The Governing Board of the Scottsdale Unified School District agrees today to an extension until Aug. 9, 2002, of the Consent Judgment it entered into with the Office of the Attorney General in 1998. The Board also agrees to nullify a current intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with the SEES Charter School, as unconditionally demanded by the Attorney General.

This Board and the current Administration readily agree to the extension, acknowledge mistakes of past officials, and commit to correcting errors, regardless of the time it takes.

"We regret that mistakes have happened in the past and we appreciate the extension. These are long-standing problems, with no quick or pain-free solutions," said Barbara F. Erwin, superintendent. "This Board and the current Administration will continue to follow the laws and do the right things for our children and our community," she added.

Governing Board member Sandra Zapien-Ferrero said: "As Clerk of the Board I want to convey to the community members of SUSD, and to the state, that this Governing Board has put in place the current Administration to assure cooperation with all state agencies. We continue to be committed to moving SUSD forward to full compliance with all state laws and mandates," Mrs. Zapien-Ferrero said.

"As Board members, we are committed to supporting this process through to completion. This Board and this Administration will steadfastly continue to develop policies and procedures to guarantee that tax dollars are spent responsibly," said Mrs. Zapien-Ferrero. She added: "In 1998, I wholeheartedly supported the Attorney General's and Auditor General's efforts to identify and correct violations of policy by former District officials, and I chose to seek re-election to see this through."

The Office of the Auditor General, in a report issued today, largely addresses two issues: The legality of the IGA entered into between SUSD and a charter school, and the District's compliance with a new state law to provide an alternative-to-suspension program for its students.

In an official response released today the District notes that many of the conclusions are inconsistent with the documentary evidence provided by the District to the Auditor General's Office. Copies of the District's response, as well as supporting documents, are being made available for public inspection today.

The District entered into the IGA upon advice of its counsel, John A. LaSota, Jr., with the firm of Miller LaSota & Peters.

"I did a reasoned, sound, and good faith analysis of legal issues to determine whether the District could enter into an intergovernmental agreement with a charter school," said Mr. LaSota, who is a former Arizona Attorney General. "Based on that research, I concluded that the District could enter into such an agreement. Now the Office of Attorney General disagrees, even though it knew what I had opined, and had many conversations with me without telling me of their apparently contrary view. This is unfortunate, to put this District in this position, after 20 months of silence on the issue."

"It strikes us as unfair for the District to be punished for entering into the IGA when the Auditor General concludes only that the IGA may have been illegal, but both the Auditor General and the Attorney General have repeatedly refused to provide their legal analysis," said Mary Ellen Simonson, an attorney with the firm of Lewis and Roca, who is representing the District. "It seems unnecessarily harsh and unreasonable to demand that the District void a contract, demand that it extend the consent judgment nine months, and insist on withholding $150,000 of taxpayer monies, all based on at best speculation that the District may have violated laws, rules and policies."

With regard to a second issue in the Auditor General's report, the District had an alternative-to-suspension program in place well in advance of the statutory deadline, which was Jan. 1, 2001. The District acknowledges that formal Board action approving the program occurred on Feb. 20, 2001. However, the District believes the statute's January 1 deadline applies only to the establishment of alternative-to-suspension program, and while it requires that governing boards adopt policies, it does not impose a specific deadline on this process.

"In reality, Scottsdale was moving forward to comply with this new law in a similar manner to other districts in the state," Ms. Simonson said.

The Governing Board's action today avoids forfeiting $150,000 of taxpayer funds being held on deposit with the State Treasurer, and protracted litigation with the Attorney General.
#