Here's a full report from AP reporter Rebecca Boone:

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — The Idaho state official in charge of a voided $60 million statewide school broadband contract says he won't try to recover the money paid out under the illegal deal despite direction from Idaho's highest court.

Idaho Department of Administration Director Robert Geddes informed Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden of his decision in a letter dated last week. Now it falls to Wasden to decide — should he enforce a state law requiring officials to seek the return of money paid on illegal contracts, and if so, how?

The Idaho Supreme Court agreed in March that the statewide contract for broadband in public schools was void. The justices said the law required the state to try to recover the millions of dollars already paid out under the voided contract, but they stopped short of officially ordering state officials to seek repayment.

Instead, the high court said that if the appropriate legal officer failed to fulfill his legal duty of seeking repayment, the state's chief legal officer could step forward to do the job.

At the time, Wasden said the direction from the high court was clear. He said his office would take action if Geddes and the Department of Administration declined to do so.

On Friday, however, Wasden's spokesman Todd Dvorak said his boss was still working out the legal details.

"This is a complex question, and there's a lot of legal possibilities to consider before we can decide how to proceed," Dvorak told the Associated Press.

Geddes' office declined to comment, instead referring all calls to Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter's office at the request of the governor's office.

In his July 25 letter to Wasden, however, Geddes said his decision rested in part on his own definition of the word "advanced."

That's because the state law on voided contracts says "any sum of money advanced by the state of Idaho in consideration of any such contract or agreement shall be repaid forthwith."

Geddes wrote that he believes "advanced" means money given prior to services being rendered. Since the state generally the state pays vendors after services had been provided, Geddes said, he didn't think any money had been advanced to the vendors.

The Idaho Supreme Court didn't define the word in its March ruling, but the justices made clear that they thought the money had been advanced.

"The Appellants essentially seek to close the barn door after substantial funds had been advanced by the State" under the illegal contract, Justice Jim Jones wrote for the unanimous court.

The high court also didn't detail how the state should go about trying to claw back the money, so it's not immediately clear if the state can just send a letter asking for repayment, if officials must file a lawsuit to seek the return of the money or if other steps should be taken.

Any such request is not likely to be welcomed by the companies, however. They already did the work the state paid for, plus additional work for which they've not yet been paid. And Idaho's legislative leaders are still working with the companies to try to reach a monetary settlement to cover that unpaid portion.

The possibility of a settlement makes the matter of recovering any funds even murkier — a settlement could be considered by some to be advancing yet more money on an illegal contract, but it could also remove Idaho's ability to seek repayment in the future.

That means that if Wasden doesn't make a decision quickly, it could become moot.

"We recognize there's an urgency to do something on this really soon," Dvorak said.

---

---