Legal battles continue between Kent School District, board member

While students prepare to return to class Aug. 28, the legal battles among Kent School District leaders continue over a controversial resolution adopted in February to keep one Kent School Board member from participating in union contract discussions.

A civil lawsuit filed in March against the district by board member Donald Cook, the target of Resolution 1669, and district resident and parent Greta Nelson, is scheduled to return to King County Superior Court Sept. 6 to address a motion to dismiss the case filed by attorneys for the school district.

Meanwhile, Cook and Nelson, who initially represented themselves, have hired attorney Lara Hruska with Seattle-based Cedar Law to take over their case, according to emails from Nelson and Cook.

The basis of the lawsuit is to get the school board to repeal the resolution that formed a Labor Policy Committee of four of the five board members, excluding Cook. The committee deals with contracts with teachers, bus drivers, officer workers and others. The board excluded Cook because his wife teaches in the district and said that could create bias in negotiating all contracts, not just teachers.

Cook has said since he was elected last year he would recuse himself from voting or talks about the teachers union contract. But Cook and Nelson said he should be allowed to participate in other labor group negotiations.

Board President Meghan Margel and Superintendent Israel Vela recently were served complaint papers by representatives of the plaintiffs that they are defendants in the lawsuit. Nelson said board members Tim Clark and Awale Farah were not served because they will be dropped from the lawsuit. Nelson said she might drop as a plaintiff because the actions against Cook are the main thrust of the lawsuit.

The board voted 3-2 in February to form the new committee that excluded Cook. Margel, Clark and Farah voted in favor. Cook and Andy Song were against it.

Nelson said serving papers to Vela became a challenge as he wasn’t at his office or home during multiple attempts. He eventually was served at the Aug. 14 board meeting. Nelson said Vela reportedly told security at the booth to enter his gated neighborhood not to allow in a process server.

The plaintiffs took those steps after the district had sent a letter Aug. 2 to Nelson and Cook from attorney Stephen DeJulio of Seattle-based Foster Garvey to “encourage” them to drop their lawsuit, Nelson said. In return, Vela and Margel would recommend the board repeal Resolution 1669.

“KSD (Kent School District) would not agree to anything other than dismissal of this legal action with prejudice,” Cook said in an Aug. 15 email to the Kent Reporter about the letter. “I was not amenable to those terms and have provided acceptable terms to them in response, yet they refused to negotiate in any way.”

Cook said his attorney asked for a mediation session for the district to repeal the resolution before the lawsuit would be dropped, but such a meeting never happened. In fact, Nelson said on a Facebook post that the district’s attorneys filed the motion to dismiss the lawsuit just after Hruska, Cook and Nelson’s attorney, had talked to them about taking over the case and attempting to meet to talk about having the district repeal the resolution, put a hold on the court proceedings, and rebuild the relationship between the board and the district.

“I am willing to pay for a lawyer to help with this case because I believe an injustice has been committed against me and, more importantly, the voters of the Kent School District,” Cook said in an email. “I may end up making additional pleas to my community to help support that effort, but the case has unfolded in such a way that I believed it necessary to retain counsel as soon as possible.”

Cook said the resolution needs to be repealed.

“This is very important to me; Resolution 1669 should never have been enacted and it still being in effect is bad for me as a board member, bad for our district and bad for the community,” Cook said. “The KSD community should know their vote matters and that those they elect are able to do the work they were elected to do, this is what resolution 1669 restricts and why it must be repealed.”

Cook said the resolution could impact him beyond union contract talks.

“This resolution is written so poorly that it could be negatively impacting our district at any time, regardless of whether KSD is actively negotiating a labor contract,” Cook said. “If it is not removed, I have no idea what those tasked with enforcing the provisions within 1669 will do in the name of 1669, but those named in the resolution for enforcement purposes are directed to do essentially whatever they deem necessary to enforce Resolution 1669.”

As far as the Sept. 6 court hearing, Nelson said plaintiffs opposition to the motion to dismiss is due to be filed on Monday, Aug. 26. A reply by the district in support of the motion to dismiss will be due on Tuesday, Sept. 3. A judge will look at the filings and most likely rule on the motion at the Sept. 6 hearing after hearing from both sides.

The lawsuit had its first court hearing June 27 when King County Superior Court Judge Nicholas Straley denied a preliminary injunction motion by Nelson and Cook to put a temporary stop to the board’s resolution that kept Cook off a newly formed Labor Policy Committee.

Straley ruled in a Seattle courtroom that Nelson and Cook failed to show the three things needed for a temporary injunction: a substantial likelihood on the success of the merits, a well-grounded fear of invasion of their personal rights and irreparable harm.

Cook argued that his duty as a board member will continue to be hindered if he’s not allowed to be involved in labor negotiations. Straley responded that although he denied the motion, the case continues.

“I’ve made my ruling in denying the motion, but the case has not been dismissed,” Straley said. “It will continue to go forward like any civil case at this time. There are steps that the parties can take with respect to how the case moves forward.”

A March 31, 2025 trial date has been set by the court.