Conversation on SOFG from the December 10, 2025 Board Meeting

I wanted to post - verbatim - what was said during the course of the Board officer elections because I think it is a start to see change as to how the Board works.

Director Liza Rankin had mentioned, during Board comments, about the Board's work being about creating policy. She said they needed to follow state and federal law in shaping those policies. It was ironic how she talked about the Policy Committee work and how important it is and yet voted to get rid of other committees that provided oversight. 

She said they needed to keep policies updated and "holding each other in the district accountable for following them. (Otherwise) we end up with a district driven by legal complaints and concerns and the contract with SEA and that's it. So the policy committee work is not my special project; it's actually the work of the Board." 

She did not mention SOFG in those comments which I thought odd given that's governance model she is following for that work.

To remind you, Director Gina Topp was nominated and elected Board president again.  But in comments just before the vote, Director Rankin had a comment that kind of flew in the face of what happened during her own lengthy tenure on the Board. 

She said (about the role of president): "It is one of additional responsibility. It is not one of additional authority. The authority belongs to the Board as a whole." I'll just state that when Chandra Hampson was president she very much used that role for more authority and Rankin was right behind her. 

Rankin also said that in other districts "it's not a political jockeying for something." And it is in SPS? Nope. She talked about other boards rotating the roles and that's a valid statement. But then this Board just reelected all the same people in the same roles. You would have thought she would have voted differently based on her statements but no.

Continuing the elections, Director Evan Briggs was nominated again for VP and Fred Podesta, in his only role on the Board as secretary, asked if there were any comments. This is where it got tense and testy.

Director Vivian Song said, "I alluded to this in my oath of office speech. I'm really looking for a really significant change to how this board is going to be doing its business and, over the course of campaigning, I heard from a lot of the public tat this governance framework has really not been serving our district very well." She mentioned the recent Times' webinar with the three new directors. She said that the moderator mentioned that the Times' had received many questions prior to the webinar on SOFG.

Song said, "I haven't had an opportunity to engage Director Briggs about her plans if she were to serve in the leadership role, what kind of changes she would anticipate." 

Briggs seemed startled by this but said, "It's up to the Board, not the VP. Are you interested in what my perspective is? Ok, so I don't have a particular allegiance to student outcomes focused governance. I do think it's important that we have governance framework and that has been noted in multiple audits over a period of decades." She said it would be "misguided" to ignore that. 

"I support having best practices, policy governance framework and I'd be happy to use the WSSDA framework." She said it was "state-sanctioned" but I'd have to look that up. The law only says what boards have to provide but I don't believe the State approves any particular governance.

"That's basically my feelings on the topic."

Song pressed on, "I'm wondering if you're planning to continue to engage coaching services or consulting services from the people who lead SOFG."

Briggs said, "Again, that's not my choice, I think that would be a Board discussion and I would be open to having that discussion as a Board."

Podesta asked if there were any other comments. In came Director Rankin:

"Yeah, I didn't want to say this now but it's been brought up. We didn't implement it (meaning SOFG). We're not doing it. It's been weaponized, it's been misconstrued, we need a framework to make sure that we do the job of the Board. We don't have that, we're not using one. We do need change desperately. 

And so can we just stop this nonsense, like seriously, I know people ran on it to repeal it. Congratulations, it's repealed. Like there's nothing to what we have to talk about as a Board and with the next superintendent, and one thing I'm very excited about is that he really understands board governance and the role of the board - superintendent relationship. 

And I think that conversation will go very differently with a person who wants to engage in that relationship and understand the importance and doesn't see the Board as an annoyance as has been the case for many, many years and several superintendents."

Wow, that last paragraph is quite the indictment of past leadership. 

She went on, "And so SOFG, I mean, nobody's as far as I know, engaging in the training at this point. And if we, if there were a contract renewal, that the Board would have to approve that in a public meeting. 

So it's gone, it's done. It doesn't happen. It hasn't been happening. There's even an audit from 2024 that describes the ways it hasn't been happening."

Song comes in: "The initial contract was not brought to the Board for approval (editor's note - this is true). I was eating lunch in the cafeteria earlier today. I kind of disagree with your characterization. I do think SOFG has been present in this district. A very specific concern that I have was I ran into some staff members while I was in the cafeteria and I was having a conversation with them. A staff member saw her supervisors and she saw some district leaders and she immediately expressed to me that she was going to get into trouble for having a conversation with me." (Editor: I don't know if that staffer expressed that as kidding or was actually was worried.)

"That is the overhang of this governance framework and I really would like us to move forward where we are able to have regular conversations with staff members of Board members. We're all one team, we're all working together, and that is the change thing."

Rankin came back: "The framework does not bar staff members from having conversations with Board directors. So I think this is not the right time for this conversation. I would really, actually, be thrilled for us to have an actual honest and open conversation about this when it's scheduled for the agenda because it has been weaponized and politicized and it ultimately hurts children."

Topp then moved them on to the vote which was six yes and Song's one no. 

Analysis

I initially was puzzled by Song bringing this up during elections. But, if you think about it, they were voting on leadership roles and the governance model is led by those elected. The officers may not have more authority but they do lead. 

Briggs gave her usual bland answers. Sure, the Board needs to work together on this but again, she was already in leadership and she has no opinion on SOFG? No idea if it's useful or not? 

Rankin seemed to "weaponize" her own remarks with words like "nonsense" and her claim that SOFG does not bar Board directors from engaging staff. It does. 

If they haven't been or aren't currently using SOFG, what did the district spend all that money on?  And she believes, from the elections, that SOFG is dead in the water? Okay then. 

Lastly, for Rankin to say that she would be "thrilled" for an open conversation but then say that during the campaign wasn't the right time and throwing out "hurting kids" remark is just ridiculous. 

I don't know when they will have this conversation again but it should be sooner rather than later. Maybe Rankin's Policy Committee could study the WSSDA model and then they can discuss that as a whole, vote to adopt something and move on.