RICHLAND, Wash.- Court documents filed on April 27 from the Washington Supreme Court show the court agrees with three charges stemming from three Richland School District board members’ vote to allow the choice of wearing a face mask in schools. The vote took place during when the state was still enforcing a mask mandate.
The issues first arose on February 8, 2022 when Audra Byrd motioned to remove the mask mandate which failed at the meeting. One week later, a board meeting was called with the only agenda item being a motion from Semi Bird to move to mask choice, effective immediately.
The board voted with Bird, Byrd and Kari Williams voting yes before the superintendent closed schools the next day for an emergency meeting. Richland voters filed a recall of the three board members on April 11.
Court documents show the Supreme Court agrees that the board violated the Open Public Meetings Act to vote on the mask mandate without including the information in a public meeting agenda.
The special meeting called to vote requires a written notice to each member of the board, the news, be posted on the organization’s website and at the entrance of the meeting site. The charge has been found to be factual and legally sufficient.
The second count upheld says the vote to make masks optional violated the law after warnings from the State and legal counsel. Board members originally argued that the State had no power to mandate masks in their schools, despite the state of emergency put in place by the Governor and secretary of health.
The court found several documents from attorneys advising the school district against removing masks in meetings. A Facebook post from Byrd showed she knew the legality of the vote and likened it to “driving 35 in a 30 mph zone.”
The court also found that the school district knew the law and intended to break the rules, upholding the charge as legal and sufficient.
The charge of violating the district’s Code of Ethics was found legally insufficient. Wording in the policy “Powers and Duties of the Board” offers the implication of a request, rather than requiring, to subscribe to the code of ethics.
The wording of the document was enough for the court to dismiss the charge.
The final count accuses Bird and Byrd of failing to comply with policy and law within District Policies.
The policy requires board members to take “such actions as are necessary to assure compliance with law.” The court found the claim to be sufficient as a violation of mandatory duties.
In total, the Supreme Court upheld the three counts of OPMA violations, knowingly voting against the law and district policy violations but then dismissed the count of a Code of Ethics violation.
