Tri-Cities judge tosses out 1 charge in Richland School Board recall
READ MORE
Richland School Board Recall Effort
A high-profile group of voters filed to recall board members Semi Bird, Audra Byrd and Kari Williams after their controversial vote to make face masks optional.
Expand All
A Tri-Cities Superior Court judge has tossed out one of the five allegations in the Richland School Board recall case.
Judge Norma Rodriguez cited a “clear discrepancy” in claims the petitioners made and text messages provided by the school board members.
Rodriguez threw out the charge after the group filed a motion last month asking her to reconsider two of the five charges that deal with potential violations to the state’s Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA).
Those two charges said that the three school board members — Semi Bird, Audra Byrd and Kari Williams — violated Washington meetings law by taking final action on a vote to go “mask optional” at a special meeting without sufficient public notice and holding “non-public meetings.”
The charges have also been appealed to the Washington State Supreme Court. As of Tuesday morning, no briefs had been submitted to the high court.
After the court has received all documents, and a date has been set to review the order, a ruling could be made in a day or two, said the Supreme Court’s senior communications officer Lorrie Thompson.
No oral arguments will be considered.
The group filing the recall petitions argued that Williams’ separate text message conversations with Bird and Byrd showed the three were engaged in a rolling private meeting to discuss plans to violate Gov. Jay Inslee’s COVID mask mandate.
But Rodriguez disagreed that the evidence showed the group was holding such “non-public meetings” after reviewing conversations that were submitted by the group after the first day of recall hearings.
“The texts as a whole show that there was not a quorum, but anticipated that Ms. Audra Byrd would follow suit,” Rodriguez’s new order filed in Benton County Superior Court reads.
“There is no factual basis to show that Audra Byrd had communications forming this quorum. The texts filed by the petitioner does not contain Audra Byrd communicating with Ms. Williams about how she intends to vote or that she is on the team.”
On Feb. 12, just days after Byrd failed to bring a motion forward at a meeting to go “mask optional,” Bird texted Williams that he thought they should move forward with the motion.
“I hope all our teammates get on board, but I think now is the time. We will have a majority,” Bird wrote.
An hour and a half later, he followed up with her: “Also, this will address Audra’s main concern and hopefully get her back on the (team).”
The judge declined to reconsider the other allegation on sufficient notice to the public.
The recall group argued the Feb. 15 special meeting agenda item — which read plainly “Resolution 940 - Local Control” — was nonspecific and made no mention of making COVID masks a choice.
“The discussion regarding resolution local control were not sufficiently broad enough to encompass ‘mask choice’ in the school,” read the judge’s decision.
But the three embattled school board members have pointed to previous agenda language as precedent that the board sometimes takes action without comprehensive language.
The remaining four charges of alleged misfeasances and malfeasances would appear on a ballot as follows:
- Violated 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.
- Voted to make masks at school 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.
- Violated the district code of ethics by failing to: (1) uphold all laws, rules and regulations, and/or (2) use legal and ethical procedures; and/or (3) ensure schools are well run; and/or (4) consult those affected by changes in policy.
- Violated district policies and procedures by failing to assure compliance with law and policy.
If the Supreme Court allows the charges to go forward, the recall group would need to gather enough signatures to put the issue on the ballot for a public vote.
This story was originally published June 14, 2022 at 12:49 PM.
