Firm dropped on one town, criticized in other

By Jonathan Cook
Turley Publications Reporter

STURBRIDGE - One week after West Brookfield dropped the municipal firm Kopelman & Paige, Sturbridge selectmen questioned the value of the firm’s advice.
With 55 lawyers, Kopelman maintains offices in Boston, Worcester and Northampton and represents more than 130 municipalities in the state. Their size allows them to provide an economy of scale, according to principal Leonard Kopelman, that has resulted in services for most towns coming in under budget.
However, being big cuts both ways.
In West Brookfield, the contract for town counsel went out to bid after many years of representation by Kopelman & Paige, in part due to the firm’s size. After bids came in, the board voted unanimously to go with the services of Petrini and Associates of Framingham. The board explained they were happy to retain Barbara J. Saint Andre who had represented them for years when she worked at Kopelman. But after she’d gone to Petrini, the town had been advised by a variety of attorneys, said Chairman Tom Long. Other board members had noted the delays in procedural issues at the spring Town Meeting due to the uncertainty of the Kopelman attorney.
Saint Andre said she was very pleased to be reconnected with West Brookfield. She explained that she started with Kopelman & Paige in the 1980s when the firm was small.

In court, “shall” means maybe

In Sturbridge, the situation is different, because, as Selectman Hal White explained at last week’s meeting, selectman have no say in the matter of picking a town counsel. That job is the sole responsibility of the town administrator.
Currently, the position belongs to Interim Michael Racicot.
The issue came up because Racicot presented an opinion by Kopelman principal Joel Bard stating that the word “shall” in the Town Charter does not mean must, but instead conveys suggestion.
The written opinion states, “the apparently inflexible requirement is actually only a direction and leaves room for reasonable discretion.”
Racicot made the request for an opinion in regard to the length of his interim position.
The opinion notes that it appears unlikely a new town administrator will be able to begin before the expiration of the interim’s term as instructed by section 5-1 of the Town Charter, which would be Jan.13.
The opinion states selectmen may reappoint Racicot as the search for a permanent administrator continues.
When contacted, Kopelman noted that the word “shall” has a long standing legal meaning far more flexible in cases such as the Sturbridge Charter, than in common usage.
He said other towns have doubted similar advice in the past and consequently lost in court.
That may be so, but Selectman Tom Creamer said it smacks of “judicial activism.”
Creamer said, “I’m not sure that I agree with Town Counsel’s interpretation of the Town Charter.”
He added, “I’m not one who supports this kind of cafeteria style approach to how we interpret the Charter. I feel that the Charter is fairly finite.”
Creamer cited several places in the Charter where “shall” is a mandatory term.
For example, the Charter states, “the executive powers of the town shall be vested in the Board of Selectmen.”
He said on pages four and five alone, there are 24 “shalls” that are mandatory.
“There is never another word that is used in the Town Charter, the Sturbridge bylaws or the zoning bylaws that in anyway is used in a more forceful manner than shall.”
He went on to say, “There is no provision for us to extend the (Interim) Town Administrator beyond the six months (provided in the Charter).”
Racicot defended Kopelman & Paige by calling them “one of the most highly respected municipal law firms in the country.”
Later in the meeting, White also expressed displeasure with the town’s counsel.
Selectman Ted Goodwin said that the matter of picking counsel could be made part of the ongoing Town Administrator selection process.
As for Mr. Kopelman, he said, “Sometimes people don’t like our opinions, but we’ve never been proven wrong.”
Furthermore, he said that in the past, when towns have changed to other firms, they have usually come to regret it and returned to Kopelman & Paige.