Judge rules Kent School Board violated Open Public Meetings Act

A King County Superior Court judge ruled that the Kent School Board twice violated the state’s Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) during an executive session in June 2023 and again in May 2024.

Judge Karen Donohue issued her decision July 29, according to court documents. Donohue granted summary judgment to plaintiffs Joseph and Allison Riley, residents of the Kent School District, who filed the civil suit Sept. 23, 2024 against the district and the board. Donohue agreed with a motion for summary judgement to allow her to make a ruling on the case rather than going to a jury trial because there was no genuine dispute of material facts.

The OPMA is set up so that governing bodies discuss most topics in public meetings. Closed or executive sessions are allowed only for certain topics, such as personnel matters, the sale or purchase of property or potential or existing litigation.

“We feel good about the ruling,” Joseph and Allison Riley said in a July 31 email to the Kent Reporter. “While we didn’t win all of our allegations, we did show that the board violated the OPMA on two separate occasions in the span of one year. We consider this a win for open government and the start of more accountability for KSD (Kent School District).”

Donohue granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on two allegations and denied two other allegations. Based on state law, because the plaintiffs prevailed, in part, against the school district, they are entitled to an award of costs associated with the violations, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, according to court documents.

Katherine George, an attorney with Seattle-based Johnston George, which specializes in open government law, represented the Rileys.

”The Rileys are parents who care about their local schools and want to make sure the School Board is listening and accountable to the people,” George said in a July 31 email to the Kent Reporter. “I share their hope that school leaders will learn a lesson from this case and be more transparent going forward.”

Kent School District officials have not yet answered questions from the Kent Reporter about the judge’s ruling.

“We will look into this further and get back to you,” according to a July 30 email from the district’s communications team, which hasn’t emailed a follow-up response.

The violations

According to court documents, the Kent School Board on May 15, 2024 held a closed executive session meeting that discussed the process and criteria for a performance review of Superintendent Israel Vela. The judge noted a board can hold a closed session for a performance review of a public employee but not to discuss the process and criteria for a review.

Larry Nyland, who talked to the board at the May 15, 2024 meeting about the evaluation tools, told the court he had earlier talked about the process and criteria for review at an open meeting Oct. 18, 2023, according to court documents. By the time the evaluation of the superintendent began in May 2024, the board had two new members so Nyland said he informed the two new members during the executive session about the process and criteria for a performance review.

Judge Donohue ruled that violated state law.

Members of the board during May 2024 were Meghin Margel, Tim Clark, Awale Farah, Donald Cook and Andy Song. Cook and Song were the new members.

The second violation occurred June 28,. 2023 when the board failed to announce the purpose of a closed meeting, which is required by law, according to court documents. The announced purpose was to discuss the evaluation of a public officer or employee. But the board also discussed potential litigation and the legal or financial risks of a course of action (a resolution against a proposed Battery Energy Storage System near Mattson Middle School) with legal counsel.

The board announced it would discuss potential litigation at an executive session at 6 that night, according to court documents. But the discussion occurred at the earlier 4 p.m. meeting without notice and the 6 p.m. meeting was cancelled.

“Given the court must construe the OPMA liberally to promote its remedial purposes, the Court concludes that these were not just technical violations,” according to court documents. “The Court finds there was not substantial compliance with the Act’s requirements (and granted summary judgment).”

School board members in June 2023 were Margel, Clark, Farah, Joe Bento and Leslie Hamada.

Allegations denied

Judge Donohue denied two other allegations by the Rileys, according to court documents.

One was about an Aug. 31, 2023 closed meeting that included planned strategies in bargaining or reviewing union contracts. Although union negotiations had ended, contracts had not yet been signed, so negotiations were still active and such a discussion was allowed.

The other allegation was about a closed meeting on Sept. 27, 2023. Donohue ruled the discussion with legal counsel of the potential legal and financial risks arising from a district personnel action and potential board members communication about it, fell within state law.

How the case started

The Rileys filed the civil suit Sept. 23, 2024 for several reasons.

“We noticed a pattern of the board doing more and more work in secret,” the Rileys said in an email. “The superintendent evaluation in particular has been difficult to track in recent years, and the May 15, 2024 violation regarding the evaluation meeting was the primary allegation in our suit. We wanted to hold the board accountable and, since many of our emails and public comments go unanswered, we decided to use the courts.”

Outcomes of decision

The Rileys hope the board and district learn a few lessons from the ruling.

“The work of the board should be done in public, with limited exceptions defined by the OPMA,” the Rileys said. “In other words, the default should be open meetings, not closed. We hope that the board reflects on these violations seriously and takes more care in ensuring that board work is done transparently and with appropriate community involvement. Ultimately, we just want the board to follow the law.”

A violation of the OPMA helped lead to the recall of three Richland School Board members in 2023, the Rileys said. The state Supreme Court in that case ruled violations were “not technical.” Judge Donohue made a similar “not just technical violations” ruling in the Kent case.

“We couldn’t agree more, and hope the board recognizes the gravity of these violations,” the Rileys said.

It was a challenging task the Rileys took on by filing the suit.

“Throughout this process we have learned it is a heavy lift to hold the board accountable to the OPMA,” they said. “This ruling should serve as a wake up call for the board to follow the law.”

The Rileys pointed out that Kent School Board members receive numerous training sessions about the OPMA by the Washington State School Directors Association and district counsel.

“And now they have been found to have violated the OPMA,” the Rileys said. “Adherence to the law must happen to help drive our district forward. The work of the public needs to be done in public.”

Previous state law violations

This marks the second case of state law violations that came down this year against the Kent School District.

Vela, the superintendent, paid a fine of $1,000 in April to the state Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) for violations of election laws, as reported by the Kent Reporter in May.

Vela signed a statement of understanding that he violated state election laws by authorizing the use of district facilities to promote ballot measures in the April 23, 2024 special election and the Nov. 5, 2024 general election, according to PDC documents posted on its website. Vela signed the statement on April 25, 2025.

Vela, the superintendent since 2021, also signed a statement of understanding and paid a $300 fine in July 2024 for authorizing the use of district facilities to promote two ballot measures in the 2023 general election.

State law prohibits elected or appointed officials, their employees, and employees of a public office or agency from using, or authorizing the use of, public office/agency facilities (resources), directly or indirectly, for the purpose of assisting an election campaign or for the promotion of, or opposition to, any ballot proposition.