School board recommends hiring outside counsel after public interview

President Irene Bustamante Adams opened the June 4 work session and handed agenda item 2.01 to Vice President Zamora for a public interview of a candidate for board counsel.

Mister Parker, who answered trustees' questions for roughly an hour, described his experience representing public agencies in Nevada, including collective bargaining with SEIU and work for local governments and quasi‑public agencies. He said trustees are “entitled to know what's going on with this school board so that you can make informed decisions,” and emphasized the role of board counsel in keeping trustees fully informed of litigation and negotiations.

Trustees asked Parker about Nevada open‑meeting law (NRS 241), closed sessions and exempt gatherings, Robert's Rules of Order, collective bargaining experience, his firm’s availability for meetings and trial schedule, and potential conflicts of interest. Parker said he has negotiated recent SEIU collective bargaining agreements for several local agencies in four sessions, described his availability by phone or text and said he typically attends meetings personally or sends a senior associate when he cannot, and estimated he goes to trial two to three times a year.

On conflicts, trustees pressed Parker about a familial tie to a contractor. Parker disclosed that his brother owns Cobblestone Construction and said he would not represent a client in a matter adverse to the district: “If any of my construction clients were to come and have a a case against the school district, I won't represent them.” He also said he and the district general counsel would coordinate on litigation updates and other matters if retained.

After public comment was closed, Trustee Esparza Strop again moved to recommend hiring Mister Parker and Associates as board counsel; Trustee Satorre seconded. The board voted to approve the recommendation 6 yes, 0 no, 1 abstention. Trustees directed general counsel to negotiate a services contract; Parker noted any final contract would return to the board for approval.

The interview and vote included discussion of practical details trustees said matter to them: whether the same attorney would attend most meetings; how the firm would staff work to control costs; expectations about timely communications and recordkeeping for closed sessions; and limits on representation where a conflict exists.

Trustees also discussed the scope of the board counsel role and the difference between board counsel and general counsel, as Parker recounted examples from other jurisdictions where trustees were not fully informed. Parker recommended regular training and diligence in following open‑meetings and agenda rules.

Next steps: the board's motion authorizes the district to negotiate a contract with Mister Parker and Associates; any final professional services agreement will be placed on a future board agenda for formal approval.