Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kent board votes 3‑2 to pay legal costs for two directors in recall sufficiency hearings
Summary
The board approved two separate resolutions to pay legal expenses for directors facing recall sufficiency proceedings; each vote passed 3‑2 after public comment and lawyer advice about indemnification under state law.
The Kent School District Board voted Wednesday to authorize payment of legal expenses for two directors defending against recall petitions at the sufficiency‑hearing stage.
After extended public comment and legal briefing, the board approved two separate resolutions: one authorizing payment of necessary legal expenses for Director Tim Clark and another for Director Megan Margell. Both motions passed on 3‑2 roll calls.
The statute cited by the board’s counsel — RCW 4.96.041 — permits a local government to pay the necessary expenses of defending an officer or employee in judicial proceedings if the legislative authority finds the acts were taken in good faith and within the scope of official duties. The board’s counsel said his review of the petitions’ allegations determined they fall within the scope of board duties and recommended indemnification for the sufficiency phase.
Board votes and procedure: the two resolutions narrowly passed after debate over whether public funds should be used when recall petitions allege violations of open‑meetings or other laws. Director Gregory and Director Clark voted with President Margell to approve each authorization; Director Song and Vice President Cook voted no. Counsel advised the board the resolutions cover the sufficiency hearing and related appeals, but not subsequent proceedings if the petition is certified and goes to a recall election.
Public comment: petitioners and other community members urged trustees to deny use of public funds, arguing the petitions allege bad‑faith conduct and that taxpayers should not pay for directors’ defense. Supporters of indemnification argued elected officials need indemnity to carry out duties without fear of being bankrupted by political actions.
Outcome: the board will pay legal costs for representation at the sufficiency hearings and related appeals; if the court finds the petitions sufficient and the matter proceeds, the board indicated the indemnification authority does not automatically extend beyond the sufficiency stage and further payments would require separate board action.
