It's Overwhelming (But I'm Going to Try)

Update:

I forgot to include this - this Wednesday's Board meeting's agenda reflects a couple of items on the resignations. Right after the Call to Order:

II. Acknowledgement and Announcement of District 2 and District 4 School Board Director Resignations

There is also an update to the Board policy on director residency but I don't think it goes far enough. The pertinent part:

The present edits would rewrite the existing policy, originally based on a WSSDA model, to
more clearly articulate directors’ individual responsibility for ensuring they remain eligible for
service as a school board director and to articulate notification requirements for directors to
ensure the board and county can take timely action to declare and fill any vacancies through
appointment or election as applicable. As noted in the Alternatives section, these edits do not
impact existing residency requirements for Directors, as these are provided by state law.

The district has made it more difficult to post links but here's the agenda and it's near the bottom.

I think that it should say that "once a calendar year, each board director at a regularly scheduled Board meeting, will publicly state if they are still living in the district from where they were elected."

As well, the revision includes that a director must notify the Superintendent, Legal Counsel, the Board President and the Board office.

It needs to go further - the ENTIRE Board should be notified along with the public. Otherwise, unless this policy directs someone to give a public announcement, when does the public get let in on this information? 

Once again, it goes to transparency.

end of update

Frankly, it has become a lot to track this district. I would love to be writing about education bills in the Legislature and put up a good news post on great things happening in SPS (and there are always good things) but as this district struggles and struggles in what seems like a sea of molasses, I feel compelled to write about what is happening and what is coming. 

I am going to try to find out what happened with the two Board directors who resigned this week - Lisa Rivera and Vivian Song. I want to create a timeline to try to suss out who said what, when and to whom. 

I am sure there are those people who would throw their hands up and say, let it go. My take is if Rivera and Song are being held responsible, then the district should be clear about their actions. Ditto on any senior Board leadership. 

The constant

Help me out here with what you want to know.

Song

- When did Song know she no longer lived in her district (and I'm speaking of the last year or so, not when she ran)?  

-Who did she tell and when? Because if Legal knew, then they could claim client-lawyer privilege. Except if it turns out that they only checked Board policy, not the RCW, then the public should know when people aren't doing their jobs well. 

 - What is equally important is if she and/or Legal told then-president Brandon Hersey. Board policy is silent on who gets to be notified in this kind of case but at the very least, I would think if he knew, he was obligated to tell the rest of the Board. 

- As well, was Song obligated to tell the voting public?

- If Hersey knew, was it his obligation to tell the public? Just an announcement at a Board meeting with no judgment made. 

- Or were Legal and Hersey manipulating the situation to move forward what the majority of the Board wants. Because I'm sure the majority is glad that their lock on power is more and more solid. 

 

Rivera

- When did Rivera know she no longer lived in her district? Was it before she ran again? Or right after?

-Who did she tell and when? Because if Legal knew, then they could claim client-lawyer privilege. Except if it turns out that they only checked Board policy, not the RCW, then the public should know when people aren't doing their jobs well. 

 - What is equally important is if she and/or Legal told then-president Brandon Hersey. Board policy is silent on who gets to be notified in this kind of case but at the very least, I would think if he knew, he was obligated to tell the rest of the Board. 

- As well, was Rivera obligated to tell the voting public? 

Legal

- Were Legal's comments to either director grounded in just Board policy or both Board policy and the relevance RCW? That is crucial to know. 

- Did Legal notify then-President Hersey? Was Hersey advised to tell the Board? I see nothing in the Board policy or RCW that directs the president what do when they learn important information about a director that would make said director's continued presence an issue in policy.

A reader commented:

The district was aware of Song's residency change. It seems to me that they had an obligation to hold a special election- or defend board policy as a mechanism to retain Song.

As I stated previously, there is one line in the pertinent Board policy that says if boundaries change during a board member's term,  directors can stay in office.

However, the RCW more clearly states that if boundary changes affect a board member region, they can stay in office.

The difference is the Board policy says if there are boundaries changes - no matter if it affects any given board member - they can all stay on. Versus the RCW which says the boundaries must change a director's region for that director to stay on.

So the mechanism was there but would Board policy trump an RCW? I think not. 

Another reader asked:

Is there anything at all we can do to influence this? Or are we really just going to have to wait till the next election?

The appointments? Nope. I would guess that President Rankin and Director Hersey will decide all of it. I do feel for new Director Gina Topp because she sits at the bottom of the group. Sarju and Briggs will go along with whatever Rankin and Hersey decide. Topp might have her own opinions - after meeting and listening to the final candidates - but she can go whistle in the wind. It just won't matter. 

BUT

I will check at King County Elections but I don't think there is a reason that both these seats can't be on the ballot in November which would serve parents and voters much better. It would just be mind-bogging to wait until November 2025 to fill those two spots.