Editorial: Attack ads an undeserved slander of school official

By The Herald Editorial Board

The numbers at first glance would appear to defy plausibility; as would the target and the intent.

Yet, a Mill Creek family within the Everett Public School district, has amassed a political action war chest of nearly $500,000 aimed at races for the district’s school board. As recently reported by The Herald’s Will Geschke, James and Shelly Lee have contributed $488,691 to their Committee for Educational Integrity for Everett Public Schools Board, according to reports with the state’s Public Disclosure Commission. Funds have been split among all five school board positions; the three current races for the school board and two more races coming in 2027.

The amount appears to be a record for potential political advertising for campaigns for seats on the Everett school board. Less than $30,000 was spent by a school board candidate in 2023, with others in recent years raising and spending between $3,000 and $10,000 for their campaigns, according to PDC reports.

Even fundraising and spending for Everett’s mayoral race pales next to the potential spending for the Lees’ school board campaigns. Everett Mayor Cassie Franklin, to date, has raised nearly $197,000 for her reelection campaign, while challenger and former city council member Scott Murphy has raised nearly $173,000.

So far, spending from that pot of money has been observably directed at only one of the three current races for school board: Position 3, which features the incumbent, Anna Marie Jackson Laurence, and challenger Tom Clarke.

Two mailers and a website have directed vague and misleading allegations against Jackson Laurence, in a style that is more common — if still repellent — to political attack ads for national and statewide races. Against a photo of a ramshackle playground under dark skies, the advertising accuses Jackson Laurence of “corruption of public trust,” “dereliction of duty” and failing to act to protect children’s safety. Without citation, the ads claim that “a clear majority of voters (56%) agree that ignoring such risks is a fireable (stet) offense.”

What poll is being cited? Which voters? What specific “risks” and to which children?

The allegations are twice as infuriating as they are laughable.

While she is the incumbent, Jackson Laurence has served on the board for less than four months, appointed this May to complete the term of longtime board member Caroline Mason, who resigned in March. The election is for the two years remaining for the seat.

The Lees’ complaints and their attack campaign center around a 21st-century twist on a classic grudge, charges of favoritism over which students are selected for certain roles, curricular or extracurricular. Rather than which student won the role of quarterback on the football team or who was selected for debate club, here, the parental pique was over a student passed over for the role of “driver” on the Henry M. Jackson High School robotics team, Jack in the Bot, which this April won the FIRST Robotics World Championship.

The complaints have since grown to include allegations that adult coaches and mentors working with Jackson’s robotics team had fostered a culture that prioritizes adult contributions to the team’s success, rather than on student learning and achievement.

The drama has been unfolding since 2023, when the Lee family filed an official complaint and a tort claim with their allegations, which included that the student ultimately had been improperly removed from the robotics team, actions that led to the student’s emotional distress.

Following the complaint, Everett Public Schools’ head of human resources conducted an investigation, in which the Lee family declined participation. That investigation, completed in 2024, found no evidence of discrimination, retaliation, violations of speech rights or defamation toward the student. A subsequent third-party investigation, this time by the district’s insurance pool, is ongoing.

Regardless of the findings of either investigation, how Jackson Laurence would bear any responsibility for the actions of the district or the robotics team’s coaches and mentors defies reason. To repeat, she has been a board member for less than four months.

And as unfair as the attack ads are toward Jackson Laurence, they also put her challenger at a disadvantage. The ads urge a vote for Clarke as “accountable leadership,” implying his support. Clarke, in interviews with a Herald reporter and the editorial board, said he met with the Lees to hear their concerns, but has since sent them a “cease and desist” letter to remove his name from their campaign ads. As of Friday, the endorsement of Clarke remained on the website.

Clarke said he believes the Lees and their child have rights to advocate for themselves, but he objected to the attack on his opponent and their endorsement of his campaign.

Laurence Jackson has not met with the Lees, but as a school board member she’s following district policy — and sound practice as a board member — leaving the matter to district officials. District policy is clear that complaints about district staff must be directed toward district officials for investigation and not board members. As noted by a district spokeswoman, the school board is responsible for policy, not for administration.

Further, the Lees, as parents and community members, have always had the opportunity to share their concerns directly with the board during periods for public comment at board meetings. They have not used that forum.

With only a few exceptions, local politics are typically absent the type of attack ads now undeservedly employed against Jackson Laurence.

The editorial board implores the Lees to pull their current advertising and reconsider any future spending in other Everett school board races. It is their right — every citizen’s right, certainly — to petition fellow voters regarding their concerns and their preferences for candidates, but there remains a moral obligation to use that right responsibly.

There’s also an obligation among other candidates and political ad agencies at the local level to reject similar campaigns. Our state and national politics have largely been surrendered to such advertising, producing an atmosphere that has soured voters and potential voters on the political process, driving down election turnout and discouraging participation of citizens and residents in the decisions made on their behalf at all levels of government.

And there’s a real threat because of such attack ads to local government itself, and the continued participation of those willing not just to run but to serve as our representatives.

Ask yourself if you would bother running for and serving on a school board or city council knowing your name and face would be subject to such slander.