Ridgefield School District Officials: Alleged violation of RCW 42.17A.555 for use of public facilities for the purpose of supporting or opposing a candidate or ballot measure (EY25 JAN25)

Case

#166249

Respondent

Ridgefield School District Officials

Complainant

Robert Anderson

Description

WAC 390-05-271(1) states that .555 does not restrict the right of individuals to express their own personal views concerning supporting or opposing any candidate or ballot proposition, provided that such expression does not involve the use of public office or agency facilities. While the use of a title is permitted in some instances, the use of other public agency facilities, such as staff time and equipment, is prohibited. As a result, the Op-Ed does not appear to meet the conditions set forth in the above rule.

WAC 390-05-271(2) indicates that .555 does not prevent a public officer or agency from 1) making facilities available on a nondiscriminatory, equal access basis for political uses; or 2) making an objective and fair presentation of facts relevant to a ballot proposition (commonly referred to as a “Fact Sheet”) provided such action is part of the office or agency’s normal and regular conduct. However, in the case of the November 19, 2024, Board Meeting, it appears that facilities were not made equally available to opponents of the ballot proposition and/or a No committee. In addition, the Op-Ed piece does not appear to qualify as a Fact Sheet because the content was not solely neutral and factual. Finally, to be considered “normal and regular” an activity must be lawful and not otherwise violate .555.

The PDC is charged with enforcing RCW 42.17.555, which requires consideration and analysis of activities that may or may not be determined to be in violation of the statute. Over the years, the PDC has developed methods of considering and analyzing activities engaged in by school districts and public offices. Among the factors considered are the normal and regular conduct of the district and the timing, tone, and tenor of their activities as compared with ballot measure elections. As in any matter where intent is to be considered, hard and fast rules that are applicable to all situations are difficult to establish.

Pursuant to WAC 390-37-060(1)(d), you are receiving a formal written warning concerning the use of public facilities for the purpose of supporting a ballot measure. The formal written warning will include staff’s expectation that you do not use public facilities for the purpose of supporting or opposing a candidate or ballot measure in the future. The Commission will consider the formal written warning in deciding on further Commission action if there are future violations of PDC laws or rules.

Based on this information, the PDC has dismissed this matter in accordance with RCW 42.17A.755(1).

Disposition

Case Closed with Written Warning

Date Opened

January 31, 2025

Areas of Law

RCW 42.17A.555