Bill targets school board recall issues

A bill inspired by the confusion that followed the recall of two West Bonner school board trustees is being rewritten to address concerns of some of the State Affairs committee following a Feb. 21 hearing on the bill.

Rep. Mark Sauter, R-Sandpoint, began revising the bill after his original legislation, House Bill 420, was sent to General Orders to ensure the bill does not conflict with other statutes. A bill sent to that committee can be amended on the floor if later brought up for action, or can languish there if it isn't passed into law if the Legislature adjourns before then.

Sauter is in the process of rewriting the legislation to address concerns raised at the hearing. That bill, House Bill 645, will likely go before a House of Representatives committee by the end of the week.

Sauter wrote the legislation after seeing the recall create a trio of problems for the district — what constitutes a quorum, when does a vacancy begin, and what powers do recalled trustees have.

"West Bonner had a problem with them not being able to hold school board meetings for a quorum reason," Sauter told the House State Affairs Committee, which heard the bill because of its potential impact on state elections. "So that was delayed and delayed. They were unable to have their school board business taken care of for a few months, Sauter told committee members of the impact on the rural school district.

Sauter said his legislation would clarify those issues if another school district were to find itself in a similar situation.

Under the legislation, Sauter said the bill would change it to quorum to a majority of the remaining trustees. It would also change state statute to clarify that the vacancy would start as soon as a county clerk and board of county commissioners certified an election.

It would also suspend the ability of recalled board members to make long-term decisions for a district to prevent them from binding a district to any long-term decisions.

In addressing the issues, Sauter said he didn't want to create others and wanted it to be a statewide fix.

A move to send the bill to General Orders was proposed by Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard, who represents District 2, came after a do-pass recommendation from another committee member.

One reason for her motion was that when a motion removes existing code, Scott said that must have that included in the language. The other is a conflict with an existing statute, which stipulates trustees continue with their duties until the results of a recall election are officially proclaimed.

Scott also said she was concerned about the potential influence of outside groups on the recall election, and the role that politics played in the recall.

"There's a lot of controversy around this whole topic," Scott said. "… There was a lot of money from [around] the state from the unions and big education to remove conservative trustees."

In crafting the bill, Sauter worked with the Secretary of State's Office, the Idaho Department of Education, and the state's superintendents and school boards association. School districts in District 1, which Sauter serves in Seat 1A, also were consulted.

"The bill provides direction in certain circumstances where a board is made up of less than their typical number," Dale Layne of the Idaho Rural Schools Association said in support of the bill. "… [It would allow them] to continue to conduct business. In the case of a recall, it also allows the district to continue business in an organized manner based on the will of the voters."

Quinn Perry, deputy director for the Idaho School Board Association, said the legislation supports the bill, noting it would close a loophole that needs to be closed.

"There is a conflict in the current code and it's being closed through this bill," she said. "So I do think the bill language that clarifies that the recall exists upon the certification of the election is a necessary change in the code."

Greg Wilson, chief of state for the Idaho Department of Education, said State Superintendent Debbie Critchfield supported the measure.

"The State Department of Education was in an extraordinary position this summer, when you had two recalled trustees and they were asking us to advise them on how they could continue to conduct business in the situation that they were in," Wilson testified. "There was nothing in code that we could point to [in order to help provide clarity.]"

Sauter wrote the bill, which is limited to school districts, after seeing how not having definitive answers to those three issues had on the district after former board chair Keith Rutledge and vice chair Susan Brown were recalled.

Among those speaking against the bill were former West Bonner Superintendent Branden Durst and District 1 Sen. Scott Herndon.

"What you're being asked to do is essentially give a vote that has not yet been certified by the county clerk the authority of the effect of law," the controversial former superintendent testified. "That's not how it is supposed to work."

In testifying against the bill, Herndon said he had several concerns, one which conflicted with other sections of code including one that attempts to already note that a vacancy exists at the time of a recall's recertification. A second concern is the wording that bars recalled members from acting once the vote is certified.

"So the bottom line is the statutory changes proposed in House Bill 420, one of them's already handled in Section 34-1712 … and now we create a conflict with what happens for the recall of all other officers in Idaho government and local political subdivisions."

Brooke Ramsey, who helped lead the recall effort in West Bonner, said the proposed legislation would have prevented many of the problems that stemmed from West Bonner's lack of a quorum.

"Our board of trustees were prevented form doing the business of the school district," Ramsey said. "Most of those problems were due to the ambiguous language of the current code."

In the wake of the recall, trustee Troy Reinbold, who often aligned himself with the pair, missed multiple meetings which prevented the district from acting because of the uncertainty. Multiple agencies and attorneys were consulted but no one could offer any advice because the matter was not clearly addressed in Idaho Code.

"If one trustee chooses not to attend due to different political opinions, strategy, or even a family emergency, no business can get done," Ramsey testified. This essentially hamstrings the whole board."