Bedford County Public Schools has spent nearly $30,000 on a lawsuit against a parent that was filed in March.
The suit was filed during a period when the school board has been closely examining the division’s expenditures, and ithas drawn attention because several school board members have said it was filed without their authorization.
The school board sued David Rife for damages of $600,000 in late March, alleging he used crude language and threatened police and legal action during repeated calls to the school district about his son.
The board later reduced the request for damages to $1 after Rife agreed to communication guidelines with division administrators. At that time, the board said the suit had been filed for the sole purpose of getting Rife to follow communication rules with school staff.
Rife’s son, who attends Staunton River High School, is on an individualized education program for a learning disability. Rife has claimed repeatedly over the course of several years that his son wasn’t receiving state-mandated aid.
Documents obtained from the school division through the Virginia Freedom of Information Act include two invoices from Sands Anderson PC, the division’s law firm, from April and May labeled “Complaint re harassment by David Rife.”
Together, those invoices add up to $29,851.
Reached by phone Friday night, school board member Johnathan Knight said he wasn’t sure how much the division had spent on the case, but the amount of nearly $30,000 didn’t surprise him because of how costly attorney services can be, and “how expensive everything is now.”
Knight joined the board in January after being elected in November, and he said the only interaction he’s had with Sands Anderson was in reference to the Rife case. He said some conversations have taken place among board members about what the body is paying for legal services.
“We want to be as efficient as possible with taxpayer dollars, but we also have to have good counsel,” Knight said. He emphasized that he was speaking for himself, and not for the board.
The school board recently considered closing an elementary school in order to address a $3 million budget deficit and get ahead of a state funding cliff it will face in 2028. The school will remain open, but board members acknowledged that it will need to continue discussing options for cutting costs in coming years.
Rife filed a complaint with the Virginia Department of Education in late January, saying that the Bedford school division had failed to provide the services outlined in his son’s IEP. The complaint form asks the filer to indicate whether they’re open to mediation provided at no cost to the parent or school personnel; Rife noted that he was interested in mediation.
Bedford County Public Schools filed its lawsuit against Rife on March 26, three days before the state issued the results of its investigation, which determined that the school division was not complying with several aspects of Rife’s son’s IEP and needed to take corrective action.
The division has spent at least $98,600 on Sands Anderson’s services from the start of the fiscal year in July 2023 through April 2024, an analysis of public bill lists through May 9 shows. In the first 10 months of the previous fiscal year, Bedford County schools paid Sands Anderson about $83,600.
The school board has the authority to hire a law firm without submitting a request for proposals seeking bids from interested parties. Legal counsel can provide advice on a variety of topics for a school division and its board, including special education plans, state policies and real estate transactions, and can offer general advice on questions that may arise from board members or administrators.
Sands Anderson sends separate invoices to the school division for various matters the firm has worked on. Many are labeled generally, such as “special education advice” or “general representation with education law matters.” Other invoices are more specific, citing particular state or federal complaints, though many of the details of those invoices are redacted.
The last engagement agreement the division signed with Sands Anderson was signed in April 2020, according to the documents provided by the school division in response to theFreedom of Information Act request. That agreement lists $320 per hour as the highest hourly billing rate for attorneys at the firm.
Invoices from Sands Anderson for the Rife case show the lead attorney on the case, Matthew Green, billed $370 per hour in spring 2024. Green is based in Richmond.
Green did not respond to interview requests this weekend.
Services described in the invoices for the Rife case include 3.8 hours to draft the complaint, at a cost of $1,406; nearly six hours to travel to and from Bedford to attend a board meeting for two hours for $2,997; and nearly seven hours to prepare division employees who were expected to be called as witnesses in a May 1 hearing, for $2,516. That hearing was canceled the evening prior because the division and Rife had reached a communication agreement.
The Sands Anderson invoices also indicate that the school division has spent about $13,000 with the firm to respond to the complaint Rife made with the Virginia Department of Education in late January.
The names of the student and parent who brought this particular state complaint were redacted in the invoices, as were the names of the teachers Sands Anderson conducted interviews with prior to submitting its response to the state. However, the positions of those teachers match the school staff cited by name or position in Rife’s complaint to the state, including a reading specialist, a science teacher and an IEP case manager.
The timing also matches. According to the invoices, work on the response to the complaint began on Feb. 8, three days after the state had submitted notice of Rife’s complaint to Bedford County schools.
Rife’s complaint to the state and the investigator’s findings were submitted as part of his initial response to the lawsuit.
School board member Matthew Holbrook, reached by phone Friday night, said the case is “pretty much settled” because the board and the parent had come to a resolution.
Knight said his understanding of the case was that it had been settled outside of court when the agreement was reached regarding communication with the parent. As long as Rife and administrators adhere to the communication agreement, “there’s nothing further to take place.”
However, David Whitehurst, Rife’s attorney, disagreed that the case had been settled. “The case is still pending in court,” he said by text Friday evening. “Though they reduced the dollar amount, [they] are still suing for both compensatory and punitive damages ($1 each).”
He also said the emergency motion for a temporary injunction the school board filed to limit communication with Rife during the case is “still pending,” even though the hearing scheduled for May 1 had been canceled. “That didn’t cancel or dismiss the emergency motion, and the school board has taken no steps to have the case or emergency motion dismissed.”
The communication agreement, obtained through the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, states that parents and administrators are expected to use polite language and discuss the student’s IEP, medical records and other educational records in a private setting instead of in public areas.
It notes that Rife is expected to keep phone calls to Darcy Parker, principal of Staunton River High School, or Kelly Jennings, director of special education, to 15 minutes, “and must remain on topic.” The agreement states that his phone calls to the school will be monitored.
A school board statement sent May 1 by Green said the suit had been reduced to $1 and specified the case was filed “with the single goal of enforcing a Communication Plan drafted to ensure appropriate communication with our educators.”
The statement went on to explain, “ It is our hope and goal that all parties will faithfully adhere to that Communication Plan going forward and no further legal proceedings are necessary.”
“It’s not about the money,” Knight said Friday. “It’s about protecting teachers and getting Mr. Rife and his child the best outcome possible.”
He added, “Was this the best way to get to that? In hindsight, we may find out it wasn’t, or we may find out it was. Unfortunately once we [board members] were involved we were already in the situation, and we had to find the most efficient way to move forward.”
Knight noted several times during the conversation that he was speaking for himself, not for the entire board. Both he and Holbrook noted they hadn’t been aware the case was being filed until it had already taken place.
Knight said he couldn’t say who authorized the case on behalf of the school board because it was a legal issue and a disciplinary issue for division personnel.
Board chair Marcus Hill did not respond to phone and email messages sent Friday.
