Filling the Two Vacant Seattle School Board Seats Watch

Monday, February 12th

As of 10am, nothing about applying at the Seattle Schools' webpage. And, next week is Winter Break. 

I would assume if staff does manage to get something up this week, that the directors could at least ask for the applications that have come in and could read those over the break. 

Or, are directors are having a staffer do a preliminary weeding out process (like checking addresses)? Then, directors might not see any applications for two weeks. (I almost think that applicants' addresses should be checked in the same way parents' addresses get checked for enrollment - like seeing utility bills with that address. )

That's one way to run out the clock if you wanted fewer applications. 

To note, no one that I contacted about the residency issue at SPS answered my emails; I am considering a public disclosure request. I am certain any emails between either Rivera/Song and Legal Counsel will be redacted because of client/lawyer privilege. However, there would be dates and that might be useful. But considering I just got one request fulfilled - about a year after I asked - it might not be worth it.

In other news, former director Lisa Rivera gave an interview to the podcast Seattle Hall Pass. I get a somewhat different vibe from her about her situation than former director Vivian Song but they are two different cases. 

Interesting comments (I did somewhat edit comments to get to basic thoughts.)

So tell us about your time on the board. If people ask you, “What was it like serving on the Seattle School Board?” What do you say?

[00:01:22] Lisa Rivera: Well, my time, specifically the last four years, as we all know, was a really difficult time. I came in 2019 and we were facing a pandemic just four months later. So that was pretty much most of my time spent was navigating our way through and now coming out of pandemic mode.

It's been probably more difficult than people understand just because, I mean, everybody was hit hard by this. Families, students, educators. And as a board, we were just trying to make the best decisions we could with really no playbook of how to do it. And, on top of that, we had to hire a new superintendent, we faced a teacher strike.

But that's part of the job and we do it for our students, we do it for our educators. I'm proud of our ability to make those decisions we needed to keep students safe, to keep them getting an education that they deserve. 

When I ran for re-election, I remember thinking like, well, that was kind of trial by fire, and now I'm excited to rebuild and face. Our next challenge was, obviously, the budget shortfall or if there's going to be school closures or consolidations — a lot of big things on the horizon. And I was really looking forward to working with the board to take this on.

But, of course, extenuating circumstances came about, and me and Vivian chose to resign last week.

I would say extenuating circumstance were found out. 

Why did you decide to resign?

Lisa Rivera: Well, honestly, I didn't plan on resigning. And though this past fall, I was in the process of moving out of my director district due to my divorce. I knew I could continue serving until 2025. So, no, resigning wasn't something I was actively considering. But honestly, after the January 17th meeting, where I watched in dismay as Director Song was personally attacked on the dais, it became clear that I would be next if this artificial standard that they had created was applied to me too. Because in that meeting, it was clear that there was less concern with what was legal and more concern with what they believed was right or wrong for us.

If the acceptable standard is that it's unethical to represent a district that you do not physically live in, even though (a) we are ultimately elected citywide and (b) the law does in fact allow for a continued representation after a move, then that is a manufactured standard that I cannot meet due to my own personal and financial situation.

So, yeah, in the face of that vitriol and the unnecessary use of that board time, I decided that I would step down and I can say with all confidence that it was the best decision for me. But my worry now is the chilling effect it's going to have on prospective board members, especially renters and others who were not able to predict how or when their situations might drastically change. And that's everyone, right? Because none of us know what the future holds for ourselves. 

To be clear, the law isn't the problem. The law is actually pretty understanding that people move and things happen. The problem is the colonized mindset that says there is a standard of eligibility.

It became clear that it was less about what's legal or not legal, and that this was going to be called into question and that this was something that was going to be scrutinized. Our personal situations were going to be used to say that we were unfit to serve.

If this role is really going to be equitably available to more people, especially the voices that we don't have on the board, we need to show grace. We need to be curious, not judgmental. And I really just wish we'd seen more of that.

But as I saw it play out, I saw the destruction it was causing. I saw that it was becoming bigger than the work we were supposed to be concentrating on. I just decided it was time to step down.

Let's look at those comments.

1. So Rivera knew that she was running to retain her office but she didn't live in her district. And, apparently, she had checked the law and knew that, if it came up, legally she could stay on the Board until 2025. 

2. "Acceptable standard" is a bit of an oxymoron. Because the law does allow for movement but it's not the standard for candidates. The standard is living where you said you did when you ran.

3. She's right - none of us know what circumstances might make us change addresses. But I'm guessing that, with her divorce, she knew there was the possibility of moving. So she checked the law and SHE decided what was acceptable/ethical in her own mind. That's fine but she has to allow for other people to disagree.

4. She says the problem isn't the law but "a colonized mindset." I would gently disagree. For example, if you drive faster than the speed limit because you think that's acceptable, does that make a speed limit law flexible? Sure but good luck if you get caught.

5. No, I don't believe that Song and Rivera's "personal situations" would be used against them. I'm sure most people know people who have been divorced or have experienced it in their own lives. There is no shame in being divorced. But the issue is the hiding of a fact that you know would call your seat's legitimacy into question. I don't think anyone saying that both directors hiding their address changes is "judgmental." As Rivera said, in her case, she could have served two more years without question. 

And the bullies on the Board need to be stood up to and yet that didn't happen. 

She goes on to say:

You know, we pass items, and we make decisions, and we move on to the next one pretty easily, because we have a lot to handle in every given month. 

I didn't see this one going away. I didn't see this one being resolved. 

Well, this situation isn't exactly like voting on a BEX project. What could have happened is that whoever the president is, that person publicly states that Legal has said that the law settles the issue and that there need not be any more discussion about it by the Board. If one director feels that trust has been damaged, that person is entitled to that viewpoint but there's always issues among people. Leaders work with others they disagree with and do their jobs. 

And did it feel like was the dynamic similar in her situation? 

[00:08:51] Lisa Rivera: The board dynamic changes every two years, with every election. It's different people and a different makeup and different dynamics. And that's something you kinda have to roll with. When I came on, I came into a board Leslie Harris was the president.

It had Rick Burke, Jill Geary, Scott Pinkham, people who weren't there when I finally got on the board and was myself a voting member. And then two years later it changed again. So if that happens, you kind of got to find a new footing and find a new way to work with the different people because everyone brings their own style and their own approaches. 

But again, people are complex systems of emotions and people are going to bring their experiences. They're gonna bring their characteristics. They're gonna bring their traumas. Everyone's bringing their stuff to this board.

To go back to Eden Mack, I have so much respect for Eden. And I was really looking at her as a mentor on the board when I came onto it. And so when she resigned, that was like, to me, that was scary. Not that I'd gotten to know Gina or Evan very well just yet, but I know how that feels to suddenly lose people that you were like, wait, I was supposed to learn from you. I was supposed to have you help along with the other board members show me the ropes and help get me acclimated. 

Yes, Burke, Geary and Pinkham were reasonable directors who did strive to make it work. I do not think that is the same tone from the current Board.

Yes, let's go back to former director Eden Mack. She was also a brilliant person but she got bullied; it was quite disappointing when she left because while I'm glad she said SPS was a sick system, I wish she had gathered her courage and stayed on. 

Rivera is spot-on for how Briggs and Topp must feel because directors with more experience - all of them - have a lot to show/give to new members. 

Good points here:

Jane Tunks Demel: Yeah, and that's where I start to get concerned because, for directors who won 70 percent of the citywide vote and now are stepping down. And in their place, we're going to have someone for two years or two directors for two years that are appointed. And if there's not a community engagement process, when they're making these appointments, it means that the voters won't have any representation for these positions.

Jane Tunks Demel: And at a time when there's a $105 million deficit and also school closures and consolidations, in the next two years, it's going to be some of the biggest changes Seattle Public Schools has had in over a decade. And to not have representation where the voters get to weigh in, that's something that really concerns me.

Jane Tunks Demel: And I think it's also important that they choose people who might have points of view different than them, because Vivian Song — and Lisa, you too — you often had different points of view than the remaining board members. And I think that's okay. It actually makes a board stronger. 

It makes them stronger when you have to reach across the table and compromise with someone or collaborate with them and to make a new policy or make a decision about school consolidations or budget cuts or anything. It just makes this decision so much stronger when you bring everybody to the table instead of only recruiting people who have the exact same viewpoint as you.

But do I think THIS Board will pick people with differing viewpoints on, say, SOFG? I do not. And Briggs and Topp will get warned to stay in line to get a unanimous vote on the candidates.

Spot on here:

Jane Tunks Demel: And during your time on the board, what was the biggest obstacle to getting things done? 

[00:18:30] Lisa Rivera: One of those, I think, for at least in my experience on the board, one of the biggest obstacles I had, was honestly with gatekeeping, both of information and of access.

Processes are always changing, so this isn't an insurmountable problem. But, for example, at one time, when you wanted information from staff, you had to get the corresponding committee chair's approval. You had to get their sign-off on your questions.

And so there was a time when I was told by the corresponding committee chair that I couldn't ask that question. And I shouldn't expect a response to that. So I really appreciate the new system that the board office has put in place where we submit our questions into an online form and the answers come back in our weekly board forecast emails that we get that come with a wealth of other information and updates.

But still, admittedly, the answers aren't always complete or necessarily informative. Sometimes the answer is, "Oh, we'll answer that later." Or sometimes the question simply isn't answered. So it's an improvement, I think, over the old system. But there is still difficulty sometimes getting the full picture that you need as a director to make the decisions that you need to make.

I've heard this from so many directors about staff playing it close to the vest or dragging their feet with answers. That's why I take this "we're a team" stuff with a grain of salt. Staff believes they are the experts and the Board should not be questioning them closely.

This is my answer about why I never ran:

Lisa Rivera: I've often told people your voice is sometimes stronger not on the board. Because when you're on the board, there's a lot more at play. You are supposed to be thinking districtwide and you have to kind of adhere to the information that comes from the district. 

But when you're a community member, you don't have to. You can get up there and you can speak mightily for that cause, which is bringing you to the meeting. And you can rally others. And it's a powerful thing to be in community. And I wish people knew that more that their voices are very powerful. 

I do want to say again that the cases of Song and Rivera are on the same topic - residency - but they are very different.

One last item - we have seen that Song is a ambitious and determined person. She was willing to leave one post for another mid-term. And, she actually did well in her effort, making the final cut of applicants to the City Council. It would seem like she would want to run again. This issue is a problem.

Now that she is gone from the Board, might she consider suing the district to clear her name? Dores she have proof that the district knew about her issue before it actually became public? My understanding is that she had a least one meeting with Legal and brought her own attorney. When did that happen?

Because Rivera and Song are accused of withholding information from the public; might that not also be true for the district? And did they knew in time to call a special election but wanted to avoid that cost?