Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Notice Of Claim topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Santa Cruz Valley Unified School District board ratifies notice of claim as tolling agreement expires

Santa Cruz Valley Unified School District Governing Board · March 17, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At a special March 17 meeting the Santa Cruz Valley Unified School District governing board voted to ratify the district's service of a notice of claim on the Arizona Attorney General and the Arizona Auditor General to preserve potential litigation rights as a tolling agreement reached its end.

The Santa Cruz Valley Unified School District governing board on March 17 held a special meeting in Rio Rico and voted to ratify the district's prior service of a notice of claim on the Arizona Attorney General and the Arizona Auditor General.

Mr. Radubo, a governing board member, told the board the special session was needed because "we had a short timeline, because the tolling agreement was going to end, for us to be able to sue or present litigation against the Auditor General if we choose to at some point," and asked the district attorney to file the notice on the district's behalf. The board convened specifically to consider ratifying that action.

A board member moved "pursuant to ARS 38-431.05" that the board approve and ratify the district's action taken in February to serve a notice of claim "upon the Attorney General of the State of Arizona and the Arizona Auditor General," citing ARS 12-821.01 as the basis for the claim filing. The presiding officer asked for a second; a second was not identified in the transcript record.

The board conducted a voice vote. The meeting record reflects two ayes and no nays; the presiding officer declared the motion passed. No public testimony or alternate motions were recorded during the session.

The special meeting lasted about five minutes; the presiding officer adjourned the session at approximately 8:05 a.m. The board did not announce further action items or a schedule for follow-up during the recorded segment.