Board Chairman Kim Burningham had told colleagues to prepare for a possible meeting but ultimately decided not to call one. Most board members believe it would be legally and ethically irresponsible to patch together a voucher program without understanding the legal ramifications, despite Shurtleff's order.

"We don't really have a law to implement," board member Janet Cannon said. "We very much need counsel and advice."

Instead, the board will wait for answers to its list of legal questions, which the A.G.'s office received earlier this week.

"We're working on them," said Bill Evans, assistant attorney general. "They certainly have priority and we're not going to let it drag on."

Meanwhile, voucher supporters are demanding the board "obey the law," private schools are weighing their options and everyone is wondering when a lawsuit will be filed so a court can decide the issue.

"Let's implement [it], get it to the court and get it resolved one way or the other," state school board member Mark Cluff of Alpine said at a pro-voucher rally at the Capitol on Tuesday.

A referendum petition drive shelved Utah's Parent Choice in Education Act pending a public vote in November. But a second law, which was designed to amend the original but ended up re-enacting entire sections, remains on the books. An opinion from Shurtleff's office said the remaining law had enough meat to start a voucher program but lacked key sections, which could make it more vulnerable to a lawsuit.

However, the opinion didn't answer many questions now plaguing the state school board, which is grappling with how to implement the remaining law and fill its many holes. Parroting the original bill might be illegal or unethical, they worry, because it would essentially re-create a law that could be repealed by voter referendum.

So the board is seeking legal advice before proceeding. It sent nearly 40 questions to the A.G.'s office, the board's official legal counsel. They ask if they should wait to be sued or seek clarification from a court before proceeding. They wonder how much leeway they have in filling in missing definitions, for example by requiring eligible private schools to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Voucher supporters say the board is just stalling.

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. and legislative leaders have rejected calls to clarify matters by repealing or shelving the remaining law in a special session.

"I think that's exactly the wrong thing to do," House Majority Leader Dave Clark said Thursday. "I do not think we ought to be changing the rules in the middle of the game - we should allow this to go to the referee to make the ultimate decision."

Private schools have varied responses.

Several participated in Tuesday's pro-voucher rally, including Sister Catherine Kamphaus, superintendent of Utah's Catholic school system. Several officials believe the law on the books poses no legal risks.

"We would rather the program move forward," said Wan Ismail, principal of Iqra Academy of Utah in Salt Lake City.

Other private schools are watching from the sidelines but plan to participate if a program moves forward.

"It's worth the legal risk to go ahead and apply," said Grant Beckwith, principal of American Fork's American Heritage Academy, citing "the upside of potentially being able to bless those families with a voucher compared with the downside of potentially having to give some of that money back."

But the voucher imbroglio has caused a few schools to step back from the field.

The Rowland Hall-St. Mark's board discussed the issue at four separate meetings and is leery of the remaining law, especially because state regulation might result when the state school board fills in missing definitions.

"Our board has real concerns on whether [the remaining law] is or isn't legal," said headmaster Alan Sparrow. "If it was suddenly started and then lost, what would happen? We will not participate until all those legal questions are satisfied."

---

* NICOLE STRICKERcan be reached at nstricker@sltrib.com or 801-257-8999.