Parent tells board district hired attorney to oppose her son’s IEP; board clarifies attorney payments

During the public-comment portion of the meeting, Libby Seth identified herself as a parent of a child with significant medical and educational needs and told the board she had retained counsel after receiving an updated IEP meeting notice that listed a district-hired attorney.

Seth said she was told the district had hired an attorney "to fight my son from accessing an education in the same way he'd been receiving it for the past year," and that the attorney presence at IEP meetings creates barriers for families. "They are hired to put roadblocks up to the children and families wanting to access special education," she said. Seth asked the district to prioritize students’ needs over politics and questioned the district’s use of external legal resources.

Board members and staff addressed the comment during packet and voucher review. A board member asked whether a district payment to attorney Gus Rosenfield related to an IEP; staff clarified that the listed payment was for audit or election work, not IEP representation. The board also discussed general practice: under state attendance/IEP rules referenced in the meeting (ARS 38-431.01h was cited earlier in the public comment instructions), public comment is limited and the board may only direct staff to study matters or schedule further consideration.

The board did not take any immediate personnel or legal action during the meeting in response to Seth’s remarks. Members said they would follow up: administration invited board questions about any specific legal invoices and indicated the board would seek clarification from legal counsel on the waiver item that was later tabled for legal review.