Is it really worth it to recall Seattle’s school board president?

Grousing about school board directors is not news. But those perennial choruses of complaint rarely result in anything more serious. That’s why the rapid groundswell of support for a legal effort to remove Seattle School Board President Liza Rankin deserves a hard look.

Earlier this month, a small group of parents launched the first step, a petition laying out their allegations of misfeasance, malfeasance and violations of oath of office. Among them: that Rankin adopted an improper process around proposed school closures; has repeatedly failed to engage with parents in a meaningful way; abdicated her duty to provide basic fiscal oversight of Seattle Public Schools; and shirked her responsibility to ensure SPS delivers on student outcomes.

All valid points. Still, recalling an elected official is no small matter. There are legal benchmarks to clear before any such vote can go forward, and unpopular decisions (about, for instance, closing schools) do not meet that bar.

Ben Gitenstein, a tech executive who ran unsuccessfully for the school board in 2023, is a major driver behind the recall, so it could look vindictive at first glance. But Gitenstein has laid out a cogent argument about the board’s subversion of democracy, and that is the basis for his effort.

The recall effort has proceeded rapidly, garnering 230 signatures in 10 days and is already scheduled for a hearing on Dec. 2, in front of King County Superior Court Judge Michael Scott. After listening to arguments from a lawyer representing the recall petitioners and one from Seattle Public Schools defending Rankin (at an estimated cost of $25,000), Judge Scott will decide whether the recall can move forward.

If so, Gitenstein and his crew will then need to collect nearly 50,000 signatures to get the question in front of voters.

With all that work ahead — not to mention the fact that Rankin last week appeared to back away from closing any schools next year — one might wonder why the petitioners want to move ahead.

The answer is that this recall effort is not about any particular decision but, rather, how the school board led by Rankin is making them — without transparency or even a finance committee to comb through the books. The board summarily ended that work group last year, despite its responsibility for a $1.2 billion budget affecting 50,000 students and their families.

With stakes so high, and no chance for voters to elect new board members until November 2025, who knows how deep in the pit Seattle Public Schools will be by then? It has already staggered forward under $ 100 million budget deficits for the past two years, with another $94 million deficit looming in 2025-26.

Whichever way Judge Scott rules, the petitioners have already won one major victory: They made the school board see that parents are watching, and they will not go away quietly.