Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement And Conflict Of Interest topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tables $65,000 request for outside legal services after questions about prior RFQP language and oversight
Summary
Trustees tabled a $65,000 request for legal advice from a retained firm after questioning the firm's role in an RFQP that included erroneous residential language and raising potential conflict‑of‑interest concerns about an attorney listed on multiple firms.
During Measure G line‑item review trustees questioned a $65,000 not‑to‑exceed allocation for legal advice from the firm identified in the agenda. One trustee summarized the background: earlier RFQP materials for unused sites included language referencing residential uses that did not reflect the board's intent, which likely reduced potential responses from colleges and universities.
A trustee asked, "Where, or what are we really getting for that service that we've been purchasing, when we have a bid go out and, you know, we basically lost a year?" Staff explained the firm had drafted template agreements and memos to explore options for closed sites; the incorrect paragraph on page 10 could have been clarified through RFIs and addenda during the procurement process. Trustees also raised a potential conflict question about an attorney named Hugh W. Lee appearing under two firm names in agenda documents; staff said they would confirm the attorney's current affiliations.
Because trustees wanted time to verify whether the attorney worked for multiple firms and to see historical spend, one trustee moved to table item 11e; the motion was seconded and carried, sending 11e to the next agenda for additional review.
