Kent School District pays board member to settle dispute

The Kent School District recently paid $45,000 to Kent School Board member Donald Cook to settle a civil lawsuit Cook filed last year against the district after the board adopted a controversial resolution to exclude Cook from a Labor Policy Committee.

District leaders haven’t made any announcement about the payment. The payment appeared under the Vouchers part of the May 28 board meeting agenda. Numerous paid vouchers were on the list, including $45,000 on May 8 to Cedar Law, the Seattle firm that represented Cook in the lawsuit, to help pay for his legal fees.

Cook, and Greta Nelson, a district parent and watchdog of the board, filed the civil suit in March 2024 in response to Resolution 1669, which formed the Labor Policy Committee, adopted in February 2024 by the board to restrict Cook from participating in union contract discussions, claiming he should not have been excluded. The four other board members were part of the committee.

The board claimed it excluded Cook because his wife teaches in the district and it could be a conflict of interest if he’s involved with contracts of other employee unions. Cook agreed he wouldn’t be part of any discussion with the teachers union, but disagreed he should be banned from talks with other unions that represent office workers, bus drivers, food service employees and others.

Nelson, who later withdrew from the suit because the resolution mainly impacted Cook, spoke at the May 28 meeting prior to the vote to approve the vouchers.

“The community deserves and demands an accounting by this board for the waste of public funds on Resolution 1669 and enacted on Feb. 28, 2024, litigation filed on March 29, 2024 and a dismissal that occurred while plaintiffs were without counsel that was due to a procedural defect in service,” Nelson said.

Cook and fellow board member Andy Song attempted at the March 27, 2024 meeting to get the rest of the board to repeal the resolution, but Meghin Margel, Tim Clark and then-board member Awale Farah declined to take that step. Margel, Clark and Farah had voted 3-2 on Feb. 28, 2024 to approve the formation of the committee to ban Cook from any labor contract meetings with the district’s employee groups. Cook and Song voted against the committee formation.

Cook hired Cedar Law to take on the case and had filed an appeal with state Court of Appeals after a King County Superior Court judge dismissed the case. The suit was under consideration by the Court of Appeals prior to the settlement agreement.

“The affected director (Cook) appealed the (court) dismissal but the district and director settled before the matter’s opening brief was due in the Court of Appeals on April 16, reflecting the financial impact of a hostile majority of the board exceeding its authority in delegating a director’s authority unnecessarily,” Nelson said at the May 28 board meeting.

Nelson also told the board that an Aug. 9, 2024 email includes a settlement offer when Cook had spent only $5,000 on legal fees and to stay the litigation so the resolution could be rescinded and the matter deescalated through mediation.

“The district declined to deescalate,” Nelson said.

Nelson also criticized that Margel, the board president, and Superintendent Israel Vela, were involved in negotiations despite both being named in the civil lawsuit.

“They were the self-appointed negotiators despite the obvious conflict of representing the board and the district while also having the legal liability of being named individual parties to the litigation,” Nelson said to the board.

The district hired a Seattle law firm to represent the district, Margel and Vela. Nelson said that the board never voted to approve the district paying legal fees for Margel and Vela.

Cook’s suit claimed the resolution impacted his personal life and emotional well-being.

“Plaintiff Cook has been thrust into a state of uncertainty regarding his electability caused by the diminished role he now plays with respect to labor matters and oversight of the district regarding its largest expense (its staff),” according to the civil suit.

After the initial suit was dismissed in October 2024, the board voted a week later to rescind Resolution 1669. Cook asked Margel during that meeting the reasons behind rescinding the measure, but received no specific answer.

“It makes no sense that it was passed in the first place and now you are removing it,” Cook said prior to walking out of the boardroom at the Oct. 9, 2024 meeting. “You are not admitting it shouldn’t have been done, and no one is willing to say why it was done. I’m not being provided any information. …I ask you a question and you refer to the district lawyer (Curtis Leonard).

Margel had one statement about dropping the resolution.

“It has served its purpose, it’s time to move forward,” Margel said at the Oct. 9, 2024 meeting. “We’ve discussed it in the past, it will not be discussed today.”

Settlement agreement

As part of the settlement agreement, Cook and district staff are not allowed to discuss the matter, according to a public document provided by Nelson to the Kent Reporter. The agreement even includes a joint statement if anyone asks about the settlement.

“The parties have agreed to resolve pending litigation and will continue to focus its services on district students and the community,” according to the agreement, signed March 28 by Cook and March 29 by Vela.

The agreement includes a no admission statement.

“No party (either side) admits liability or wrongdoing by signing this agreement or intends for anyone to interpret this agreement as an admission that any of them did anything unlawful or wrongful,” according to the statement.

Nelson said the $45,000 payment by the district covers the majority of Cook’s legal costs, but not all of them. She said the total cost was $68,875. She said Cook and the law firm he hired will split the difference, meaning the suit still cost Cook about $12,000.

The amount the district spent on legal costs defending Resolution 1669, Vela and Margel, isn’t known yet. A district resident has submitted a public records request to the district to get that information. The district hired Seattle-based Foster Garvey to represent it in the case, which began in March 2024 and didn’t conclude until the settlement agreement a year later.