Thurston judge invalidates Olympia School Board vote that began school closure process
.jpg "OSD is finalizing an FAQ page based on feedback from board directors and the public regarding the district’s inquiry into closing Madison and McKenny elementary schools by next school year.")
A Thurston County judge on Friday invalidated an Olympia School Board vote to open a 90-day window to consider closing Madison and McKenny elementary schools.
Superior Court Judge Anne Egeler sided with four district parents over the objections of attorneys for the Olympia School District during a Friday morning hearing.
The parents argued that a Dec. 14 vote to open the 90-day window was “arbitrary, capricious and illegal” because the board had not yet published a specific written analysis of the proposed closures, according to court records. By starting the clock on the process in December, the parents feared the district could close the schools by March 14.
In January, the district posted an updated analysis on the latest proposal and the board postponed its decision on whether to close the schools to April 25.
It’s remains to be seen how the court’s decision will affect the timeline for the closures, which are intended to help address the district’s $3.5 million budget deficit for the 2024-2025 school year.
In a prepared statement, district spokesperson Susan Gifford said district leadership and the school board are “reviewing the court’s ruling and determining next steps.”
Madison is at 1225 Legion Way SE in downtown Olympia, and McKenny is at 3250 Morse-Merryman Road SE, across from LBA Park on the city’s east side. The latest proposal includes closing one or both schools and moving students into surrounding schools.
The school board has considered a number of means of solving its budget deficit. However, the parents argued the idea to close Madison and McKenny elementary schools had not yet been directly studied as required by state law and district policy before the 90-day window was opened, according to court records.
By failing to publish a requisite study, the parents argued they could not provide “meaningful feedback” on the proposal.
“And supplying the analysis after the vote, in response to litigation, does not cure the defect,” the parents said in court records.
The parents filed their case against the district on Jan. 10. In response, the attorneys for the district asked the court to deny the parents’ request and dismiss the case with prejudice.
The attorneys argued the school board followed state law and district policy. Furthermore, they said the parents appeal was premature and moot because the board had not yet decided to close any schools and the decision was postponed to April.
This story was originally published March 8, 2024 at 6:01 PM.
