Published: Saturday, October 24, 2009
No fine for Arlington school board members
But the court ruling also decided the board violated the Open Public Meetings Act.
EVERETT — Arlington School District claimed a partial legal victory Friday even as it admitted school board members had repeatedly violated the state Open Public Meetings Act.
Snohomish County Superior Court Judge Ellen Fair ruled that board members won’t have to pay fines. She also chastised the nonprofit public interest group that brought the lawsuit for failing to adequately make a case for some of its claims.
“I understand why the district is disturbed by this suit,” she said of the case brought 18 months ago by the Center for Justice.
Greg Overstreet of Allied Law Group of Seattle, attorney for the Spokane-based watchdog group, called the rulings “a split decision.”
Deciding on pretrial motions, Fair found Arlington School Board conducted 21 closed-door executive sessions in violation of the open meetings act.
Fair also ruled that the center had failed to prove that the district didn’t give proper notice of special meetings of the school board. She also found against the center’s claim that school board members knew they were violating the law.
The Center for Justice argued that the school board between March 2006 and May 2008 conducted study sessions and closed-door executive sessions without giving adequate public notice.
The suit was brought as part of the center’s statewide effort to bring attention to enforcement of the Open Public Meetings Act, Overstreet said.
“The pesky details of the public meetings law can slow down decision making, but it’s the law,” Overstreet said. “Arlington School District decided that complying with the Open Public Meetings Act was inconvenient.”
The school board did not intentionally meet in secret, said school district attorney David Hokit of the Curran Law Firm in Kent.
Nearly a year before the Center for Justice filed its lawsuit against the district, school board members learned from state auditors they were running executive sessions improperly, Hokit said.
All parties in the suit agreed that the school board was in violation 21 times.
“This lawsuit later added claims regarding notices of special meetings,” Hokit said. “And this became the heart of the case.”
Fair did not agree with the center’s claim that people weren’t given proper notice of special meetings or study sessions.
Still undecided in the case is whether school board retreats and dinners were in violation of open meetings rules. Those issues could go to trial or may be settled out of court, attorneys said.
The state Auditor’s Office in 2007 told the school district it needed to change its practices on open meetings.
At the time, the board regularly conducted executive sessions before starting most of its scheduled public meetings. District officials say they thought they were doing people a favor. The idea was they could have the meetings and not make people wait for them to finish closed-door sessions.
State auditors, however, told school officials that the law required the board to first meet in public before going into executive session. Further, they said the district was doing an inadequate job of explaining the board’s legal grounds for taking the public’s business behind closed doors.
The school district agreed with the auditors’ findings.
The Auditor’s Office later included Arlington School District on a list of public agencies that had been notified of public meetings act problems of one kind or another in 2007.
Overstreet said the center used the auditor’s list to target five local governments for legal action, seeking fines and attorney fees.
Since then, the Port of Longview, the city of Ridgefield and the Yelm Fire District have settled out of court, paying the center’s legal costs and making charitable donations.
“Along with Arlington School District, these were the most egregious of the list of violators,” Overstreet said.
After the 2007 state audit, the board changed its practices and began properly convening executive sessions, Hokit said.
“We’re very pleased with Judge Fair’s rulings,” Hokit said.
Violations of state open meetings laws rarely get court attention, Overstreet said.
Getting a day in court for the issue was a victory in itself, he added.
“This first round was a split decision. The part we won was good,” Overstreet said.
Gale Fiege: 425-339-3427, gifege@heraldnet.com.
Snohomish County Superior Court Judge Ellen Fair ruled that board members won’t have to pay fines. She also chastised the nonprofit public interest group that brought the lawsuit for failing to adequately make a case for some of its claims.
“I understand why the district is disturbed by this suit,” she said of the case brought 18 months ago by the Center for Justice.
Greg Overstreet of Allied Law Group of Seattle, attorney for the Spokane-based watchdog group, called the rulings “a split decision.”
Deciding on pretrial motions, Fair found Arlington School Board conducted 21 closed-door executive sessions in violation of the open meetings act.
Fair also ruled that the center had failed to prove that the district didn’t give proper notice of special meetings of the school board. She also found against the center’s claim that school board members knew they were violating the law.
The Center for Justice argued that the school board between March 2006 and May 2008 conducted study sessions and closed-door executive sessions without giving adequate public notice.
The suit was brought as part of the center’s statewide effort to bring attention to enforcement of the Open Public Meetings Act, Overstreet said.
“The pesky details of the public meetings law can slow down decision making, but it’s the law,” Overstreet said. “Arlington School District decided that complying with the Open Public Meetings Act was inconvenient.”
The school board did not intentionally meet in secret, said school district attorney David Hokit of the Curran Law Firm in Kent.
Nearly a year before the Center for Justice filed its lawsuit against the district, school board members learned from state auditors they were running executive sessions improperly, Hokit said.
All parties in the suit agreed that the school board was in violation 21 times.
“This lawsuit later added claims regarding notices of special meetings,” Hokit said. “And this became the heart of the case.”
Fair did not agree with the center’s claim that people weren’t given proper notice of special meetings or study sessions.
Still undecided in the case is whether school board retreats and dinners were in violation of open meetings rules. Those issues could go to trial or may be settled out of court, attorneys said.
The state Auditor’s Office in 2007 told the school district it needed to change its practices on open meetings.
At the time, the board regularly conducted executive sessions before starting most of its scheduled public meetings. District officials say they thought they were doing people a favor. The idea was they could have the meetings and not make people wait for them to finish closed-door sessions.
State auditors, however, told school officials that the law required the board to first meet in public before going into executive session. Further, they said the district was doing an inadequate job of explaining the board’s legal grounds for taking the public’s business behind closed doors.
The school district agreed with the auditors’ findings.
The Auditor’s Office later included Arlington School District on a list of public agencies that had been notified of public meetings act problems of one kind or another in 2007.
Overstreet said the center used the auditor’s list to target five local governments for legal action, seeking fines and attorney fees.
Since then, the Port of Longview, the city of Ridgefield and the Yelm Fire District have settled out of court, paying the center’s legal costs and making charitable donations.
“Along with Arlington School District, these were the most egregious of the list of violators,” Overstreet said.
After the 2007 state audit, the board changed its practices and began properly convening executive sessions, Hokit said.
“We’re very pleased with Judge Fair’s rulings,” Hokit said.
Violations of state open meetings laws rarely get court attention, Overstreet said.
Getting a day in court for the issue was a victory in itself, he added.
“This first round was a split decision. The part we won was good,” Overstreet said.
Gale Fiege: 425-339-3427, gifege@heraldnet.com.
Comments
(
