3 Richland school leaders ‘knowingly’ violated state law, WA Supreme Court rules

RICHLAND – Three Richland School Board members knew they were violating state law they disagreed with when they chose last year to defy Washington’s indoor COVID mask mandate, ruled the state Supreme Court.

The board also did not give proper notice to the public about its plan to vote on the issue, said the written opinion published Thursday.

The opinion is the formal ruling following a Feb. 9 order from the high court that decided an effort to recall board members Kari Williams, Semi Bird and Audra Byrd could move forward.

A group of voters is trying to recall the trio over the surprise vote they took last year to go “mask optional” in schools and defy the state’s mask law in effect at the time to deal with the COVID pandemic.

The action put the school district’s state resources and funding at risk, and ultimately led to the superintendent closing school for two full days until the action was reversed.

The recall charges allege the group’s actions violated the Open Public Meetings Act by taking final action on a matter not included on a published agenda, by violating the state law on masking at the time, by exceeding its powers and responsibilities as school board members by establishing public health policies and by violating district policies and procedures.

The group is actively gathering signatures to put the issue on the ballot.

Its hope is that Richland School District voters will decide in August whether or not the three should be removed from office.

All nine state Supreme Court justices agreed the charges held merit and could be the basis of a recall vote.

The court does not consider the truth of the charges, only their sufficiency to be voted on.

“When giving our families a mask choice option, I never had any intention to violate any laws and there is not evidence to prove otherwise,” Williams told the Tri-City Herald on Thursday. “This has always been about students and doing what is best for our community’s children. There is great work being done for our children in Richland schools and I am thrilled to be part of that positive change. Our students and their well being will continue to be my No. 1 priority.”

Byrd and Bird could not be reached Thursday morning by email about the written opinion. They have previously said that they stand by their vote.

Illegal mask vote

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and the secretary of health were in the process of lifting many of the COVID restrictions in the early months of 2022.

But the mask mandate in public buildings, including schools, was still in effect and would be until March.

It was around that time that some on the Richland School Board began discussing options for removing the mask mandate from schools and public meetings.

The board received advice during public meetings from several attorneys about whether mask rules could be lifted, and it was consistently advised that the answer was no, says Thursday’s opinion.

Byrd made a motion at the Feb. 8 school board meeting to remove the mask mandate in local schools, but no one else supported it so there was no vote on it.

On Feb. 15, the board held a special meeting.

The agenda listed only one topic: “Resolution No. 940 – Local Control,” with no description of the measure.

At the special session, Bird, who plans to run for governor in 2024, made a motion to “go mask choice in the Richland School District” to raving applause by a group of community members attending the meeting. The vote was 3-2.

Unprepared for the change and fearing legal and insurance ramifications, district administrators closed Richland schools for the next two days.

On Feb. 17, the board decided to modify its vote to remove the mask mandate and to align with the state’s timeline for masking changes.

The three school board members first contended their vote did not violate the law. Later, they argued they did not intend to break state law.

Both are incorrect, the Supreme Court said.

“The decision to vote to remove the mask mandate was not within the board’s discretionary power,” the court wrote.

Meeting minutes prior to the Feb. 15 meeting show school board members were discussing the mask mandate as a law. Several emails and letters by attorneys advised the board that the public cannot remove masks at an in-person meeting.

“(School board member Rick) Jansons also provided a declaration stating the RSDB was advised by attorneys prior to the Feb. 15 vote that masks were required in Richland schools and the RSDB lacked the authority to overrule the governor’s proclamations and the secretary of health’s orders,” the opinion reads.

Williams said the board was not collectively advised about the legality of a mask-optional vote prior to the Feb. 15 meeting. It wasn’t until it received advice from legal counsel on Feb. 17 that she changed her vote.

The court also pointed out social media posts made public on Audra Byrd’s Facebook page after the Feb. 15 vote, which read in part, “If ‘laws’ are unethical or harmful, citizens have the moral responsibility to disobey and fight against such laws.”

Byrd compared the vote to “driving 35 in a 30 mph zone.”

“Is it illegal? Yes. Are you going to actually get in trouble? No,” she wrote.

The court said despite declarations saying they did not think that their vote violated the law, the evidence shows “that RSDB members were aware that the mask mandate carried the force of the law – and that they were knowingly defying a law with which they disagreed.”

Open meetings act violations

The high court also wrote that the school board shouldn’t have taken action since the resolution to go mask optional was vague and not properly noticed.

The Open Public Meetings Act requires governments to specify what items the body plans to act on at public meetings.

“Here, the agenda item ‘Local Control’ does not provide notice of the business to be transacted. Instead, it is vague and could be interpreted by a member of the public as applying to almost any issue,” the court wrote.

Text messages between then board President Jill Oldson and Williams before this meeting backs this, the court says.

Oldson wrote to Williams: “What is the plan with the resolution. I’m a little confused on that.” And board member Rick Jansons said after the vote that he felt “ambushed.”

“In other words, the agenda item was confusing even to the RSDB members – it must certainly have been confusing to the members of the public who are entitled to notification,” the court writes.

“Openness and notice form the heart of the OPMA,” the court continued. “The facts alleged show that the charged RSDB members took action on an agenda item that was not properly described in the agenda and then voted on that item after a dissenting RSDB member repeatedly stated that he lacked notice.”

The court also found that recall charges claiming the three violated the board’s code of ethics were insufficient due to the subjective nature of language, but it upheld the charges on violating district policy, saying the board had a responsibility to assure the district was in compliance with law.