Four and a half months after a federal jury ruled against the Quillayute Valley School District over a hostile work environment, the district has issued a public response. The statement, delivered Tuesday, ran for about eight minutes and focused on defending the district's position while highlighting the financial award. It did not offer an apology or outline future steps.
Board Chair Bill Rohde read the prepared remarks at the conclusion of board member reports, noting the content had the board's approval. The statement asserted that because the matter was tried before a jury, the board is now permitted to comment. It went on to claim the jury had "completely exonerated" the district, referencing specific verdicts from the April trial. That trial resulted in a $249,760 award to a former assistant coach under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, though the jury rejected claims of retaliation and cleared an assistant superintendent of negligent supervision.
The statement emphasized that the district "in no way intends to minimize the situation." It concluded by acknowledging an ongoing personnel matter "related to this situation" that cannot be discussed publicly.
Public Comment
The statement followed public comments from residents who have attended meetings regularly since the verdict. One resident recalled that in July, a district graduate, who now works as a coach for the district, described experiencing massages from a staff member, beginning in middle school.
The resident noted that trial evidence included video presented by the district showing a staff member massaging a high school student's leg. He added that Superintendent Diana Reaume testified during the trial that such conduct was permissible under district policy if "for educational purposes." The resident pointed out that training, oversight, and consequences fall under the purview of the superintendent and assistant superintendent, stating the record indicates unsatisfactory performance and suggesting the board consider "cause for termination."
A former student from Forks returned to the podium to address a question a board member had posed after the July meeting regarding why she waited so long to speak about her experience. She explained that early in high school, she reported an adult harassing a peer, but her anonymity was compromised after the adult was removed. When a better-connected educator later harassed her and others, she chose to remain silent and eventually left. "From a child's perspective, nothing happens," she told the board. "You report and then you still have to face that same adult every day." She requested that any board member unable to hold a longtime acquaintance accountable should step aside from that role.
Board Response
A resident read a statement from a parent who wished to remain anonymous. The statement argued that the assistant superintendent's role as athletic director and Title IX coordinator creates a conflict by placing student protection and institutional risk management in the same hands. The parent offered five recommendations, including the appointment of an independent coordinator and an external review of student-athlete physical contact reports dating back to 2010.
The board did not engage with the recommendations. Instead, a board member suggested the board should stop accepting anonymous speakers, stating the author "sounds like they should be confronted with her opinion" and "should be here in front and center for us."
A proposal to adjust public comment procedures was introduced just minutes after a former student shared her experience regarding a previous report bearing her name. However, the board took no formal action on the idea; it did not receive a second, was not voted upon, and was not placed on the agenda. Comment protocols are typically established through adopted policy rather than ad hoc discussion.
State law governing open public meetings mandates that boards accept both oral and written remarks during regular sessions where final decisions are made. The legislation also prohibits requiring attendees to identify themselves as a prerequisite for attending. The purpose of public comment is to allow citizens to address the board, rather than to enable the board to engage in confrontation with critics.
During the remainder of the session, the board approved a $77 million budget. They also adopted educational specifications for middle schools, a move intended to precede the November bond vote. Additionally, the board issued an emergency declaration to seek state funding for repairs to the leaking roof at Spartan Gym.