You are on page 1of 14


Censure No. 2 of School Board Director Jessica Olson Submitted by Jessica Olson, Director Position No. 4


Below is the Everett School Boards censure of me in its entirety. I elected to respond to each point by embedding my comments in the document itself. Because I am altering the document, I want to be clear about what is original and what is my response. Therefore, the original censure statement will be highlighted in yellow. Unlike the censure document, I will be linking to sources and other documents that provide evidence to prove my points. Links of this nature will be in red. Board President Petersen has said on a number of occasions that he wants to put things behind this board, develop trust, and work together. At the meeting on September 13, 2011, in which the Board censured me for a second time, President Petersen tried to portray the censure as a conversation in which the desire really was to reach an agreement to operate within parameters understood by the board to be a framework for healthy discussion and interaction. But that is not by any definition what a censure is. In his statement, Director Russell echoed the true purpose of this censure, which also happens to be what this very document states in as its purpose: Censure by a public body is a judgment of stern condemnation of one of its members for behaviors or actions that violate laws or its policies, rules or norms; it is also a public act of rebuking a member for unacceptable acts through an official reprimand. Trying to portray it as anything else would seem to be a disingenuous public relations ploy. Having established the true nature of this document, let us now look at what it is NOT. It is not a legal document, though it is worded that way; it is not a product consisting incontrovertible fact, although it is certainly presented as such; and it is not a document that offers proof of anything. What this censure really consists of is a collection of opinions of four board members worded as accusations and presented as fact. You will note the utter lack of documentation; I am, for example, accused of intimidating, bullying and harassing district staff but not once is there a concrete example demonstrating to a reasonable person how I bullied and intimidated. The reader is simply expected to take the word of the censures authors that the actions occurred as stated. There are also accusations that I violated state law, with citations given. These cited laws are misapplied or run directly counter to information the district has received from the State Attorney General's office. This response will not make such demands of the reader. Facts presented will be backed up by documentation, allowing the reader to decide for themselves what is true or not. This was also true of my response to the previous censure motion, available here. On the night of my first censure, I made three director requests/motions requesting that Supt Cohn and the Board could substantiate their allegations with documentation: 1) As in this censure, I was accused of multiple violations the the law, namely the Open Public Meetings Act. I requested that the District should perform their civic duty and report the violations to the Attorney General, who would then make a ruling on whether or not the law

had actually been violated. Almost a year later, this has still not been done. I suspect the reason why is that they realize that the instances in the accusations were, in fact, NOT violations of the law. President Peterson admitted as much on the very night of the censure -prior to the vote. 2) In the first censure, I was accused of tarnishing a valued high school principals reputation through forcing disclosure of his identity. I requested that Sup't Cohn reply a written explanation of how this disclosure was forced. I never uttered the principals name; it was never mentioned in the Herald in fact, it was first published in a district publication. If indeed I forced this, both I and the public deserve a written explanation of exactly how I compelled Sup't. Cohn to publicly disclose the principals name (via the districts Newslinks publication on September 14, 2010). There has, of course, been no response. 3) Sup't Cohn and the other four board members insist that somehow one middle-aged woman has bullied, harassed and intimidated them all. Sup't Cohn even provided a list of threatening behaviors to inform the board that I was a threat to staff and director safety, and listed 8 items in the Friday Report that he felt could no longer be ignored, including: an incident in which I said shame on you as I walked down a narrow hall, while Sup't Cohn cowered against the wall an incident in which I sent Sup't Cohn a text that included symbols that he interpreted as taunting. The symbols? Colon-dash-parenthesis. To wit: :-) on one occasion I told Jeff Moore to say hello to Gary.

I requested that in the interests of staff and director safety, Sup't Cohn should report these threats to the Everett Police Department to evaluate whether or not they were credible threats or simply an overreaction on the part of Sup't Cohn. To my knowledge, Cohn has not done so if he has, I have not been interviewed to date by the police on the matter. I mention these instances not to regurgitate the past censure document, but to simply illustrate the point that while the Boards accusations are shouted from the rooftops, when given the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is and provide documentation, there is naught but crickets chirping. I apologize for the length of this document, but in order to present evidence to back my claims (something lacking in both of my colleagues' censures of me), it is necessary. Thanks for reading. Jessica Olson Everett School Director Position #4


WHEREAS, the Everett Public Schools Board of Directors continues to be deeply committed to the effective operation of the Everett School Board in order to provide positive, constructive governance and leadership for the district; and

WHEREAS, the board of directors needs all five members to contribute to a positive, constructive working environment for students, staff, and for colleagues on the board; and

WHEREAS, the board of directors did during its November 16, 2010, January 25, 2011, July 5, 2011, and August 23, 2011 regular board meetings consider evidence that Director Jessica Olson acted improperly in her role as an elected director, and did adopt Resolution 1015, Censure of School Board Director Jessica Olson, at its February 22, 2011 meeting; and For this censure and my response, see this link.

WHEREAS, the board of directors committed itself to upholding policies providing for civility and open, honest communication, adherence to state law and policies governing the boards actions and behaviors, and to acting in a concerted fashion to set an example of positive leadership for the Everett Public Schools; and

WHEREAS, Director Olson, acting individually without board authority, violated district Policy 1715, Board-Superintendent Operating Protocol, and violated the Open Public Meetings Act by repeatedly emailing all board members, especially on June 22, 2011, after receiving multiple trainings and instructions by attorneys and an assistant attorney general and admonition by board colleagues and two district attorneys to cease this practice, including specific advice immediately preceding the June 22, 2011 email to all board members, and by an August 23, 2011 email to all board members on subjects coming before the board that night and published in the regular meeting agenda; and The Board enjoys accusing me of violating the Open Public Meetings Act they know that transparency (and their lack of it) is one of the reasons I was elected. It is their desire to paint me as a hypocrite, unwilling to abide by the very laws by which I strive to hold them accountable. Their strategy does not pass the red face test, however and by their own admission. This charge is a rehash from the first censure, and my response to it is the same: One board member emailing the other four is NOT a violation of the law. These were one-sided emails no reply or discussion ensued, which would be required for an OPMA violation. Don't take my word for it: Look at the advice given by Ogden Murphy Wallace, specialists in municipal law who currently represent more Washington Cities than any other law firm. In a memo directed to All Cities, they state the following in the second to the last paragraph on page 4: One sided informational emails to a majority or more of governing body members are probably consistent with OPMA. Or, check with the Citizen Media Law Project, a pro bono initiative hosted by Harvard Universitys Berkman Center for Internet & Society that connects lawyers and law school clinics from across the country with online journalists and digital media creators who need legal help. The CMLP states: The OPMA [in Washington State] can apply to email and/or telephonic communications between a majority of the members of a governing body depending on the circumstances. For instance, an exchange of emails constitutes a meeting if a majority of members "collectively intend to meet [by email] to transact the governing body's official business" and "communicate about issues that may or will come before [them] for a vote. Members do not engage in a meeting simply by receiving information by email or telephone about upcoming issues . Or maybe ask the Washington Coalition for Open Government an open government watchdog group who views such things in a very narrow light. Heres a quote from page 5 of a presentation at their conference on January 16, 2010: The OPMA does not require that meetings be conducted in person. Exchanging email can constitute a meeting. Wood, 107 Wn. App. at 564. The Wood court noted, however, that mere use or passive receipt of e-mail -- as opposed to the active exchange of information and opinions via email -- does not automatically constitute a meeting. Or, you could ask Washington Ombudsman for Open Government Tim Ford. In a presentation to our board, as well as in his official blog, he stated that while not a best practice, an email to

all members is not in itself a violation of the OPMA. Note that I am not being accused of violating best practices I am being accused (falsely) of violating the law. Or, you could look at board president Ed Petersen's own words in the Everett School District news release of May 13, 2011 regarding State Audit Results, which he touts as a thorough audit examination that document[s] the compliance and efficient work being done by district staff to manage and safeguard public resources. We appreciate being able to come meet and hear from you that things are as we think. Now we know our thinking is correct. The release continues on page 2 with Ed Petersen crowing: In particular, the board was pleased to learn the auditors found no violations of the Open Public Meetings Act. It is odd that the district would allege violations of OPMA in two censure documents, yet also brag to the public that were zero violations in a press release. The board president speaks from both sides of his mouth one of these statements must be wrong. Do you suppose President Petersen has contacted the state auditor to let him know their report needs to be edited? Or, you could ask District attorney Valerie Hughes. I, unfortunately, cannot: Supt Cohn emailed President Petersen on October 21, 2010, stating that Ms. Hughes would no longer respond to me. Subsequent to Supt Cohns decision, the Board in Nov 2010 voted to revise District Policy 1715 to codify the change, which now states: The board president will be the official spokesperson for the board, and is the only director authorized to seek legal counsel on behalf of the board. We do, however, have a June 10th 2010 email from Ms. Hughes to Supt Cohn, in which she forward some opinions from Tim Ford of the State Attorney Generals Office: Mr. Ford cited a court decision, Wood v. Battle Ground School District, which holds that mere passive receipt of an email may not constitute a meeting. Note, however, that Ms. Hughes declines to directly quote the decision here there is some nuanced soft pedaling afoot. The actual quote from Wood v. Battle Ground is more forceful in tone than Ms. Hughes seems willing to let on: Thus, we emphasize that the mere use or passive receipt of e-mail does not automatically constitute a "meeting." Of course, you could ignore what everyone else says and instead believe the Everett School Board. If you believe everyone else as annotated above, please skip to the next item. If you are still confused, however, and require the nuts and bolts explanation as to why everyone except Ed Petersen and the Everett School Board does NOT consider this a violation of the law, read on: The Open Public Meetings Act is very specific if you have a meeting with a majority of board members, it must be announced and open to the public. A meeting is defined as a meeting where action is taken. "Action" means the transaction of the official business of a public agency. Therefore, if three board members are together, and district business is transacted, and the meeting was not announced, a violation has occurred. Nothing precludes three of us

being in a room together, in a car together, or anywhere else together as long as no business is transacted. The same legal standards apply to emails as do meetings: you must have a majority of board members, and action must occur. When I e-mailed all four board members, we had a majority. However, no one replied. This is known as a one-sided email. Since no one replied, there was no discussion and therefore no action was taken. This fails the test for a violation. If the board is convinced that these were in fact violations of the OPMA, have they been reported to the proper authorities? If not, why are they shirking their civic duty? The answer is, they are not, because clearly, since no action was taken in either case, no violation occurred. Also, since a violation by definition must involve a quorum, I couldnt possibly have violated the law alone (once again, Tim Ford of the Attorney Generals Office agrees). Where are the other two (at least) censure resolutions? The answer is: nowhere. Why? Because even the Board doesnt believe this accusation. They know everything you just read. However, their desire to condemn me overwhelms their integrity. WHEREAS, Director Olson, acting individually without board authority, on June 24, 2011 in violation of district Policy 5161, Civility in the Workplace, intimidated a district staff member in order to obtain the tacit consent of the staff member to allow recording of video images and voice during a private meeting with that staff member and a fellow school director; and This is a frequent cry of the school board. Somehow I have maneuvered my 1-4 minority odds (1-5, actually) into a cudgel to bully, harass, intimidate and threaten other directors and staff. The staff member in question this time is Jennifer Farmer. She wrote a lengthy email to Sup't. Cohn documenting her interaction with me ton the day in question June 24, 2011. She mentions a lot of detail what time I arrived; when Director Andrews arrived; what binders we read; what months of invoices each of us looked at; and five different questions I asked. She also mentions that I announced I was recording the meeting, and that Carol Andrews voiced concerns about it. Do you know what is not mentioned in this email? Any notion of Ms. Farmer feeling bullied, intimidated or harassed by my actions. Perhaps she forgot, or didn't discover she was intimidated until later. If you ask the Everett School Board, however, my behavior was intimidating. The nice thing about this particular allegation is you dont have to ask anyone you can believe your own two eyes. This is why I record my professional interactions with the district. Here is the video of the behavior the district sees as intimidating a district staff member. I believe the portion the district considers intimidation occurs within the first 33 seconds, in which I announce that I will be recording the meeting; but the entire first hour is available in the interests of providing an unedited context to find whatever the district may be talking about. Now that we know what the board thinks IS intimidating, lets look at what they DONT find intimidating, threatening, bullying or harassing. Take a look at footage from the Board Meeting on August 23, 2011. Note Ed Petersen lunging across the table to take my recorder. This is

easily the most threatening, bullying action performed at any school board meeting (other than the assault that followed later). Watch Directors Russell and Andrews if they find this behavior threatening, they dont show it, and they certainly say nothing. Next we see Director Dutton surge across the table and snatch my copy of a document. None of the Directors found this threatening at all in fact, in their police reports, they describe Director Duttons grab as mere collecting or gathering documents from her side of the table. Threatening or bullying seems to be the furthest thing from their minds. To be fair, there was ONE thing they found threatening: after President Peterson tried to take my recorder, I told him not to dare do that, which, in the eyes of Dutton and Andrews, apparently was more of a threat than either of the two physical acts that occurred prior, or the later physical attack that left my nails bent and bleeding. A separate recording made by Gary Cohn catches Director Kristie Dutton referring to the assault that caused this injury as It was kinda fun! To provide contrast to the events of August 23, 2011, however, here is an example of a threat reported by Director Dutton at a meeting on February 22, 2011, that she did not find kinda fun but deadly serious. During the dinner portion of the meeting, I inquired as to whether she would be running again for her position in the upcoming election. Apparently, I brushed her shoulder as I did so. She responded that she hadn't yet made a decision, but had no other reaction for the 10 or so other people that were in the room. No reaction, that is, until approximately an hour later when the crowd had gone and it was just the five directors and Sup't Cohn in the room. That's when Dutton stated in this meeting that she perceived my question as a threat. Jeff Russell agreed, and when I questioned whether this was truly a viable threat, Russell states that my asking the questioning is bullying. When I state that this is being recorded and any reasonable person will think this is ridiculous, Dutton, Petersen and Andrews state that posting the recording a public record would be threatening, bullying and/or intimidation. Note the reaction to all of this from President Petersen: Perception is important. People perceive things in different ways. Being sensitive toward those different perceptions is an important ingredient in your personal communication we all need to be sensitive to how other people are perceiving our behavior. It is a shame that Petersen lost this grand view of perception when asked if he considered his actions of August 23 that left my hand bloody an assault. He laughed and said (At the 1:32 mark), Absolutely not. That's a ludicrous suggestion. Apparently, questions hurt, but attempts to wrest away personal possessions and injuries sustained are okay. Those attempts also, presumably, do not violate District Policy 5161, Civility in the Workplace that's the one they accuse me of violating in the Jennifer Farmer video above. These are only a few of several examples of Board members generating false umbrage over manufactured threats. The hypocrisy is absurd: during the months of accusations of one middle aged woman bullying, intimidating and harassing four other people, not ONCE did my actions result in a call to the police; not ONCE did any of my colleagues sustain an injury, not ONCE did a physical altercation actually occur. No -- when actual injury comes, it is through their actions to me, and their collective worries about threats and bullying are suddenly MIA. Imagine how their censure document would read if it was I who was lunging at my fellow directors, or if it was another director who was bleeding because of my actions. This is the worst kind of hypocrisy.

WHEREAS, Director Olson, acting individually without board authority, after having agreed to the restrictions placed on her access to non-public, confidential records in a unanimous board vote during a regular open public meeting May 10, 2011, on June 24, 2011 violated the boards May 10, 2011 decision (Item 10.02, Director Request: Access to Non-Public, Confidential Records), violated district Policy 1715, Board-Superintendent Operating Protocol, violated district Policy 4340, Public Access to District Records, and the boards attorney-client privilege under RCW 5.60.060, Privileged Communications, by removing from the district a notebook containing non-public, confidential legal documents; and This charge is false for three reasons: 1) An elected member of a public agency's governing body is legally entitled to view or be in possession of copies of confidential information or documents, and this entitlement is supreme to any policy that would seek to weaken, minimize or relinquish same. The legal billing invoices from the District's law firms did not contain confidential (as defined by statute) communications or confidential information. Only the district's attorney can violate the attorney client privilege, not the client.

2) 3)

It is true that I voted in favor of the motion granting the board access to their own district's legal invoices. However, it is not true that my yes vote was in any way an agreement or promise on my part to abide by the other part of that motion the self-imposed restrictions on school directors' authority without basis in the law. This board is fond of putting two conflicting items under the same motion in order to compel agreement with both items. (See my vote against Resolution 1022 as an example: my vote was in opposition to the $23 million in tax dollars to construct a new administration building for which taxpayer approval had not been sought, not against the repair the dilapidated district tracks which was added in.) Like any elected official, the items must be weighed and a vote must be taken in support of the greater good, or in opposition to the greater evil. Obviously, it was more important for me to be able to vote to support directors' ability to view legal invoices than it was to oppose silly restrictions, just like it was more important for me to oppose the commitment of $23 million tax dollars for a new administration building not approved by taxpayers than it was for me to vote in support of it as a condition of replacement of our dilapidated high school tracks. But the vote is beside the point. The simple fact is that it is perfectly legal for elected school directors to be in possession of copies of district documents, no matter what a school district self-imposed policy limiting the statutory authority of elected officials may attempt to impose to the contrary. The statutory powers of elected school officials can only be revoked by a revision in the law itself, and not simply by the vote of a misguided school board seeking to marginalize the ability of member who asserts those rights. In addition to no law being violated by the act of taking these invoices out of a building in order to make copies, no policy (the legal adoption and legal validity of such a policy aside) was likewise violated. No policy was violated because Policy 1715 (illegally) only prohibits directors' access to confidential information but the legal invoices I removed contained no confidential information. No information contained within those legal billing invoices was information subject to a statutory exemption claim. The legal invoices were disclosable to the public in their unredacted entirety. Policy 4330 also does not apply, as this policy does not

speak to the access of elected school directors' access to district records, it speaks only to public access to district records. Nor was attorney-client privilege violated its mention here is a complete red herring, for two reasons: first, only an attorney can violate the attorney-client privilege, because the privilege belongs to the client. The privilege is simply an evidentiary status that a client can assert or waive for a particular written or spoken communication between himself and his attorney. The act of being in possession of privileged documents does not waive or violate (a misnomer where the client is concerned) the privilege. And no one but the client in this case the board, or more specifically a majority of five elected school directors can waive the privilege, irrespective of what one member or a fifth of those members choose to do with a privileged document. Second, while the Everett School District loves to paint with a broad brush, according to Tim Ford of the Attorney General's office, the privilege narrowly applies to those communications between attorney's and clients for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. An invoice is not a vehicle for seeking advice. The district's grasp of legal knowledge is either comically inept, or they simply want so badly to accuse me of violations that they are willing to contrive violations, hoping no one will fact check. And speaking of facts, here's an interesting one regarding how well the District guards these confidential, privileged, non public documents: Section 4.09 of the current Collective Bargaining Agreement for the Everett Teacher's Union states the following: Upon request by the Association, the District shall provide, without redaction of the names of past or present bargaining unit members, copies of legal invoices received by the District for attorney services. Copies provided to the Association shall identify the total billing amount, the amount of any subcategory of legal services, and the full and complete invoice identification for services related to Association members, past or present. The District will respond to requests for this information on an expedited basis. Apparently, the secrecy, privilege, and confidentiality only apply to Directors, not the union. WHEREAS, Director Olson, acting individually without board authority, on June 24, 2011 photocopied unredacted, confidential legal documents without the boards permission or waiver of attorney-client privilege under RCW 5.60.060, Privileged Communications; and There is no law or policy precluding school directors from having copies of district documents. Absent a clear law prohibiting same, an elected school director possessing copies of documents or having copies made is a legal act. There is no law or policy requiring the waiver of the attorney-client privilege in order for a board member to possess a copy of a document for which a privilege has been asserted, because the board is the client. Every elected director has the right to vote on whether the board as a whole may waive the privilege, but the act of one board member possessing or even releasing a privileged document does NOT constitute board waiver of the privilege. In other words, until a majority vote waiving privilege takes place, the privilege remains intact regardless of what one board member does with a document. In any case, see item above for the explanation of why attorney client privilege doesn't apply to legal invoices.

WHEREAS, Director Olson, acting individually without board authority, on July 4, 2011 published, using social media, copies of unredacted attorney-client privileged invoices obtained by way of her position as a school director, doing so without the boards permission in violation of Everett Public Schools Policy 1711, Code of Ethics, and the state of Washington Code of Ethics for Municipal Officers (RCW 42.23.070, Prohibited acts); and The laws cited here prohibit the disclosure of confidential information. Legal invoices of public agencies, such as school districts, are not confidential information, they are public records. Not only are legal invoices not confidential documents, but legal invoices also cannot be redacted unless some of the information contained falls under an exemption specified in statute. The law provides for various categories of information which for which an exemption can be claimed, but there is no law that states these exemptions must be claimed. In other words, in most cases an agency is not required to redact anything, and has the discretion to disclose any information it wishes if it so chooses, with a few exceptions. The exceptions, where information is required to be redacted under the law, deal with information that if released would violate an individual's right to privacy. FACT: The information in the legal invoices I publicly disclosed contained neither confidential information nor information required to be redacted or even information eligible for to be claimed as exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act. Therefore, the disclosure of this non-confidential information to the public was perfectly legal. WHEREAS, Director Olson, acting individually without board authority, violated the boards attorney-client privilege under RCW 5.60.060, Privileged Communications, by disclosing confidential, attorney-client privileged correspondence containing legal advice to The Daily Herald; and Disclosing information for which the school district can assert the attorney client privilege is not a violation of law in and of itself. It is a violation of law or ethics if said information happens to be confidential information, the definition of which is provided in statute. The information provided to the District by attorney Valerie Hughes was not confidential, as it contained only a general legal discussion of the nature of private vs. public conversations as juxtaposed against a criminal prohibition on illegal recordings, as well as some widely available legal case law citations. As stated earlier, only an attorney can violate the attorney-client privilege, because the privilege belongs to the client. The board may be upset that I disclosed this document to the Herald, but the assertion that I violated the attorney-client privilege in doing so is false by definition. WHEREAS, Director Olson, acting individually without board authority, on August 23, 2011 repeatedly disrupted an open public meeting of the school board (RCW 28A.635.030, Disturbing school, school activities or meetings Penalty) by frequently interrupting the board president and vice president even after receiving from board colleagues, including the board president, multiple admonitions to cease this behavior; and While I have been guilty of interrupting other speakers (as has every other member of this board), note that I am not being censured for behavior that is, the behavior the board finds affront with in one of its members but is content to ignore in its other board members. I am

being cited for behavior rising to the occasion of an actual law violation. This charge is a tremendous reach, and is false. You may note that our August 23 meeting featured the board president lunging to take my lawfully operating camera, disrupting the meeting because he (wrongly) believed I was violating the law. Kristie Dutton at the same meeting leaned over and snatched a document that had been distributed to me under the (again wrong) impression that it was confidential. Later they caused physical injury to me trying to wrest the same document from my hand. Their ignorance of the law does not excuse their behavior, which is far more egregious than any interruption I may have caused. This charge from this board is nothing short of shameless. WHEREAS, Director Olson, acting individually without board authority, on August 23, 2011 violated the Open Public Meetings Act (chapter 42.30 RCW) and district Policy 1410, Executive or Closed Sessions by introducing content not appropriate for the executive session(RCW 42.30.110, Executive sessions) after careful agenda planning in accordance with board policy, and after fellow directors requested she cease the violation; and All one need do is watch the video . I called for an end to the executive session because the content being discussed was inappropriate for discussion in executive session, and is why I recorded the conversation so the public would have a record. Also, the other directors dont complain about content being inappropriate for executive session; they complain that videotaping executive sessions is illegal. It is not, of course the District asked Tim Ford of the Attorney Generals Office if it was illegal or unethical and he stated it was not. Ford states in the same letter that the document Dutton violently wrestled out of my hands was, in fact, a public record. Which means Petersen interrupted the meeting under the incorrect pretense that my actions were illegal, tried to confiscate my recorder under the same misconception, and Dutton resorted to violence to confiscate a document available to any member of the public. In fact, the very document that had to be violently taken from me the night of the 23rd because they were afraid I'd release it to the public (I wasn't) was given to Sup't. Cohn the next day with the instructions to share it with anyone he liked even the media. If you'd expect an apology for any of this, youd be wrong. In fact Petersen sent out nearly twenty identical letters to individuals who complained of his actions at the August 23rd meeting. In this mass email Petersen states: I was certain then, and remain convinced, this recording broke the law. He KNOWS this is false, the Attorney General told him so in response to a board member's own request. But if you expect a correction or retraction, expect to be disappointed. WHEREAS, Director Olson, acting individually without board authority, on August 23, 2011 violated district Policy 1240, Duties of Individual Board Members, and violated the privacy rights of other school board directors by recording video images and voice during a properly noticed and convened executive session (RCW 9.73.030, Intercepting, recording, or divulging private communication Consent required Exceptions), which was a private meeting under the law, without obtaining the express permission of other school board members and over the objections of all other school board members; and It is sad to see elected officials let personal vendetta get in the way of what they know is true and right this is another charge the board knew was false before they ever voted on this

censure. The censure resolution cites RCW 9.73.030, and implies that state law and privacy rights have been violated. However, RCW 9.73.030 applies only to private conversations. An executive session is NOT a private conversation, and therefore RCW 9.73.030 does not apply. It is a public meeting (involving action on items that affect the public) held out of view of the public. There is nothing illegal about recording an executive session. In fact, the state attorney general and state auditor favor changing the state law to mandate recordings so that what happens behind closed doors doesn't stray from the few exemptions allowed under state open meetings laws. The Port of Seattle currently engages in this practice. Per Open Government Ombudsman Tim Ford of the Attorney Generals office said as much in this email to Director Carol Andrews: The OPMA is silent on whether board members may record executive sessions. The school board could adopt a policy prohibiting the video recording of its executive sessions by other members. In the absence of such a policy, there is no clear authority to prohibit the recording. In a legal sense most executive sessions are not private but merely closed to the public. A governing body of a public agency that holds a lawful closed meeting conducts its business for the public and is not transacting business for personal gain or private advantage. See Ethics in Public Service Act, Laws of 1994, Chapter 154, section 1. Ford sent this email to Carol Andrews on September 13 at 12:04 pm, almost four and a half hours prior to my censure. Even knowing these facts, the Board elected to continue to move forward with this item in the resolution. This is not the first time they have knowingly censured me for an offense that was false. Even if RCW 9.73.030 (Intercepting, recording, or divulging private communication Consent required Exceptions.) did apply (and it does not per Tim Ford), the censure document is STILL misapplied. Sub-section (3) states: (3) Where consent by all parties is needed pursuant to this chapter, consent shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted: PROVIDED, That if the conversation is to be recorded that said announcement shall also be recorded. The first words out of my mouth, as shown in the video, are: This is gonna get recorded here. We're on. The only objections are based on the fact that executive sessions cannot be recorded, which we know to be false. In fact, both Directors Dutton and Andrews request a copy of the recording, which is clearly audible on the recording. This censure document is an epic failure in its legal claims.

WHEREAS, Director Olson has repeated prohibited behaviors after being admonished by her fellow board members in open public meetings on November 16, 2010, January 25, 2011, July 5, 2011, and August 23, 2011, and by resolution of censure adopted February 22, 2011, in particular by repeatedly ignoring district policy and state law requiring school directors to maintain the confidentiality of confidential records and executive session content and not recording private conversations without permission of all participants; and WHEREAS, censure by a public body is a judgment of stern condemnation of one of its members for behaviors or actions that violate laws or its policies, rules or norms; it is also a public act of rebuking a member for unacceptable acts through an official reprimand; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the board of directors does hereby censure Director Jessica Olson for repeated and blatant disregard of state law, board policy, and board protocols; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the board of directors does hereby demand Director Olson comply with state law, board policy, and board protocols; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the board of directors does hereby require that Director Olson cease bullying, intimidating, harassing, and uncivil treatment of fellow directors and administrative, instructional, and support staff of the Everett Public Schools. Once again, I enjoin the reader to analyze the facts and evidence, and then consider the source of this censure in determining the validity of a censure document that offers only allegations with no facts. They list laws and accuse me of violating them without any regard to to the actual application of the law, or the fact that their allegations run counter to advice they themselves sought from the state Attorney General's Office. I offer you the following evidence of the type of person who is making these allegations: Here is President Ed Petersen speaking at a meeting on October 25, 2011. He is explaining that, although he KNOWS I didn't violate the law as he asserted in my first censure, he will not retract the allegation because he thought the action were rude, and the difference between being rude and breaking the law, to him, is just a technicality. Ed Petersen is willing to lie openly about me violating the law because he doesn't like me, and is unable to divorce that antipathy from his duty as a board president and an elected official. And not a single board member has the integrity or conscience to make him stop.