MEMORADUM

TO: Dr. Ed Richardson

Interim State Superintendent of Education

RE: Response to Memo of February 16, 2018

FROM: Robert Porterfield, Jr. RP

President, Montgomery J County Board of Education

DATE: February 23, 2018

I am in receipt of your correspondence dated February 16, 2018, relating to the decision of the
Montgomery County Board of Education’s (MCBOE) decision to seek the employment of
Attorney Fred F. Bell. In your memorandum you discussed several issues to which I am
responding in this correspondence.

Preliminarily, I must state to you because we do not have these services of legal counsel at this
time, I am unable to address the legal issues you put forth. However, I am aware that in your
present position as Interim Superintendent of the Alabama State Board of Education, unlike
MCBOE, you have the services of many legal minds to address such inquiries. As such, I am
amazed, to say the least, that you had not consulted with your legal advisors prior to making such
grave assertions against the character of Mr. Bell, as well as condemnation of the action of
MCBOE. Nonetheless, I will attempt to respond to your unfounded allegations.

First, I will address the issue of the MCBOE’S decision to seek the legal services of Attorney Fred
Bell. If I discern correctly the tenet of your concern, it is apparent to me that you do not have issue
with MCBOE having a contract for legal adviser because you do have any concerns about MCBOE
having an existing contract for legal services with another local law firm. And if my information
serves me correctly, that firm has admitted that on one occasion, it had a potential conflict in
advancing the interest of MCBOE as it relates to allegations that Dr. Eggleston and Mr. Sentence
had exceeded their authority under the intervention statute.

Second, it seems that your concerns are about the fact Mr. Bell had vigorously represented his
clients against the illegal and improper actions of Dr. Eggleston and Mr. Sentence in a lawsuit and
was successful in achieving results for his client. All of us at MCBOE have seen the manner in
which Mr. Bell represents his clients. The majority of the members of MCBOE are enthusiastic
that we had the opportunity to employ someone who would vigorously represent the best interest
of MCBOE, which in turn, would benefit the class of persons who have obviously been forgotten
or ignored in this intervention fiasco: the students of MPS. Sadly, I must conclude, however, that
class of persons has been forgotten by the invention team. Rather, the whole emphasis under
intervention has been centered around control of the members of MCBOE who dare to think,
members who will not sit idly by and allow a school system to be destroyed
Memorandum
Page 2
February 20, 2018
Dr. Ed Richardson

by those who would like to see the MPS illegally and unconstitutionally controlled by persons who
obviously do not have the best interest of the students of MPS as their objective.

Moreover, I would think that before addressing any issue concerning the existence of any
employment agreement decided by MCBOE that you—or at least your legal advisors—would have
realized that in order to have a contract, the parties involved would have agreed to a contract. For
your clarification, Mr. Bell has not entered into any contract to provide legal services to MCBOE.
He has not sought employment with MCBOE. And with his vast background, I cannot envision
any one being more qualified who would even be interested at this juncture in taking employment
with MCBOE, considering the circumstances under which he/she would have to endure by you
and/or your masters.

Though he is highly qualified to represent MCBOE, Mr. Bell has—because of your unfounded
character assassination of him—has informed me that he would not be interested in serving in any
capacity with the MCBOE. He has informed me that all available resources should be for the
benefit of the students of MPS and that he does not want to be a part of any effort that would have
any impact which interferes with MCBOE’s ability to provide the quality education that these
students deserve. So I can only state, Dr. Richardson that you and your co-harts who seek to
establish charter schools and to help Pike Road School District at the detriment of MPS, have
succeeded in prohibiting MCBOE from making decisions for which it has the authority to do so.

Furthermore, Dr. Richardson, had you taken the courtesy to speak to me or any member of the
MCBOE who voted to offer employment to Attorney Bell, you would have been aware of the facts
in this instance. Instead of jumping to illegal conclusions and misaligning the MBCOE and
undercutting its authority in your usual tyrannical manner, you could have taken the professional
courtesy of engaging in dialogue. Had you done so, you would have readily discovered that Mr.
Bell had not—and has not—entered into any contract with the MCBOE. He has not sought
employment with MCBOE. And, as if you are an overseer of MCBOE, you do not talk to members
of the MCBOE as a body; rather, you continually assume that the MCBOE does not have the
intelligence to understand any issue related to our duties as duly elected school board members.
Let me be clear; there is no contract between Mr. Bell and the MCBOE for any purpose. Therefore,
it is inconceivable to me just how the voting to hire Mr. Bell by MCBOE creates a conflict.
Although the extent of my response could end at this juncture, I would be remiss if I did not
expound a little further in exposing your thinly disguised plan to ensure that MCBOE is not
equipped to combat the improper actions taken by you under the pretense of intervention.

Next, as I can discern from the tenet of your letter, you seem to be concerned that because Mr. Bell
had represented a client in a lawsuit against the MCBOE, Mr. Bell had created some type of
implied conflict of interest. Indeed, currently pending against two of the Board’s members in their
individual capacities, not in their official capacities as Board members, is a current lawsuit.
Memorandum
Page 3
February 20, 2018
Dr. Ed Richardson

Even assuming for the sake of conversation, that Mr. Bell would have accepted employment from
MCBOE, he would have to withdraw. Furthermore, as I understand the term, a conflict of interest
may indeed arise where an attorney represents different clients and uses his effort or resources to
enhance the outcome for one client against another client’s interest. Certainly, this is not the case
in this instance.

Also, I fail to understand your concern with Mr. Bell’s decision to represent several custodians in
the Murell case, to which you refer. I will assume that in your position as interim superintendent,
you have viewed the complaint in the Murell case. If my assumption is correct, then you know
that neither the State Board of Education nor the MCBOE was a party in the Murrel case. There
were two defendants, Dr. Eggleston and Mr. Michael Sentence. Even a most cursory reading of
the Murell case readily reveals that Dr. Eggleston—at the time sought to transfer these
custodians—did not possess the statutory powers to do so. Moreover, even if one would assume—
for the sake of an argument—that he did have such powers, he did not follow the mandates of the
Students First Act in attempting to perfect these transfers. Mr. Bell, on behalf of his clients, filed
a lawsuit to stop what he perceived to be illegal transfers. He was successful; and that had no
bearing on MCBOE. Indeed, the transfers were illegal. Had Dr. Eggleston talked with MCBOE
and had he not usurped the authority of MCBOE, the lawsuit against them could have been
avoided.

As you are aware, you attended several of the mediation conferences. Therefore, the Murell case
had nothing to do with MCBOE. I am unable to understand just how you perceive any conflict
of interest with MCBOE by Mr. Bell as it relates to having represented the custodians in the Murell
case.

Moreover, in relating to conflict of interests, it behooves me, further, to understand how you, on
one hand, can possibly see a conflict on Mr. Bell’s part, but, simultaneously, you are unable to
comprehend a conflict of interest on your part. Specifically, if my information is correct, you
served as a consultant in helping to establish the Pike Road School System. In doing so, I assume
that you were compensated. Now, in your role as interim superintendent of the state school board,
you are taking positions that are indeed detrimental to MBOCE, positions that are beneficial to
Pike Road School System.

For example, you have been the interim superintendent for some months now, and you have done
nothing to effectuate the return of the approximately $1.499 million that was inappropriately
appropriated from the state board of education to the Pike Road School System.

Memorandum
Page 4
February 20, 208
Dr. Ed Richardson

Additionally, over the MCOBE’s decision not to sell a historically Black school, you unilaterally
decided to sell that school to Pike Road for its school system. In effect, you have decided to take
from an inadequately funded majority black school system one of its building and to sell it to a
predominantly non-black school system (a school in which you were recently its consultant). Why
do you not see that as a conflict?

Another example of your conflict with MPS’s survival is your decision to approve the
establishment of a charter school. Again, it defies imagination that you could not see that your
action in approving the establishment a charter school system in Montgomery would cause an
economic hardship for Montgomery School System. The state appropriation of funds for each
student who attends the charter school would not go to MPS; those funds would go to the charter
school. Your decision to bless the establishment of a charter school here in Montgomery is
detrimental to the students attending school at MPS. Certainly, you should be able to understand
because of your position as chairman of the charter school commission, you have created a conflict
of interest. I was under the impression that the essential aspect of intervention was to improve the
educational system –MPS, not to harm MPS.

Next, as you are aware Attorney Seals was representing the MCBOE when intervention occurred.
During litigation in the Murell case, Mr. Seals represented Dr. Eggleston and Mr. Sentence’s
positions. He did not represent the interest of the MCBOE. To the best of my memory, Attorney
Seals has stated that his representing the interest of Dr.. Eggleston and Mr. Sentence at that hearing
was a conflict of interest. Yet, you have not concerned yourself with the possible conflict of
Attorney Seals.

It is obvious Dr. Richardson that your concerns about your unfound allegation of conflict on behalf
of Mr. Bell’s representation of MCBOE is not grounded in any factual or legal merit but rather,
they are based on your insatiable appetite to misalign anybody who would disagree with your
inappropriate and highly suspect action relative to the intervention of the MPS.

Apparently you have not read the mediation agreement, a document your legal representatives
gave their approval of by affixing their signature. That agreement did indeed state that the
MCBOE could employ “In-House Counsel.” However, it did not state that you had to give your
approval. Therefore, it is my contention that the MCBOE does not have to get your blessing to
hire its attorney.

Finally, I want you to know that we attempted to hire a person who will vigorously represent the
MCBOE. Mr. Bell has demonstrated that he is equipped to vigorously represent our interest.

Memorandum
Page 5
February 20, 2018
Dr. Ed. Richardson

He is highly qualified. He holds a B.S. from Alabama State University, an M.A. in English
composition from Illinois State University, and a Doctors of Jurisprudence from the Creighton
University. He has been attorney for approximately 35 years. For your information, Mr. Bell
currently serves as a part-time municipal judge; he has served as an assistant attorney general for
the state of Alabama, where he represented the interest of state agencies, officials, and employees
throughout the state and federal judiciaries. As a matter of fact, he has represented various entities
and state officials in post-secondary education. Mr. Bell has argued cases on behalf of the state in
all state courts of Alabama, as well as in the federal districts courts of Alabama and in the Eleven
Circuit Court of Appeals. Moreover, he is a trial attorney and an appellate attorney. Mr. Bell had
been an educator for over twenty-five years, having taught at both the high-school and college
level. I think he is uniquely qualified. How can you question his eligibility to serve MCBOE?

In determining to engage Mr. Bell as legal counsel, MCBOE wanted a seasoned attorney who
could handle administrative cases, trial cases, and appellate cases. As you know, or if you do not
know, MCBOE has huge legal bills. Mr. Bell was willing to serve in the capacity of attorney for
MCBOE for the cost of: $00.00; that’s right. If we had employed Mr. Bell, his services would
have been free until we had enough money to pay for an “in-house” counsel. It is apparently that
you do not want MCBOE to have adequate legal representation. You obviously want to put a
person in as our counsel that will not adequately represent MCBOE. We do not want that. The
MCBOE, which consists of duly elected officials, should hire someone who will represent only
MCBOE’s interest and the interest of MPS.

Thank you,

RP

Cc: MCBOE members; Dr. Anny Moore, Dr. Reginald Eggleston