S00 TWO UNION SQUARE ‘TEL (206) 622-0203 601 UNION STREET Pax (206) 223.2003, SEATTLE WASHINGTON 98101 __astormeysitdionne-rorick.com July 30, 2009 Alan L. Miles Kitsap County Prosecutor's Office ‘MS: 35A. 614 Division Street Port Orchard, Was ington 98366-4614 Re: South Kitsap School District - Board Member Elections ‘Dear Mr. Miles: JTONNE QRORICK ‘Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today regarding the issues that have arisen over the upcoming primary clections for the school board member seat in South Kitsap School District Director District 3. Pursuant to your request, Lum sending a summary of the situation and the District's position. I would appreciate a timely response, prior to commencement of any ballot counting for this race. ‘There are three names on ballot for this position: Gail Porter, Naomi Polen, and Christopher Lemke. The deadline for withdrawing from the race was June 11, 2009. According to news reports, Ms. Porter attempted to withdraw her candidacy on June 18, 2009, and was told it was too Inte, However, current District Board Member Kathy Simpson spoke with personnel at the Auditor's office and raised concerns regarding the eligibility of Ms. Porter to run for the seat ‘on June 8, 2009. Ms. Simpson's first-person account of these contacts and her reasons for raising her concerns follows: On June 7th, [called Gail Porter at the phone number listed on the candidate listing from the Kitsapgov.com website to invite her to the next school board meeting and suggest that she take a moment to introduce herself to the current board members, since none of us knew her. In the course of the conversation, Ms. Porter said that she was very likely to withdraw. I mentioned that she had until the end of the following week to do so. She corrected me and said, "No, | think you have to do it by Thursday, June 1 1th’, Also, during our conversation, Ms. Porter said she was in the process of moving and L asked if the address she was moving to was in the same director district. She said she thought it was and she said that she was sure the auditor's office would have told her if it wasn't, Both addresses wete listed on the candidate filing report, posted and updated daily Gee link below), since the evening she filed.Alan L. Miles July 30, 2009 Page 2 Later in the evening on June 7th, I used the online map at the KitsapGov.com website (ee link below) to determine if Ms. Porter's Locker Rond address was in Director District 3. As one can clearly see from the map, all of Locker Road is within Director District 2 hetp://www kitsapgov.com/aud/lections/maps/South%20Kitsap%20School%20Director spdf ‘The fact that Ms. Porter was moving ftom Director District 3, before the election, caused me to be concerned as to whether or not she remained eligible to run and if she could be legally seated, if she prevailed in the election. So, on Monday, June &th, I called the Kitsap County Auditor's Office. I was connected with Delores Gilmore and 1 explained the scenario. Ms. Gilmore said that Ms. Porter could continue to be a candidate because the residency was determined at the time of filing, not the election date. She said that, if Ms. Porter prevailed, that Ms. Porter could only serve two years of the term and the seat would come open for election in 2011, since Ms. Porter had moved out of Director District 3. I asked Delores if she was sure, because it didn't seem right that & person could be seated to an elected position in a Director District that they did not live in on Election Day. Delores assured me that this was the law, On July 28th, I called the Auditor's office and spoke with Ms. Gilmore again. L asked if it was true that Ms. Porter was not eligible to be seated (as the media waé reporting). She said that there were lots of questions about Ms. Porter today and that Ms. Porter was ineligible and could not be seated if she prevailed in the election. | then reminded Ms. Gilmore of our conversation on June 8th, when she gave a different interpretation of such a scenario. Ms. Gilmore said, *I don't recall that conversation". Had I been given correct information from the Auditor's office on June 8th that Ms. Porter would be ineligible to be seated, when she moved out of Director District 3, I would have immediately pursued action to challenge Ms. Porter's eligibility when she did not withdraw by the June Lith deadline. I did not take action to challenge Ms, Porter because I was told by the Auditor's office, on June 8th, that a candidate remains eligible to be seated, even if they moved, so long as they continued to live in the school district and could serve the first two years of the term. { have nothing against Ms. Porter, but ifshe was ineligible to be seated and there were only two other viable candidates then there is no need for a Primary Given that the Primary election will cost SKSD approximately $70,000, I would have immediately done the prudent and responsible thing to do, which would have been to challenge her candidacy and allow SKSD to avoid the cost of a primary clection, Under RCW 29A.24.131, Ms. Porter should have been allowed to withdraw her candidacy, regardless of the reason, if the ballots had not been ordered at the time she sought to withdraw. More importantly, upon notice of the fact that Ms. Porter had moved out of herAlan L. Miles July 30, 2009 Page 3 director district, the auditor's office should not have permitted her name to be placed upon the ballot, and should have cancelled the primary election for this seat, since only two viable candidates remain. Because of this oversight, the South Kitsap District stands to be charged approximately $70,000 for a needless primary election, In these troubled financial times, the District has a stcong interest in avoiding such unnecessary expense, as well as in protecting the integrity of its school board elections. Accordingly, the District is reviewing its legal options, which may include (1) seeking judicial intervention to enjoin counting of the ballots for the primary election ot to direct the County to take other measures that would reduce the cost of this mistake, (2) a declaration that the District should not be allocated any cost for the primary, and/or (3) recovery of any costs allocated to the District. ‘The District strongly prefers, however, to resolve this matter in a way that involves the least amount of cost for taxpayers. ‘The District is therefore requesting that the County confirm ss soon as practicable that it will take any and all steps within its power to defray the costs of the primary election for South Kitsap School District Seat 3, including, bur not limited to, declaring the primary election to be void and declining to count the returns for this election if doing so would increase the cost of the election. The District is also requesting that no costs of the primary election be allocated to the District under RCW 29A.04.410. If the County feels itis not within its legal authority to do any of the above, the District would invite discussion of a stipulated order to be presented to the Superior Court (with notice to other potentially impacted parties such as Ms. Porter), seeking a judicial declaration voiding the primary for this race under RCW 29A.68.01L The District appreciates the work done by County elections officials and employees and understands the challenges they face in interpreting and applying applicable state laws. The District's goal, again, is to ensure the integrity of the election process and to achieve an outcome that has as little impact on its taxpayers and constituents as possible uncler the circumstances, Thank you in advance for your timely reply. Sincerely, DIONNE & RORICK (Fee LMAsen cc: Terri Patton