Kent School Board recall group files for reconsideration

The petitioners behind a recall of Kent School Board members Meghin Margel and Tim Clark filed a motion for reconsideration in an effort to keep the process going.

A King County Superior Court judge in an April 11 decision dismissed petitions to recall the board members.

“The court is compelled to dismiss the two petitions for recall for lack of factual and legal sufficiency,” Judge Michael Scott said after going through each of the alleged seven charges.

If the judge had approved the petitions, the recall group would have been able to begin to collect voters signatures with the goal of getting the issue on a ballot.

Petitioners and Kent School District residents Greta Nelson, Lori Waight and Michele Bettinger filed a motion April 21 for reconsideration in King County Superior Court.

“We believe the court’s decision to exclude our detailed supplemental brief and limit our ability to present critical evidence—such as the district’s recent settlement with Director (Donald) Cook on March 28 and the related dismissal of the Resolution 1669 litigation filed April 10, before the opening brief was to be filed in the Court of Appeals, Division I—denied us a fair hearing,” according to a KSD Board Recall post on Facebook. “Our charges, backed by 35 exhibits, allege serious violations, including OPMA (Open Public Meetings Act) breaches, procurement issues, and conflicts of interest, tied to Resolution 1669 and community distrust.

“We’re asking the court to reconsider its ruling, clarify its reasoning, and ensure transparency for our community. The right to recall is constitutional, and we’re committed to holding elected officials accountable.”

A hearing has been set for 8:30 a.m. Friday, May 2 without oral argument, according to the recall group.

“No response to a motion for reconsideration shall be filed unless requested by the court,” according to the recall group. “No motion for reconsideration will be granted without such a request. If a response is called for, a reply may be filed within two judicial days of service of the response.”