Douglas School board hires attorney Joey Gilbert despite public outcry, 'significant' increase in cost, and lack of experience

The Douglas County School Board of Trustees voted 4-3 in a contentious meeting to fire current legal counsel, who has served the district for over 20 years, in favor of controversial Reno-based attorney Joey Gilbert, who has no background in educational law and will cost significantly more money, after current counsel allegedly did not support the board's proposed move to ban transgender students from engaging in sports.

Gilbert stated that while he is not an expert, he will hire other outside law firms — including the firm the board chose to fire — who are experts in the educational field of law.

The move to fire current counsel in favor of Gilbert was loudly contested Wednesday, July 19, 2023 by the majority of public commenters and letter writers, who insisted the board should open a Request for Proposal (RPF) to allow other law firms to bid for the position.

The board majority, made up of President Susan Jansen, Trustee Doug Englekirk, Trustee David Burns, and Trustee Katherine Dickerson, denied the RFP process, stating that it was necessary to hire Gilbert to take on the "fight" of banning transgender students from engaging in sports.

The meeting was contentious from the beginning, during which trustees shouted at each other, argued with public commenters, argued with county staff, and at one point, Jansen called a public commenter a “piece of sh*t” when it appears she believed her microphone was not on.

At the beginning of the meeting, Jansen admitted almost all public commentary the board has received has been negative toward the hiring of Gilbert and the firing of the firm that has served the district for more than two decades.

Jansen and a few other trustees further wished to move agenda items around so that Gilbert could provide his presentation before public comment due to the negativity.

“We listened to three hours of people saying all these negative things about Joey Gilbert that don’t know anything about him, and we’re going have another three hours of negatives until he can go up there and explain who he is and the team he’s put together,” Jansen said. “It’ll alleviate a lot of problems.”

Otherwise, Jansen said, the board would simply “hear the same thing over and over.”

When asked whether or not Jansen gave feedback on the original agenda, Jansen said she’d had time to review but had not given comment at the time asking for the agenda to be rearranged.

“Whatever, never mind. You caught me,” Jansen said.

“This is a board, here to make decisions as a group, not as one person,” said Trustee Tony Magnotta. “And I think we need to adhere to that, that’s the way it’s supposed to work.”

Trustees against the hiring of Gilbert indicated they believed the decision was already made by the majority.

“I don’t think we even need to listen to (Gilbert’s presentation) because we all know how the vote is gonna go,” Trustee Linda Gilkerson said.

Trustees brought up the fact that no other law firms were considered for the position despite previous meetings where holding a competitive bid was discussed.

One public commenter pointed out that before the new board had even conducted their first meeting in January, the hiring of Gilbert as new legal counsel was already discussed back in December 2022, indicating the new board members had been planning on hiring Gilbert for a significant amount of time.

According to Trustee David Burns, the reason no other law firms were allowed to compete was because the board “did not feel it had time” as it was in a “fight” with the ACLU regarding the board’s proposed policy to ban transgender students from participating in sports.

“We were threatened by the ACLU, we felt we did not have time because the existing law firm does not want to support us in this fight,” Burns said. “So this is the reason why we’re making moves in order to protect ourselves and protect the administration here, that’s what we have to deal with.”

Trustee Katherine Dickerson added that she wanted to protect students because “boys are built different than girls” and allowing transgender students in sports is “unfair.”

Trustee Gilkerson responded, stating that the ACLU has never filed a lawsuit against the district.

“There is no urgency to push somebody in quickly,” Gilkerson said. “Also, if we don’t break the law, then they have nothing to sue us for.”

Magnotta suggested that hiring a law firm with actual expertise in education would be the best way to protect the district.

“What expertise does Joey Gilbert have in education? Zero!” Magnotta said.

Request for Proposal controversy

Much of the discussions revolved around the board’s decision to forego the Request for Proposal (RFP) process that is typical of contracting with an outside agency.

However, because an RFP is not strictly required by law, some board members elected to bypass the RFP process, which would have allowed multiple law firms to send in their resumes and proposals and be interviewed by the board.

All but a handful of public comment, both in person and over the phone, was in favor of continuing the RFP process and allowing other law firms to send in their credentials.

According to Superintendent Keith Lewis, he had crafted an RFP draft on the suggestion of the board in conjunction with current counsel, which included requirements such as having knowledge in education law, Nevada’s open meeting laws, local school board state laws, Nevada ethics in government laws, civil rights laws, public records, and more.

Lewis said that he received no feedback from the trustees who took issue with the proposed RFP other than the fact that it was “biased,” but did not have any clarifications on which portions of the RFP they took issue with.

Trustee Gilkerson told Jansen that it was Jansen’s duty to respond to Lewis and provide feedback, and that the board and the community deserves a choice in a legal team.

When asked exactly what was biased in the RFP, Jansen said that she is “not a lawyer” and “wouldn’t get into it.”

Jansen said she had spoken to five attorneys regarding the RFP. When asked if she could provide the five names for transparency, Jansen said she would provide one.

“I’d like five,” Gilkerson said.

“Well that’s good for you,” Jansen said.

Several commenters urged the board that, if they did not approve of the RFP, to rewrite it rather than forego the process altogether.

Trustee Burns said that the RFP should be thrown out because current counsel, who would hypothetically be applying for the position, helped to craft it. However, he was not in favor of allowing a second RFP to be crafted by another counsel.

The board voted 4-3 to terminate the RFP process. Trustees Gilkerson, Magnotta and Carey Kangas voted against.

Joey Gilbert

Currently, MCL is paid a $5,000 per month retainer, with $225 per hour additionally above the retainer as needed.

Under the contract offered to Gilbert, his firm will be paid a $7,500 retainer per month with an additional $325 per hour above the retainer.

This is a 50 percent increase in retainer fee, and a 44 percent increase in per hour fee.

Magnotta asked Gilbert about the fee increase, and Gilbert responded that the fees are consistent with other law firms working with school districts.

“It’s actually at a discount,” Gilbert added. “But you get what you pay for.”

Gilbert said that when necessary he would outsource to firms with educational expertise.

“I don’t come to the process that I’m an expert,” Gilbert said. “I promise you, you have my word, that we will be represented by the best of the best in the industry if that becomes a necessary requirement.”

Gilbert went on to say that outsourcing to other experts happens “every day in law.”

“You have to know that you don’t know, and not have an ego, and not be afraid to consult with people and that’s exactly what we’re gonna do,” he said.

He went on to say that his qualifications are in his “integrity” and the base that he “speaks the truth.”

During public comment, the majority of comments were against the hiring of Gilbert, citing issues surrounding his lack of educational law experience.

Gilbert read a list of qualifications such as open meeting law and constitutional law experience, meeting regulations, ethics, agenda preparation, and more, and said “I believe I can absolutely navigate through (these requirements),” but he did not offer any examples of experience with any of the items he listed.

“Nothing on this frightens me,” Gilbert said.

Gilbert also said he would reach out to MCL on their expertise in the special education field if needed.

“They’ve been around a long time and they know what they’re doing,” Gilbert said.

Gilkerson asked Gilbert if he still denied losing the election for governor, and Gilbert said he no longer denies it as he was not able to gather the evidence he thought he would be able to.

“We thought we had more information than we did and I have to own that,” Gilbert said.

Gilkerson said she was also concerned about the fact that Gilbert was unable to provide a cover letter and a resume, the only two documents required, when he applied to be a member of the Washoe County School Board.

“I was given bad guidance,” Gilbert said.

“It’s a concern for me,” Gilkerson said. “I’m concerned about an attention to detail.”

Gilkerson went on that she is concerned about the fact that Gilbert is currently suing the Washoe County School District, but wants to represent another school district at the same time.

“Do you have any background or experience in defending a school district?” Gilkerson asked.

Gilbert said he does not. He went on to say that the trustee meetings are unproductive and “painful to watch,” and that he would make sure the meetings ran smoother.

“I’ve been (watching the meetings) since January and I’ll never get that time back,” Gilbert said. “It was brutal.”

Gilkerson said she was very concerned with the idea that he would be outsourcing from other attorneys, because those attorneys would not have been vetted or approved of by trustees.

“I’m concerned about them representing our community, because they don’t know our community,” she said.

In later discussions, Gilkerson said it makes no sense to pay Gilbert a higher fee just so he can hire back the district’s current counsel.

“We’re going to fire our current counsel, who we pay a $5,000 a month retainer, to hire Joey Gilbert who now is going to cost us $7,500 a month, to go ahead and hire back to our legal counsel – why would we want to pay more money to Mr. Gilbert to hire back our counsel?”

Finally, Gilkerson asked whether or not Gilbert would ever craft a policy that would break the law, such as a policy dealing with transgender students.

Gilbert said that he would thoroughly research the policy but that the district would “do what we need to do.”

“So you’d break the law then,” Gilkerson clarified. “You’re here to represent the community, not your own personal beliefs. You’re here to represent the law, because you’re a lawyer.”

Transgender Debate

Much of the “interview” with Gilbert was spent with trustees voicing their opinions on transgender students, critical race theory (CRT) and the “downfall of the nation.”

Trustee Burns said that his main focus is “protecting the girls” from transgender students, though he did not use the specific term transgender, but rather referred to transgender individuals as “less than 1% of the population.”

Gilbert said that he “unequivocally” agrees with Burns in his assertion that transgender students should be barred from locker rooms, bathrooms and sports that do not align with their sex at birth.

Trustee Englekirk said that he was concerned with the rapid downhill progression of the country into “communism and Marxism” and found it “appalling that the majority of young people agree with communism” and that it's acceptable for “biological males to compete with females."

He further voiced concern that a “young man should be allowed to enter a girl’s locker room or bathroom, and young children should be exposed to drag queens and sexual perversion.”

“I’m not looking to get into a lawsuit that will bankrupt our district, but I am looking for a way to protect our kids from the pervasive evil that is sweeping our nation,” said Englekirk.

“I think it’s the time to stand up and I’m not afraid to take that stance alongside you,” Gilbert said.

“We have four bathrooms that are single stall,” Gilkerson said. “We don’t have to worry about this stuff. This is just ridiculous. We don’t need people creating solutions to problems that don’t exist.”

Dickerson said, “(CRT) is sweeping through our nation, and to say that Douglas County will be left alone out of it all is misguided. It is here.”

Public Comment

Public comment was overwhelmingly against the hiring of Gilbert, including public comment that had been given at the previous school board meeting the night before, mostly relating to the fact that Gilbert and the attorneys and paralegals in Gilbert's firm, have no background in education. A small majority spoke in favor of Gilbert's hiring.

Public comment was also contentious, with Jansen at one point calling a speaker a "piece of sh*t" after the commenter was cut off.

A student from the district, Peyton McGuffin, said that she “wants a board that is more concerned with me and my fellow classmates’ education and not so concerned with their own political agenda.”

She encouraged the board to spend more time in the schools, so they could see what real issues students and staff are facing because “half of the issues you’re bringing up in this meeting aren’t even happening.”

She said that she is very involved in sports, and has never played against either a male student or a trans student.

“Come to our schools and get to know us,” she said. “You say you love the students, but you don’t even know them.”

The minority of commenters who spoke in favor of Gilbert claimed that education is run by “Marxists” and that students aren’t allowed to pass classes without “agreeing with CRT” and that Gilbert is necessary to fight against the “Marxist takeover” of the school district.

Another commenter said that people who were against the hiring of Gilbert weren’t actually against him at all, but rather were “sore losers” against the majority of Jansen, Burns, Englekirk and Dickerson.

“Because Gilbert has practiced one type of law, he is not qualified to practice another? Preposterous, and by the way, discriminatory,” the commenter said.

Many commenters noted that parents of schoolchildren who are affected by the board’s decision could not attend the meeting due to the fact that it was being held at 10 a.m. on a workday.

“The fact that you’re having this meeting (at this time) is outrageous,” one commenter said. “The children’s parents need to be here, and they’re not.”

Other commenters called out the unprofessionalism of the board during public comment. One mother of the district, Courtney Burroughs, was upset that the board chose to hold the meeting during a workday, but she came straight to the meeting after she left work to have her voice heard.

“You all have your mind made up, and Mr. Englekirk, you haven’t looked up from your phone the entire time that anyone over here has been talking,” Burroughs said. “And all of you are rolling your eyes and not even paying attention to what we are saying. This is a dictatorship.”

Burroughs said that she and other parents now have to consider removing their students from the school district because it’s clear the board does not care about their wellbeing, but would rather politicize the district at the student and staff’s expense.

Parents also pointed out that during Gilbert’s presentation, he did not mention students, families, or staff, but rather focused on representing the board alone.

Jeannie Dwyer, executive director of inclusive education with the district, cautioned that terminating the MCL firm would leave the district vulnerable to legal action and will generate large expenses the taxpayers will ultimately pay for.

Dwyer went on to say that any funds for legal fees that surpass the currently budgeted $80,000 per year come out of the general fund, as there are no other avenues to cover the cost.

“There is a concern about farming out for services, and what the cost will be,” Dwyer said.

Dwyer asked to allow MCL to continue contracting for human resource and special education needs.

Following discussions, the board voted 4-3 to fire the current MCL law firm, and voted 4-3 to hire Gilbert as their replacement.