Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Counsel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Teachers, parents and community members urge District 70 to solicit new legal counsel amid conflict concerns
Summary
Multiple public commenters accused the district's current attorney of high billing and potential conflicts of interest tied to charter representation and urged the board to issue an RFP; board members debated the merits and referenced community input but did not take final action on counsel retention at the meeting.
A string of public commenters at the Pueblo County School District 70 meeting urged the board to issue a request for proposals for legal counsel, citing high billed amounts and alleged conflicts involving the district's current firm.
Jeff Sloan, speaking in the public-comment period, urged an RFP and called for counsel who could “reduce costs while improving the quality of our legal representation,” arguing the current attorney billed more and was often not present for full meetings.
Multiple speakers specifically named the district’s outside counsel and alleged business ties to charter operators. Andrea Engs told the board, “Please, please fire Miller Farmer,” an appeal echoed in other remarks that framed the issue as both fiscal and ethical.
Teacher Gail Purcell cited invoiced billing totals she said were obtained by a colleague, reading figures into the record: “These numbers are from billed invoices only… $104,237.74 in 2022… $104,688.64 in 2024, and $142,432.42 in 2025,” and urged the board to consider local counsel. The figures were presented as public-comment evidence; the board did not present an independent accounting or staff report at the meeting.
Board members acknowledged the concerns and said they had received many emails both pro and con. Some members said a competitive process or RFP was appropriate; others emphasized that the board had reviewed counsel’s work and relied on a rubric for its decisions. Legal counsel present advised the board on procedural flexibility but did not recommend a procurement step during the meeting.
No procurement motion or staff directive to issue an RFP was adopted during the meeting; the issue remained in the public-comment and internal-discussion phase by recess.
What was said and next steps: community members requested an RFP and questioned whether existing counsel’s relationships posed conflicts; the board received the comments but did not take immediate action. Any formal procurement or contract change would require a future board action recorded in agendized items.
