Kent School District rejects motion to pay Director Cook’s legal fees; board splits on process

The Kent School District Board on March 26 debated a motion to add an agenda item authorizing payment of Director Cook’s legal and attorney fees and later considered a formal motion to approve payment.

Vice President Cook moved an amendment to add agenda item 8.02, described as authorization to pay his legal fees; the board first approved placing the item on the agenda by roll call. Later in the meeting the board considered a substantive motion to approve payment of Director Cook’s fees.

The board’s discussion lasted more than an hour and covered procedure, legal ethics and precedent. Vice President Cook said he had incurred legal costs in litigation he initiated and urged the board to approve payment, arguing the case was drawn out and that ending the matter now would stop further legal spending. Other board members questioned whether board action to authorize payment was procedurally appropriate at an open public meeting for pending litigation and urged the item be discussed in executive session and negotiated by the superintendent and counsel.

Legal counsel advised the board it could vote on a resolution but cautioned against publicly negotiating settlement terms on the dais because the matter involved pending litigation. Counsel explained that board resolutions can give direction but that final settlement terms usually require confidential negotiation and that the superintendent typically executes settlements on behalf of the district within approved parameters.

After discussion, the board voted on the motion to pay Director Cook’s legal fees. The roll call returned one vote in favor (Director Song), three votes against (Director Gregory, Director Clark and President Margell) and one abstention (Director Cook). The motion failed.

Vice President Cook said afterward that he would continue pursuing resolution through legal channels and that his costs would likely increase if the district did not settle. Board members who opposed the motion said they were not refusing to consider a negotiated settlement, but insisted negotiations and legal strategy be handled in executive session in consultation with the superintendent and outside counsel.

The board’s action did not change the status of pending litigation. Several board members urged that any future negotiations be handled in executive session to avoid ex parte communications and preserve negotiation positions; legal counsel confirmed that is the usual procedure for pending litigation.