On February 22, 2011, I was censured by this board in Resolution 1015.

One of the items in that resolution reads as follows: WHEREAS, Director Olson has, acting individually without board authority, violated the Open Public Meetings Act by intruding upon a meeting in which the board president and vicepresident were meeting with staff and legal counsel for the sake of careful agenda planning in accordance with board policy, and in response to Director Olsons request to consider certain real estate matters outside of an executive session. This charge was not levied as an allegation for which a determination would be made of my guilt or innocence, but as a statement of fact that I indeed violated the law specifically the Open Public Meetings Act. I am not certain if the drafters of the resolution failed to vet the document through legal counsel, or whether legal counsel failed in their duty to recognize that the statement on its face was false, but regardless: this statement is demonstrably false, and as such, is defamatory libel and slander. I took the following steps to correct this very public falsehood: First, in my statement in open session at the discussion of my censure resolution, I explained how the accusation was false. I described how in order for a violation to occur, a legal meeting had to occur. For a legal meeting to occur, legal action had to take place. Neither condition was met when I was in the room. In response to my refutation of the charge, President Petersen chastised me for defending myself against the accusation, and in doing so essentially admitted that the accusation was false, stating: ...you went in, and we left and didnt continue the discussion because, had we continued the discussion, it would have become a violation of the Open Public Meetings Act. Astonishingly, even after this admission and knowing the accusation was false, Resolution 1015 was approved by this board. My second effort to correct the false accusation was in my official response to the censure, which was entered into the record at the time of censure. In it I again explained what legally constituted a meeting, and that action had to occur, citing the appropriate RCWs for the benefit of district legal counsel. Again, there was no response. My third effort to counter this false accusation occurred when I attempted to make a motion at the meeting that if the board felt one of its members violated the law, we should, as part of our civic duties, report that violation to the proper authorities, such as the state AGs office. I knew that, if reported, the proper authorities would inform the district their accusations were baseless. The board president ruled my motion out of order without giving a reason, and the board parliamentarian upheld the ruling incorrectly, as recent parliamentary procedure training has shown. My fourth attempt to correct the false accusation happened later that very night. I delivered a written director request to Supt. Cohn in open session, and asked for it to be entered into the record. Supt. Cohn agreed, and Director Petersen verified that Supt. Cohn had received the request. There are recordings of this exchange. The request was for Supt. Cohn to report the violation to the proper authorities.

Not only was the document not entered into the record, the request was totally ignored. After 7 months with no reply or action, I brought up the issue again at the September 13th Board meeting; again, no response. I noted it was not present in the minutes of the meeting in an email to Director Russell, who referred it to Supt. Cohn. Supt. Cohn indicated that he and his staff had no record of the request, nor could they find it in their recordings of the meeting. Supt. Cohn left it to me to provide proof that I in fact made such a request. I have since sent him an email with a link to the recording where he accepts the document and President Petersen confirms it I trust this is sufficient. However, there has still been no action taken. I recently made my fifth effort to correct the false accusation. Given the Boards apparent unwillingness to do their civic duty and report what they assert was a violation of the law, I decided to report myself for this violation. Tim Ford, the Attorney Generals Ombudsman for Open Government, is oft quoted by this board and sought for training and advice. When I turned myself in to Ford, he responded: A potential violation could only occur if there is action taken on behalf of the board whether by a quorum of the board, or by a committee acting on behalf of the board. Mr. Ford then referenced RCW 42.30.070 the same one I introduced eight months ago saying: The OPMA clearly states that it is not a violation for a majority of the members of a governing body to travel together or gather for purposes other than a regular meeting or a special meeting as these terms are used in this chapter: PROVIDED, That they take no action as defined in this chapter. As President Petersen stated that very night, no such action occurred. In this case, there can be no doubt: I have been wronged, and I have played by the rules in order to have the situation rectified. I have been persistent: Ive tried five different times to have the board correct this false accusation. I have been patient: it has been eight months since this falsehood was introduced in a very public forum. I have used the appropriate channels: verbal statements in allotted times at board meetings, written statements entered into the record, made motions per parliamentary procedure, and made director requests. I have been outright ignored every time by the president, the parliamentarian, and the superintendent. So tonight, I sit before you again in the appropriate venue. I dont have a lawyer with me. And I am asking nicely for the sixth and final time: do the right thing. It may have been ignorance of the law when the original resolution was drafted, but you now know this accusation to be demonstrably false the law says so, the AGs office says so, and even President Petersen himself said so the very night it was uttered. Youve known this accusation was demonstrably false since before you each voted to pass the resolution. I am demanding that this defamatory accusation be retracted in the same public manner that it was proffered. You dont need to hold a press conference, you dont need to hire the Goodyear blimp, and you dont need to rent a billboard. Our practice is to amend a resolution with another resolution, as we discussed in agenda item 9.01 tonight. The accusation was made in a Resolution of Censure, the retraction should occur in a resolution of apology or similar document, publically read in open session as was the censure. For your convenience, I have drafted such a resolution. In the interests of being fair, I took both the format and the wording from the original censure document. It is my understanding that the original resolution of censure was written by board members in concert with Supt. Cohn. I would be happy to sit down with Sup't. Cohn and discuss this draft.