Two Legal Items of Note for Seattle Schools

 The first item is a ruling from the Washington State Supreme Court upholding the State's view that capital building funding is not embedded in Washington's Constitution regarding "paramount duty" and public schools. From the Seattle Times:

Out of options to fund repairs to its decaying buildings, a 400-student school district in one of Washington’s poorest counties launched a legal challenge against the state two years ago. 

There is little reprieve for school districts that fail to pass a bond in Washington state, which are often the smallest and poorest. Without a bond, these districts are also locked out of qualifying for the state’s largest construction assistance program. Another state grant program, which is more flexible and is aimed at small school districts, hasn’t offered sufficient funds for substantive repairs. 

On Thursday, the Wahkiakum School District lost in a unanimous ruling from the Washington Supreme Court. Local taxpayers are still expected to share in the costs of maintaining and constructing school buildings, even if, like Wahkiakum, they haven’t approved a bond in 20-plus years.

However there is future hope:

While the opinion says the state isn’t required to cover 100% of basic school capital construction costs, it offers a legal path for school districts to challenge how much and where the state is currently chipping in. 

It's stunning to think that Wahkiakum's high school has not had an update since it was built in 1962. 

Rainwater drains from ceilings in both of the district’s school buildings, bathrooms flood regularly and there isn’t proper equipment for science experiments. Teachers hand out blankets in the wintertime to students because classrooms get so cold. 

Beyond these physical issues is also the consideration of just how safe those buildings are. 

Two bills in the last legislative session would have kicked in more state assistance, but they stalled and died in the House. 

In a statement, state Superintendent Chris Reykdal proposed that the Legislature remove the supermajority requirement for bond passage. 

In an interesting turn of events:

State Republican Party Chair Jim Walsh had harsher words for the Court. 

“Imprisoning children in dilapidated school buildings will drive even more Washington families away from the school system. They will choose private schools and home schooling instead. And the public school system will suffer,” he wrote in a statement. 

What is fascinating is that the Legislature put forth what are basically unfunded mandates about K-3 class size without explaining how districts can do that from a capital POV.

This is bad news for small districts but good news for SPS so it can continue its mega-sized capital building levies. If the ruling had been different, SPS might not be able to ask for as much as it does. 

Next, you might recall I was unhappy with the very basic transcript I got from the district on the discussion and vote on the "rules of Seattle Public Schools" last month. Here's what Public Disclosure told me:

Here is the information I received from staff:

• Because directors and staff were in person and speaking through mics in the auditorium, everyone shows up as “Board Agenda” in the transcript. This is the transcript that was generated via Teams and what we have available besides the meeting minutes.

• There were a few technical issues that came up with this meeting that impacted our ability to record and for the public to observe the remote stream, however public access was provided at the meeting location, which was the auditorium.

 So because the meeting was open to the public physically, that's enough. 

I replied:

I will go on the record as saying I do NOT believe there is not an internal transcript. Because I can’t imagine how staff who need to know what was talked about and could not be at the meeting don’t have the ability to do so.

The minutes are useless.

Truly, you cannot tell me that a staff member who needs to know what was said at any given meeting would be told to figure out the Teams transcript that does not say who is speaking OR told to read the joke that is the minutes.

On the heels of that issue, here's the other legal story - which I learned about via former School Board director, Sue Peters, is about how districts can put forth minutes and transcripts of board meetings.  A new RCW that doesn't go into affect until next year. Bold mine:

The failure to provide a recording of a school district board of directors meeting that is required to be recorded under RCW 42.30.035(2) shall not be a basis for finding that a requester has been denied an opportunity to inspect or copy a public record if the recording, despite the good faith efforts of the school district board of directors to create a recording, is unavailable or unintelligible due to technical issues.

Effective June 30, 2024.

I suspect you'll see many more SPS shrugs on their recordings with this new law. The minutes are already stripped down so if you don't attend or view a meeting, you may never truly know what the discussion was AND who said what at any given meeting.