Once Again, Words Have Meaning
Update 1:
Two items.
One, the Seattle Times seems to be testing the pot-stirring waters with this article today, The Seattle School Board rule that nobody seems to want to enforce. They impart almost nothing new and the headline is a bit off - it's also a law which is more important. Problem is, WHO is the enforcer?
King County Elections also deflected responsibility, saying the office’s role is limited to checking if a candidate is eligible to run when they file in May. That’s when staffers check voter registration records. After that, they are “not responsible for monitoring ongoing eligibility and don’t have any authority to get involved,” said Halei Watkins, the communications manager for the office.
Also in the article,
So now it’s up to Song to decide what to do. On Friday, Song declined to comment.
My impression is Song is not going to do or say anything.
Seattle needs geographic requirements for its board members because it is a segregated city, Rankin said. “You don’t want a board with three people from Magnolia.”
Okay sure but also, it is not possible for all the directors to know every school and region well. Having members from all parts of the city allows directors to know their regions and impart that knowledge to the other directors as issues arise.
Second, I queried King County Elections about recalls. here's what they said;
Any recall is set in motion when a person files charges with our office. When the charging paperwork is complete, we forward the charges to the Prosecuting Attorney's Office for review. If the charges pass the Prosecuting Attorney's review, they are forwarded to King County Superior Court. That court schedules a hearing. At the hearing, a judge determines whether the recall charges meet necessary legal thresholds.
They went onto say that very few recall efforts make it through the preliminaries. But if they do, they have 180 days to get enough signatures. They didn't say but it is some percentage of vote totals in a previous school board election.
If there are sufficient signatures, then a recall election is held within 45-90 days. King County's election calendar includes February and April Special Elections, an August Primary, and the General Election in November, which means we're usually able to add a recall to an upcoming ballot. In the event things don't align, though, we're able to set a separate recall election date.
It's worth mentioning that jurisdictions occasionally have additional rules that affect the timing of which races appear on which ballot - for example, the Seattle City Charter has rules that will put their recently appointed city council position up this year. You'll have to confirm with the Seattle School Board whether they have any additional rules like that.
I do not believe I saw any other rules from the Board policies on timing for replacing members.
Given that it seems no government entity believes/wants to act on this anomaly, I think that the only movement on Song would have to come at the hands of voters, either in a recall or in the next election cycle which includes both the district she used to live in and the one she currently lives in (plus SE Seattle's seat).
I am not suggesting anyone should do this; I'm just providing information.
End of update
This is an important update as I believe I have found the nuance in Board policy that might allow Song to stay on. I will say it appears to contradict the RCW about director districts. It's quite the mess.
So what did I find?
In Seattle School Board policy 113, Board Member Residency, it says (in full):
A Director must remain a resident of the school district to be eligible to continue to serve as a Board member. If a Director’s residence changes to a place outside the district, the Director must resign and his/her eligibility to serve ends with the change of residence.
If a Director is required to live within a specific director area of the district in order to be elected or appointed to the Board, and the Director’s residence changes to a place outside the director area, but within the district, the Director may continue to serve on the Board until the next regular school district election (the fall of odd numbered years), at which time an election will be held to fill the Board position for the director area the Director no longer resides in. If the change of residence occurs after the filing period for the regular school district election, but before the election, and the Director is in the first two years of his/her term, he/she may continue to serve from a residence outside the director area, but within the district, until the end of the term he/she was elected to.
If a Director’s director area boundaries are redrawn during his/her term of office, the Director may serve out the term he/she was elected to.
Now, as the Seattle Times says, it appears that Song's timeline does not match up to either this policy or the RCW. Song moved before the filing period for the regular school district election in Fall 2023 in which case she should have notified the district and served until that election.
BUT, see that last sentence in the Board policy? The phrasing there is key. Did Song's director area boundaries get redrawn during her time in office? They did. But that sentence does not say, director area boundaries were redrawn so that the director doesn't live in that district any longer.
No, it just says that if the boundaries get redrawn during their time in office, they can stay until the end of their term.
However, the relevant RCW says:
(1) If, as a result of redrawing the director district boundaries, the director no longer resides in the director district, the director shall retain his or her position for the remainder of his or her term of office; and
See the difference? The RCW says if, as a result of redrawing the boundaries, the director no longer lives in their director district, they can stay while the Board policy just says "if boundaries are redrawn in the term of office." Nothing about the director's own district changing.
While the Board policy seems to align with the RCW on the issue of timing, it does not on the issue of redrawing boundaries.
You could say, "Well, you know what the Board meant - if the redrawing changes cause the director to no longer being in their district, then they might need to resign."
Kids, again I say, WORDS HAVE MEANING.
I don't think that anyone truly has the time and legal expertise to sort this out. However there is still the possibility of a recall election if enough citizens are unhappy about this situation.
I have a call into King County Elections to see if I can get clarity on a couple of points about elections.
Stay tuned.
Comments
It’s simple: She should come out and explain. But she is very quiet. Hmmm.
Resign Now
I think your description of Song is somewhat condescending. Not good.
I have not excused her in the least; the fact I'm still talking about it should tell you something. But it is Song that keeps this going by saying she might run for that seat in November.
I think she does owe an explanation but her silence seems to serve her.
Once I get to speak with King County Elections, I'll have to say.
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.
RCWs Matter
—RCWs Matter
Sets example?
"which is consistent with what she says she was advised by the District"
Where and when did she say this? Who at the district did the advising? Consistent with what actual advice? Did you speak with her directly?
This is a classic example of a talking point designed to tell a story to deflect, with no actual content. It is becoming a pattern for the apologists for what may amount to election fraud.
Not LoLing
Witch Hunt, your comments are explaining how confusing this all is with neither the district nor Song explaining. I think they both want it to all go away. I probably won't be writing about this again unless something new comes up but it's a puzzler.
Not LoLing, I don't know that it's election fraud. I think Song did live in her district when elected. But now she clearly doesn't. Why she didn't think this was something to state to the parents and voting public is unclear.
I think there should be a Board policy that, once a year, directors have to affirm they live in the district they were elected from. They don't have to give out their addresses but getting on record makes the responsible for what they say. I actually suspect that there may be another director not currently living in their district.
Hall Pass podcast people are requesting public records but I am not sure they will in fact out Vivian.
I agree with Not LoLing, this IS election fraud and should be treated at such. End of story.
I would write about ANY director who did this. I'm certainly not going easy on Song.
If people believe it's fraud, I would suggest a recall movement.
For RCW 28A.320.015(1) the use of the word "may" is deliberate. If you want to understand the history around eligibility look for "AGO 49-51 No. 254", an opinion that was written by the Washington State Attorney General in 1950.
The summary of this was, "Change of residence during his term by a school director of a second class district from one director's district to another director's district within the school district does not create a vacancy on the school board."
Does that provide clarity? No, not really.
There is both case law around this issue as well as changes to RCW with intent concerning this issue.
Lifting bits of RCW for the purpose of ending an argument?
It belabors the obvious importance of the need to make rhetoric, once again, a required course.
That phrase “second-class district caught my eye. From Board policy:
“The corporate name of this school district is Seattle School District No. 1, King County, State of Washington. The district is classified as a first-class district and is operated in accordance with the laws and regulations pertaining to first-class districts. “
SPS is a first-class district.
To be specific, the Attorney General's opinion narrowed the requirements for continuing to hold office for a "director's district" from all districts that have are so divided in this manner to just first class districts.
The update to RCW in 1969 implies that the Superintendent is responsible for filing a complaint that the AG will prosecute, but that does not mean that only the Superintendent can file the complaint, anyone can file the complaint to the AG's office. There is considerable history around this topic.
The AG's office won't act unless someone files a complaint.
-- Keyword, "may"