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which litigation was filed in March 2024, dismissed Oct. 2 for a procedural service defect, and then the resolution was repealed Oct. 9; she said an appeal was filed and the parties settled before opening briefs were due in April.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.