Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves multiple law firms for district counsel; nomination of Omar Tarazi fails after member objects
Summary
The Big Walnut board individually approved several law firms to provide legal services for 2024 but a motion to appoint Omar Tarazi failed after a board member said he had called her while she was in the ICU and questioned how he obtained her phone number.
At its Aug. 19 meeting the Big Walnut Local School Board moved through agenda item 9.9, considering and voting on a series of law firms to serve as providers of legal services for the district in 2024.
Board members moved individually on multiple providers. Several firms were approved after motions and seconding, with the chair calling the roll for each motion and the board recording “motion carries” for those approvals.
The appointment of attorney Omar Tarazi drew objection. Board member Mrs. Nicks told the board she received a phone call from Tarazi while she was in the intensive care unit with her mother and said she declined to speak; she said Tarazi continued to ask for a meeting and that he told her "Zach Duffy gave me your phone number." Nicks said she did not consent to such contact and questioned how her personal phone number was obtained. She also said she had earlier provided an email to the board about the firms under consideration.
"He said, 'Zach Duffy gave me your phone number.' I said, 'no. It's not appropriate.'" Mrs. Nicks said during discussion. The board debated whether Duffy or staff shared the number and whether the conversation represented inappropriate outreach.
A roll call on the motion to appoint Tarazi failed and the motion did not carry. Other firms on the agenda — including Bricker Grama (Bricker & Eckler), Dinsmore & Shohl, Frost Brown Todd, Peppol & Wagner, Rich Gilles Law Group and Scott Scriven LLP — were moved and approved individually.
Why it matters: The district is selecting outside legal counsel for 2024; the failure of one appointment amid concerns about direct outreach to a board member highlights governance and procurement sensitivity around candidate contacts with elected officials.
What’s next: The board approved the set of firms that received a majority vote. Members asked for clarity on the legal-selection process and the record of communications with potential firms; no additional disciplinary action or formal inquiry was recorded in the meeting minutes on Aug. 19.
