The Kent School Board’s ongoing drama flares up again among members

The ongoing drama between Kent School Board member Donald Cook and other Kent School District board members and leaders took many more twists in the last week.

The often heated conflict began in February when the board created a labor policy committee that excluded Cook, one of its five members, from contract negotiations with district unions because his wife teaches in the district. Cook has been fighting the formation of this committee ever since.

The latest developments include:

Cook briefly left the board meeting on Wednesday evening, October 9, after discussing a measure added to that evening’s agenda to repeal the resolution passed in February. Cook became upset when he tried to get board President Meghin Margel and board member Tim Clark to explain why they brought up the measure and received no concrete answers. Board members Awale Farah and Andy Song were not present at the meeting.

“It doesn’t make sense that it was passed in the first place and now you’re removing it,” Cook said before leaving the chamber. “They don’t admit it shouldn’t have been done, and no one is willing to say why it was done. No information is provided to me. …I ask you a question and you point to the district attorney (Curtis Leonard).

“That’s why people don’t trust us and don’t issue guarantees and levies. They bring it up at the last minute (with no opportunity for public comment) and say it has to be done today or the world will collapse.”

Cook tried to get Leonard to explain the reasons for the proposal, but Leonard responded that most of the conversation could only be discussed in a board meeting.

When Cook later pressed Margel on why the board wanted to reverse the resolution, she received a short answer.

“It served its purpose, it’s time to move on,” Margel said. “We have discussed it in the past, it is not being discussed today.”

After Cook left, Margel called for a short break. Cook then returned and Clark called for a vote on the proposal to repeal the resolution adopted in February.

Margel and Clark voted to pass. When asked for his vote, Cook did not answer “yes,” “no,” or abstain, so Margel recorded his vote as an “abstention.” The measure ended 2-0-1. The board had a quorum of three votes, so only two votes were required to overturn the resolution.

Lawsuit dismissed

The board’s lawsuit came just a week after a King County Superior Court judge on Oct. 2 dismissed a civil lawsuit filed by Cook against the Kent School District.

Cook and county resident and mother Greta Nelson filed the lawsuit in March in response to the board’s controversial February decision to bar Cook from participating in union contract negotiations, claiming he should not have been barred.

Judge Nicholas Straley agreed to a motion by school district attorneys to dismiss the lawsuit because the notice of civil action was filed with the board secretary a day late (31 days instead of 30 days) after the resolution was adopted on Feb. 28.

Nelson took responsibility for missing the registration deadline in a social media post. She and Cook initially filed the lawsuit without the help of an attorney.

Nelson said she assisted Cook with his complaint and filing, “but failed to double and triple check the requirements of RCW (Revised Code of Washington) 28A.645.010(1) for everything I was missing.”

Nelson said facing a government agency is a challenge.

“The odds seem insurmountable for a citizen to take legal action on their own and without error, without incurring the significant costs of retaining legal counsel in order to succeed,” Nelson said.

Cook plans to appeal the decision. Court documents he filed claim he was personally affected by the resolution’s passage and is considered an “aggrieved party.”

“I will not be deterred by the case being dismissed by King County Superior Court Judge Straley,” Cook said in an email to the Kent Reporter.

Cook’s lawsuit claims the decision impacted his personal life and emotional well-being.

“Plaintiff Cook has been placed in a state of uncertainty as to his eligibility caused by the diminished role he now plays with respect to labor matters and oversight of the District as to its largest expense (its personnel),” the statement states Civil action.

Lara Hruska, an attorney at Cedar Law in Seattle who was eventually hired by Cook to take on the case, said she would appeal the decision.

“We believe this dismissal was legally incorrect and are filing a motion for reconsideration and intend to appeal if the judge does not change his order,” Hruska said in an email. “It’s interesting that the district has now rescinded the order, but that doesn’t undermine our case.”

The initial appeal must be filed in King County Superior Court. However, if Straley does not change his sentence, the appeal will go to the state appeals court.

School district response

The school district’s communications department issued a press release on Oct. 10 in response to the court rulings and the board’s decision to reverse the resolution that excluded Cook from the labor board.

The district said the board adopted the resolution in February “due to the potential for conflicts of interest, unfair labor practices and disclosure of confidential information.”

District staff further explained their stance.

“The Labor Policy Committee ensured security and confidentiality for the district and all bargaining groups, as funding for negotiated contracts with all ten of the district’s labor groups comes from the same district budget,” the statement said. “Any conflict of interest could have an impact on all other negotiating groups. With the enactment of Resolution 1669, the district entered into collective bargaining agreements with the Kent Education Association and other unions last spring.”

Straley also denied a request from Cook to amend the complaint, alleging that his First Amendment rights were violated by the board’s failure to allow him to attend certain meetings or even learn about the meetings.

“It is undisputed that Mr. Cook can continue to vote on the ratification of a collective bargaining agreement the district enters into with one of its unions,” the ruling states. “In addition, Mr. Cook retains the opportunity to express concerns and opinions to other board members and the public on union matters or other issues. Under these circumstances, the adoption of Resolution 1669 is not a sufficiently negative action to raise First Amendment concerns.”

The district statement then added that the board voted to repeal Resolution 1669, so it would have no further force or effect.

“The Kent School District Board looks forward to focusing without distraction on the core work of the district: student learning,” the statement said.

Chef frustrated

At the start of the board meeting, Cook asked his fellow board members in a motion seeking approval for the district to pay his legal fees in the case.

“I propose that my legal fees be paid as we overturn the order,” Cook said.

Neither Margel nor Clark supported the motion, so it was not placed on the agenda.

Cook said later in the meeting that he spent about $45,000 on legal fees, including about $6,000 from public funds.

Cook also asked Margel, Clark and the employees whether a similar decision would be made in the next round of collective bargaining with the union, but never received an answer.

In his board report toward the end of the meeting, Cook further expressed his frustration.

“I’ve been trying to repeal this for 10 months,” Cook said of the resolution. “No reason was given as to why we were repealing it, nor was there an admission made that this was the wrong thing for this district.”

Cook, who was elected by voters last year, began to choke as he continued to talk about the resolution that singled him out.

“I’m disappointed in the board, it drives me crazy because I’m trying my best to do what’s best for the district. … and things like that still happen to me,” Cook said. “It speaks volumes why people are frustrated with this board and look at us and ask why we are so dysfunctional. These are the reasons why.”

Cook said that after he left before the vote, he considered repealing the decision not to return so that the vote could not take place without a quorum.

“If I had left, it would have taken two weeks,” he said. “But I was going to let you do this to me, it’s still the right thing to do even if you look at me like I’m beneath you. …it’s beyond frustrating, but I won’t do to you what you do to me.

“But you go home and sit with that action and realize the things you did to another board member. I would never leave you out of the conversation. …This is beyond anything I could have imagined with this board.”

With that closing statement, Cook packed up his things and left the meeting a second time, just before Clark and Margel presented their board reports, the final item on the agenda.

Margel then asked District Attorney Leonard if she should end the meeting with only two board members remaining.

“If there’s no quorum, it makes sense to quit,” Leonard told Margel, which she did.