Pueblo District 70 board debates opening legal-services contract to bids after community complaints
Loading...
Summary
Board members discussed whether to issue an RFP for outside legal services following community complaints alleging conflicts and political/religious bias by the district's attorney; no vote was taken but the chair said the RFP will be placed on the next meeting agenda as an action item.
Board members of Pueblo County School District 70 discussed whether to issue a request for proposals for outside legal services during their Jan. 13 meeting after community members complained about perceived conflicts and a partisan or religious agenda by the district's current attorney. The board treated the item as discussion-only and the chair said it will be placed on the Jan. 27 agenda for possible action.
One board member opened the debate by saying, "Our community is an uproar," and asked that the district "start with a clean slate, free of perception of impropriety and the shadow of conflict of interest." That speaker asked the board to consider a local attorney and to issue an RFP so all education-specialized law firms could be evaluated for cost and fit.
Other board members urged caution. A member who has worked with the current attorney cited the attorney's experience in school-district matters and a specific role in helping the district with bond work that produced cost savings. "He's been involved with education and kinda knows what to look for," that board member said, arguing the incumbent provides specialized advice the district needs.
Several board members framed the proposal to issue an RFP as a way to demonstrate fiscal responsibility and transparency to constituents. One member said issuing an RFP would not force a change if the incumbent proved to be the best candidate: "So yes. It doesn't hurt anything to do an RFP; if Mr. Miller is the best candidate, he remains."
The board chair emphasized that the discussion was not a decision and that the item would be scheduled as an action item at the next meeting so the board could vote after drafting the RFP language and criteria. No formal motion to replace or suspend the current counsel was made at the Jan. 13 meeting.
Next steps: The board directed staff to place an action item on the Jan. 27 agenda to consider issuing an RFP for legal services and to propose specific evaluation criteria and cost-comparison elements for review.
