Opinion Information Sheet

			

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
                                      DIVISION ONE

GLORIA BRIGGS, LATEEFAH                     )
ABDULLAH, SAHILA CHANGE                     )       No. 66312-7-I
BRINGER, LARA GRAUER, DOH                   )
DRIVER,                                     )       ORDER GRANTING MOTION
                                            )       TO PUBLISH 
                      Appellants,           )
                                            )
                v.                          )
                                            )
                                            )
SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,              )
                                            )
                             Respondent.            )

       The respondent, Seattle School District No. 1, has filed a motion to publish

herein.  The court has taken the matter under consideration and has determined that 

the motion should be granted.

       Now, therefore, it is hereby 

       ORDERED that the motion to publish the opinion filed in the above-entitled 

matter on November 14, 2011 is granted.  The opinion shall be published and printed in 

the Washington Appellate Reports.

       Done this _____ day of _______________, 2011.

                          FOR THE PANEL:

                                                           Judge 

No. 66312-7-I / 2

     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

GLORIA BRIGGS, LATEEFAH                     )
ABDULLAH, SAHILA CHANGE                     )       No. 66312-7-I
BRINGER, LARA GRAUER, DOH                   )
DRIVER,                                     )       DIVISION ONE
                                            )
                      Appellants,           )       UNPUBLISHED OPINION
                                            )
                v.                          )
                                            )
                                            )
SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,              )
                                            )
                             Respondent.            )      FILED: November 14, 2011

       Grosse, J.  --  State statute grants the superior court appellate jurisdiction to 

conduct administrative review of certain school board decisions.  Gloria Briggs and 

other parents (collectively Briggs) appeal a  superior court's decision upholding the 

Seattle School District Board's decision to close certain schools, contending that the 

superior court was without authority to grant additional time to the district within which 

to provide an adequate record.  RCW 28A.645.020 provides that a district must supply 

the superior court with the administrative record within 20 days of receiving a notice of 

appeal.  However, that 20-day filing requirement is procedural and not jurisdictional.  

Here, when Briggs asserted that the record was inadequate, the superior court gave 

the  district additional time within which to supplement the record.             This was the 

appropriate remedy.

       Briggs also argues that the record submitted was not certified as required by 

statute and that the trial court erred by dismissing several complainants for lack of 

                                               2 

No. 66312-7-I / 3

standing and     by  striking an exhibit attached to her attorney's limited notice of 

appearance.     None of these contentions have any merit and we affirm the superior 

court.

                                            FACTS

       On January 29, 2009, the Seattle School District Board (district) voted 5 to 2 to 

close five school buildings for instructional purposes and to approve nine programmatic 

changes.  On February 27, 2009, Briggs filed a timely notice of appeal to the superior 
court.1   On March 23, 2009, the district filed the transcript of evidence and six digital 

video disks certified by the district staff.

       Disputes arose regarding the adequacy of the district's                  hearings and 

administrative record.  In an attempt to resolve these issues, Briggs' attorney, Scott 

Stafne,   moved for summary judgment             contending the district       violated RCW 

28A.335.020 by improperly restricting testimony to the closing of school buildings, 

failing to supply an adequate record, preventing adequate judicial review, and denying 

the parents' constitutional right to have access to the courts.  On November 3, 2009, in 

an oral decision, the trial court denied the summary judgment but found the district 

failed to include a variety of parental submissions and exhibits that had been submitted 

to the district and ordered the district to supplement the record, which the district did on 

November 17, 2009.  On the same date, Briggs moved to "reconsider and/or amend"

the denial of his partial summary judgment order.  On December 4, 2009, the superior 

court found that Briggs' motion was not a motion for reconsideration, but a motion on 

1 RCW 28A.645.010 requires persons aggrieved by a school board to file within 30 
days of the board's decision.
                                               3 

No. 66312-7-I / 4

the sufficiency of the supplemented  record  that  the court directed           the  district to 
provide.2

       On December 15, 2009, the superior court again determined that the record was 

not yet adequate because the district failed to provide written transcripts of the digital 

video recordings of the school board meetings.            The court directed the parties to 

determine a hearing date and set a briefing schedule by January 8, 2010. 

       The district filed transcribed copies with the court, but Briggs refused to comply 

with the court's briefing schedule based on her mistaken belief that the court had no 

authority.  The superior court denied Briggs' motion to certify its denial of the summary 

judgment dismissal to the Supreme Court.        Briggs then filed a motion for discretionary 

review with the Supreme Court, which was denied.  

       On June 1, 2010, the superior court granted the district's motion to dismiss 

several complainants for lack of standing.  On July 9, 2010, the court entered an order 

on case management and permitted Briggs' attorney, Stafne, to appear for the limited 

issue of adequacy of the record.  The remaining parents who still had standing 

proceeded pro se.  After reviewing the record and hearing argument, the superior court

affirmed the district's decision, finding that the parents had failed to meet their burden 

establishing that the challenged decisions were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

                                          ANALYSIS

       Briggs raises several issues in her         appeal, but all are entwined with her

mistaken belief that the superior court was acting without authority when it granted the 

2 On that same day, the court entered a written order reflecting its November 3 oral 
ruling denying Briggs' motion for partial summary judgment and directing the district to 
supplement the record.
                                               4 

No. 66312-7-I / 5

district additional time within which to submit the record.

Filing and Certification of Record

       RCW 28A.335.020 provides that "[b]efore any school closure, a school district 

board of directors shall adopt a policy regarding school closures which provides for 

citizen involvement before the school district board of directors considers the closure of 

any school for instructional purposes." The policy "shall also include a requirement that 

during the ninety days before a school district's final decision upon any school closure, 

the school board of directors shall conduct hearings to receive testimony from the 
public on any issues related to the closure of any school for instructional purposes."3

       RCW 28A.645.010 grants the superior court appellate jurisdiction to conduct an 
administrative review of a decision by a school board.4        All that is required is that an 

aggrieved person file and serve a notice of appeal setting forth the errors complained 

of within 30 days after the school board decision was made.  Upon proper filing of the 
notice of appeal, the superior court obtains subject matter jurisdiction.5                RCW 

28A.645.020 requires the school board to file, at its own expense, the record for review 

within 20 days.  The record consists of "the complete transcript of the evidence and the 

3 RCW 28A.335.020.
4 RCW 28A.645.010 provides:
       Any person, or persons, either severally or collectively, aggrieved by any 
       decision or order of any school official or board, within thirty days after the 
       rendition of such decision or order, or of the failure to act upon the same 
       when properly presented, may appeal the same to the superior court of the 
       county in which the school district or part thereof is situated, by filing with the 
       secretary of the school board if the appeal is from board action or failure to 
       act, otherwise with the proper school official, and filing with the clerk of the 
       superior court, a notice of appeal which shall set forth in a clear and concise 
       manner the errors complained of.
5 Clark v. Selah Sch. Dist. No. 119 by Bare, 53 Wn. App. 832, 836-37, 770 P.2d 1062 
(1989).
                                               5 

No. 66312-7-I / 6

papers and exhibits relating to the decision for which a complaint has been filed."6  

       Briggs argues that the superior court lacks authority to extend the time in which

to file the record beyond the 20 days specified in RCW 28A.645.020.  Briggs contends 

that if the record is inadequate to provide review, it is by definition not adequate to 

provide  her   access to the  courts  as  guaranteed  by        article I, section 10 of the 

Washington State Constitution.      Briggs further contends that in doing so, the superior 

court violated the separation of powers doctrine because it usurped the legislature's 

role that had already established a 20-day time limit. Finally, Briggs argues that the

school district incorrectly certified the record by failing to use the term "correct" in the 

attestations submitted to the court.   None of these contentions has any merit.  The trial 

court properly denied Briggs' motion for summary judgment and ordered the district to 

supplement the record.  

       RCW 28A.645.020 is a procedural rule meant to timely effectuate the right of 

appeal.  It is not jurisdictional.  Although there has been no published case law 

specifically interpreting RCW      28A.645.020, cases interpreting similar statutes are 

illustrative. RCW    28A.405.330 and its predecessors, RCW              28.58.470 and RCW 

28A.58.470, require that a school district file "the complete transcript of the evidence 

and the papers and exhibits relating to the decision complained of, all properly certified 
to be correct." In Hattrick v. North Kitsap School District No. 400,7 the school board did 

6 RCW 28A.645.020 provides:
       Within twenty days of service of the notice of appeal, the school board, at its 
       expense, or the school official, at such official's expense, shall file the 
       complete transcript of the evidence and the papers and exhibits relating to the 
       decision for which a complaint has been filed.  Such filings shall be certified to 
       be correct.
7 81 Wn.2d 668, 504 P.2d 302 (1972).
                                               6 

No. 66312-7-I / 7

not renew Hattrick's teaching contract on a variety of grounds.  The school board filed 

only papers and exhibits and not the complete transcript.  The trial court affirmed the 

school board, but our Supreme Court reversed, directing the school board to provide a 

complete record on remand and holding that the superior court needed to decide the 

matter de novo to determine whether there was sufficient cause to not renew the 
teaching contract.8 The court did not vacate the school board's decision, but it directed 

the school board to submit a complete transcript of the hearing before it as the trial 

court did here.
       In Weems v. North Franklin School District,9 a special education director who 

was terminated for falsifying documents appealed the hearing officer's decision that the 
termination was justified.10  On appeal to the superior court, the testimony of one of the 

witnesses was missing.  The superior court allowed the testimony to be retaken with a 

stipulation regarding the witness's original testimony.  The superior court then upheld 

the decision to terminate.  On appeal to this court, we rejected Weems' argument that 

Hattrick stood "for the proposition that failure to provide the record requires reversal of 
the termination."11  In rejecting that argument, we noted that a violation of the statute 

does not require automatic reversal, but should be treated as any other defect in the 

record, and granting a new trial should be granted only if there is a demonstration of 
prejudice resulting from the incomplete record and attempts to cure that record.12

8 Hattrick, 81 Wn.2d at 670-71.
9 109 Wn. App. 767, 37 P.3d 354 (2002), abrogated on other grounds by Federal Way 
Sch. Dist. No. 210 v. Vinson, ___ Wn.2d ___, 261 P.3d 145 (2011).
10 Weems involved the nearly identical language of RCW  28A.405.330, which now 
applies to appeals of decisions involving certificated employees.
11 Weems, 109 Wn. App. at 774.
12 Weems, 109 Wn. App. at 774-75 (quoting State v. Miller, 40 Wn. App. 483, 488, 698 
P.2d 1123 (1985)).
                                               7 

No. 66312-7-I / 8

       Both  Weems and  Hattrick stand for the proposition that the remedy for an 

inadequate record is to give time to supplement it when there is no prejudice.  The trial 

court was correct in finding that the district had not submitted an adequate record and

properly imposed the appropriate remedy of granting the district additional time within 
which to submit it.  That time did not prejudice Briggs.13

       Nor do we find any validity to Briggs' argument that the district did not certify the 

record as required by statute.    The parties are familiar with the certifications used with 

each submission and they will not be set forth again here.  Briggs' entire argument 

rests on the district's failure to use the term "correct" when certifying the record to the 

superior court.   RCW 28A.645.020 provides that the district's filings "shall be certified 

to be correct."  While the better choice would have been to use the same term as found 

in the statute, failure to do so does not in and of itself invalidate the certifications.  

Here, five school district employees and various court reporters all offered attestations 

regarding the materials      submitted to the court.  Each of these had a formal 
acknowledgment.  This was sufficient to comply with the statute.14

Standing

       RCW 28A.645.010 requires that a person be "aggrieved by" the school board's 

decision in order to commence an action.  An aggrieved party is one whose personal 
rights or pecuniary interests have been affected.15           The trial court dismissed five 

13 Because we find that the superior court did not err in granting additional time to 
supplement its record, thus affording Briggs an opportunity to argue in court on an 
adequate record, we do not address Briggs' arguments on court access. 
14 We note that even if Briggs' argument had merit, we could provide no remedy.  
Briggs wants the superior court to void the school board's decisions; but if the superior 
court had no authority, its only option would have been to dismiss the appeal, thus 
leaving the school board's decision intact. 
15 State v. Taylor, 150 Wn.2d 599, 603, 80 P.3d 604 (2003).
                                               8 

No. 66312-7-I / 9

complainants  for lack of standing.      One was not a resident of the district and the 

remaining four did not have children at the schools impacted by the decisions at issue.  

The trial court's ruling was correct.  No person has a right to have their child attend at 
any particular school building.16

       Briggs makes an ethereal argument that all parents had standing to challenge 

the district's failure to comply with the statutory requirements of RCW 28A.335.020 

(requiring district to adopt policy regarding school closures which provides reasonable 

notice to affected residents).  Again much of the argument is entwined with her theory 

that granting the district the additional time within which to submit the record somehow 

denied her access to the courts.  As discussed above, this argument has no merit.

Striking Exhibit

       Stafne  contends that the trial court erred by striking the Washington State 

Auditor's Report on the district which was attached to his second limited notice of 

appearance.    The admission of or refusal to admit evidence is reviewed for abuse of 

discretion.    "A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly 
unreasonable or based upon untenable grounds."17   Briggs fails to show any such 

abuse. 

       Stafne argued that the report supported his contention that the district's record

keeping on school closures and student assignments did not comply with law.  But 

because the opinions expressed in the report are inadmissible hearsay as they purport 

to assert the truth of the matter, the trial court correctly denied admission.

16 Citizens Against Mandatory Bussing v. Palmason, 80 Wn.2d 445, 453, 495 P.2d 657
(1972).
17 Boguch v. Landover Corp., 153 Wn. App. 595, 619, 224 P.3d 795 (2009).
                                               9 

No. 66312-7-I / 10

       Finally, we consider Briggs' motion to strike factual statements contained in the 

district's brief because it lacked specific citations to page numbers.  RAP 10.3(a)(5) 

requires reference to the record.  Here, the district cited to specific named documents 

in places where the supplemental clerk's papers pagination had not yet been assigned.  

These documents were easily located in the record.  Accordingly, we deny Briggs'

motion to strike.

                                              10 

No. 66312-7-I / 11

       We affirm the superior court's order affirming the school board's decision.

WE CONCUR:

                                              11