A parent raised concerns at the Aug. 5 Conroe Independent School District Board of Trustees meeting about the board's use of outside legal counsel and alleged high fees; district administration announced it had contracted temporarily with the law firm O'Hanlon, Demerath & Castillo to provide school-law services while the district determines its permanent general counsel arrangement.

During the public comment period Destiny Milton told trustees she had documentation showing the board spent $25,000 on outside legal representation for March, April and May and said the district was on track to spend more than $100,000. Milton accused the board's authorized decisionmaker "Missy" of granting sole authority to hire outside counsel and said that Missy had executed a contract with a Dallas attorney, Tim Davis, whom she characterized as having a "questionable history" in another district and charging $500 an hour. Milton asked the board to place the contract and invoices on a public agenda for reevaluation and possible termination; she said the public should not "be left holding the bill."

District administration later introduced that the board is currently using the law firm O'Hanlon, Demerath & Castillo on a temporary basis while the district considers a permanent general counsel. Dr. Landry said the district had contracted with the firm and that founding partner Kevin O'Hanlon and partner Cara Belew were present; Dr. Landry said the firm has more than 40 years of Texas public-school law experience. Dr. Landry clarified the arrangement is temporary while the district decides on general counsel.

The board also discussed policy BDD (process for hiring general counsel) and policy CH Local and indicated staff would amend or align policies as needed; policy CH Local was tabled until the Aug. 19 meeting so board members could review language that might conflict with other forthcoming policy changes. A trustee stated an upcoming hearing (Aug. 15) related to a separate legal item should be heard before making policy changes; that legal item was tabled to the next meeting.

Transcript and statements at the meeting show the public comment contained allegations about specific contracts and fees; the district did not announce findings or take a vote to rescind any contract during the Aug. 5 meeting. The board announced it had not taken final action in closed session and did not record additional public action on outside counsel at that time.