Seattle Schools Will Not Pilot the Police Officer at Garfield Program

 Update:

Forgot to mention - head of Legal, Greg Narver, is leaving the district. 

 end of update 

 

Topline is my headline; the Board voted against trying the pilot SEO (School Engagement Officer) program at Garfield High School. It was quite the discussion but let's review what came before it (but I came in about 20 minutes late).

Also, former Board president Don Nielsen applied for the superintendent position and Director Liza Rankin announced that she is NOT going to run again.

Once again, Clark and Hersey were there virtually, with all the other directors on the dais, including the three student directors. Superintendent Fred Podesta was also there. 

When President Gina Topp had asked for director comments, Director Sarah Clark read a lengthy resolution which I think was in support of LGBTQ students and families.

This post will be about the discussion around the SEO pilot at Garfield; I will post separately on the HC Plan discussion.

Public Testimony

There were a couple of pleas for directors to intercede on behalf of Interagency staff who were being investigated. The speakers said those staff were being investigated because they spoke out at Board meetings about issues at the school. I do not know all the circumstances around this issue but I do recall those Interagency staff speaking out in previous months in support of students.

What was striking is that there was an elderly speaker, Stephen Sander, who spoke about needing a guy or "gal" superintendent who understands business. Then he said that former Board director and former president of the Board, Don Nielsen had applied for the job of superintendent but "hadn't heard back." 

What?! Nielsen is very much a business guy up the food chain who has been semi-retired for quite awhile. He was a rigid Board president and would be a disaster as superintendent. That he didn't hear back from the Board should tell him something. 

Most the testimony was against having police in SPS high schools. This is in contrast to the last Board meeting where most of the testimony was for it. 

One former Garfield parent recounted how her son had witnessed hazing by other swim team members and was going to talk to the student newspaper editor. He was intercepted at the door by an assistant principal and the SRO. They did not want him talking to the newspaper and kept him in the office until a parent came. I had interviewed this parent and wrote about this incident. 

The point is valid - if the school resource officer sides with senior staff, how is that protecting kids? And how can kids believe an SPD officer won't do the same thing? 

One current parent, Emijah Smith, had a lot to say about how Garfield staff treats her child and she doesn't believe it would be better with an SPD officer. She said, "Don't bring police into Garfield; maybe another school but not Garfield." Shealso called out a couple of teachers (by subject, not name) and the school librarian. She said "kids were safer outside the school than inside the school." 

It was a lot.

Action Items

Here's where it got tense. 

It didn't help that Vice President Evan Briggs, who is supposed to make motions for items on the agenda, once again, lost her place and couldn't figure out what to do. If she runs again, I hope she has challengers because any decent candidate could wipe the floor with her.

The motion was about the amendment to Policy 4311, School Safety and Security Program. This amendment was on the agenda at the LAST Board meeting in order for the Board to allow the SEO pilot program to proceed. Two directors, Michelle Sarju and Liza Rankin, asked for clarification, with Sarju asking for basic language so those listening could understand.

Topp explained it and then said there would be two votes. The first would be for Mizrahi's amendment and, if that passed, a vote on the package together. (And if Mizrahi's amendment failed, they would take that second vote on the original amendment to the policy.)

Rankin spoke first, saying that she felt the MOU attached to the policy was just wrong. Podesta said it was there for "illustrative" purposes and was NOT an actual MOU with SPD. Rankin talked about the policy being the Board's way to direct the Superintendent with policy for the creation of an action plan. She especially did not like the restraint language.

She then went off saying at some school, a kindergartener was suspended for 10 days for what sounds like a hurricane in a classroom. She said, "Hell no, a police officer can't intervene with a child flipping desks on a a bad day" and alluded that a teacher shouldn't either. She said the restraint wording was harm to others, not furniture. 

I'll just interject here because I DID see a 5-year old hurricane through a kindergarten class several years back. That class had two trauma kids and when either got upset, we had to (safely) clear the classroom because chairs were flying and heavy desk pencil/marker/ holders were as well.

The OTHER kids in the class need to feel safe. One boy's parents took him out of the class based on that episode. We can all be as understanding as we can in our knowledge that some kids have deep socio-emotional needs and we as adults need to be as kind and fair as possible. But when it endangers other kids, that's where it gets tough. 

For some odd reason, she smiled and giggled and said that staff is already punitive to kids, with or without police.

Briggs asked if it were "accurate that a vote to approve this amendment is the Board giving control to the Garfield community?" Podesta said yes but "we would follow Dr. Hart's lead," Hart being the Garfield principal.

Mizrahi then introduced his amendment and Topp asked for questions and oddly, there were none. The vote passed.

Then, as Director Brandon Hersey said, things got messy. 

In advance of what is to come, I can say that this was, for each director, a very personally difficult vote. That is likely why the conversation got so uncomfortable. 

He asked, "How to provide a school community with the opportunity to help their students and their staff feel safe?" He said this issue was one of the first he worked on when he came on the Board in 2019 and now it would be one of the last "on my way out." 

Then Sarju, as she likes to do, got very testy and cryptic. She said:

"This situation started from lies and deception and hiding things - this is where we end up. It's a sad statement on adults." She referenced some public record disclosure "and now we have some different narrative." She repeated that "lies and deception" line more than once.

I have no idea what she means but she likes to be an insider who drops accusations publicly. 

She said, "We could risk free college and shame on us."

Rankin came in, "and preschool, too." I guess they are referencing the upcoming vote on the City's education levy but it's unclear to me what they mean in reference to this issue. 

Rankin goes on:

"This is a reasonable change to an existing policy but the problem is, we don't trust each other." About what? "If I vote yes to allow the Superintendent  and Hart to do what they need to do, I'm signing away guardrails." If this is true, craft a better amendment. 

She said she just didn't know how to vote on this - "I don't have confidence I won't regret it later." 

Podesta had a couple of points to make and Rankin said it wasn't personal. He laughed and waved that off (good for him). He said this is just Garfield and there are ANNUAL agreements and there was limitation in scope for this pilot.

Briggs seemed miffed and said, "Let's just keep this going all night." I believe that was sarcasm. "What prevents SPD from patrolling around the building and neighborhood?" Podesta said that's a question for SPD but "we've had great cooperation from them." 

Rankin wanted to reaffirm that they are voting on policy and not an MOU. She referenced not wanting a cop to tell kids to get to class or parents to leave the building. She somehow pivoted to the situation being like breaking up with a boyfriend and then trying to get back together. Huh?

Then Rankin said she was NOT running again and that she would be voting yes.

Sarju came in saying she loved Rankin but she has told other Board colleagues that her trust had been broken, over and over and over with multiple programs. Then she said that SHE was never going to run for office again - "I can't suffer dysfunctional adults." She glances at the audience, "I'm looking at my people - they know what Mavis Stapleton says." She said she would vote no.

"You might elect someone next election who doesn't care about Black kids but I do. I'm missing a basketball game, the WMBA, but I'm willing to talk about lying and deceit." She said it was "political wrangling." 

Honestly, she should just leave now. She accuses and pontificates and yet will not be clear in her statements. It's just ridiculous and great that she won't be coming down from on high to run again. And it's very disrespectful to allude that there could be candidates running for the Board who don't care about Black children. 

Director Mizrahi spoke up and said that no matter the final vote, "nothing in policy stops SPD from doing other things." He said a no vote would NOT be about rejecting safety for our students.

Rankin said, "We are targets, no matter our vote."

Student Director Yun said this was "a healing conversation and that students at Garfield are traumatized." 

Then the vote:

Topp - no

Clark - no 

Briggs - very long pause, no

Sarju - no

Mizrahi - no 

Rankin - yes

Hersey - yes.

5-2, the original amendment fails.

Topp ends this with pointing out that the two directors longest on the Board had voted yes.

Analysis

What can anyone say? The Board got NOTHING done in months and months. No alternative was even suggested. 

Personally, I would have tried the new, lower profile metal detectors. Would that have solved everything? Nope but it seems it might have been less invasive to students than a cop with a gun in the school. It might wave off some students who might have considered bringing a gun or other weapon to school.

I put this out there because again, WHAT DID THEY GET DONE? 

I can only imagine the discussion at SPD, City Halls and other places this morning.