Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement General Counsel Rfq topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees vote to reopen RFQ for board general counsel, set two-week window
Summary
The Clark County School District Board of Trustees voted 7-0 to reopen the request for qualifications (RFQ) for board general counsel and to run the solicitation for two weeks so results can be considered at a May work session. Trustees and staff discussed timeline, vetting and conflict checks, and the need for additional counsel support.
The Clark County School District Board of Trustees voted 7-0 to reopen the request for qualifications for board general counsel and to keep the RFQ open for two weeks so staff can present results at a board work session in early May.
Trustee Stevens moved to reopen the RFQ, saying, "I'd like to make a motion to reopen the RFQ for general counsel for this board. It will have it open for 2 weeks to give us time to, bring it back to the table at our work session first week of May." Trustee Cavazos seconded the motion and the board approved it unanimously.
Why it matters: trustees and staff said the district's interim legal adviser has been handling a heavy workload and trustees want more candidates and time for review. John Okazaki, general counsel, described an increased workload and told trustees his hours have risen: "for the last at least 2 weeks, 2 months, maybe more, it's at at the low average would be 20 hours a week." Trustees said having more candidate options and adequate vetting time would help the board select counsel it will have to work with long term.
Board and purchasing staff outlined the mechanics and calendar if the RFQ reopens. Steve Staggs, director of purchasing, said the typical window for a request for qualifications is three weeks but staff can shorten that: "Normally a request for qualifications is pretty quick. It would just be about 3 weeks. We could potentially cut it down to [two weeks]." Staff also said the RFQ would be reissued under a new solicitation number and that, if the board keeps the target schedule, trustees would receive a draft agenda by April 25 and the public agenda would post April 29 (dates given in the meeting discussion).
Trustees and staff clarified roles in reviewing applicants. Purchasing can provide completeness and financial screening; counsel said his office can run conflict checks on the slate purchasing delivers. Okazaki told the board his office would perform conflict vetting once purchasing presents the candidates: "My understanding ... was to vet these people for conflicts. And that's definitely something my office can do." Trustees debated how much initial vetting purchasing should do versus the board performing its own review.
Trustees also noted the prior RFQ drew limited completions: staff said the prior solicitation was viewed by many but only one firm completed the response. Trustees asked staff to re-advertise broadly, and staff advised trustees to notify potential firms directly and that the RFQ posting would be available through the district's Bonfire hub.
The motion passed with a recorded announcement from the chair that it was "seven-zero." The board directed staff to reopen the RFQ under the revised timeline and return the results to a May work session for trustee review.
