The Seattle Times ran a story this morning on the Board recall effort.
The story has few quotes and none from the Board members, the District, or anyone in opposition to the recall.
The story says that it is now up to a King County Superior Court to determine whether the charges against the Board members are true and, if they are true, if they constitute a violation of the Board members' oath of office.
The oath of office binds the Directors to support the constitutions of the United States and the State of Washington and to faithfully discharge the duties of the office according to the best of the Director’s ability. I think the breakdown comes in the area of faithfully discharging the duties of the office. The recently released report from the State Auditor makes it very clear that the Directors have NOT been doing their duty. Since the District concurred with the auditor's findings, I'm not sure what story they will tell the Court in the Director's defense. Probably that the failures found in the audit do not rise to the level of violating the oath. Is that what they are going to say "Yes, we suck, but not that badly."
I don't know if the District will be providing the Directors with counsel at the Court hearing or if each Director will be responsible for providing their own. That's an interesting question. Does the District have a duty to defend the Directors (at taxpayers' expense) in this sort of legal procedure?
Here's something interesting. What are "the duties of the office"? According to Board Policy B23.00, Duties of Individual Board Members, it appears that they are just required to show up and have read the material provided to them.
But then there is this Code of Conduct for Board members in Policy B49.00 that puts some duties on Board members, and Policy B61.00 that lists more duties for Board members.