[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6220264,"mediaKeyId","3617866-a42205bfd00f75a5b9121a0a22fe004c","parentId",3617866,"title","Board rejects urgent addition to the agenda; vouchers including $45,000 settlement payment approved","audioSeconds",134,"startMs",1168961,"endMs",1303145,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3617866-a42205bfd00f75a5b9121a0a22fe004c&start=1168&end=1303","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3617866-a42205bfd00f75a5b9121a0a22fe004c/thumbnail_1168961.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6220264/Washington/Board-rejects-urgent-addition-to-the-agenda-vouchers-including-45000-settlement-payment-approved","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6220264-699dbf82ac8b37a137c573e6a09cc494/orig.mp4?Expires=1773708925&Signature=ZDW82IFHutumO9ilY8FUEokGj4--rJNPdmrl41IW09AM-FfvXsMcaaxtY39wbcw34JZuAk71U~2fDSFlMCBU9RXq-nJpYaqfSUwKgA9UU6qjJmzVVZVWC5XBKNowxSHIOOAaBYC1BwdA6sLm1TizX9iqO1egeLuB46c0fVezPmNezOMRxevvySV7prNC9tLJ4dc7vqkNy0ZqWMWbLNwoMV4otafxQ0f7orFfy~n6qNvk64dH8UYINHr5ARwMVf-m7jpe-alEg17F~QUdoX7ck4uSzhbHW~ldj2c6w6g2KZngR1BSVYM4mBLvWIxITly-4jUc8eMXQZPS3TsPz6450w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Kent School District, Washington","date","2025-05-29T15:41:47Z","article","The Kent School District board declined to add a surprise agenda item about a staff email and communications to the board, then approved consent vouchers that included a check to outside counsel for a settlement related to resolution 16‑69.

Director Donald Cook moved to add an agenda item after the consent agenda had been approved, saying he had discovered an email sent by a district staff member instructing outside parties to direct future communications to Board President Megan Margell rather than to him. Cook said he first saw the record through a public‑records request and social‑media posting and read the text he had received: “I am respectfully requesting that all future communication from you, your office, be directed to miss Megan Margell in lieu of mister Donald Cook. As president of Kent School District's board of directors, miss Margell is the sole point of contact for the board.” Cook said he was troubled that other board members had not been provided the same information.

The motion to add the late item was seconded and put to a vote. The roll call was: Director Gregory — nay; Director Song — no; Director Clark — no; Director Cook — aye; President Margell — nay. The motion failed.

Later in the meeting the board voted on consent item 8.11 (vouchers), which public commenter Greta Nelson said included “a check to Cedar Law for the settlement agreement with the director on this board regarding resolution 16‑69 in the amount of $45,000.” Nelson urged the board to account for taxpayer funds spent on litigation and said the community deserved an explanation of the settlement timeline, legal expenses and whether the board authorized indemnification. Nelson outlined a timeline of events in which litigation was filed in March 2024, dismissed Oct. 2 for a procedural service defect, and then the resolution was repealed Oct. 9; she said an appeal was filed and the parties settled before opening briefs were due in April. She also alleged that only $5,000 had been spent by the director at an earlier point and said the district declined an August offer to stay litigation and pursue mediation.

Vice President Cook asked district legal counsel whether he could discuss aspects of the litigation because his own settlement terms potentially limit his public discussion; counsel advised caution and noted attorney‑client privilege may apply. The board’s legal counsel also said discussing prior litigation at the dais risked waiving privilege.

The vouchers motion passed on roll call. Director Gregory voted aye; Director Song voted aye; Director Clark voted aye; Director Cook abstained; President Margell voted aye. The tally produced four ayes, zero noes and one abstention; the board chair declared the motion approved.

No additional board action was taken on the settlement or on alleged communication gaps that Cook raised; several board members said the issue should be handled through established procedures and that items not on the agenda are inappropriate for surprise introduction.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","KSD Regular Board Meeting - 05/28/25","oneSentenceSummary","A motion to add a late agenda item about an email and alleged exclusion of a board member failed; the board approved vouchers that included a $45,000 payment to Cedar Law for a settlement related to resolution 16‑69, prompting public questions about transparency and legal handling.","taxTitle","Kent School District, School Districts, Washington","taxId",14629,"location","Washington","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6220268,"Parents and advocates raise multiple procedural concerns about Kent School District inclusive‑education services",27,1067335,1095085,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3617866-a42205bfd00f75a5b9121a0a22fe004c&start=1067&end=1095","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3617866-a42205bfd00f75a5b9121a0a22fe004c/thumbnail_1067335.jpg","/articles/6220268/Washington/Parents-and-advocates-raise-multiple-procedural-concerns-about-Kent-School-District-inclusiveeducation-services","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6220268-1e0f951ff80e38bdd3d317a7713c6b73/orig.mp4?Expires=1773708925&Signature=omEt9aRaON-4lkw2lhp2JDjqdrEMv5knSXCDHDFZWFgCF0rjLcAYqwGOKuGVyyKMlfq-ouRi32NrXAEbSnpwrf1FIYeSWvtvrpBFxK8wiWeH8stzO4A89hmYtVWbFF7G6cqyEPLRQIOnFyj8gpw47ALAxTCUHIAa9i0uGwbuEcP5PwwDZNsGsuM4Dj6q6h-mc8-TLjobMVItUqVR9aC51Qvmp3p5BnhW~W1TREf4Y3035gLfD~SqTzP~8VrWgyDeBObGgRAc4U8kZ4APZWvjouKOkk3-LVyTZSvkb9lNWD2XEVamTw9FvI~U2CybapEOI4x1b9uB53vRC9JGWbrCwQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Two members of the public used the board’s public‑comment period to describe long‑running disputes with the district’s inclusive‑education processes and to request board attention to unresolved procedural and communications issues.

Caitlin Tin identified herself as a parent and described filing a formal complaint under district procedure 4220P for staff misconduct. She said the complaint process was “confusing and lacked clear communication” and that the investigation concluded “no misconduct was identified despite a staff member yelling at me during meetings.” Tin said the assigned investigator subsequently resigned and that a note taker in her interview was later identified as a human‑resources director — a fact she said was not disclosed during the meeting. Tin said the district denied a request for OSPI mediation and that repeated questions to inclusive‑education staff went unanswered or took weeks to answer. “These actions are harming families and students that you were entrusted to serve,” she told the board, and she warned that continued inaction could increase the district’s legal liability.

Jennifer Liggett, who said she is a single mother of five, gave a detailed list of outstanding procedural questions in her child’s case. Liggett asked the district to provide specific dates and times for an NPA (non‑public agency) submission, the district’s policy on VIPs (individuals working one‑to‑one with students), and the date of any homebound education request. Liggett alleged her daughter was not provided interim educational services from Feb. 20 to May 19 and asked why a manifestation determination meeting occurred more than a month after an expulsion, beyond the 10‑day window she said is required. She asked whether all IEP meeting attendees had consented to recording and questioned the district’s handling of release‑of‑information (ROI) forms, transportation backup planning that allegedly led to a no‑show driver, and the district’s use of pre‑purchased seats at a provider called reLife.

Liggett explicitly cited federal special‑education rules while asking about IEP meeting participants: “On the grounds on what grounds was a parent invited community member denied participation in our IEP meeting in April when IDEA permits such inclusion under 34 CFR 300.321?” she asked, referencing the federal rule that governs IEP team composition and representation. She asked the district for clarifications on FERPA‑related email removals and whether previous ROIs had been invalidated, and sought documentation for several meetings and decisions.

The board did not respond during public comment; Superintendent Vela and the board later acknowledged receipt of comments in their reports and the meeting proceeded through the agenda. No board vote or formal action on the allegations was taken that night.

The speakers asked for specific documentation, clearer procedural responses and timelier communication. They requested that the board and the district provide follow‑up answers to the enumerated items and said families were prepared to escalate to OSPI or legal processes if they did not receive satisfactory responses.

","Two public commenters at the board meeting alleged procedural errors and delays in the district’s inclusive‑education processes, including unanswered requests, late meetings, questions about interim services and mediation, and multiple record‑and‑consent issues.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6220273,"Kent School District outlines four‑phase plan to reduce student walk boundaries to one mile",1591,112540,1704274,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3617866-a42205bfd00f75a5b9121a0a22fe004c&start=112&end=1704","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3617866-a42205bfd00f75a5b9121a0a22fe004c/thumbnail_112540.jpg","/articles/6220273/Washington/Kent-School-District-outlines-fourphase-plan-to-reduce-student-walk-boundaries-to-one-mile","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6220273-000650df42b98d086c64d8a470707ddc/orig.mp4?Expires=1773708925&Signature=b35szz1aqcwQPj14MVqIiEBwpE9M0ybB9TqAl8x7deDFVYojfOgb93BMdcUbKKZpLfq1OEiv1WD3THoc7UtY0fX6EafA2HACOQ4jqPNnjHBRawbV0GsgcMMIQ-unrjBfqHtTYtLecDodSh7oN~vyfTOIApTTAPkplu6cHFx9s~xmwlKFO1KBFHVHvHZWIqvFBdKdpHgcD4x6aeGJF6DkzwjczgkeH~gGyU3pl0gfzIF3vFZ7ApQmWYwDKt2Cjdd3B56~u3mVZHW4uFJWwlSBcTolQvtV3xVolCW8KJJIvLKteYcX30s0f3DjLRnjNpKZmg1iZUzAuybS9qZHIWF1XQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Kent School District transportation officials presented a four‑phase plan to gradually reduce student walk boundaries to a one‑mile maximum and described the staffing, mileage and near‑term budget implications.

Justin Denison, Director of Transportation, told the school board that a November “what‑if” scenario showed 1,800 more students would become eligible for bus service if the district moved to a one‑mile walk boundary. “If we moved our boundaries from their current distances to 1 mile, which is what the state reimburses districts for, what it would take for us to operate at that level,” Denison said at the work session.

Denison said that earlier modeling from November estimated adding 29 additional runs and 17 bus routes and that updated cost assumptions raised the district’s per‑bus operating estimate. Using the district’s revised 2024–25 inputs — a mileage rate of $4.40 per mile and a blended driver cost of $42.70 per hour (wages plus benefits) — Denison said an average route of 11,342 miles per year and an average driver day of 6.9 hours yields roughly $105,000 per route annually.

To reach the one‑mile goal, transportation staff proposed a four‑phase rollout. Next year (phase 1) the district will not change formal boundaries but will “shave” portions of existing boundaries and maximize seats on routes that currently have space; Denison said that approach could add roughly 300 newly eligible students next year. The district expects inclusive‑education routes to expand and said those added routes will require priority staffing. In the plan’s middle phases the district would reduce middle and high‑school walk boundaries in quarter‑mile steps (middle from 1.75 miles toward 1.0; high school from 2.0 toward 1.0), adding roughly five routes and seven drivers in some years. Denison said the full plan would require 54 bus drivers in total to reach a one‑mile maximum for all schools.

Board members pressed staff on safety, funding and operational assumptions. Director Clark emphasized sidewalks: “Unfortunately from my perspective it is not the distance, but it is the distance without sidewalks,” and urged staff to prioritize routes that serve students in areas with no pedestrian infrastructure. Denison said routing decisions would factor in sidewalk presence and community safety concerns, and that transportation staff already work with city and county partners on crosswalk timing, signalization and other safety improvements.

Board members also questioned the district’s cost and reimbursement assumptions. Denison said the state reimbursement framework is developed by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) and that the district reports transportation expenses in Program 99. “They say that transportation is fully funded, but what we find is that we’re, like, 95% funded because it’s taking previous year’s expenses and allocating giving us an allocation for the current year,” Denison said.

Staff acknowledged operational constraints beyond money, particularly driver recruitment and retention. Denison said the district is expanding its trainer capacity: two district drivers were accepted to Washington State driver‑trainer instructor school and the district’s paid‑training program has improved candidate throughput. Board members discussed competitive wages and benefits and noted barriers applicants face before their first day of driving.

The presentation included a range of estimates and caveats: route‑capacity projections assume some buses will operate at or near capacity and that not every run will be filled; timing and bell schedules complicate route consolidation; fuel and maintenance costs are variable and can offset maintenance savings from a newer fleet. Denison said updated per‑mile and wage rates produced the district’s latest operating estimates.

No formal vote was taken on boundary changes during the work session; staff presented the scenarios and fielded questions from the board. Transportation staff said they would continue outreach to jurisdictional partners and bring further details as parts of the plan are refined.

Board members encouraged staff to prioritize safety improvements where sidewalks are missing, pursue partnerships with city and county engineering teams, and continue work to expand training capacity to recruit drivers.

The district provided no final timetable for a formal boundary change vote; the presentation described a phased operational plan and estimated staff and budget needs for each phase.

","District transportation staff presented a four‑year, phased plan to reduce student walk boundaries to a one‑mile maximum, estimating added routes, drivers and upfront costs while emphasizing safety, sidewalk gaps and driver recruitment as constraints.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board rejects urgent addition to the agenda; vouchers including $45,000 settlement payment approved

Parents and advocates raise multiple procedural concerns about Kent School District inclusive‑education services

Kent School District outlines four‑phase plan to reduce student walk boundaries to one mile