Manhattan Board Weighs Expanding Attorney Access in Transparency Push

Manhattan School District 114 Meeting | May 13, 2026

Article Summary: The Manhattan School District 114 Board of Education on Tuesday, May 13, 2026, discussed four options for revising its policy on who may engage the board attorney, with members leaning toward giving all board members access subject to a transparency requirement that any legal consultation be reported to the full board. No vote was taken; the matter heads to the policy committee and a final vote is anticipated June 10.

Board Attorney Policy Key Points:

• The board reviewed four policy options ranging from expanding access to three designated officers to allowing any board member to consult the board attorney.
• The attorney-recommended language would let the superintendent, a designee and all board members seek legal advice, with the attorney notifying the board president, who would share the consultation and outcome with the full board.
• Members cited past experiences in which some members were blocked from consulting the attorney as the motivation for the change.
• The discussion was held under new/old business with no vote; the policy committee will review it before a final vote anticipated at the June 10 meeting.

MANHATTAN — The Manhattan School District 114 Board of Education on Tuesday, May 13, 2026, debated how broadly to expand access to its board attorney, weighing four policy options in what members framed as a push toward greater transparency on the seven-member board.

The discussion arose as part of a broader review of the district’s board policy customization manual. The board president said the question of who is authorized to engage the board attorney came up based on challenges the board had faced historically, going back several years. Under current policy, either the board president, the superintendent or a designee can access the board attorney.

Working with the board attorney, the district developed what the president called “optionality” — four versions of policy language. One option would extend access to the vice president and secretary in addition to the current authorized officers. Another would require that any consultation be shared with the entire board, including what the questions were and the outcome. A third option, recommended by the attorney, would give any board member the ability to access the board attorney, with a transparency requirement attached.

The president read the attorney’s recommended language for that option, under which the superintendent, a designee and board members are authorized to confer with or seek legal advice from the board attorney, with the attorney notifying the board president when members seek advice and providing the advice given. The president said he would then ensure that information was shared with the entire board, likely through the superintendent.

Several members favored the broadest option. “I think it’s important for any board member to be able to talk to an attorney,” one member said, adding that if a board is potentially in litigation, members should be able to know what the litigation is about — something she said had not always been the case in the past. Another member said equal access “helps with checks and balances.”

Members described past experiences as motivating the change. The president said he, along with two other members, had “been in the trenches with a few things” and wanted to prevent the same problems from recurring on future boards. Members referred to a past situation in which some members were blocked from consulting the attorney.

Not all members landed in the same place. One member said she leaned toward the option limiting access to three people, paired with a requirement that consultations be shared, citing fiscal caution. “Obviously we also have to be cognizant that attorneys cost money,” the president acknowledged, noting members would need to use discretion about when contacting the attorney is appropriate. The member also suggested that if access were limited to three designees, the policy could avoid hard-coding the roles of president, vice president and secretary, instead allowing the three designees to be rechosen as board membership or election terms change.

The president summarized a “strong consensus” for either the broader option or the limited-with-transparency option, with most members appearing to favor giving all members access. He emphasized the transparency goal: “If I leave any legacy with myself on the board, I want it to be that we changed the board to be far more transparent.” One member commended the board on how far it had come, saying simply having the conversation openly “is a really big step.”

No vote was taken. The board plans a policy committee meeting, followed by a committee-of-the-whole session May 27 where the customization manual will be revisited, with a final vote on the manual anticipated at the June 10 regular meeting. Officials noted the manual review also includes other items, such as the timing of Family and Medical Leave Act provisions.