Brownsville ISD trustees authorize negotiating bond counsel contracts after divided vote

The Brownsville Independent School District Board of Trustees on Jan. 27 authorized the superintendent, general counsel and the district's financial adviser to negotiate contracts and fee terms with bond counsel firms to prepare ballot language and related documents in case the board decides to call a bond election.

The motion, to permit staff to negotiate bond counsel contracts and fees associated with a possible bond issuance, was the subject of extended trustee debate over timing and process before passing by a 4-3 vote. Trustees who opposed the motion said they felt rushed and wanted more committee input before authorizing contract negotiations.

Board discussion and staff remarks emphasized that approving negotiations does not itself call a bond election. A district staff member said, "This is not approving any bond. It's just that we also have to be conscious of giving bond counsel enough time to prepare this ballot language." Financial advisers and counsel at the meeting said bond counsel typically are paid only if and when bonds are sold. Noe Nojosa of the advising firm identified in the meeting said, "We would only be charged if the bond election passes and the bonds are sold." The district's financial advisers also told trustees they conducted a request-for-information process: seven firms were invited, five responded, and staff recommended the law firm Norton Fulbright (partner Matt Lee) as the top choice among comparable firms.

Trustees pressed staff on why negotiations were before the board before the citizens facilities committee completed its recommendations. Trustee Meyen said she wanted to delay action until the committee reported and asked that the board not be "rushed or pressured," saying, "I don't want to feel like we're being rushed or pressured by anyone to do stuff to get this out there." Trustee Pena said she would vote no because she did not like the process: "I'm voting no because I do not like the process."

Staff and advisers explained procedural changes adopted at the state level since 2019 that affect how ballot language and propositions must be drafted, and said bond counsel typically prepare the election order and detailed ballot propositions so the board can review options at a later meeting. Staff noted an internal timetable tied to a potential May election and pointed to a deadline in February for finalizing ballot language if the board chooses May; staff said the board could also consider an election in November.

The board was told that if the board does not call an election, or if the bond election fails, the district would not pay bond counsel fees; advisers said their fee proposals typically provide that counsel are paid from bond proceeds only if bonds are sold. Staff said the recommended firm list included Norton Fulbright, Winstead, Cantu Harden, Jackson Walker and a local counsel; Norton Fulbright was the staff recommendation based on the scoring matrix from the RFI.

Votes at a glance - Motion to authorize superintendent, general counsel and financial adviser to negotiate bond-counsel contracts and fee terms (discussion, RFI results and staff recommendation included in backup). Final recorded outcome: approved, 4 yes, 3 no. The motion was discussed at length; trustees expressed concern about timing, citizen committee input and taxpayer impact. The board was advised that approving negotiations does not call an election and that fees would only be payable if bonds are issued and sold.

Next steps include a scheduled special meeting in February to consider calling a bond election and a citizens facilities committee presentation the evening of Jan. 27. Staff reiterated that any decision to call an election would be the board's separate action and that negotiated bond-counsel documents are intended to ensure timely, legally compliant ballot language if the board chooses to proceed.