The Kent School District Board voted 4–1 to approve agenda item 2.05 (vouchers) during a special meeting that also approved a consent agenda (items 2.01–2.08, except 2.05) by a 5–0 vote.

Board members spent the discussion pressing staff for details about three budget items shown on the vouchers: a $516,000 districtwide school‑supplies allocation, recent stipend amounts, and an apparent $3,625,000 transfer tied to capital projects. Vice President Cook raised the school‑supplies figure and said, “The amount KSD is spending is 516, thousand dollars,” expressing concern that the sum was not explicitly called out to the board before the budget vote.

The issue matters, members said, because the school‑supply purchase is a prominent, districtwide expenditure and because board members said they want clearer, more accessible documentation for large line items. Director Cook and others asked whether the public or board members could better find final figures online after purchases are made.

Finance staff and district leadership said the $516,000 figure was included in the budget the board adopted on June 25 and that the district followed the budget format required by the Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. Finance staff member Mr. Perringo read from state law during the meeting, saying the statute requires budgets “shall be prepared, submitted, and adopted in the format prescribed by the OSPI.” He and other staff said the budget appropriation is the board’s action, not every line‑item purchase.

Board members also asked about recent stipends listed in the vouchers. Superintendent Bella responded that stipends are part of collective bargaining agreements and are reflected in the contracts ratified by bargaining units. “Stipends are contractual. They are bargained,” she said, and the board was directed to review the posted bargaining agreements for stipend detail.

Members pressed for an explanation of an apparent $3,625,000 movement tied to the capital projects fund. Mr. Perringo said the district regularly transfers cash between funds when payments must be made from the general fund but are chargeable to capital projects under accounting rules. He described the practice as an accounting backfill required by OSPI rules: certain expenses cannot be charged directly to Fund 20 (capital projects) at the time a vendor is paid, so the district pays from the general fund and then transfers cash from Fund 20 to reimburse the general fund. Perringo used an analogy to personal banking, saying that the district “pays all my bills out of [checking]” and then moves money from savings to checking to cover those payments.

Board President Margell and other members asked staff to provide specific documentation about where the $3.625 million was posted and the transactions that produced the transfer. Mr. Perringo said he did not have the specific voucher‑level research on hand and asked for a reference to the precise agenda attachment; he agreed to follow up after the meeting.

After the discussion, the board approved item 2.05 (vouchers) by voice vote with a recorded outcome of 4 in favor and 1 opposed. Earlier in the meeting the board had approved the consent agenda (items 2.01–2.08, excluding 2.05) 5–0. Several board members said they plan to seek clearer public access to final voucher figures and to the bargaining documents that list stipend amounts.

The board directed staff to provide follow‑up details on the interfund transfers and the voucher line items referenced during the discussion; staff indicated they will return with the requested documentation.