[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",5986105,"mediaKeyId","5766802-09bdd9d0dfa39227486575809e09ed78","parentId",5766802,"title","School board studies limits of executive‑session confidentiality and applicability of 'Silence No More' law","audioSeconds",1926,"startMs",127000,"endMs",2053000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5766802-09bdd9d0dfa39227486575809e09ed78&start=127&end=2053","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5766802-09bdd9d0dfa39227486575809e09ed78/thumbnail_127000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/5986105/Washington/School-board-studies-limits-of-executivesession-confidentiality-and-applicability-of-Silence-No-More-law","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5986105-550ce6346388aa6c6d870e40c2535bba/orig.mp4?Expires=1775369244&Signature=EI4JkC~NNGahCWReUzvl2ejNGe2nYUg-d9LVc9kKT6cGs9t7Ez1XurctgyqSkf5NC5KJKTD9dR~gRiu64WeHN-gFeQspKNy6O1944ZsFBPwS3OsgWnnjLheD4w4fu2n42RUun8pbiL9I6LvasFd0YdcqCMVShNd1AjGgjv1vd8p0iZ5W70T~Po6putliLQ7L5EhMGzBEN9ECisGG3CsShv261cLCr-UwoxP1NR3YJ-ZmaBnvxIL7npvkxHlrhAn0KnfxjCnwjCLePKo2T3cc79xLv5sXNmx2FdGwxHJImaRPueajA5whaK27DZFnLRK-HjKmvBj~zDrmXXT56jdpcQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Mercer Island School District, WA","date","2025-09-12T19:11:55Z","article","The Mercer Island School District Board of Directors held a study session to review allegations that board members had made public statements about a fellow director and to clarify what information discussed in executive session must remain confidential. The board also asked outside counsel about whether Washington's so‑called \"Silence No More\" law applies to elected board members.

Board members said they wanted legal clarity after weeks of public comment and organizer emails prompted questions about confidentiality, defamation and parental notification requirements. \"This is a study session, not a hearing,\" outside counsel Charles Leach told the board, adding the meeting was meant to \"promote a conversation.\" The session brought multiple board members back to a single question: when is information discussed in executive session protected from disclosure?

The legal nut of the discussion was whether the 2025 state protections commonly called the Silence No More Act apply to elected board members and whether public records previously released mean the information was never confidential. \"Silence No More Act applies to employees,\" Leach said, explaining it addresses employer nondisclosure and nondisparagement provisions and that \"it does not apply in the context of board decision making or board action\" because elected directors are not employees of the district. He summarized the consequence plainly: \"The district would not be in a position to enforce that.\" Director Glowitz, who asked for the study session, pushed back that the statute and related attorney general opinions have sometimes treated elected officials as employees for some purposes and wanted the board to seek a written legal opinion on the issue.

Board members pressed two related legal questions: the difference between confidentiality for matters discussed in executive session under the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), and exemptions to the Public Records Act (PRA) such as FERPA or other statutory exemptions. \"Just because it's discussed in an executive session, it's not rendered confidential,\" Leach said, but he also cautioned that many PRA exemptions and other statutes can make records or portions of records nonpublic. \"It doesn't just because you produce a record related to something doesn't result in a waiver of the protections of executive session,\" he added.

Several directors described their training and practice as treating executive session discussions as confidential. \"When I joined the board, anything discussed in executive session, you never read the word of outside of executive session,\" one director said. Other directors said lack of a clear district position after 20 months of public questions had eroded trust and urged the district to clarify policy on what is confidential, especially for allegations involving misconduct.

Board members also discussed RCW citations raised in the session and recent state law changes. Speakers referenced RCW 28A 3 21 60 (parental notification for alleged misconduct by school employees), the Silence No More Act (as discussed in the meeting), RCW 42.23.070 concerning disclosure of executive session information by municipal officers, the Public Records Act, OPMA, and FERPA. Leach noted the practical path for the district when confidentiality is disputed: administrative handling of public‑records requests and, when necessary, seeking judicial protection for specific records.

No formal action was taken during the study session. Board members said they wanted follow‑up: a clearer written statement of district practice about what is and is not confidential when allegations of employee misconduct arise; consideration of whether to request a formal written opinion on the Silence No More statute's applicability to elected directors; and better guidance to staff and the board on handling public records and communications stemming from executive sessions.

The discussion signaled continued divisions among directors about disclosure and trust, but attendees agreed on next steps: obtain clarifying legal advice and consider drafting a district position or policy so future executive sessions can be used without undermining student privacy or board deliberations. \"We need to determine what we want to learn and know about this,\" one director said, framing the follow‑up as fact finding rather than a punitive exercise.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","MISD Regular Board Meeting 2025 09 11","oneSentenceSummary","The Mercer Island School District Board of Directors held a study session to review whether board members may be treated as employees for purposes of Washington's \"Silence No More\" law and to clarify the legal scope of executive‑session confidentiality after public concerns were raised about statements about another director.","taxTitle","Mercer Island School District, School Districts, Washington","taxId",57180,"location","Washington","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},5986084,"District signs contingency agreement with outside counsel to explore social‑media litigation; no out‑of‑pocket cost to district",115,7473000,7588000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5766802-09bdd9d0dfa39227486575809e09ed78&start=7473&end=7588","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5766802-09bdd9d0dfa39227486575809e09ed78/thumbnail_7473000.jpg","/articles/5986084/Washington/District-signs-contingency-agreement-with-outside-counsel-to-explore-socialmedia-litigation-no-outofpocket-cost-to-district","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5986084-1af3ee214dd720a24570b8e39a69adfc/orig.mp4?Expires=1775369244&Signature=GXj95EeDDZc3lhu8m4Mv6xM3Xn3Amad8nTgkP5X2Ixu6fC7bs-ZnRwL7DqlRUqg-OcSw8eivoAkLiyee1LAkalDOobx8Aa8In6JY~WEyzow8SmRCLpzQKxoRO87aEtr5IIlZaRMBSH6l-dzx0C~FJeaTfMUVswcKSMEcKOVgdpxBwe4xwYz9T~wDyWOtlZd5L4gN9mep~GAxBky4NsenE4uaSM4ZDWWvF6ZBAn5d5sOjdNTcQq2LY~9B5V0Oa3OOojRapOaZ-zzlkVx0Q2F5PvA4uzCAq4Md1p6FyvSGXxa-10gaOQkApSvHMALvocGEsiubInnDa9ja2gRvba2pQg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Mercer Island School District issued an update that it has executed an engagement agreement with an external law firm to explore possible litigation related to the impact of social media on students and schools.

Assistant Superintendent Batterfield told the board the law firm (identified in the presentation as Keller Rohrbach) will represent potential district claims on a contingency‑fee basis and that the agreement \"is structured as contingency fee arrangement, meaning that we don't we're not paying anything out of pocket.\" Batterfield added that fees would be paid from any recovery obtained and stressed that the district was not a lead plaintiff in major litigation at this time, which reduces the immediate burden on district staff.

The district's point of contact with the law firm will be an attorney the board had heard from in previous briefings. Batterfield said that the firm's work will focus on claims related to social media content and its effects on students; at present the district said it does not face out‑of‑pocket legal fees under the arrangement and that staff time will be limited while the firm conducts its investigation.

Board members asked clarifying questions about the district's role in the litigation and potential demands on district resources. Administrators said the agreement was intended to limit financial risk to the district while allowing the firm to evaluate potential legal claims.

No litigation filings against social media companies were announced at the meeting, and the agreement does not obligate the district to pay fees if no recovery occurs.","The superintendent updated trustees that the district engaged a law firm on a contingency basis to explore potential litigation against social media companies, with staff saying the district will not pay fees unless there is a recovery.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},5986089,"District reports drop in kindergarten enrollment, forecasts lower overall student total",114,4740000,4854000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5766802-09bdd9d0dfa39227486575809e09ed78&start=4740&end=4854","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5766802-09bdd9d0dfa39227486575809e09ed78/thumbnail_4740000.jpg","/articles/5986089/Washington/District-reports-drop-in-kindergarten-enrollment-forecasts-lower-overall-student-total","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5986089-a6e4b465fbd6b60c6ae9eec96c950dcf/orig.mp4?Expires=1775369244&Signature=pAvsGD-dF4kfcIuRr2tmiYl9H3vj0liQAGL~3DTBqmAoWsHgeFLTCItxRvLSog2CZS9eFtu45v29-73L~rIGaQq2~Kp8JOAYfNv2m0c0~tcE0f~sxl10GGgEebmsyeqjh61T5dRKwFLvNZZWCWVuVeU76SJYRbabdMld8r4P24JESk7j1R5hM7COxkTwEEy~xTi~1E2W6RqNGPI0h~3FGM3DxjaZp0~aTSIP8tG~6E1K-7KGPOZkA5P9Xw~ECASUwiZmZLO~ekd1iokOJW3voItMg3q-pg2KpjCE7Ltu46RCz~qodaKtYZtzm3-LT1iD1mNWKU8EeqJb9QTvbFLcIw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Mercer Island School District staff reported early September enrollment figures showing the district is below its budgeted full‑time equivalent (FTE) projection and highlighted a notable decline in kindergarten numbers.

The presentation showed the district budgeted 3,850 FTE students but had 3,803 FTE on the September count date, a shortfall of 47 students. The presenter said headcount was roughly 3,860. \"We were anticipating 3,850 students on our September count dates; we were at 3,803,\" an assistant superintendent told trustees.

Administrators drilled into grade‑level patterns: the district has seen a sharp fall in the number of incoming kindergarteners, from 219 last year to 187 this year, a decrease the presenter said contributed to a 166‑student gap between outgoing seniors and incoming kindergartners for the 2024–25 to 2025–26 transition. Staff noted longer‑term trends reflected lower birth rates and cohort variation: some third‑ and fourth‑grade cohorts remain large while K–2 cohorts are smaller.

Open enrollment figures were also summarized. The district accepted 35 open‑enrollment students this year and has 33 returning open‑enrollment students from last year; across two recent years the district reported 68 open‑enrollment students in total. Staff said most open‑enrollment requests concentrated at the ninth‑grade transition but that the district had denied some ninth‑grade requests where capacity is limited.

Board members asked for more detailed follow‑up. One director asked why some high school students show fewer than six periods on the campus report; staff explained several reasons, including running‑start college enrollment, athletes or performing arts students training off campus, and students on home‑hospital instruction. Directors asked for an October report with cleaned data, demographic details and updated projections so the board could assess budget and program implications.

Administrators said they will update projections after the October count and midyear adjustments in January and continue to evaluate program timelines and partnerships while maintaining instructional priorities.

No budget reductions or staffing changes were approved at the meeting; district staff said the next enrollment reports will inform any fiscal planning.","Administrators told the board September enrollment was below budgeted FTE by about 47 students, with kindergarten particularly lower than last year; board members asked staff to return in October with a deeper demographic analysis and projections.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},5986095,"Board adopts revised student‑discipline policy to align with 2025 state law changes",682,6574000,7256000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5766802-09bdd9d0dfa39227486575809e09ed78&start=6574&end=7256","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5766802-09bdd9d0dfa39227486575809e09ed78/thumbnail_6574000.jpg","/articles/5986095/Washington/Board-adopts-revised-studentdiscipline-policy-to-align-with-2025-state-law-changes","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5986095-71d564334b363b6fbce2c56ae3b4ffab/orig.mp4?Expires=1775369244&Signature=GYb9C8mbv6ElXo-P7f5FGusA~d4qJQ53xZe6~0RLDr0O9ORADPFv2pRrGTzgsCUKFrGj0s-5wsd8zoC~WkQvKYqzI9LNEuLh5pxS5no~llIwbz4~bB54yTa24kpZfRF5T8P-TmrdjKoqsbjF-DL7uctQXSHtqPeRWOeYUFvLly9oXCxTZf0eOkPrbmNXtS6HNo9fr9KhrWljEvhVGOMW0aBaTsyPf-wFo8RP2unAWt9zrnwdsgqppv11dpd-RVXUSZ5DqyFX8p00pFE7-Yku-pKYN4n9SZ6w1qaC6r9i2~y1DThXnYgPSid116AfXVAKY3Ywa28UjGPcjZvXj05fpg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Mercer Island School District Board of Directors voted to adopt revisions to Board Policy 3241, the district's student‑discipline policy, to align the policy with changes to state law that took effect in July 2025.

Assistant Superintendent Batteriesby told the board the changes mirror new statutory language and accompanying WAC guidance and remove redundant text to improve clarity. \"Most of the changes you'll see will be changes to do a couple of things. One is to ensure alignment with the changes of law,\" Batteriesby said in the presentation.

The board discussed including explicit language encouraging restorative practices and clarifying what is discretionary versus nondiscretionary discipline. Batteriesby said the board would receive procedural materials after the policy adoption, including \"a disciplinary matrix\" that would make likely outcomes more transparent to families. \"Exclusion is not where we go to in terms of our first attempt to get corrected action,\" she said, describing the district's preference for learning‑focused responses when appropriate.

Several directors asked that discretionary authority be applied consistently to avoid unequal treatment between students. One director suggested adopting restorative approaches in the policy text; staff said those concepts will appear in the procedures and discipline matrix that will follow the policy adoption.

The board moved and seconded a motion to adopt the revised Policy 3241. The vote was taken by voice; students and board members answered \"Aye,\" and the chair declared the motion adopted.

Board members directed staff to present the accompanying procedures, the disciplinary matrix and implementation guidance at an upcoming meeting so trustees can review safeguards intended to prevent arbitrary or discriminatory application.

No changes to funding were adopted with the policy; the board said the revisions were intended to bring district policy into compliance with state law and to increase transparency about possible discipline outcomes.","Trustees approved updates to policy 3241 (student discipline) to conform with recent state rule changes, and directed staff to return procedural details that include a disciplinary matrix and restorative approaches.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},5986100,"Mercer Island board launches committee to review conduct, notification and training after misconduct concerns",147,3450000,3597000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5766802-09bdd9d0dfa39227486575809e09ed78&start=3450&end=3597","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5766802-09bdd9d0dfa39227486575809e09ed78/thumbnail_3450000.jpg","/articles/5986100/Washington/Mercer-Island-board-launches-committee-to-review-conduct-notification-and-training-after-misconduct-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5986100-098748f4f4ec09f819bcaa1f2e960651/orig.mp4?Expires=1775369244&Signature=iTJ4uCWjZsyNFtO254Qgg0BFDsQM3k4JNUp50Skb931GNTtS7x6WseLfYdziUf38IwM0xP0t4gJvwT-0d4gTx4tG9cuFq0RzX7L-tqt68~6tMUQS4lWAF4FjxGaklSf~LFD8eMkROK7SiJYvlpnAklquNbO50OiUmO~dgeTkglw0N5S9f2agNQMmntpGqMwFYNCwBEBA1tOKID3MFb4r45sfgsLA2WReIVU6Oe0rkDelJUp1mRlnabr5gzs8Goe-l91DqgrWY1YKhmcSvfpaGMKO8N8Dd-qH9jFHNoo1Q1CgbKuC0BVKFesohTtQzWMHTQupp87Xa6GG1l~BtPygtw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Mercer Island School District board announced plans to form a committee to review district practices, policies and training related to staff conduct and how the district responds to allegations of misconduct. The proposal emerged after a study session during which directors pressed for clearer procedures on confidentiality, notification and survivor‑centered responses.

\"Building off of previous board meeting, Director Martinez and I had a chance to talk and think a little bit more about the committee,\" a board member said when presenting the plan. The committee's stated purpose is \"examining practices, policies, procedures, and training that we're currently using, and then using a committee to make some recommendation and bring those forward at a later date.\"

Meeting material and discussion identified a proposed membership that combines internal staff and external partners: assistant superintendent for matters of legal compliance and Title IX, a high‑school administrator, an athletic director, a middle‑school administrator, at least three parents, multiple students, a liaison from the King County Sexual Assault Resource Center, a representative from DCYF (Department of Children, Youth & Families) and a community facilitator. \"We also will have...the community member who can be a facilitator for the process, which would allow me to be a better participant rather than facilitating the meetings,\" the presenter said.

Directors flagged several specific topics for the committee. Those included: whether the district should adopt a community notification policy when staff are placed on administrative leave for credible allegations; how notification and coordination should align with law enforcement; auditing and clarifying communication channels used between staff and students (texting, group messaging, social apps); and developing trauma‑informed, survivor‑centered responses.

Director Glowitz urged the committee to consider alignment with recent state law changes, noting a provision he read as giving parents notice of the right to request public records about school employee discipline and suggesting the district should be proactive in notifying the community \"when there has been an allegation of misconduct.\" Others urged caution, saying investigations must be fact‑based and balanced against employment‑law protections: \"We base investigations on facts, not on word‑of‑mouth and gossip,\" one director said.

Board members said the committee will start immediately with solicitations for membership. The board indicated it will consider committee recommendations at a later public meeting and asked staff to ensure law‑enforcement partners and victim‑support organizations are part of the conversation. \"The whole purpose of this committee is that we know there was a crack in the system...we need to ensure that we can close as much as possible that crack so the kids are protected,\" one director said.

No formal policy was adopted at the meeting; the committee will convene to develop recommendations on notification, training and procedural changes for later board consideration.","Directors approved forming a multi‑stakeholder committee to examine district practices, policies and training after concerns about handling allegations and community notification were raised; committee will include administrators, students, parents and external victim‑support partners.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

School board studies limits of executive‑session confidentiality and applicability of 'Silence No More' law

District signs contingency agreement with outside counsel to explore social‑media litigation; no out‑of‑pocket cost to district

District reports drop in kindergarten enrollment, forecasts lower overall student total

Board adopts revised student‑discipline policy to align with 2025 state law changes

Mercer Island board launches committee to review conduct, notification and training after misconduct concerns