Board discusses exploring its own general‑counsel office; meeting adjourned by unanimous voice vote

Board members opened a discussion about whether the district should create a standalone Office of General Counsel that reports directly to the board rather than rely primarily on city‑provided counsel. One board member noted vacancies and recent scrutiny of the city’s general counsel office and said she would be “very interested in exploring that option,” citing the benefits of directly controlling who represents the board and how they are compensated. Other board members asked procedural questions about how many attorneys would be needed, whether the district would convert city attorneys to salaried district staff, and what interim coverage looks like while the office is established.

Staff and board members said the idea is in a preliminary stage; no formal resolution or funding was proposed. Questions for follow‑up included the current status of any conversion contract, the number of attorneys required for a district‑run office and what community stakeholders had been contacted. Several board members expressed support for exploring options and asked staff to return with legal, budgetary and staffing implications.

At the close of the meeting, Vice Chair Carney moved to adjourn, and board member Ricardo seconded. The board approved the motion by voice vote; the chair declared the meeting adjourned and the board reconvened into its workshop session.

Why it matters: establishing a separate general‑counsel office would change who the board hires directly, could affect legal costs and control over legal advice, and would alter the district’s relationship with the city’s legal office. Board members requested a staff report on options and implications before any change is made.