Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Services Retention topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bay City ISD board authorizes president to retain Thompson & Horton LLP for personnel legal issue
Summary
The Bay City ISD board voted 5–1 to authorize the board president to retain Thompson and Horton LLP, citing potential conflicts with the district's current law firm and the presence of former district attorney Morgan Mead at the firm; the matter involves a closed‑session personnel issue and will be discussed in detail at a future meeting.
The Bay City ISD board on April 9 voted 5–1 to authorize the board president to retain Thompson and Horton LLP for representation in a personnel matter the board discussed in closed session.
Board President (name not specified) placed the item on the agenda and said the request was prompted by potential actual or perceived conflicts involving the district’s current law firm. "Thompson and Horton is a prominent school law firm with its principal office in Houston," the president said, adding that Morgan Mead, the board’s previous attorney, now works at that firm and would be asked to participate in the district’s next meeting so the issue can be discussed in detail.
The vote followed a motion, a second and board discussion. The chair called for the vote and the motion passed by a 5–1 margin. The board did not discuss the personnel matter in open session and the president said the board could not disclose details publicly because it relates to closed‑session material.
Nut graf: The authorization allows the board president, at his or her discretion, to retain Thompson and Horton LLP to advise the board on a sensitive personnel matter discussed previously in closed session. Board members framed the action as a step to avoid conflicts of interest with the district’s current outside counsel.
In explaining the request, the board president said he will ask Morgan Mead to attend the next meeting to provide additional information and to permit the board to discuss the matter in greater detail in a forum that is properly noticed. Board members asked no detailed questions in open session and no further public details were disclosed at the meeting.
The board’s action authorizes the president to retain the firm; it does not itself disclose the scope, fees or formal engagement terms. The president said those specifics would be developed as needed and that any future public disclosures would be limited by confidentiality tied to the personnel matter.
Ending: The board moved from the legal‑service authorization into a budget workshop. Any further public discussion of the personnel matter will await a subsequent meeting in which the president said he would invite the new firm’s representative to attend.
