Board revisits policy barring same firm from serving as solicitor and negotiator; motion made to undo prior suspension

A board member moved during the public meeting to undo a prior suspension of Policy 0-1-7-6, the district policy that states the solicitor and the negotiator should not be the same attorney.

The motion to rescind the suspension was introduced by a board member who told the meeting the policy “basically says our solicitor and our negotiator should not be the same attorney” and that they were not comfortable continuing without further advice from conflict counsel. Elaine seconded that motion.

Board solicitor Ari Schneider told the board the policy is not uniformly applied across districts and that the practice of using a single attorney as both solicitor and negotiator is not legally forbidden. He explained there are trade-offs and a risk of perceived conflict: “The key issue is conflict of interest… Their duties as solicitor providing legal advice to the board clashes with the role as negotiator.” Schneider recommended the board consider whether separate counsel is preferable in negotiations to avoid conflicts or the appearance of impropriety.

After discussion, a motion to put the issue back in effect until the board could discuss it further with conflict counsel and to consider the policy in committee was made and seconded. The board took a roll-call vote during the public session; the transcript records the following votes for the motion to reinstate the policy (or to rescind the action suspending it): Mrs. Blum — No; Mrs. Clancy — Yes; Miss Chiller — Yes; Mrs. Hartung — Yes; Mr. LaLiberty — Yes; Mr. Serrano — No; Mr. Ross — No; Mrs. Baker — No. The transcript records these individual votes but does not contain an explicit announcement of the final motion result in the public portion of the transcript immediately afterward.

Board members and multiple public speakers stressed that the policy has historical roots tied to earlier district practice and concerns about perceived conflicts if one attorney represents the board in both roles. One public commenter recounted historical reasons for the policy and cautioned the board that a solicitor might be perceived as defending actions they previously advised on if a subsequent dispute arose.

Ending: The board directed that the policy be discussed further with conflict counsel in executive session or committee; the public transcript documents the motion, the roll-call votes listed above, and the solicitor’s statement on conflict risks but does not contain the closed-session legal advice or any final public vote to change policy.