Wrap-Up From the Seattle School Board Meeting, June 4, 2025

It was a much more subdued and smaller crowd than at past meetings. Director Brandon Hersey and Director Sarah Clark were there via phone. 

However, there were indeed fireworks and those came from Director Liza Rankin and Director Michelle Sarju. Because both women were vague in their remarks, I cannot tell you for certain where and what has happened.

But Rankin says she has received multiple emails from school staff about harassment and bullying from Central Office staff. She said that school staff fear retaliation. Rankin says that Central Office staff are violating both Board policy and the law (which protects whistle-blowers).  She wants an independent investigation that reports to the Board on "staff behavior."

She also called for a "forensic auditor" who is Board directed. Not sure why or what issue this one is about. 

I will note my surprise at Rankin not mentioning if she followed SOFG directives. Because, in the old days, this would be called "micro-managing." SOFG would tell her that she should have forwarded all those types of emails to the Superintendent for HIM to manage. 

Sarju referenced 3-way texts that called her "unstable" and "out of control." She referenced some injury/illness that may have interfered with her thinking but said that she is fine now. She said she was being blindsided by other Board members and repeatedly said some are using being on the Board for higher office. She said she wanted "this nonsense to stop." She also said, repeatedly, that she was here for kids and if other directors are not, then "get off the Board." 

Both Rankin and Sarju want either a Special Meeting about Rankin's concerns OR that they be put on the agenda for a future Board meeting. 

Director Evan Briggs chimed in that she, too, wants an Executive Session (which isn't what Rankin or Sarju were talking about).

If I had to guess, I'd think this is Rankin, once again, trying to get Superintendent Brent Jones gone. And now, not in September. This is a rather late date to be bringing up these concerns especially since she said the number of complaints had been numerous and over a period of time. 

Public Testimony

Most of the public testimony was around police officers at schools. Outgoing student board member Bragg said during his comments that a student at his school called the idea, "a bandaid with razor blades." 

Janis White, Board candidate, offered that they could increase police patrols before/after school and at lunchtime. 

Alicia Spanswich, the co-president of Garfield's PTSA, spoke for herself. She said there is a crisis and "more trusted adults are needed." She said that she is concerned how having an officer would play out - SRO as discipline or witness? - and that would need to be codified for trust reasons.

Noah Funk, a Garfield student, said the problems are OUTSIDE the building and "we need SEOs there."

Another Garfield parent, David Jacobson, said, from his research, Garfield has had the most in area/at school shootings than any other US public high school.

Other students wondered where the alternatives to bringing in cops are.

I want to note that there were at least 10 students who spoke. Most of them had their time ceded to them by some adult who had signed up. Know what? The Board intro'd two massive BARs with near zero discussion. Introduction time would be when you have major discussions. 

Embedded into one policy - on Public Testimony - is getting rid of ceding time or sharing time. That means many fewer students might speak at Board meetings because they may not have time to sign up. 

For a Board that says they want student voice, this is self-defeating and should NOT be given a thumbs up. 

Then the Board took a recess, time clearly delineated by Topp. For some reason, many directors did not get back in time and Topp ever patient, had to ask for them back again. 

Then things got funny.

Topp asked for the Consent agenda motion. She got that and it was seconded. She asked if there were any items that any director wanted removed. Sarju said item 5 which was a BEX item. They voted on the Consent agenda as amended unanimously. Topp asked Sarju for her concerns about the BEX item she had removed.

Sarju looked confused and said, "I didn't mean that one." She said she had her pages out of order and she had no problem with item 5. Okay, so that got dropped but then....she said nothing about what she DID want removed. 

Then, as VP, Director Evan Briggs needed to read the Action item that came RIGHT after the Consent agenda vote. She asked, "Where are we?" Then, she started reading the Consent agenda item. She was stopped and she then said she could not find the SINGLE Action item on the agenda. Topp called for the Board staff to help her. 

Folks, that's just weird. What was Briggs doing since they resumed the meeting? Did she not say, "Aye" for the Consent agenda? She should NEVER be voted in a Board president. 

Memorial Stadium agreement

This item was on the Consent agenda and not a lick of discussion about it. I was told they had discussed it when it was intro'd at the May 14th meeting. So I went back and watched. They spent about 10 minutes on it. Most of that was Fred Podesta giving an overview. He said that it had been discussed for years and years, almost like it had been talked to death. I disagree. 

He said when they did "condition site assessments," Memorial Stadium came out the worst. I would not deny that but, as Chris Jackins pointed out, they could have just gone with a basic remodel of the stadium for the students. 

He said the new stadium would be better integrated and that now, students had no access to Seattle Center. I have no idea what he's talking about.

He claimed it was a "no profit" venture for the partners. What? Of course it is. No one is doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. 

He did say one thing that I liked. That the land for Memorial Stadium was "conveyed to the district for a $1 in 1946." I spent a couple of hours in the district archives probably 20 years ago and looked at every bit of documentation on Memorial Stadium. I don't want to hear one more person say the City owns it. They  -do - not. 

As usual, Rankin was the only one with questions. She was told that this is just a "pre-authorization" for operations and construction. I have to say that, if that were true, then it's a very long document just for that at 150 pages. I skimmed through most of it. Rankin asked about revenue and asked that if the district did make any money, it would be used to pay for student athletic fees. 

I don't know if she doesn't know but SPS currently DOES make money on the stadium. What they do with those dollars, I don't know. Maybe they have always used it for maintenance on this crumbling edifice. 

Podesta didn't seem to think there would be more money. However, that "pre-authorization" does indeed talk about revenue and who gets what. Again, that's pretty specific for a document that's allegedly just authorizing talks. 

SPS won't be allowing any kind of advertising during its events but there will be at other events. Any advertising will be removed but it's unclear to me when. Will it stay in place UNTIL the district has another event or be taken down immediately after the non-SPS event?

I see at the SPS homepage calendar that there will be a free community event on Thursday, June 26th at Memorial Stadium from 4-7 pm.

It’s lights out for the Seattle Public Schools’ iconic Memorial Stadium at Seattle Center…at least for now, as the stadium prepares for a two-year $140 million transformation beginning this summer. But first, the community is invited to an open house event to relive their memories, say a fond farewell, and learn about the exciting plans for Memorial Stadium’s future.

The stadium doors will be open for the public to purchase a bite to eat from one of the onsite food trucks and to picnic on the stadium turf while enjoying live music and snapping keepsake photos.

For additional information – and to submit your favorite Memorial Stadium memories and photos for display online and on the stadium screen – visit SeattleCenter.com/Memorial-Stadium

Budget Update 

There was a Budget update. Kirt Buttleman, Assistant Superintendent - Finance and CFO, noted that the contract with bus drivers is a "purchased service" and that's why it looks so outsized in the budget. He also said that legal expenses have gone up "significantly" and alluding to possible coming lawsuits.

Topp said that they could do a "deep dive" with questions at the Board retreat. Clark said she had eight (8!) questions but would ask them at the retreat. 

Then again, Rankin and Sarju were vocal in their concerns. Rankin said that "it is not the best use of Board retreat time but that's where we are." I sure wish they DID have all the questions out there at the Board meeting but the claim was they couldn't have a real discussion until after the public hearing on the Budget which took place after the Board meeting. 

Sarju said she had the same question she always asks - "Do we have a plan for upcoming years on how to eliminate the deficit?" She said they were mortgaging the future of kids. Buttleman said that no, this was just the budget for next year and that "the Strategic Plan may help us create that." 

Way at the end of the meeting, they talked about school safety. I cannot believe they didn't move this discussion further up the agenda for all to hear. Accountability Officer Ted Howard, who was the principal at Garfield for decades, spoke movingly about the responsibility for security of all students. Current principal Tarance Hart was also present. He said that he hears from staff that they dread the "ding" from the intercom for an announcement fearing to hear "shelter in place" or "lockdown."

Howard spoke about parent and student voice in the process. However, he also pointed out that the students testifying against officers in the school had never experienced officers in the school " all those kids have graduated." Well, it's possible that current students either read about it or have older brothers/sisters who told them. 

He also said people in marginalized communities should have a seat at the table and when they do focus groups "here," not to talk for them. Agreed but I don't think they should have focus groups at headquarters but somewhere familiar IN those communities. 

Retreat

No info on the all-day Board retreat on Saturday. No agenda yet but, given the discussion, they will be talking budget. I hope it's recorded.