Board votes 4–3 to hire outside firm after prior public allegation; trustees debate process

The Flint Board of Education voted on Feb. 17 to retain an outside law firm to conduct a third‑party investigation into allegations that were raised publicly at a prior meeting. The motion to engage the Allen Law Firm (recommended by district counsel) passed by a 4–3 roll‑call vote after sharp debate over process and the need for immediate action.

Vice President McIntyre said the allegations had criminal implications and that the board needed to act quickly to protect the district and the individuals involved. “We had a vendor who was listening to the meeting. There's potential legal action that can be taken not only by an individual board member, but by a third‑party vendor,” he said. Supporters argued an independent review was necessary because the allegations — described as possible kickbacks tied to a contract vote — were made in public and could expose the district to legal risk.

President Joyce Ellis McNeil, who was named in the prior charge, asked for the investigation, saying the allegation had harmed her reputation and referenced having requested a public record of the accusation at the earlier meeting. “This is my reputation... I'm requesting my board to support this investigation, to clear this company. This company did no wrong, neither did I,” she said.

Several trustees who voted against the motion said they were not given sufficient information in advance and opposed authorizing an immediate, costly investigation without a closed‑session briefing explaining scope, cost and recommended firms. “When we put something onto the agenda that says third party investigation, felony charges, this is alarming,” one trustee said; another urged that the board should receive written complaints and a full legal opinion before acting.

The vote to proceed was 4 in favor, 3 opposed. The board chair said the administration will coordinate the engagement under the board’s direction and will return with the investigation scope and expected costs; trustees also asked for a future review of closed‑session practices and attorney‑client privilege handling.