of these is sufficient reason to exclude local counsel for this serVice, however. The disparity in fees may be corrected by adherence to (Jriterion III which insists upon an agreement on fees prior to SGI'Vice. The extra cost involved in having local counsel serve as liaison may be money well spent if the administration is freed to deal '"itil problems more directly related to the school instructional program. Only two of the case study districts used local counsel as liadlsaon between school officials and the bonding attorneys. One of these Paid $1000 for services on a $10,000,000 issue and the other paid $7500 for services on a $3,500,000. A third district was described as using 15h local counsel to assist on a bond refunding issue. The local attorney was paid $312,000 for services on this issue of £57,000,000. The data from the 2h3 bond issues analyzed in this study revealed that 117 bond issues were handled exclusively by municipal bond law firms. The remaining 126 issues involved local legal counsels exclusively, or as the principal person handling the issue assisted by a bond law firm or as an assistant to the bonding attorney. There is no question that local counsel were being used in connection with bond issues but there is some reason to believe the degree of participation was much greater than mere liaison that the panel of experts suggested. The pertinent criteria suggest that a municipal bond law firm, qualified to write a legal opinion approving the bonds, should be retained by all districts planning a bond issue election. The criterion being discussed here adds that local counsel should be employed to provide liaison between the school district and the bonding attorney. As seen, this is quite different from the pattern in Michigan. Criterion II. The local lggal counsel should attend school 1393M meetings on reguest rather than every meeting. This area was deemed important for the possibility that regular attendance at board meetings might lead to participation in discussions or purely educational matters. Only one of the six case study districts that employed local legal counsel asked him to attend every school board mating. There was no evidence of interference in educational policy matters in that case. Thirty-eight other Michigan school districts had counsel present at every meeting. This means that 9% of the school s“teams in the state do not comply with this criterion. Ilq. y!!- 155 Criterion X. The' local legal counsel should be expected to attend pgblic meetings on request. All of the case study districts that employed local counsel reported that their attorneys would attend public meetings when asked to do so. The request was seldom made, however.- Criterion XI. The selection of a legal counsel should be made by the board of education upon the recommendation of the superintendent. Six case study districts reported that either the board of education or the board and superintendent together employed counsel. In four other districts the board chose to make the selection without assist- ance from their executive officer, the superintendent. Three of these four districts had replaced counsel for "political" reasons. None had had a written policy describing the administrative organization in relation to local counsel at the time the terminations took place. The questionnaire data revealed that about 15% of the state's school districts employed counsel on the basis of the superintendent's or board's action in either case without the participation of the other. Criterion XII. The termination of relations with local legal ggunsel, if necessary, should be by the board of education upon the momendation of the sugrintendent. The question was asked in this study, "Do you feel that you, 38 superintendent, could recommend to the board that you change school attc’I‘l'ieys without causing friction?" Only 55.7% of the superintendents in the state responded affirmatively. Eleven per cent simply said "No!" The rest either didn't know, or failed to respond. 156 Among the case study districts, two superintendents felt they could not change counsel.without causing friction with the board. A third superintendent thought he could,"for cause." The three districts mentioned here were all cases where the board had arbitrarily released one attorney and employed another without involving the superintendent. It is apparent that a serious situation exists in.Michigan in regard to the relationship of attorneys, superintendents and boards of education. Criterion XIII. The local legal counsel should be expected to prepare architectural and construction contracts. Criterion XIV. The local legal counsel should be expected to review for approval architectural and construction contracts and_perform~ ance bonds. Criterion XV. The local legal counsel should be expected to attend bid openings for new construction. Criterion XVI. The local legal counsel should be expected to attend board meetipgs when construction contracts are to be let. Criterion XVII. The local leggl counsel should be e_x:pected to QView final payment certificates and documents for contractors. Criterion XVIII. The local legal counsel should be expected to negotiate on behalf of the board of education for the purchase or sal__e= 5!:_I>r9perty. Criterion XIX. The local legal counsel should be expected to Eerform condemnation proceedings and other court services as may be rec111:1.red by the school district. The seven criteria listed above, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, and XIX, all deal with various duties that should be expected 157 of counsel. As explained previously, this is an area that was not pursued because of the need for further limitations to the investigation. Nevertheless, these criteria are offered as an important contribution of this study. Criterion XX. The local legal counsel should not participate in school board discusiions of purely educational matters. One school district in the case study section of this research reported that board members call the local counsel to discuss educational matters! Considering that only six of the ten case study districts employed counsel, this district represents one-sixth, or nearly 17% of the districts in the study. The questionnaire returns revealed that in nearly 10% of all the school districts in Michigan local legal counsel participate in educational policy matters! It would be too easy to point a finger at the attorneys for this unfortunate circumstance. Would a well written description of the attorney's role in relation to the board and administrative staff eliminate the condition described above? It is a major conclusion of this study that such a policy would at least be of significant aid in the attempt to move toward a better administration of this vital relationship. Criterion XXI. Qualified advice on general legal problems wing froL the daytto-dgy operation of the school district should be §I$able from State Departments of Education. Byrnes suggested such advice in relation to bond issue proceed- ing8. Seven of the case study superintendents also agreed with this cr'iter'ion. At the same time, the experts and practicing school admin- istmtors strongly objected to school districts having to seek legal 158 advice from city attorneys or county prosecutors. The matter of staffing State Departments of Education with qualified legal counsel for assistance to school districts needs careful consideration The conclusions reached in this study in relation to the central questions and hypotheses are: 1. 2. 3. No accepted pattern for the establishment of the school attorney in the local school organizational plan existed in Michigan prior to this study. Failure of Michigan school officials to pay care- ful attention to sound administrative procedures in the establishment of the attorney-superintendent- board relationship has created difficulties in that relationship baa significant number of school districts. Criteria exist which can be isolated and applied to the problem of establishing an attorney in the organizational plan of local school districts on a sound basis. These criteria have'been isolated in this study. Michigan school districts do not meet most of the criteria. There is a tremendous disparity between.Michigan school districts in the amount paid for comparable legal services in connection with school bond issues. 159 IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATIONAL LEADERS Some implications of this investigation have been suggested. Others will be pin-pointed here because of their importance to school officials. Where further research seems advisable it will be mentioned here also. This dissertation has thus far made no claim to national applica- tion. Even though experts from California to New Jersey and Florida to Michigan were used, the study was aimed in particular at conditions in Michigan. This author feels sure that many of the conditions found in Michigan are not unique to that state, however. There is evidence cited in the chapter devoted to the literature search that supports this statement. There can be little doubt that the criteria isolated here for the first time by the panel of experts has wide applicability over the country. The most important implications of this research seem to 1. There is a need to impress upon school board members the necessity for qualified local legal counsel in their school districts. The unanimous agreement of experts in the field and near unanimous agreement of superintendents as well, that legal counsel is required to keep the complex operation of a school district on safe grounds testifies to strength of their conviction. Communication through school board associations may be the best way to facilitate this end. 2. 3. 160 There appears to be a great need for the adoption of administrative policies by school boards. The dearth of policies governing the relationship of the attorney to the board and superintendent is only one aspect of this need for policies. A perhaps greater problem lies in the fundamental twoaway relationship of board and superintendent. It is suggested that a third party cannot be successfully introduced into a relationship that is already inadequately defined. Further research would be of value in this whole area. School officials must be made aware of the tremendous disparity in fees paid to local legalhmch umpaposppm “mopsom m4 .mvcmmaomp cw cm>wm mopsmwm * mm» on 0: mm» o: o: o: o: on on «00% ocdflocw mmpficaz qo.m we» 0: o: mmh mm» on we» on on mm» wmwpnCflz cw wmupooom m@.w ; \ socx zocx .pno . mmh rm» mm» mm» mm» mm» muh o.noa p.:oa .coo «pcoswmnwm omm Hmuo Ne w c: o: o: o: on on o: 0: 0c 0: mocwemopmm wmm :mppakz Hw.m on o: 0: on o: o: o: o: o: o: «pomppcoo Hashom o.m mmh mum mm» mm% o: mom mmh mm» on wok «cowcflmo wéwp: op cofimwamsw m.m oc mm» nah mom 0: on mm» mm» mm» mm» «vocaaoca momnchm mz.m . w my . -. . g 30 So . . ma pwam ma ommm Nu RH mmwm wm¢m p.cmw 0.2mw ovwcflsumpmv mmm 30m H: N cmmgm onenfiw cmmww mmmaf mpmgfi oommw mwmmg pdmmm OOMa cepw wmop Hmpoa :.N wax mm» mm» mm» mm» we» mm» mm» mm» mmh «hmnpoppm msflncon hoaasm o.m ommaw 000naa ommpm oomaw mfima oommw mmma» mam cmw omam *wmsmmfi mo pcaoe< H.H mmmfl ommfl amma mmmfl mmaa mmma omma mmaa mmma mmma “mama“ ccon acmomh pmoz o.H m H m a m m a o m ¢ i‘ll l“: “i, 1" I mfimzmoeed czHozom A¢Hummm mHHB meszmmz¢mm< QH¢mppmwcaev< g.m m.m m.m H.m 202 .maznozom 2mw>amQCH mzp co mccwpm¢sv Umpmnssm ms» op ncogmmnnoo pmmfi esp so mommpzm can whenszm mse .masvmnom 3mw>pmpCH cohsvozhpm ”mopsom 0: cc 0: 0: cc 0: o: o: o: o: «soapmoncm mo mohmom macsoo o.mH mam c: on mm» 0: we» on 0: on o: mmpOflhgmwu Hoogon you mhwcuoppw mzwncop Hwflommm 3&5 .Hdé 335 0.: 0’15””. 4 4 a .pmsm Hmmcsoo .stm .pssm .porm .AHan .pmsm .panm .pmsm .pmsm mean: .gmmd Hmeon ho.Um oo mppommh %CChoap< H.HH .ms .uamm Hmmcdoo .pmsm .pasm .pmsm .pasm .pgzm .pmsm .pmam .undm «mpmcawapo .pmm< Hmooq g .cm acowposhpncw okm:3_ o.HH o: o: on on on on o: o: on on mucososamca hm>o chmom H.0H on on o: o: 0: on on c: o: o: wmuoppms HmGOHp :mosnx co COflGaQO o>am pm>m thMOppd mcwccom 0.0H mwa moh vamo mm» 0: mm% mom mm» mmh nwh mmmccaoppw cw mucmzo homaaoh unmssoomg :om UHsoo 0.0 h. H m m. ..H m a o m 1,“ Acmszfipcoov I 4H mAmmeCH on» so wcowpmosc Umpwpss: map op ccommohhoo F). 9L pmoa on» :o mmmwhnm and mpopsdm may ..oasdmsow 3mw>Loch oogspozpam «mounom .3 a I 255 .95 w 323 3:8 I .. I .. $3398 we.“ oEHB n4 oEwe n¢ n< mnpxo mH so: .poc %H 0.: mppxo 330.90 I I o: I I I I I 303338 Hosanna noocm Hmspom . Inmmgg< gaooxo oc:HOCH mom pocwmpom m A .tficm «mow wok I mm» I o: I I I I I wwoouaosa momcomxm 3.: momma rwvoo I I omaw I I I I I «pocwmpou pmfia m.4 Op? + .09 you ammo I I qu socx I nofiaflm I I I I mopmh thoon mmwhmmw p.500 n< Lo owmpsoopom pmsz «.4 .LCme .Hmm mama .me a memo so . I . I . :3 3382 fig 25 £53 Hm“ I I I I coacdqfiapoo com 30m H g .Lc¢ mm» moa wok mw% wok mom 0: co co on «Hmmcsoo hoHQEo poflppmau moon 0.: a. H m oi I m m a u m a Ammzsoo A¢cmq Adoog meHz mezmzamzwumppmwcwev¢ ezmswcgmzm OB mZHZHwm hobo Hoocdoo mom 0: mo: 0C ooh I on 0: on o: I .xpu< .mpp4 ofimm noose vcom onom ..ouogm Ioogm .mddxv svcsoo .mapsfi .oaam .pgsm .panm .aasm ho .pmzm .zapcm .pmsm .omsm .amsm .pmsm .pgnm # .om oc I I I I o: I I I I owsoo I I I I nomqnoh m a o m 4 waomnsoo a“ omqono ozoEEooon ooh oadoo 0.2a H.NH o.NH H.HH O.HH H.0H OIOH Amuscwpsocv I ed mamoe /o O 9. .oanwonom now>hoch on» no osowpmozo wooopaoc osp op mcommoppoo pmoH mg» no woomuxm cam ohonEs: och .oasconom zow>ho¢CH oohnponhpm "oohnom .unoo ppm .coo on .oOmw¢ o: .coc as on on o: moanm opwc: .mpp< pom .zpu< IHHm>m moms on vasonm .mpoHD opogm Hooog opapm pogo oozopmwmmm Homoa Hmpo>om 0: mo oousom nozpo and c.wa 0: on on on c: mob ed on on ooh «cofiamozmm mo 83% 358 38% 0.3“ w H m o m m a o m < Avodcapcoov I OH m4m<9 .V - .JII‘lI-HI KI] I11 ‘ ‘l E E ’H r '7. ‘1 P Q U in L i In.“ -m a" “1 ZI‘A‘ L4 VL .‘J L - ..J J i he...’ an'xfi ‘ "‘3‘ .» i EDUL 1%! IEIIILBI '5' "TITI'I‘I’IIEI’IIIIIIIJIJIIfififllflfflfififlfl/Ifliflflifl'ES 290