Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident asks board to clarify when legislative liaison can speak for district
Summary
A resident asked the Eatonville School District Board to explain whether the board president, acting as legislative liaison, may publicly advocate on legislation without prior public discussion among board members; board members noted they had discussed the issue and that testimony had been given.
A resident raised questions about whether the district’s legislative liaison can speak for the board without prior public discussion, saying the practice undermines transparency.
The concern came from taxpayer and patron Susan Gordon, who told the Eatonville School District Board that she could not recall any public discussion before Board President Rhonda Litzenberger testified against Senate Bill 5181 and said that "without speaking to the pros and cons of this politically charged issue, I question how this came about." Gordon asked, "Does the legislative liaison have the authority to advocate for or against a measure without specific direction from the board as a whole?" and urged future decisions on advocacy be discussed among board members in public.
The question followed Gordon’s remark that the legislature is considering a bill that would amend Initiative 2081 (the parents’ bill of rights) and that sponsors say the draft retains the initiative’s essence while modifying it to align with existing state and federal law.
Board members later addressed the topic during reports. A board member said the board had anticipated pre-draft bills, that the board "do have consensus," and that members, including the board president, would testify in the legislature. The board did not provide a vote or a formal written policy on when the legislative liaison must obtain explicit prior public direction for advocacy during the meeting.
Why it matters: Citizens rely on school boards to act transparently when they take public positions that represent the board as a body. The issue raised concerns about whether decisions to advocate on pending state legislation are being made in public meetings or by individual board members acting in liaison roles.
What was not decided: The board did not adopt a new rule during the meeting clarifying when the legislative liaison may testify for or against legislation. Gordon requested future public discussion; the board reported having discussed the bills internally and noted planned testimony but made no formal change on the record regarding the liaison’s authority.
The board did not provide a specific timetable for creating or posting a written protocol on legislative advocacy during the meeting.
Ending: The exchange closed with board members thanking Gordon and noting legislators had met with the board recently; the board said it would continue monitoring the legislation and indicated some members plan to testify publicly in upcoming committee hearings.
