Resident alleges district signed contracts before board approval; says legal action possible

During the second public-comment period at the board meeting, a resident raised an allegation that a previous community-workshop contract was signed and carried out before the board approved it. The commenter said they had discussed the matter with the district attorney and reviewed the administrative code.

The commenter stated: "It's plain in the administrative code that you need approval before you sign contracts... the only person who could sign contracts seems to be the purchasing agent," and said the contract at issue "was performed prior to board approval." The speaker added that they have a draft emergency order to show cause and that they would file it if the practice recurs.

Board procedure for public comment was reiterated at the start of the period (comments limited to agenda items during the first public-comment block and open topics during the second). The transcript shows no substantive on-the-record rebuttal from the board to the specific allegation during the meeting. The board later adopted a resolution to hold an executive session on Dec. 17, 2025, to discuss attorney-client privileged matters among other confidential items.

The transcript references the administrative code but does not cite a specific code section, nor does it provide documentation of the contract at issue. The commenter identified potential noncompliance with procurement rules; board minutes and contract files would need to be reviewed to substantiate or refute the allegation.

Next steps noted in the meeting: the board entered executive session and took no further public action that night; the commenter's assertion of possible legal filing indicates a potential follow-up for administration and the board secretary to clarify procurement signatory authority and the timing of approvals.

No formal determination or follow-up timeline appears in the public record captured in the transcript.