3 Richland officials facing recall reconsider voting to pay their own legal bills
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
Three Richland School Board members are considering calling for a new vote to have taxpayers pay their legal bills for fighting a recall effort to oust them from office.
Last April, the school board agreed to pay the legal fees if a judge found the charges were insufficient to go on a ballot.
But since then, a Tri-Cities judge and the Washington Supreme Court have ruled that the allegations are sufficient and a recall group can collect signatures to get the question before voters this fall.
Already, the school district has refused to pay a $30,800 legal bill from a private attorney submitted last July to defend board members Kari Williams, Audra Byrd and Semi Bird.
It’s unclear how much their legal fees have risen to by now.
And the issue was raised again at last week’s board meeting.
As the school board was discussing future agenda items, the question of paying the legal fees came up.
Board member Jill Oldson said she was open to having the discussion again while board member Rick Jansons was not.
The board ended up voting 4-1 to allow item “4.2 - Vote on Board Members for Attorney Fees” on a future agenda. Initially, it was set for next week but Williams has since told the Herald that it will likely be several weeks before they discuss it again.
Recall legal fees
Jansons later told the Tri-City Herald that the issue has been settled, and that he will vote “no” if the issue of covering their legal fees comes back up for a another vote.
State law allows school districts to protect their elected officials from frivolous lawsuits, but he argued that 10 judges (one local and nine on the state Supreme Court) have ruled that the recall allegations hold merit.
“It’s about the integrity of the district, about making sure our leaders follow the law, and about making sure the resources the voters gave to the school district will be used for the students and not for protection of board members when it’s not warranted,” he said.
But Williams, who currently chairs the school board, told the Herald that they still believe they were acting in good faith a year ago when they voted to defy Washington’s state indoor mask mandate and go mask optional in schools.
Because they were acting in the interest of students, she argues, they should have their legal fees covered.
Byrd and Bird could not be reached by email about the possible new vote on their fees.
As a result of last year’s split vote, the district was forced to close schools for two days because opening doors without a mask mandate in place would have been unlawful, would have jeopardized district funding and insurance coverage, and placed jobs at risk. The board ultimately reversed its vote after several additional meetings.
But some voters in the district accused Williams, Bird and Byrd of violating the Open Public Meetings Act and knowingly violating the masking law, as well as district policies and procedures.
They filed petitions with Benton County to force a recall vote.
Attorney Jerry Moberg, who submitted the first bill to the school district, has continued to represent the trio throughout the Supreme Court appeal, but has not sent in another invoice.
Acting ‘in good faith’
After the school board vote in April on legal fee issue, the district solicited legal advice from Seattle attorney Clifford Foster.
The district wanted to know if they could be reimbursed for legal costs in a recall and if individual board members could vote in favor of their own reimbursement.
Foster said state law allows public officials to seek indemnification as long as they were acting “in good faith” and within the scope of their duties, and that a Supreme Court precedent allows them to vote in favor of their reimbursement.
During last April’s three votes, Byrd and Bird voted in favor of their own indemnification, but Williams recused herself to avoid the possible conflict of interest.
“I would say let it get to the judge and see what the judge says,” board member Semi Bird said at the April 26 meeting.
“And I think, really, we would say if the judge says ‘no,’ well then naturally any legal expenses that have been put forth, we should have indemnification on — and I think we would all probably agree with that. Anything moving past that, I’ll foot my own bill — that’s just how I am. I took a stance, and I stand by my stance that I took and I believe I acted in good faith, so I’m going to let the system do what the system does.”
And even if the Richland board votes to pay the legal bills, the three board members may have to reimburse the district if voters approve their recall and find that they exceeded their power.
The district would not be able to shield them with indemnity in that case.
In another local case, an accountability audit from the Washington State Auditor’s Office last year determined that former Port of Kennewick Commissioner Don Barnes likely violated state law when he voted in April 2021 in favor of reimbursing himself $49,000 in legal fees.
Barnes was fighting a reprimand and sanction following accusations of attempting to stop a clinic from being built, and then retaliating against the port’s CEO for refusing to go along with the demand.
State auditors found that it was not an allowable expense by the port to recoup those costs, and that it was against the law for Barnes to vote on a matter he personally benefited from.
In that case, the state auditor said, Barnes should have recused himself from the vote.
Final ballot synopsis
Three charges of misfeasance and malfeasance are what remain after the courts combined, rephrased and renumbered the Richland recall allegations.
The charges, which stem from a vote last year to defy Washington state’s indoor mask mandate and vote to go “mask optional,” allege the three:
- 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 schools 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 district policies and procedures by failing to assure compliance with law and policy.
Recall organizers have until early May to gather the signatures on three petitions for each member in order for the issue to be on the August primary ballot.
This story was originally published February 22, 2023 at 5:00 AM.
