Here's what he found: RCW 28A.320.015
School boards of directors — Powers — Notice of adoption of policy.
(1) The board of directors of each school district may exercise the following:
(a) The broad discretionary power to determine and adopt written policies not in conflict with other law that provide for the development and implementation of programs, activities, services, or practices that the board determines will:
(i) Promote the education and daily physical activity of kindergarten through twelfth grade students in the public schools; or
(ii) Promote the effective, efficient, or safe management and operation of the school district;
(b) Such powers as are expressly authorized by law; and
(c) Such powers as are necessarily or fairly implied in the powers expressly authorized by law.
(2) Before adopting a policy under subsection (1)(a) of this section, the school district board of directors shall comply with the notice requirements of the open public meetings act, chapter 42.30 RCW, and shall in addition include in that notice a statement that sets forth or reasonably describes the proposed policy. The board of directors shall provide a reasonable opportunity for public written and oral comment and consideration of the comment by the board of directors.
It's the last bit that caught his attention. State law REQUIRES the Board to not only provide a reasonable opportunity for public comment, but they must also consider that public comment.
This law may only apply to the adoption of policy or it may apply to all Board actions. A judge will decide.
Since the NTN contract terms were not made public until the day before the vote, the public did not have a reasonable opportunity for public comment. The vote could be nullified on those grounds alone.
The Board was provided with a lot of information on the academic outcomes for students at NTN schools, but they never really considered that information. Since none of the public comment on the NTN contract appear to have been considered by the Board, the vote could be nullified on those grounds alone. The same can be said for the high school textbook adoption. In the textbook adoption appeal, the District provided the Court with all of the evidence used when the Board considered their decision - no public comment was included. The absence of public input among the data considered by the Board is, by itself, sufficient grounds to nullify the decision because it does not meet the legal minimum for a Board action. That is, if this law applies to more than just the adoption of policies.