3 Richland school officials ask judge to change her mind and block their recall
The three Richland School Board members fighting an attempt to recall them from office have formally asked a Tri-Cities judge to reconsider her recent ruling.
“The court should reconsider its ruling on the OPMA recall charges and dismiss them as being legally and factually insufficient,” read a motion to reconsider that was filed last week with the Benton County Superior Court.
Superior Court Judge Norma Rodriguez found a week ago that five charges levied against Semi Bird, Kari Williams and Audra Byrd were sufficient to allow the recall effort to proceed to the next step.
But before their challengers can begin gathering signatures to place the question on the ballot for voters, Bird, Williams and Byrd vowed to fight her ruling.
In the coming days Judge Rodriguez could either deny their request, agree to reconsider and file a new order, or reopen the hearing and accept more arguments, said Jerry Moberg, the attorney representing the trio.
If Rodriguez sticks to her original decision, they have said they will ask the Washington state Supreme Court to take up the case and overrule her.
Rodriguez’s order ruled that most of the charges levied against the trio were factually sufficient and met the state’s standard for recall. In reviewing recall petitions, judges do not rule on the veracity or merits of the charges — that’s up to the voters to decide.
The group has until May 26 to appeal to the Supreme Court. The court isn’t required by law to accept a review of the ruling, though.
If the judge’s decision is upheld, recall supporters would have six months to gather about 5,000 signatures from Richland School District voters to put their names on the ballot.
Reconsidered charges
The motion for reconsideration deals specifically with two of the five alleged charges that deal with the state’s Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA). The three board members are accused of:
- Violating the Open Public Meetings Act by voting at a special meeting taking final action on a matter, to wit: masking optional, that had not been included in the published public meeting agenda.
- Holding non-public meetings in violation of the Open Public Meetings Act.
Moberg said they’re challenging those charges because they “believe there’s a clear error” in the established set of facts.
Alongside their motion, they’ve provided the judge with time-stamped images of Williams’ individual text message conversations with Bird and Byrd. They argue these texts show they didn’t conduct a non-public meeting.
“The court based its ruling on text messages that were not date stamped,” the motion reads. “... The court erroneously assumed that the text messages were close in time and related to the vote regarding the mask mandate.”
Bird said in court documents he was only aware there would be a majority on the school board to make COVID masks optional after Byrd on Feb. 8 made a failed motion to do so. He then reached out to Williams, saying they should move forward on a vote.
Williams is also asking the court to strike a third charge, one that says she voted to make masks optional “in knowing violation of the law and in excess of the powers of a school board, even after warnings from the state and from legal counsel.”
“While there is some evidence in the record related to Audra Byrd and Semi Bird, that evidence does not refer to Kari Williams. The record does not support a conclusion that she intended to act unlawfully,” the motion reads.
That evidence is that Bird in a video posted to his public-facing Facebook page said he was aware of the possible violations of law and board ethics, and that Byrd posted on Facebook that they had a “moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”
All three school board members were informed, however, from legal counsel and state Superintendent Chris Reykdal on Feb. 10 that going against the mask mandate was against the law.
The trio continues to assert that their notice for the Feb. 15 special meeting, where they voted to make masks optional, was sufficient.
Critics and those involved in the recall group say the notice that was given, which simply read “Resolution No. 940 — Local Control,” gave no information to the community as to what the board was planning to vote on.
The school board last week approved settlement of an OPMA lawsuit filed specifically over that language.
Anti-recall rally Saturday
A rally in support of the three school board members is planned for Saturday, May 21.
The public demonstration will take place 10 a.m. to noon at John Dam Plaza in Richland.
“They fought for our kids, now we will fight for them,” read the event’s flier.
A Change.org petition in support of the trio has also received about 350 signatures so far, with a goal of collecting 500.
This story was originally published May 20, 2022 at 4:21 PM.
