El Paso ISD approves outside legal contract amid public outcry over superintendent review and Lamar reopening

The El Paso Independent School District Board of Trustees on May 27 approved a legal services agreement with the firm O'Hanlon, Demerath & Castillo and then went into closed session to consult with counsel about the superintendent's duties and employment status.

The vote on the legal services agreement was moved by Trustee Dr. Leverage and seconded by Trustee Querier; the motion passed with a 4–2–1 outcome, recorded in public comments and board announcements as four votes in favor, two opposed and one abstention. Trustee Sutton is recorded in the meeting record as abstaining. Immediately after the vote the board closed the meeting under Texas Government Code sections 551.071 and 551.074 for legal consultation concerning the superintendent.

The decision prompted more than two hours of public comment before and after the vote, with dozens of speakers urging the trustees not to expend district funds on outside counsel or to remove Superintendent Diana Saavedra. Ross Moore, president of the El Paso American Federation of Teachers, called the contract “unnecessary and wasteful.” Cameron Sierra, a district speech-language pathologist, urged the board, “Please work alongside her. Make changes with her.” Trustee Call described the controversy as “power, raw political power” in public remarks during the meeting.

Speakers framed the issue against a backdrop of the district's budget shortfall and recent decisions about campus closures and reopenings. Multiple speakers cited a projected budget gap in the range of $33.0–33.8 million and warned that new legal costs or a superintendent transition could deepen financial strain as the district enters budget season. Commenters also criticized the timing and process for hiring outside counsel and raised potential conflicts tied to prior contracting processes; members of the public and some trustees asked why other firms previously used by the district were not engaged for this matter.

Public remarks also focused on the recent board vote to reopen Lamar Elementary. Speakers said Lamar is operating under about 30% capacity, cited an internal estimate that substantial repairs would cost roughly $12.5 million, and questioned the fiscal rationale for reopening a low‑enrollment campus while the district faces a multimillion‑dollar deficit. Several speakers warned that depleting reserves could expose the district to state intervention by the Texas Education Agency.

General Counsel Cessy Collins explained the district’s past practice of retaining firms for specific, stand‑alone matters and listed outside firms that EPISD has used for procurement, employment, public information and other specialties. Collins told trustees that some firms have been retained for discrete matters since about 2018 and that board counsel has been engaged in the past for litigation and other targeted tasks. Trustees asked whether the general counsel could represent the board on superintendent contract matters; Collins said her role is to represent the district entity and that representing individual trustees in a superintendent matter would present a conflict because she is hired and can be terminated by the superintendent.

After public comment and trustee discussion, the board chair called for the vote approving the legal services agreement. The meeting record shows the board then entered closed session citing Texas Government Code sections 551.071 (consultation with legal counsel) and 551.074 (personnel matters). Trustees announced they would take up the superintendent’s duties and employment status in the closed session; no final public action regarding the superintendent was reported in open session before the meeting adjourned.

The public speakers and many trustees framed the episode as consequential for district stability. They told the board that removing or disrupting the superintendent’s leadership at the start of budget season could trigger staff departures, destabilize ongoing school redesign work, and increase the risk of state intervention. Supporters of the superintendent emphasized recent changes in special education staffing and other operational reforms they attribute to Diana Saavedra’s tenure.

The board did not take a publicly recorded final action on the superintendent’s employment in open session on May 27. The legal services agreement was approved and the board moved into closed session to consult with counsel on the superintendent matter; any further steps will depend on the outcome of that closed‑session consultation and future posted action items.