SEATTLE — Earlier this month, it became clear that Seattle School Board Director Vivian Song no longer lives in the area she represents. But even though the board acknowledged the problem, it seems unlikely it will take action.
Board President Liza Rankin addressed the issue this month. “State law and board policy have requirements around eligibility to hold positions, and individual candidates affirm — upon filing for election — their eligibility,” she said during a board meeting. “And we are responsible for complying with state law and commitments made when we take oath of office.”
But Rankin also said the board doesn’t have the authority or obligation to require Song to resign.
“Resignation is at the discretion of the individual,” Rankin said. “Authority to determine eligibility of elected officials to hold office falls to King County Elections.”
King County Elections also deflected responsibility, saying the office’s role is limited to checking if a candidate is eligible to run when they file in May. That’s when staffers check voter registration records. After that, they are “not responsible for monitoring ongoing eligibility and don’t have any authority to get involved,” said Halei Watkins, the communications manager for the office.
Watkins added that there is nothing in law or practice that requires the office to monitor the registration records of current elected officials, and it is up to each jurisdiction — in this case, Seattle Public Schools — and possibly their legal counsel to determine if officeholders were meeting requirements.
Two weeks ago SPS said in a statement that its district policy provides that directors may continue to serve on the board even if they relocate to another director area.
School Board member Michelle Sarju, who represents director area five — which includes Capitol Hill where Song now lives — called it a matter of right and wrong.
“While this situation may compel legal questions, that is not the real issue,” she said during the same board meeting where Rankin addressed the issue. “The issue is that a board director is occupying a seat they are no longer eligible to hold. I believe what is important is that the focus should be on doing what is right.”
The issue is distracting, she added. “I don’t want to spend time getting to the bottom of this. I want to spend the time focusing on the biggest challenges that we face that will impact the students of this district.”
Song, who owns two homes with her husband on Capitol Hill, moved to Ballard — in director district four — in 2021 when she ran for School Board. In an interview two weeks ago, she said she “gradually” moved back to Capitol Hill in 2022, and that she notified the district at that time. The district continued allowing her to serve, despite state law saying otherwise.
Earlier this month, she put her hat in the ring to serve in an open seat on the Seattle City Council. She was one of eight finalists, and received one vote (from council member Dan Strauss), but the council ultimately picked property owner Tanya Woo to fill the vacant citywide seat left by Teresa Mosqueda.
So now it’s up to Song to decide what to do. On Friday, Song declined to comment.
School Board representation works differently from representation on the Seattle City Council, where seven council members each represent a specific district and serve the people living in that district. An eighth and ninth seat are at-large, representing the entire city. In contrast, Seattle School Board policy says that School Board members are “responsible for serving all schools in SPS, not only those located in their represented [director area].”
Every voter gets to vote for each director in the general election, not only those living in their director area. The director area only comes into play in the primary, if there is one, when voters choose among the candidates running in their respective director area.
The Seattle School Board was created around 1861 with three members. At least since 1979, the district has been divided into seven geographical zones where residency determines eligibility.
This is because Seattle is a “first-class” district, a term that refers to any school district in the state that enrolls 2,000 pupils or more. State law allows a “first-class” district to have additional flexibility and agency to make decisions on how the district is governed, including the option to use districts in the primary and at-large voting in the general election, said Watkins, the elections office spokesperson.
Many smaller school districts elect all members at-large, Watkins added, meaning they can live anywhere in the district — even all in the same neighborhood.
“Seattle isn’t alone in using this system, but statewide, it’s in the minority,” said Ben Anderstone, a Seattle-based political consultant for Progressive Strategies NW.
Despite its small size, the Wenatchee School District — which enrolls about 7,000 students compared with Seattle’s almost 51,000 — decided recently to switch to a district-based School Board system. It was previously a five-member body where all members were elected at-large.
Rankin said that the residency determining eligibility is important because it provides the board with a diverse array of voices from across the city.
Seattle needs geographic requirements for its board members because it is a segregated city, Rankin said. “You don’t want a board with three people from Magnolia.”
She described the current setup as an “imperfect solution,” but better than anything else.
“If School Board was citywide in the primary and in the general, you risk losing representation because of how voter turnout goes and who is likely to vote,” Rankin said. “And if we ran in the primary and the general just in our director districts, you also miss people.”
She believes it was a deliberate choice to make the general election citywide.
“It is reinforcing that everyone has a say in what we — as Seattle — expect from our educational system,” Rankin said.
