by J. Brooks Terry
Staff Writer
As times change and society evolves, the legal issues facing institutions of higher learning grow in step. Many universities, when seeking representation, may choose to employ an in-house counsel to handle such disputes. Other schools may rely upon an outside consultant for legal advice. As expected, the strengths and weakness of either counsel exist on many levels.
Karen Stone has served as general counsel of the University of North Florida for nearly a decade. Throughout her tenure, she has not only witnessed the exponential growth of the student population, but also the maturity of the school’s campus, administration and ability to handle conflict as it arises.
“One of the unique things about my job is that I’m not a hired hand,” said Stone. “The faculty, students and staff are all part of a family. That fact alone makes it that much more important to work towards the best interest of this institution.”
Stone, who graduated from the University of Florida in 1982 and has been practicing law ever since, says her work as UNF’s general counsel — the first person ever to assume the role — while challenging and time consuming, is also rewarding and fascinating.
“I have to say that working from within the university is fun and full of surprises,” said Stone. “A campus operates, almost, like a mini-world. That requires an attorney to draw on all of his or her legal skills. We have to look at our role as an employer, for instance. At the same time, however, we also tackle environmental issues, health issues and, of course, student affairs. We’re also a landlord that has to be mindful of housing issues with our dorms. We really work all across the board.”
Stone likened her role as UNF’s general counsel, which she says is comprised of both proactive and reactive elements, to that of an unraveling an onion. In other words, nearly every aspect of the university’s operations has a legal element at one or more layers.
“That’s why I love my job so much,” said Stone. “I enjoy getting involved. Even if it’s just sitting in while two student groups have a disagreement, I’m glad to play a part. Everyday is different. Obviously, after 10 years you begin to see patterns, but there will always be surprises that can keep you on your toes.”
Perhaps the issue most often reoccurring is the concern of campus safety.
“It is just one of those things that people feel strongly about,” said Stone. “Parents need to feel like their children are safe here. Faculty and students do, too. After Sept. 11, we really needed to take into consideration the safety of our international students. We were really lucky that weren’t any incidence, but we needed to stay alert. I’m proud to say that our campus handled a sensitive subject very responsibly.”
“Sept. 11 definitely had a huge impact,” said Mark Alexander, an attorney with Holland & Knight who handles legal matters for for several universities. “For instance, shortly after Sept. 11, the US Patriot Act was passed.”
The act, drafted in October 2001, removed many of the checks and balances previously imposed upon both domestic law enforcement and international intelligence agencies. How exactly does that affect institutions of higher learning?
“Access to a student’s records are more easily accessible than before,” said Alexander.
Stone agrees.
“Because we were, and in many ways even now, concerned with national security, requests for those records can be treated as emergencies,” she said.
Alexander, who says that anywhere between 30 to 40 percent of his cases involve higher education institutions, including Jacksonville University and Stetson, obtained his law degree from the University of Florida. His work with universities has included cases involving student claims, disability claims and tenure disputes.
He asserts that, although he is not a full-time employee of the school per se, he has all the access and cooperation from the schools he represents that he needs.
“I would have to say that it really isn’t an issue of a general versus an outside counsel,” he said. “It’s really more about working for a public school versus working with a private institution. While I encounter many of the same claims that a general counsel would, I am able to work differently in finding a resolution.”
Among the significant differences, Alexander explained, is that the day-to-day operations of a state-funded, public school are, by law, public knowledge.
“Constitutional amendments requiring a state-funded school to disclose sensitive information to the public don’t apply to an institution that receives funding from other sources,” he said. “Private meetings and disputes are handled privately. We are able to conduct business without public concern because, frankly, it isn’t public concern. Is that an advantage? I would say so.”
Alexander went on to explain that the two counsels also tackle disability claims in a different manner.
“Again, the law requires a public school to be much more accommodating to students with various disabilities,” he said. “A private institution can review such claims with a little more scrutiny and make decisions on an individual basis. It all goes back to a private institution running like corporation.”
When asked about the legal future on the collegiate level. Stone and Alexander agree right down the line.
“My prognostication for the future is that, along with a steady number of the other claims I handle, security issues and disability and employment claims will continue to make themselves prevalent. It’s a trend that I’ve noticed, that over the next decade or so, will continue,” said Alexander.
Stone concurred.
“As things happen in the business community, the effects are felt on our lever, too. It’s hard to please everyone, but it’s my goal to, at least, give everyone here a voice,” she said. “But even as problems arise, we all work hard here to turn incidence into opportunity.”