Trustees approve flat‑fee legal contract despite public calls for bids and cutbacks; public‑records costs draw scrutiny

The San Dieguito Union High School District board on Jan. 22 voted to approve a renewed flat‑fee legal services agreement with F3 Law for the 2026 calendar year and to ratify outstanding invoices, after extensive public comment that pressed trustees for competitive bids, spending caps and mediation‑focused alternatives.

Public commenters asked the board to delay approval and seek competitive bids. A representative of a taxpayers’ watchdog group called the flat fee — about $99,500 per month in the contract before the board — “misleading” because it does not include the full universe of litigation and consultant costs and urged the district to pursue cost controls and alternatives. Another speaker, a local lawyer, argued that rising legal fees reflect increased conflict and the district’s need to hire experienced counsel.

Trustee Alman described difficulty obtaining machine‑readable, itemized bills from the law firm and the district, and said he spent many hours in the law firm’s office hand‑transcribing invoices to analyze where time was spent. He reported the district’s F3 professional costs last year were concentrated on special‑education and student matters and public‑records requests; his review identified roughly $459,000 in fees tied to public records responses in the period covered by the report. Alman urged a longer review and a governance‑level process to seek savings.

Superintendent Dr. Stfairy told trustees the flat‑fee arrangement had provided budgetary predictability and that during the months the district used a fixed fee it realized average monthly savings (the district’s agenda materials said the arrangement saved an average of about $36,000 per month in 2024 compared with prior outlays). She said the district has taken steps — training staff and purchasing software — to perform more public‑records work in‑house and to reduce outside legal hours in certain categories.

Trustees questioned the billing practice, asked for more transparent reporting and debated whether to form a special committee to seek further cost reductions. The board ultimately approved the contract and outstanding payments by a 4–1 vote. One trustee opposed the motion on philosophical grounds about free speech policy elsewhere on the agenda and another trustee abstained from a separate student board vote on the item; the full board vote on the legal contract was 4 in favor and 1 opposed.

Trustees instructed staff to continue reviewing billings, evaluate where work can be shifted in‑house and to provide periodic summaries to the board. Several trustees proposed a governance workshop on the handling of privileged or sensitive materials and on a public‑records review process to reduce outside legal costs.