KC SCHOOLS NEED MONITORING

As attorney general, I have a constitutional responsibility to represent the taxpayers and citizens of Missouri. They are my clients in the Kansas City desegregation case.

In January, I represented these clients in the U.S. Supreme Court and requested a court order that would lead to the end of federal supervision of the Kansas City public schools. It is well known that this state has expended more than any other state in the nation to dismantle a previously segregated school system and to provide equal opportunities to all the children of the Kansas City district.

With this case pending before the Supreme Court, the school district has finally come to the negotiating table and proposed a temporary settlement. I am realistic enough to understand that this proposal was brought forth at this particular time for one simple reason: The district believes the Supreme Court's decision will lead to the end of court-ordered state payments.

I have signed this agreement because I agree with it, and I respect the effort put forth by all parties to get to this point in the negotiations. The agreement includes a provision which allows the state to disagree on a very important point -- the future role of the desegregation monitoring committee. The other parties in the negotiations seek an immediate halt to the oversight activities of the monitoring committee, the group of citizens who serve as a watchdog over the spending of desegregation funds.

I support the temporary settlement, as well as further negotiations by the parties. However, I cannot support, nor can I understand, the view that accountability should be sacrificed in order for this to take place.

No one has articulated any legitimate justification for halting the activities of the monitoring committee. The district and all parties in the negotiations have agreed that $22.5 million in state funds can be cut from the district without adversely affecting the education of the children. It is difficult to conceive how these cuts somehow become unreasonable simply because of my insistence on continued oversight by the monitoring committee.

While I have taken criticism for this position, including from members of my own party, I will not stand by and let the taxpayers of this state go unrepresented at this important time.

In accordance with this agreement, I have asked the court to make a determination on the future role of the monitoring committee. If the court agrees that the role of monitoring committee continues to be important, I would hope that the parties would abide by the judge's decision and not let that issue become a roadblock.

While I have not always agreed with the actions of the monitoring committee, I have always recognized the appropriate role these citizens play in providing a public perspective and accountability to the spending of taxpayers' funds.

Since I became attorney general, the monitoring committee has taken numerous actions which have saved taxpayers money. For example:

-- The monitoring committee successfully halted the spending of as much as a half-billion dollars to expand the magnet programs for a 10 year period until 2003.

-- Within in the past two months, the monitoring committee has brought to the judge's attention a move by the Kansas City district administration to use surplus funds for hiring purposes rather than to pay its share of desegregation costs. The district made this move despite its claim that it had no money to pay these desegregation costs and despite the fact that the district already has one of the highest staff/student ratios in the state. The judge, in supporting the monitoring committee's initiative, rejected this inappropriate expenditure.

Now is not the time to turn our backs on accountability. As much as I would like to see this important negotiation succeed, I cannot and will not accept this demand for a reduction of accountability. The district today is without a superintendent and has recently acknowledged that more than 11,000 items, including hundreds of new computers, televisions and laser disc players are either lost or stolen. Now, more than ever, the district needs accountability. And now, more than ever, the monitoring committee has demonstrated they are prepared to provide this oversight.

Jay Nixon is the attorney general of Missouri.