Trustees vote to start RFQ process for independent board counsel, citing conflicts and workload

The Clark County School District Board of Trustees voted to begin a request-for-qualifications (RFQ) process to secure independent legal counsel for the board’s use after trustees raised concerns that a single attorney representing both the district and the board presents conflicts of interest.

Trustee Cavazos moved to begin the RFQ process; Trustee Esparza Strafigan seconded the motion. After discussion among trustees and district counsel, the motion passed 7-0.

Trustees who supported the RFQ described situations where the district’s general counsel, who is employed by and reports through the county/district legal office, provides legal advice to both the superintendent and the board. Trustees said that dual representation can create conflicts when the board must evaluate or negotiate with the superintendent, or when requests relevant to board oversight arise. Trustee Esparza Strafigan asked general counsel for a plain-language definition of conflict of interest; general counsel John Okazaki replied that conflicts arise when an attorney’s duties to one client would interfere with duties to another and gave the example that contract negotiations with a superintendent would require separate counsel to avoid divided loyalty.

Trustees and staff discussed procedural steps and a draft RFQ that referenced a prior 2021 solicitation; the board liaison said procurement and purchasing will handle issuance and that the RFQ’s statement of work, selection rubric and posting mechanics would be updated to reflect current needs. Staff noted the RFQ will solicit firms and individuals with experience in open-meeting law, public-records law, labor-and-employment issues and district governance. Trustees asked that staff keep the process moving quickly, noting the board is engaged in a superintendent search and will likely need independent counsel during contract negotiations and evaluations.

Board members also stressed fiscal responsibility and asked staff to use the RFQ mechanism to gather competitive proposals; they emphasized that an RFQ would not bind the board to a particular employment model (the board could later elect to hire a firm, an outside individual or create a board-employed counsel position). The board directed staff to work with purchasing and legal counsel to issue the RFQ; trustees indicated the procurement timeline would be returned to the board so members can review respondents and selection criteria.