Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
West Valley board declines revised oath-of-office language after debate over HB 1296 and local control
Summary
After a lengthy exchange, the West Valley School District board rejected the second reading of Policy 1111 (oath of office), with the motion failing on a 3-2 vote. A dissenting board member cited HB 1296 and Initiative I-2081 as the origin of the new wording and urged waiting while legal challenges proceed.
The West Valley School District board voted 3-2 on Nov. 24 against adopting revised language for Policy 1111, the board’s oath-of-office policy, after members debated whether newly proposed phrasing was necessary and whether it reflected state legislative changes.
A board member who identified themselves in the record as opposing the change said they had researched the origins of the addition and concluded it was tied to state-level actions — specifically citing HB 1296 and the parental-rights provisions associated with Initiative I-2081 — and said the adjustment felt like "one more attempt from the legislature at taking away local school board control." The member noted guidance from State Superintendent Chris Reykdal recommending districts refrain from policy changes while legal questions remained. "My no vote does not mean that I'm encouraging anyone to break the law," the board member said, adding that they would reconsider the policy once litigation over HB 1296 runs its course.
Another board member moved to approve the second reading of Policy 1111 (oath of office) "as presented." The board conducted a voice vote and the motion failed; the chair announced the motion did not pass with a final count cited as 3 to 2. The transcript records the procedural motion to approve and the board member’s substantive objections; individual roll-call votes by name were not recorded in the transcript.
The contested language was described in the meeting as an addition referencing "the laws of Washington," which a dissenting board member said may be unnecessary given constitutional supremacy and which they said should not be adopted while related legal challenges continue. Board discussion did not identify an immediate alternative wording to resolve the disagreement. No formal direction to staff to revise the policy was recorded in the meeting minutes excerpt presented at the board meeting.
The board’s decision leaves the oath-of-office policy unchanged pending possible future action after legal developments.
