Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Accountability topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Public commenters urge Quillayute board to review staff accountability after abuse investigations

Quillayute Valley School District Board of Directors · May 13, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Several public commenters told the Quillayute Valley School District board they want staff accountability and third-party investigations after local abuse allegations; parents described OSPI referrals and mixed experiences with district investigators.

Public commenters pressed the Quillayute Valley School District board on district handling of past abuse investigations and urged the board to review staff conduct and accountability.

Rodney Larson opened public comment by saying the local districts have shown a "complete collapse of institutional control" and urged the board to "review this history, grade the performance of staff involved, and exercise its duty to hold those staff accountable." Larson framed the board's duty as protecting children in the community.

A parent, Erin Queen, described taking a complaint through the district chain of command and said the district ultimately referred the case to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) for a separate investigation: "Our school turned in our case to OSPI," she said, adding that OSPI conducts its own process and that those state filings become public. Queen said she appreciated use of a neutral third-party investigator in her case but said small-town relationships can complicate investigations.

Pam Gale, another commenter, said her experience with an outside investigator left her frustrated: "I personally found him being very bold to me, asking me things that were just not even fair to know," she told the board, urging sensitivity to differing experiences. The board did not engage in back-and-forth during public comment, per policy, but members acknowledged they had heard the concerns and said the board's silence during comments should not be read as agreement or disagreement.

The board received the comments during the public-comment period; no formal board action on personnel or investigations was taken during the meeting.