School board moves attorney-reporting policy to full board after debate over legal bills and access to counsel

At the July 15 board meeting, members agreed 3-0 to send policy 26.10 to the full board for discussion after an extended conversation about attorney billing, how routine communications with counsel are reported, and how those reports affect public-records costs. The question before the committee was how to balance transparency with practical limits on billing and staff time.

The discussion centered on comments from the board’s attorney and the superintendent about workload and billing. Mr. Krompke, the board attorney, told the committee that his duty is to “represent the school system as a whole” and not individual board members, and said he worries that a reporting requirement for every short communication would balloon legal bills. He said, “If I'm obligated to make a report on every single thing I do, man, our bills would probably double or triple.”

Dr. Barnes, the superintendent, told board members that attorney invoices and public-records work are available for review in the superintendent’s office and cautioned that more individual requests to attorneys increase costs. “More of our public records requests are for board emails than anything else,” Barnes said, adding that repeated one-on-one contacts with counsel can drive up the district’s legal expenses.

Board members discussed practical options for ensuring other members know what a colleague has asked counsel without requiring the attorney to document every brief call. Two options discussed were: (1) the board member who spoke with counsel summarizes the conversation and emails the board, or (2) the chair or vice chair receives the summary and distributes it. A third idea — recording calls — was mentioned but not pursued.

Several members emphasized trust and restraint in using legal services. One board member noted that when the board is unified and there is less internal dispute, legal costs decline; when board members are in conflict, legal work and bills tend to increase. The board attorney said he would continue to report matters he considers substantive or that affect the whole district.

After the discussion, a motion to move policy 26.10 onto the full board for discussion (no changes) passed 3-0. Board members asked that a small working group — including Mr. Perry and Mr. Krompke and a third member — draft objectives and a reporting guideline for the committee to review in August.

The vote was procedural: the motion to send 26.10 for full-board discussion carried, but no final reporting rules or binding procedural changes were adopted at the meeting; the committee will return with proposed language.

The board also discussed recent legal billing levels; a board member said billing to “Crosley” doubled from about $10,000 in December to roughly $20,000 in May, and Dr. Barnes said the June invoice had come down to about $14,000. Members asked staff to include this budget impact when drafting reporting expectations.