Citizen Portal

Parents and staff urge board to delay $50,000 consultant contract over 'Child Find' language; trustees leave item on consent

CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT Board of Trustees · February 13, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Two public commenters asked trustees to pull a $50,000 Cortez LLC contract from the consent agenda, arguing its language did not explicitly cover Child Find activities; trustees voted to keep the item on consent and adopt the full consent agenda.

Two members of the public urged the Clark County School District Board of Trustees on Feb. 12 to delay approval of a proposed $50,000 consulting contract with Cortez LLC, saying the draft did not explicitly include work on Child Find, the federally required process for identifying students with disabilities.

Todd Young, a school mental-health professional at Harney Middle School, told trustees he had discussed the item with Special Services Division staff and believed the district already has internal expertise (named in his remarks) that could address special-education legal requirements without an external consultant. Young read the contract language aloud and said the contract as written focuses on training in IDEA and Section 504 compliance and leadership professional learning but does not mention Child Find or the specific work he understood the consultant would perform.

David Gomez, president of the Nevada Peace Alliance, also urged the board to approve efforts to strengthen Child Find but said the public needs clarity in the contract on the consultant’s Child Find role and recommended that the board amend language or postpone approval until the scope is explicit.

Trustee Biasotti moved to pull item 3.02 from the consent agenda; Trustee Dominguez seconded. The motion to remove the item from consent did not pass. The board then voted to adopt the consent agenda with the contested item included.

What’s next: Public commenters asked the district to either revise the contract to include a statement of Child Find duties or make the contract’s intended scope public. District staff indicated that the consultant’s work on Child Find had been discussed with internal staff, but the contract text did not spell it out. Trustees did not direct a formal amendment on the floor; the consent agenda was approved.